Index Title Radak on Genesis

Version Title Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash

Language en
Version Source http://www.urimpublications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?
Screen=PROD&Store_Code=UP&Product_Code=chut
Version Notes To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew
source
Radak on Genesis 1:1:1 ‫בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ‬. The word Bereshit is not in a genitive possessive mode, i.e. “at the
beginning of,” as for instance in Jeremiah 26,1 where we find ‫בראשית ממלכת יהויקים‬, where it means: “at the
beginning of the reign of Yehoyakim,” but is a word in its own right as in Isaiah 46,10 ‫מגיד מראשית אחרית‬,
“foretelling the end from the beginning,” or, as in Deuteronomy 33,21 ‫וירא ראשית לו‬, “He chose the choicest for
himself.” In other words: when G’d began to create the universe, He first created heaven and earth. The word
‫ בראשית‬is necessary as one cannot speak of either ‫ ראשית‬or ‫ אחרית‬except in terms of “time.” At that point
“time” did not exist yet as it is a concept indivisibly linked to motion. Motion commenced only when the
planets were placed in the sky (on the fourth day). These motions were described in terms of “days.” At the
“time” described in our verse there were only “moments,” “hours,” etc., but a recurring cycle of time such as
days had not yet come into existence.
Radak on Genesis 1:1:2 ‫ברא‬, “He created;” the term ‫ ברא‬is used on occasion as applying to something which is not of physical
substance such as in Numbers 16,30 when Moses predicts that G’d will “create, ‫ ”יברא‬a gaping hole in the
ground wherever members of Korach’s clan and supporters stood, into which they would disappear. Clearly,
the earth’s crust opening into a fissure is not something tangible, something of substance. The word ‫ברא‬
always means that no “matter” was involved in what G’d is described as “creating.” Job 23,13 makes such a
point when referring to G’d: ‫ונפשו אותה ויעש‬, “whatever He desired, He did.” [He does not have to operate
within given parameters]. Similarly, Isaiah 43,7 describes G’d as saying: ,‫כל העולם הנקרא בשמי ולכבודי בראתיו‬
‫ אף עשיתיו‬,‫יצרתיו‬, meaning that “the entire world which is called by My name in My honour, is so called in
order that people will say that I have created it, I have formed it, I have completed it.” The message is that G’
d created it out of “nothing,” not using existing materials. According to the great sage Maimonides, the word
‫לכבודי‬, may mean “according to My will.” However, one can also understand the word in its literal sense, i.e.
that the world and all that is in it represents G’d’s glory. This would conform to Isaiah 6,3 ‫מלא כל הארץ כבודו‬,
“the entire universe is full of His glory.” Seeing that G’d Himself is invisible, we can only recognise Him and
His glory by means of His accomplishments, including His creatures.
Radak on Genesis 1:1:3 ‫אלוקים‬. A name which means: Judge, Ruler, and Leader. Seeing that it is a noun occurring in a variety of
functions, it is in the plural mode. We find the term applied both to outstanding people, judges, and leaders,
also as a description given to certain angels and even planets. During the entire report of G’d’s creative
activity it is the only term applied to describe Him, seeing that the chapter deals with His creative power and
leadership. From this chapter we derive the knowledge that there are judges on earth and that the entire
world was created by a single Creator. He created it in His infinite wisdom when He was ready to create it. In
the words of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 5) anyone who denies this basic fact will find refutation of his denial
in the very text of the Torah. For instance, people who argue that the plural mode ‫ אלוקים‬proves that more
than one force was involved in the creation of the universe, are confounded by the fact that the Torah does
not continue with the plural mode ‫בראו‬, “they created,” but used the singular mode ‫ברא‬, “He created.” The
great scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra felt that seeing that G’d employed angels, i.e. agents, in His creative
activities, the word ‫ אלוקים‬is in the plural mode so as to hint at this fact.
Radak on Genesis 1:1:4 ‫את‬. This word refers to something that had already been created. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah, 1,15) report
that when Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Akiva the meaning of this word in this context, (seeing normally it
means something additional) he was told that just as Nachum ish gam zu had made a comprehensive list of
every time the word ‫ אך‬or ‫ רק‬appears in the Torah to demonstrate that it excludes something that we would
otherwise have assumed to be included, so the word ‫ את‬and ‫ גם‬respectively include something that we would
not otherwise have presumed to be included based on the plain text. To the people who use this principle to
argue that the planets, the sun and the moon assisted G’d in His creation, based on the apparently
unnecessary word ‫ את‬before the word ‫שמים‬, Rabbi Akiva replied that it means that sun and moon were
included in the term “heaven, sky,” whereas the words ‫ את הארץ‬were meant to include the vegetation found
on earth, as well as Gan Eden. Concerning the strange sounding addition “and Gan Eden,” after vegetation,
i.e. trees and flowers have already been named, we must understand this in a manner similar to Joshua 2,1
‫את הארץ ואת יריחו‬, “the country and Jericho,” where Jericho had, of course, been included in the expression
‫את הארץ‬. The reason that “Gan Eden” was singled out was that there vegetation was at its most developed,
most appealing, just as the city of Jericho was known as the city of palms, i.e. especially desirable. There is
also a mystical element to this expression, i.e. Gan Eden” represents a region separate from the remainder
of the earth, an area which had been created in its full splendour already on the first day of creation, just as
according to that view all the eventual manifestations in heaven and earth had already been created on the
first day though not yet become a functioning part of the universe. Accordingly, different parts of the universe,
became functional on the days when the Torah deals with them.
Radak on Genesis 1:1:5 ‫השמים‬. Most of our sages (Chagigah 12) understand the word as a reference to the stars and planets in the
sky, and Rabbi Maimonides in his “Moreh” agrees that the nine planets including sun and moon were indeed
created as part of what is described in our verse as ‫שמים‬. According to Ibn Ezra the word ‫ שמים‬refers to two
locations in the sense of “twice ‫שם‬,” the word “sham” referring to a location (there). (compare Ibn Ezra on this
in a book called ‫ספר השם‬. The author perceives the term as describing the opposite, outer boundaries of the
heavens. The word is used figuratively, as if everything is between the two parts of an anvil) Still other
scholars hold that the word ‫ השמים‬referred to with the letter ‫ה‬, suggesting that it is a known phenomenon, i.e.
“the heaven,” in this verse, refers to the firmament which was actually only created on the second day, and
that the word is used here only figuratively. These scholars (Rash’bam) hold that the Torah did not mention
when the planets were created and not when earth (as distinct from the dry land) was created. [I will not
repeat what we have already quoted in our translation of Rash’bam. Ed.] Rashi also agrees that the Torah in
its report here did not report in chronological order, but that the reference to “heaven” is a reference to the
major planets in the sky. As a result, we would translate: “at the beginning of creation of heaven and earth,
the earth was chaotic until G’d gave the directive: ‘let there be light.’ There are still other scholars who
understand the expression ‫ שמים‬as referring to “fire,” i.e. the very elementary “fire” the “highest” of the 4
basic elements of which the physical universe is composed. On the other hand, the word ‫ארץ‬, respectively
‫הארץ‬, is then understood as the lowest of the 4 elements which form the basic raw material of the physical
universe. It would have had to predate “nature,” i.e. the orbiting planets, as “orbiting” is possible only if these
orbiting planets have something to rest on. According to some of our sages the fire is a result of the friction
created by the motion of these planets when rubbing against their respective bases.<br> Alternatively, we
could say that G’d created “beneath” the moon [relative to earth which is considered as subject to the direct
influence of the moon, such as the tides; Ed.] a single raw material which He “clothed” in 4 different-looking
phenomena, so that the basic raw material of the globe would be a single material, appearing as if cast in a
mould. All the phenomena in the sky would have been created simultaneously in their natural state. The
reason “light” is mentioned separately is because we would not have understood the report of what
transpired on the fourth day, i.e. assigning functions to this “light.” Ibn Ezra also writes in this vein, making
the point that what Moses wrote down in the Torah related only to the part of the universe which is subject to
development and therefore to disintegration. The word ‫ שמים‬refers to the ‫רקיע‬, the sky, the firmament whose
creation is reported as having occurred on the second “day.”
Radak on Genesis 1:1:6 ‫ואת הארץ‬, According to Maimonides the “earth” mentioned here is a collective term comprising the 4 basic
raw materials the globe consists of in various combinations. The word ‫ ארץ‬as distinct from the word ‫שמים‬, is
referred to again in verse 2 as well as in verse 10, seeing that in verse 1 no details had been given of what
the word ‫ ארץ‬means, i.e. that it is a phenomenon comprising several basic elements. In other words,
whenever ‫ ארץ‬is mentioned after the very first time, it is a reference to some or all of the basic elements it
consists of.
Radak on Genesis 1:2:1 ‫והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלוקים מרחפת על פני המים‬. Having first mentioned in verse 1 that G’d
had created heaven and earth, and that the word ‫ ארץ‬included the 4 basic elements which earth consists of,
the Torah now says that the creation of the earth had originally been lumped together with the creation of the
heaven, seeing both were created in their final complete state. All the 9 planets were called into existence at
one and the same moment. The author views the “9” planets, ‫גלגלים‬, “orbiting planets” as consisting of the 7
fixed stars whose orbit was well known to astronomers in antiquity; he views as the 8th “planet” the stars in
the sky known as the signs of the zodiac, the mazzalot, as well as other celestial phenomena. The 9th is
considered by him as a kind of “super-star” which provides the impetus for the motion of all the other
phenomena in the celestial regions. This super-star is presumed to orbit earth once every 24 hours. In its
original state the earth was not complete, i.e. there was chaos, seeing that the earth was completely
submerged in water. Whereas heaven had been created in a perfected state, symbolising life, earth, in its
original state, being chaotic, symbolised death, as pointed out by Bereshit Rabbah, 2,2 describing heaven as
“life,” death being unknown in those regions, whereas “earth” is described as ‫תהו ובהו‬, meaning that “death”
is a basic phenomenon in these “lower regions.” According to our author, we learn from this Midrash that the
four basic elements of which earth consists are basically “dead, inert” substances. They possess no will or
intelligence of their own as distinct from the creatures in the celestial regions. They have been equipped with
certain natural functions and they cannot vary them. If any one of them for some reason left its natural place
in the universe it will be returned there in due course.
Radak on Genesis 1:2:2 ‫וחשך על פני תהום‬, “darkness prevailed over the deep.” The word ‫ תהום‬refers to a place in which there is an
abundance of water extending to a great depth. The atmosphere above the waters was dark, seeing the light
from the celestial sources was not able to penetrate this atmosphere and to provide light for it. This
“atmosphere” had not yet been equipped with the ability to absorb and diffuse such light. In any area where
there is no light there is absolute darkness. If there was darkness prevailing above the deep waters, it is clear
that the deep waters were completely shrouded in darkness. The reason that G’d did not create earth in its
completed state as He had done with the heaven, is to show the intelligent people on earth that earth had not
always existed but had been created by G’d. Most people are intelligent enough to believe this, i.e. that He
Who had created the laws of nature also had created the universe itself. It follows that He Who created it all,
also has the power to change any of it at will. The appearance of light in the celestial regions, creation of the
sky itself, the dry land becoming visible, are all phenomena which were not in evidence at the beginning of
the creation. The people who do not believe in the universe having been created are a small minority [in the
author’s time, late 12th and early 13th century. Ed.] The very appearance of the dry land on the globe is a
powerful argument against their belief, something they cannot defend with sound arguments. If everything in
this universe were to proceed according to “natural law,” i.e. without a Creator having set firm limits to the
manner in which the oceans can flood the earth, there would hardly be a place on earth which would not be
submerged in water. After all, earth has had a higher specific gravity assigned to it by the Creator than water,
as a result of which it ought to sink below the water. Seeing, however that it is both cold and dry, it remains
cohesive, particles sticking to one another, so that it can maintain its position without moving from its
location. Job already refers to this phenomenon in Job 38,38 “whereupon the earth melts into a mass, and its
clods stick together.” At this point the author comments on statements in the second chapter of the ‫ספר יצירה‬
the most ancient kabbalistic text, in which three basic phenomena of our earth, i.e. ‫שלוש אמת‬, “three
mothers,” are described, the word being an acronym of the words ‫ שלום‬,‫ מים‬,‫אש‬, fire, water, peace. Fire and
water are considered as irreconcilable opposites, so that they can coexist only through the good offices of
‫שלום‬, a peacemaker, the latter being “air.” It is considered as such as it shares some attribute with water and
another with fire. The author’s basic point is that without some Divine intervention fire and water could not
coexist in the physical universe. G’d had to intervene in a similar manner to ensure that the waters would not
flood the earth completely. This is meant by the author of the ‫ ספר יצירה‬describing air, ‫רוח‬, as a sort of “wall”
restraining the natural impulse of water to flood the earth. [I have paraphrased the author’s words in this
paragraph. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 1:2:3 ‫ורוח אלוקים‬, the word ‫ רוח‬here is in the construct mode, to indicate that it functioned as an agent of its Creator,
of G’d. Its assignment had been to provide the necessary motion over the waters and to help dry them out in
a manner of speaking, as explained by Ibn Ezra. It is also possible that the reason it appears in this mode is
because it is such a powerful agent of G’d that it sometimes appears to have Divine force. It is quite common
in our use of language that when we want to stress the power of someone or something, we somehow
associate it with the name of G’d. In the Book of Jonah the city of Nineveh is thus described as ‫עיר גדולה‬
‫לאלוקים‬, (Jonah 3,3) and Psalms 36,7 uses the expression ‫ל‬-‫כהררי א‬, in order to describe towering mountains.
[The author quotes more such examples].
Radak on Genesis 1:2:4 ‫מרחפת‬, we have a parallel to this in Deut. 32,11 ‫על גוזליו ירחף‬, “carrying him (Israel) along on His pinions.”
Radak on Genesis 1:2:5 ‫על פני המים‬, seeing that we have “upper water” and lower water” as will be spelled out in the report of the
creative activities of the second day, the word always appears in the plural. Is to keep us aware of the fact
that the upper waters contain elements of the lower waters and vice versa. They have not been completely
separated.
Radak on Genesis 1:2:6 The scholar known as Rabbi Yitzchok ben Shlomoh, popularly known as Yisraeli, explained that the meaning
of the words ‫ תהו ובהו‬implies the air in a state of repose prior to it becoming imbued with movement at the
behest of the Creator. As a result of the air being stationary, its moisture content distilled into water, which
due to its higher specific weight sank to the bottom. The author of the Kuzari, Rabbi Yehudah haLevi,
explained the meaning of the words ‫ תהו ובהו‬as the primordial matter, prior to its coalescing into something of
definable substance. As long as such primordial matter possesses no quality it is described as “tohu vavohu.”
This “tohu vavohu” is alternately referred to by the Torah as “water,” hence in this verse the ‫ רוח אלוקים‬is
described as “hovering” over the “waters” instead of as “hovering over the tohu vavohu.” The verse would be
describing that at this point G’d wanted to imbue this tohu vavohu with some quality, useful meaning, hence
G’d’s spirit moved above it in order to inspire such a change. When something assumes definitive, solid
dimensions, it has become qualitatively superior to water which slips through one’s fingers, cannot be held in
one’s hand. This mass which has thickened out of a primordial murky liquid something is the earth. <br>
Basically, the difference between earth and water lies also in its malleability when one tries to work it.
Whereas nature comprises all manner of substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, earth comprises only solids, and
when worked only a small segment of the forces of nature are involved In the ‫ספר יצירה‬, as well as in the
Talmud Chagigah 12 tohu is described as a green line surrounding the universe, whereas vohu is described
as a number of water-soaked stones which give off their water (based on Isaiah 34,11). Rav Saadyah gaon
explains that what is described as a “green line” in the Talmud is nothing other than the darkness, i.e. the
phenomenon from which darkness emanated. It is the intense darkness experienced immediately before the
beginning of dawn. Maimonides in the second section of his Moreh, views the word ‫ והארץ‬at the beginning of
our verse as meaning the same as the word ‫ הארץ‬at the end of the preceding verse. He says further that in
verse two the foundations of the earth are listed in the order of their natural appearance, i.e. earth below the
water. Once the Torah mentioned the waters it is clear that earth is below, supporting the waters. The air
cleaves to the waters beneath, else what is holding up the waters? Fire, (its habitat) is above the air. When
fire combines with air the result is the darkness described as covering the waters.<br> The darkness
mentioned in this verse is none other than the fire; the reason fire is described here as darkness is that it did
not give off any light, but was transparent. (Moreh 2,30) If this primordial fire would give off light we would be
able to see at nighttime. The night would appear to us as if it were aflame. Maimonides therefore did not
interpret the words ‫ תהו ובהו‬as something visible to our eyes. Perhaps his opinion in this matter coincides
with that of other commentators inasmuch as he and they agree that none of the four elements comprising
the physical universe is visible in its pure form, not amalgamated with any of the other elements. He writes
further that that the words ‫ על פני המים‬refer only to waters other than the oceans. Only one of the four basic
elements appears in three guises in close conjunction with the other elements, i.e. the “upper waters,” the
“lower waters,” i.e. the ones above the sky, below the sky, and the oceans.
Radak on Genesis 1:3:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים יהי אור ויהי אור‬. The light was already in the heaven, seeing that the luminaries were created
together with the planets. Daniel 12,3 refers to this when he compares the radiance of the knowledgeable
people in the future to the radiance of the expanse of the sky, describing the latter as ‫זהר הרקיע‬. In Exodus
24,10 the visions experienced by the elite of the Israelites is compared to ‫וכעצם השמים לטוהר‬, “as pure as the
radiant light of the heavens.” What had been lacking was only that this light had not illuminated the face of
the deep as this had not been equipped to reflect such light as yet. Seeing that the directive concerned only
the creatures in the “lower universe,” G’d did not introduce His creative activities with the words: ‫יהי שמים‬, “let
there be a heaven,” but the Torah wrote simply: “He created heaven, etc., ‫ברא‬.” Once the various planets
were placed in orbit to perform their orbits [I suppose that the sun only is meant, Ed.] every 12 hours the
“lower” part of the universe would be in darkness. At the end of the first period of 12 hours, G’d issued the
directive: “let there be light”, i.e that light should replace the darkness in that location. When the wind blows
over the water it dries some of the surface of the waters enabling the waters to be illuminated faintly by the
daylight above. The primordial light had not become distinct, strong, until the fourth day.<br> Possibly, the
words ‫ זהר הרקיע‬describe the light by means of which the heaven itself shines, radiates light, as we have
written. In that event, the light described here refers to a different period of 12 hours, a whole day comprising
24 hours. This light would have become missing on the first day from the “lower regions” of the universe.
With the absence of this light darkness would have ensued in that region. During the first three days of the
creative period, the only reason for such absence of light from part of the universe would be the fact that it
was the will of the Creator that it be so. This can be so only if we adopt the view that the light prevailing
during the first three days of that period was none other than the “natural” light radiated by the ‫רקיע‬, the
firmament. If, on the other hand, we assume that the light under discussion is the light of the sun, which up
until then had shone weakly, seeing that the atmosphere had not been conditioned to let its rays traverse it
without hindrance, and that as a result of this during these three “days” total darkness pervaded the universe,
there can be no question that these regions had not been conditioned to receive the light from heaven at all,
not even a weak diffused kind of light. Total darkness would have prevailed during these “days.” It follows
that the reason for this total darkness during these three “days” must have been none other than G’d’s will,
His pleasure that it be so. Clearly, although G’d saw that the light “was good,” He decreed in His wisdom that
light not be present at all times in all locations. The reason is that the universe needs darkness also, why else
would G’d have created it as we know from Psalms 104,20 ‫תשת חשך ויהי לילה‬, “You bring on darkness and it
is night.”<br> Maimonides writes (chapter 30, second part of Moreh) that the principal cause of the coming
into existence and the destruction of celestial forces such as the planets is light and darkness respectively,
both of which are forces to which these phenomena are drawn. The constant change from extremes of heat
and cold subject these celestial bodies to wear and tear. Climates are affected through the change from light
to darkness, as well as the properties of the planets themselves. These changes reflect the will of higher
forces, i.e. G’d, Who wishes rain, change of climate to occur on earth at certain times. Darkness is the
natural state of the “lower regions” of the universe, light acting as something reviving these regions. The
scholar Ibn Ezra writes that the light of which our verse speaks originated in the regions above the ‫רוח‬, the
wind (spirit) operating within the atmosphere. When the Torah wrote ‫ויאמר‬, commonly translated as “He said,”
this is merely a figure of speech, just as when David wrote in Psalms 33,6 ‫בדבר ה' שמים נעשו‬, “that the
heavens were created by the word of G’d.” These formulations are used by the Torah to describe
expressions of G’d’s will.
Radak on Genesis 1:4:1 ‫וירא אלוקים‬, He “saw” in His knowledge and wisdom, that the light would be good for the creatures which
inhabit the “lower” universe. Even though darkness is also good for them, i.e. useful for them, as we already
explained, darkness is not something to which the adjective, attribute ‫טוב‬, “good,” can be applied. The reason
is that darkness entails the removal of light. How can this be described as “good?” Darkness had existed
already, was not a new phenomenon, it was therefore appropriate to state that the new phenomenon light
was good (in the sense that it added a positive element to the universe which it had lacked.)<br> Moreover
“light” is something evident, as opposed to darkness. That which emanates from darkness is generally evil.
Kohelet 11,7 already speaks of “how sweet is the light, what a delight for the eyes to behold the sun!”
Whenever he mentions darkness he does so in the context of something evil, whereas he relates to light as
something good, if only because it is something in the open, something that is not “ashamed” to be seen. The
evil of darkness is “visible,” as opposed to its positive aspects, which are concealed. Similarly, every time the
Torah uses the phrase ‫ כי טוב‬in the report of creation it means that the phenomenon which has been so
described is good for the creatures in the lower regions, seeing that all the acts of the creative process were
good, did not contain a negative element.<br> The reason for the word ‫ויבדל‬, “He separated,” after the word
‫וירא‬, “He saw,” is that once G’d had “seen” that the light was good, He did not want it to be called by the
same name as darkness, although both periods are part of the same “day.” This is why the Torah writes
afterwards (verse 5) ‫ויקרא‬, “He called, He named,” to tell us that the separation between light and darkness
was confined to their being called by different names. <br> It is impossible to interpret the word ‫ ויבדל‬as
referring to anything else but the change of the name each part of the day is known by. Normally, the
expression ‫ הבדל‬is applied to different substances, whereas light and darkness are neither of them a
substance, so that the whole expression appears extraordinary at this point. If darkness is nothing more than
the absence of light, how could the term “separated, distinguished,” be properly applied to the absence of
something? This is why the Torah wrote ‫ 'ויבדל אלוקים וגו‬instead of writing ‫ויבדל האור‬, or ‫ ויבדל‬without adding a
subjective or objective which would have meant that the light itself formed the division, the separation, as the
Torah had done when describing the separation of the ‫ רקיע‬and the ‫ מים‬in verse 7. G’d effected the
separation between darkness and light by calling them by different names.<br> As to the expression ‫ולהבדיל‬
‫בין האור ובין החשך‬, “and to separate between the light and between the darkness,” (verse 18) this refers to the
same day, i.e. a separation between parts of the same entity, the daylight hours enjoying the light of the sun,
whereas the night receives only the relatively insignificant light of the moon. Relative to the brilliant light of
the day such light is minor, whereas relative to the absolute darkness prevailing during the plague of
darkness in Egypt it is quite significant.
Radak on Genesis 1:5:1 ‫ולחשך קרא לילה‬..‫ויקרא‬, the period during which there was no light was called “night.” Such a name can be
applied to night even though night is something abstract, as is death, ‫מות‬. We have numerous nouns which
are applied to things which are abstract, such as “blindness, nudity, etc.” ‫כסילות‬, foolishness, ‫פרץ‬, “a breach,”
and similar nouns all describe matters which are not tangible.
Radak on Genesis 1:5:2 ‫ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד‬. The word ‫ ערב‬describes the beginning of the night, whereas the word ‫ בקר‬describes
the beginning of the day. During the period called ‫ערב‬, things which could be seen clearly previously begin to
become indistinct, appear confused. The reason is that the sense of sight reposing in the eye cannot be
effective without light from the outside. The whole night is sometimes referred to as ‫ערב‬, i.e. as a continuation
of the period when things began to appear blurred. This is similar to all the 30 days comprising a month being
called ‫ חודש‬on account of the first day of the month which the Bible calls ‫חודש‬. (Samuel I 20,18) This first day
of the month is called thus as on that day the moon renews itself, having faded from view previously. Job 7,4
refers to the entire night as ‫ערב‬, and so does Psalms 59,7 ‫ישובו לערב יהמו ככלב‬, “they return at night growling
like dogs.” It is a fact that dogs do not bark during the early part of the night. The messengers of Sha-ul kept
watch outside David’s house all night long in order to kill him in the morning (Samuel I 19,11) The word ‫לשמרו‬
in that verse means “to guard him so that he could not escape during the night.” An entire day is never called
‫בוקר‬. This term is applied only to the parts of the day before noon. As soon as noon has passed we enter a
period described as ‫ ערב‬seeing that the sun has embarked on a westerly course. Its light becomes
progressively weaker. The period assigned for slaughtering the Passover (Exodus 12,6) is known as ‫בין‬
‫הערבים‬, commencing one half hour after noon. In Judges 19,9 we read that this period when the “day”
becomes weaker is known as ‫לערוב‬, “towards evening.”<br> The night is different from the day in that the
entire night is described as ‫לילה‬, not only the period preceding midnight. The reason is that the stars which
help illuminate the night remain visible until dawn. The verse means that combining the periods described as
‫ ערב‬and ‫ בקר‬constitute a day. This is so in spite of the fact that not the entire “day,” i.e. the period when the
sun is visible on the horizon is called ‫יום‬. The word ‫ בקר‬must be viewed as the opposite of the word ‫ערב‬. It is
a period when the intensity and quantity of light visible is far greater than the light available during the night.
‫ יום‬and ‫ לילה‬are also opposites The reason why the Torah did not write ‫ ויהי יום יום אחד‬,‫ ויהי לילה‬which would
have been so much clearer, is that the word ‫ יום‬is a word which is applicable both to a single day and to a
whole sequence of days such as‫שלושים יום‬, and we could have become confused, not knowing whether the
Torah referred to the word ‫ יום‬as merely a “single day,” or as a period of days. Furthermore, the fact that day
is the major phenomenon, and the essence of what is good of everything that exists in our “lower” regions of
the universe, whereas night is a minor phenomenon, makes it imperative that the combined period be called
‫יום‬, and be described as a unified period.
Radak on Genesis 1:5:3 ‫יום אחד‬. There is no need to ask why the Torah speaks about a ‫יום אחד‬, “one day,” as opposed to ‫יום ראשון‬, “a
first day.” The question would be justified if the Torah had written ‫ יום ראשון‬and the word ‫ ראשון‬were meant to
be an adjective describing the concept of numbers as it is when the Torah writes in Exodus 29,39) ‫את הכבש‬
‫האחד תעשה בבוקר‬, you are to prepare the first sheep in the morning.” In that instance the word ‫ אחד‬is indeed
an adjective portraying the concept “first.” The scholar Moses Ibn Ezra wrote that the reason why the Torah
wrote the word ‫אחד‬, is that the implication of the word ‫ אחד‬is “the first,” in the sense that no one had ever
preceded this<br> Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 3,8) explain the word as an allusion to the fact that the
angels were not created until the second day, in order that people should not claim that the archangel
Michael supported G’d on His right stretching out the firmament to the south, whereas the archangel Gavriel
supported Him by stretching out the firmament on His left to the north. The word ‫ אחד‬confirms that G’d the
Creator was alone in His world when He created the heavens (skies). This is also why the prophet Isaiah
44,24 wrote of G’d that ‫ מי אתי‬,‫?נוטה שמים לבדי רוקע הארץ מאתי‬, “(it is I, the Lord,) .Who alone stretched out
the heaven, and unaided spread out the earth; Who was with Me? The Jerusalem Targum translated the
verse in a similar manner, i.e. ‫והוה רמש והוה צפר סדר עובד בראשית יום קדמי‬, “it was evening, it was morning
when He arranged for the first day (to come into being).”<br> Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes (on verse 8)
that G’d Himself named 5 phenomena seeing that there was as yet no human being to name them. They are:
light, darkness, heaven, earth, and the oceans and man. The reason Ibn Ezra did not refer to “day ‫ יום‬and
night, ‫לילה‬, as having been named by G’d maybe that when G’d reports the creation of the luminaries in
verse 14, a time when there had also not been a human being as yet, G’d refrained from naming these
luminaries. It appears that the terms “heaven and earth” were actually names given to these phenomena by
Moses who wrote the report of creation in the Torah. Similarly, the terms ‫ ערב‬and ‫ בקר‬are in fact terms
coined by Moses when he wrote this report. He spoke of darkness and light, even though the Torah
specifically credits G’d with naming them. [Actually, there are more, but they do not appear in the report of
the creation. Ed.] If we accept this we are left with 5 phenomena named by G’d in the report of creation. Or,
one would have to say that what we are in the habit of calling ‫ שמים וארץ‬as well as what are termed there‫ערב‬
and ‫בקר‬, Also, there is no specific mention of G’d “naming” man as ‫ ארם‬in the story of creation.
Radak on Genesis 1:6:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים יהי רקיע‬, actually this firmament, horizon, already existed, seeing that it was the atmosphere, the
air, just as the Torah speaks in verse 20 of ‫“ ועוף יעופף על הארץ‬and the birds are to fly above the earth,”
adding: ‫“ על פני רקיע השמים‬on the face of the firmament spanning the heavens.” What then do the words ‫יהי‬
‫ רקיע‬mean? They mean that this ‫ רקיע‬should now become something substantial. It should now become
capable of sustaining the atmosphere, the air. In other words, this ‫רקיע‬, which up until this point had been
above the waters and had therefore been very wet and weak, impeding the light from above it from properly
penetrating to the earth below, should now function constructively.<br> This ‫ רקיע‬did not become “strong”
until the earth itself had become dry land, i.e. on the third “day.” Only at that point did the light encounter
something solid, i.e. a hard place in the globe so that it condensed into becoming as if frozen due to its
proximity to this earth. The ‫ רקיע‬was made on the second “day,” and the words ‫ויאמר אלוקים יקוו המים ותראה‬
‫היבשה‬, a directive (verse 9) issued on the third “day,” refers to an existing phenomenon. There are a number
of such. This is nothing unusual. This is also the view expressed by Ibn Ezra, who writes in his commentary
on verse 9 that “this paragraph is inextricably linked to the one preceding it,” refuting the view that the
“horizon” was not created until the second day. But as soon as the wind dried out the earth on the first day
the earth became hard enough (dry), and the powerful heat was transformed into what we know as the
atmosphere, heat retreating upwards to the region of the “upper” waters. Proof that the atmosphere, ‫רקיע‬,
had already existed before the second day is Genesis 2,1 ‫ביום עשות אלוקים שמים וארץ‬, “on the day G’d had
made heaven and earth.” When something is hidden, not concentrated and its particles have not been
defined, it does not yet qualify for the expression ‫בריאה‬, “something which has been created.” This is what
Ibn Ezra wrote, and his comments are perfectly correct.
Radak on Genesis 1:6:2 ‫בתוך המים‬, as far as this expression is concerned, it was necessary, seeing that the atmosphere itself was a
component of the waters, [just as the Jewish people had been part of the Egyptian population prior to the
Exodus so that G’d in redeeming them has spoken of taking ‫גוי מקרב גוי‬, “one nation out of the very midst of
the same nation” (Deut. 4,34. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 1:6:3 ‫ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים‬, the meaning of these words is similar to the words ‫בין המים אשר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים‬
‫אשר מעל לרקיע‬, “between the waters which are blow the atmosphere and the waters which are above the
atmosphere.” (end of verse 7). These “upper” waters are normally something that exist only as a potential,
awaiting the rising of vapours from the lower waters (oceans) i.e. moist air, to transform them into actual
water, i.e. rain, as has been explained by the scientists. The “separation” was needed in order for the upper
“waters” to retain the ability to be converted into actual waters as they had been prior to the separation. Only
in this fashion would it become possible to also irrigate the high mountains on the surface of the earth.<br>
Personally, I am perplexed by what Maimonides wrote in his Moreh, page 235 of Rabbi Kapach’s edition, He
compared the separation described here to the separation that G’d had made between light and darkness.
How could this be, seeing that here the division is between what is “up,” on top, and what is “down,” below.
The division was not a natural division, separation, such as that between light and darkness. How could
Maimonides describe “this” division as ‫טבעי‬, i.e. in the very nature of things? Still, the fact remains that
Maimonides is correct, and he has enlightened us who had been walking in darkness, just as he has
enlightened us concerning many other things. It is worthwhile to examine what our sages of old have written
on this and how their understanding agrees with the result of the researches of the scientists in our time.
(14th century)<br> We read in Bereshit Rabbah 4,2 (a comment attributed by different scholars to two
different authors) “at the time G’d said: “let there be an atmosphere within the waters,” the innermost drop of
water froze (congealed) becoming what are known as the “lower” regions of heaven, as opposed to ‫שמי‬
‫השמים‬, the name by which the “upper” celestial regions are known. Rav says that whereas on the first day
the heavens were in a wet, fluid state, they congealed on the second day. The words: ‫ יהי רקיע‬are a directive
for this atmosphere to become strong; [to assume firm contours. Ed.] Rabbi Yuda in the name of Rabbi
Seymon says that these words mean: ‫יעשה מטלית לרקיע‬, “let the heaven be equipped with a cover.” The word
is used in the same sense as in Exodus 39,3 ‫וירקעו את פחי הזהב‬, “they beat the gold plates into thin plates.”
Rabbi Chaninah said that a fire issued forth from above and lapped up the wet parts of the Rakia, thereby
solidifying the remainder. When Rabbi Yochanan encountered the verse ‫ ברוחו שמים שפרה‬in Job 26,13, “By
His spirit the heavens were calmed,” he used to say that Rabbi Chaninah had interpreted our verse correctly.
Rabbi Yudan, son of Rabbi Shimon, would say that a fire issued forth from the upper regions and dried out
the moisture of the Rakia by means of its heat. Rabbi Tanchuma (Bereshit Rabbah 4,3) said if the Torah had
written the words ‫ובין המים אשר על הרקיע‬, I would have said that the reference was to the substance of the
rakia. Seeing that the Torah wrote ‫אשר מעל לרקיע‬, this refers to the “upper waters” which had been
suspended there by a Divine directive. Rabbi Acha added that the “fruit,” i.e. derivatives of the upper waters
are the rains which earth receives from these regions. The sages said also that that the upper waters did not
separate voluntarily from the lower waters but that they cried. We know this from Job 28,11 ‫מבכי נהרות חבש‬
indicating that the rain descends in droplets, similar to tears. All of this basically conforms to what we have
written earlier. The sages (Bereshit Rabbah 4,5) said also that the rakia is comparable to a pool which is
covered with a ceiling. Due to the evaporation of the waters in the pool rising, the ceiling appears to break out
in perspiration, releasing heavy drops of moisture. These drops of moisture are not salty (as the ocean water
below), and they do not mix with the ocean water. This mysterious phenomenon is what is referred to in
Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 4 where we are told that in answer to the question which rakia was created
on the second day? Rabbi Eliezer says that it was the rakia which is above the chayot [a category of certain
angels and their habitat Ed.] seeing that we read in Ezekiel 1,22 ‫ודמות על ראשי החיה רקיע‬, and there was a
likeness above the chayoh resembling the rakia.” These “chayot” are not physical, do not possess a body.
Radak on Genesis 1:7:1
Radak on Genesis 1:8:1 ‫ויקרא אלוקים לרקיע שמים‬, after the rakia had become firm, substantial, and it was capable of supporting the
luminaries, G’d called it ‫שמים‬, “heaven.” The name is appropriate, seeing that the rakia was now capable of
absorbing luminaries just as heaven is reputed capable of receiving the creatures from the “lower” regions
who possess something originating in the “higher” regions, i.e. their souls. One reason why these regions are
called ‫ שמים‬is the fact that the luminaries are visible in the sky, heavens.<br> Our sages, (Bereshit Rabbah
4,7) when commenting on these words, quote Rav as saying that the word ‫ שמים‬means a region in which fire
and water coexist. Rabbi Acha son of Kahane, quoting Rav, says G’d took fire and water and thoroughly
mixed the two, the result being shamayim. This is the reason why, as we mentioned already, the words ‫כי טוב‬
that it was good, do not appear in the report of G’d’s creative activity on the second “day.” Our sages,
(Bereshit Rabbah 4,6) also say that seeing G’d’s activity on the second “day” was not completed on that day,
the day’s work did not qualify for the description “it was good.” In order to compensate for this omission, we
find the words ‫וירא אלוקים כי טוב‬, “G’d saw that it was good,” twice in connection with His activity on the third
“day.” The first such mention refers to the completion of G’d’s activity involving the waters, whereas the
second mention “that it was good,” refers to the earth producing vegetation, the only activity which occurred
on the third “day,” according to Ibn Ezra.<br> Maimonides (Moreh, Kapach edition page 235) writes that the
reason why the words “that it was good” do not appear in the report of G’d’s activities on the second “day,” is
that because the rakia and all that is above it is part of the “waters,” and is called by that name. It is
something concealed from most people, and how could one apply the words “it was good” to something that
cannot seen by us to be good and useful? Seeing that the congregating of the waters to a single location,
thus making the earth beneath appear could be observed universally, the expression “it was good” was
withheld until the report about that stage of the creation. Even though the making of the rakia was the
underlying purpose which made vegetation on earth feasible, something which is also concealed from us, the
result of the achievement of this purpose was universally visible so that it qualifies as being described by the
words “it was good.”
Radak on Genesis 1:9:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים יקוו המים מתחת השמים‬, the words ‫ מתחת השמים‬refer to the waters beneath the rakia, known as
shamayim.
Radak on Genesis 1:9:2 ‫ותראה היבשה‬, The “lower” world consist of 3 parts, corresponding to their respective qualities, ranks, i.e. the
inert, mineral, the vegetation, and the living creatures. The report of the development, progressive creation,
follows the pattern of beginning with the most primitive and progressing to the most advanced form of life on
earth. The inert parts of our globe are not specifically mentioned by a name describing them as a category by
itself. We may safely assume that when earth came into being, as part of the overall phenomena of inert
objects in the universe, the predominantly large part of the earth consisted of stones and metal and the like.
Even though the globe was covered with water it comprised mountains and valleys (submerged in water at
that time), all of them solid.<br> While it is true that the scientists of our day argue that two vapours rising
from the earth are the reason (origin) of all the stones and metals which they have named as the source or
the material that is basic (such as what is mined in quarries) and that these vapours account for the original
amalgamation of different elements, we would have to view vegetation as a second stage of such elements
fusing with one another in different proportions. The final, and most advanced stage of different raw materials
combining in different proportions would be the ‫חי‬, i.e. living (mobile) creatures. The first manifestation of an
amalgam of more than one basic element would have been the dry land becoming visible. Obviously, the
highest mountain peaks of the crust we call earth became visible first. Due to the appearance of the
luminaries on the fourth “day,” and their giving forth heat, etc., these mountains, i.e. some of the stones they
consisted of, became progressively harder, so that we find different kinds of metal scattered among such
stony material. These variations occurred at the will of the Creator, of course. According to these scientists,
the surface of the earth is roughly parallel in size to the part of the globe covered by water, and about half of
the dry land is fit for human habitation.<br> When G’d surrounded the dry land with the oceans, He left on the
surface of the dry land a variety of wells, ponds, rivers, etc., to serve the creatures whose habitat was to
become this dry land, called earth. This corresponds to what David said in Psalms 104,10 ‫המשלח מעיינים‬
‫בנחלים בין הרים יהלכון‬, “the One Who makes springs gush forth in torrents; they make their way between the
hills.” G’d, in His wisdom, made the waters in the oceans salty so that they would not become evil smelling,
poisoning the air in the process. On the other hand, the waters which are part of the earth’s surface are
mainly sweet, as they had been created in the first place. They are scattered in different parts of the earth to
provide drinking water for G’d’s creatures who would otherwise die from the effects of dehydration. These
“sweet” waters also counteract the dryness of the atmosphere, and generally promote the growth of the
plants on earth. G’d was careful not to let the fountains squirt their water indiscriminately across the surface
of the earth, but arranged for them to irrigate the valleys between the mountains The usefulness of waters
flowing in areas populated by human beings is evident to all of us. The oases found in the deserts are to
enable travelers through the desert to sustain themselves, as well as for the benefit of the free roaming
beasts that inhabit those regions. This is what David had in mind in verse 11 of Psalm 104 when he wrote
‫ישקו כל חיתו שדי‬, “giving drink to all the wild beasts.” The salty waters which appear as inlets from the oceans
in various parts of the globe are intended to facilitate travel by man on the oceans in ships, seeing that these
waters are not turbulent as are the waters of the open sea. Very often travel by boat considerably reduces
the travel time, as without these inlets one would have to travel on land for considerably longer distances.
<br> These waters were allowed to remain salty for the reason we explained, i.e. to prevent stench
emanating from them, a common phenomenon observed in stagnant unsalted waters. Besides, the salt
which is part of the waters of the sea can be employed usefully by man when he heats the waters and gains
the residue of salt left behind after evaporation of the water. Even hot water geysers (such as the hot springs
of Tiberias) are useful for man, the sulphur contained in them being the source of their heat. We also find
mountains on the dry land containing salt which can be mined to provide for the needs of man.<br> I have
found in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, 5th chapter that the diameter of our globe is described as being equivalent
to the distance a man can walk in 60 years. [assuming that the average person can walk 40 km per day, this
would amount to approximately 870.000 km, hardly compatible with the facts, even if the author referred to
the circumference of the globe rather than to its diameter when he wrote: “its thickness,‫ עוביה‬.” Kimchi writes
that Rabbi Eliezer’s view coincides with the opinion of the researchers in his time. Ed.] Pirkey de Rabbi
Eliezer continues that prior to G’d’s directive at the beginning of the third day, the entire planet was flat like a
valley, and the waters covered it evenly. As a result of G’d’s directive, and the waters flowing concentrically,
increasing in density, the highest mountains began to become visible, followed by hills, etc. As this
phenomenon intensified, the earth as we know it in our times gradually emerged from the sea which had
covered it. [the text in my edition of P.d.R.E. is considerably different. Ed.] At any rate, once the waters had
complied with G’d’s directive and had become a single ‫מקוה‬, pool, enclosed by rims, i.e. and or rocks, G’d
named this pool ‫ימים‬, oceans.
Radak on Genesis 1:9:3 ‫אל מקום אחד‬, this does not mean “to a single location,” but to a location set aside especially for the oceans.
There would not be a new “continent” of dry land subsequently.
Radak on Genesis 1:9:4 ‫ויהי כן‬. The waters did indeed flow all together to a single continuous uninterrupted area, and as a result the
dry land did become visible. This was one of the miracles performed by the Creator although in the nature of
things, the contraction of the waters which had covered the whole earth and had now contracted so that as a
result they must have towered high above the adjoining dry land, they did not cascade down due to the laws
of gravity. Seeing that it is a law of nature that waters travels downhill, the fact that these waters did not cross
the borders imposed upon them by Divine decree must be viewed as an ongoing miracle. This is reflected in
the words of Jeremiah 5,22 ‫אשר שמתי חול גבול לים‬, “in that I set the sand as the boundary of the ocean.” We
find a similar expression in Psalms 104,9. This is also commented upon in Bereshit Rabbah 5,7, the editor
writing that it is customary for man to empty a full vessel into an empty one. Who would be able to “empty” a
full vessel into another full vessel?
Radak on Genesis 1:10:1 ‫ויקרא‬, up until now this mass of dry land had not qualified for a name, seeing that it had not been visible to
the naked eye. The same applies to the waters, which, though they had existed since the first day, had only
now been called ‫ימים‬, oceans. They had previously only been known as ‫תהום‬, a murky mass of liquid
containing some opaque solid particles. The second verse in which we read of these definitions had been
written by Moses, had not been said by G’d. What Moses had meant is that at that time there existed
something, which in his time was referred to as ‫תהום‬. <br>Alternately, we could say that the word ‫ תהם‬is
derived from the word ‫תהו‬. This would be an appropriate description, seeing that in the deep waters there is
so much confusion and so little light that everything appears as utter confusion, and none of the creatures in
that environment can derive pleasure or satisfaction from their existence. There are such locations in the
middle of the ocean where the waters are exceedingly deep and far removed from any of the continents of
the earth known as dry land by the Torah. Certain of the scientists have already offered proof that earth, i.e.
our lower universe, is a sphere seeing that earth itself exists as part of a much greater sphere, the universe.
[remember that in Kimchi’s time before Copernicus, the earth was considered the center of the universe or
the galaxy, not the sun, as proven by Copernicus in 1543. Ed.] According to the theory proposed by Kimchi
or the scientists of his time, one configuration cannot maintain its individuality if it is within another
configuration which is different. [If I understand him correctly, he reasons that the earth being spherical is
determined by its position within the larger universe surrounded by orbiting planets, which would collide if
earth were not dead center, and equidistant on all sides from all the planets orbiting around it. Ed.]<br>; In
fact, the very place described by scientists as ‫ תהום‬is an area in which ships cannot navigate, nor fish
survive. The word ‫ תהום‬is a figure of speech, borrowed from descriptions of places containing deep waters.
The name ‫ים‬, ocean, on the other hand, is a term describing the location of the water, a word which is not a
derivative of any other root or noun. It is not an adjective describing the condition of the water. It is not
comparable to the name ‫יבשת‬, which is called thus because it reflects the fact that it consists of material
which is dry. It is a noun in its own right. The noun ‫ארץ‬, on the other hand, is also not derived from an
adjective, but a definition in its own right. The word ‫תהום‬, though a noun, merely describes a large quantity of
water, as distinct from the word ‫ים‬, which may apply even to a very shallow expanse of water, including areas
very close to a sandy beach.
Radak on Genesis 1:10:2 Concerning the use of the plural mode to describe such waters, i.e. ‫ימים‬, the scholar Rabbi Yitzchok Israeli
writes that it includes two parts of the oceans. It includes what was known as the “great ocean,” the one
which spans the better part of the sphere called earth, as well as the southern sea known as “sarndif.”
Radak on Genesis 1:10:3 The reason why the Torah does not report that G’d separated the oceans and the dry land from one another
is because no absolute separation exists between these phenomena such as the absolute separation
between light and darkness. The phenomenon of the tides illustrates this, i.e. the borders of the oceans and
the land mass are not constant but vary during the course of the day [due to the influence of the moon’s
gravitational pull. Ed.] In Bereshit Rabbah 5,8 Rabbi Yoseph bar Chalafta attributes the plural mode in the
name ‫ ימים‬to the fact that the taste of fish caught in different oceans is different from one another, suggesting
that the habitat in which one category of fish lived is materially different from one another although both are
water.
Radak on Genesis 1:11:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים תדשא הארץ דשא‬, on the third “day”. G’d commanded the earth to produce vegetation, in other
words, He equipped the earth with the ability, potential, to grow plants of different kinds. This was the second
instance in which elements were amalgamated, i.e. employed in conjunction with one another, the product
comprising more than one of the basic elements. (compare verse 9) The purpose of these various plants was
to serve as food for the land-based living creatures which had not yet been created. The living creatures
created on the fifth and sixth day respectively, formed the third stage of employing different elements in
conjunction with one another, i.e. in a still more sophisticated manner.<br> The meaning of the word ‫ תדשא‬is
equivalent to ‫תוציא דשא‬, “bring forth herbs.” This ‫ דשא‬must be viewed as a relatively primitive form of grass, a
forerunner of the eventual grass, so that a special verb is used to describe this process. The prophet Yoel
2,22 uses the word in that sense when describing primitive plants growing in the desert. Both the words ‫צמח‬
and ‫ דשא‬describe either primitive plants, or plants which have not yet grown to their full extent. The activities
of the luminaries on the third day were relatively weak, not comparable to the power assigned to them on the
fourth day, as we already mentioned in our commentary on verse 3. Only on the fourth day did their power
increase sufficiently to materially influence the atmosphere covering the surface of the globe. As a result,
plants of an advanced calibre were then produced by the earth, the trees growing to their full height, etc.<br>
This is what is meant by the words spoken by G’d on the fourth day: ‫להאיר על הארץ‬, i.e. to make their impact
felt all over the surface of the earth. This is also what Moses referred to in Deuteronomy 33,14 ‫וממגד תבואות‬
‫ וממגד גרש ירחים‬,‫שמש‬. The meaning of the word ‫להאיר‬, usually understood only as “to provide illumination,” is
in fact twofold. It means “to give light,” as well as “to carry out its assigned tasks.”
Radak on Genesis 1:11:2 ‫ עשב‬,‫דשא‬. “deshe” which would develop into “eyssev.” Once it had attained maturity, it would grow seed by
means of which to perpetuate itself. Other commentators (Nachmanides) view ‫ דשא‬as a primitive herb which
does not produce seed, whereas ‫ עשב‬is a superior kind of herb producing seed.
Radak on Genesis 1:11:3 Both in the expressions ‫ מזריע זרע‬and ‫ תדשא דשא‬the noun follows the verb, seeing that it is based on the
verb. This is meant either to further define the activity represented by the verb, or to lend more importance to
it. We find several examples of such constructions in Samuel Ii 12,15 ‫ויצם דוד צום‬, “David observed a fast;”
another example is found in Isaiah 42,17 ‫יבשו בשת‬, “being utterly shamed.” Still other examples are: Ezekiel
22,27 and Isaiah 5,6.
Radak on Genesis 1:11:4 ‫עץ פרי‬, the verb ‫ תדשא‬also includes the command to the earth to produce fruit-bearing trees. The meaning of
the expression ‫ עושה פרי‬is that when this tree emerges from the bowels of the earth it is not to be masculine
[like certain strains of palms, Ed.] but is to directly produce fruit, much as a woman produces children. The
trunk does not need to be fertilised by a feminine counterpart. The tree therefore bears a name which
includes its masculine and feminine components. Similarly, what the tree produces is known as ‫פרי‬. As for
the Torah sometimes speaking of ‫פרי אדמתך‬, “the fruit of your soil,” (Deut. 28,4) when we would have
expected ‫פרי עציך‬, “the fruit of your trees,” this formulation is justified seeing that it is only the fruit which is
edible and not the trunk, i.e. the tree itself. Therefore the word ‫ פרי‬appears in a construct form, belonging to
‫אדמתך‬, i.e. the source which also brought forth the tree itself. We find a similar construction in Hoseah 8,7
‫צמח בלי יעשה קמח‬, “a plant yielding no flour. Perhaps the best known such construction is ‫להוציא לחם מן הארץ‬,
(Psalms 104,14) or, as we say in our daily benediction before eating bread: ‫המוציא לחם מן הארץ‬, “Who brings
forth bread from the earth.” Bread does not come forth from the earth but is baked by man; nonetheless its
origin is in the stalks growing out of the earth.<br> It is possible, on the other hand, to understand in the term
‫ עץ‬not only the trunk, but the foliage, seeing the leaves and the peel also grow and act as protective covers,
shields [‫ שומרים‬in halachic parlance, Ed.] Even though these leaves do not serve as food for human beings,
they do serve as food for the birds. For these various reasons the expression ‫ עץ פרי‬as opposed to ‫פרי העץ‬
can be justified, i.e. even the parts of the tree which are not, strictly speaking, its fruit, may be described as if
they were. There is a popular saying quoted in Chulin 92,‫יבעון איתכליא רחמי על עליא דאלמלי עליא לא מתקיימין‬
‫איתכליא‬, “let the grapes pray for the leaves for without the leaves the grapes would not exist.” [a parable
comparing the scholars to the ignorant people, reminding the former that but for the latter there would be no
point to their own existence. Ed.] As to the fact that the leaves are also part of the trees, the same applies to
trees that do not bear fruit. If it were not so, the Torah would have made separate mention of that category of
tree when reporting what had been created on the third day.<br> Consider the fact that David listed the
sequence of what G’d had created during these 6 days in Psalm 104. When he referred to the birds in verse
12, mentioning that they sing in the foliage of the trees, he went on in verse 16 to mention the cedars of
Lebanon as the place where some of these birds make their nests. These cedars are not fruit-bearing trees,
but are referred to as trees which G’d planted. In other words, the non fruit-bearing trees are singled out by
David as having been made by G’d for the benefit of the birds. (compare author’s commentary on that Psalm
in detail) Moreover, each of those trees is also useful for man who makes all kinds of tools and furnishings
out of these non fruit-bearing trees.
Radak on Genesis 1:11:5 ‫למינו‬, each species should cleave to its own kind. The word ‫ למינה‬applies also to the different herbs just as to
the trees; this is why it is mentioned at the end, i.e. to all the foregoing. The same is true in verse 12 when
the Torah reports that earth indeed produced each category of plant so that it could preserve its respective
species. Our sages both in Rosh Hashanah 11, as well as in Chulin 60 also display another approach to
these verses. Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa explained Psalm 104,31 ‫יהי כבוד ה' לעולם ישמח ה' במעשיו‬, “let the
glory of the Lord endure forever, let Him derive joy from His creatures.” This verse was supposedly said by
the angel in charge of running the universe on behalf of G’d. At the time when G’d commanded the trees to
be careful not to lose their individuality but to preserve the peculiarities of their respective genes, the herbs
said to themselves that “if G’d had been interested in different plants intermingling with one another, why
would He have cautioned the trees against doing this? They reasoned further that if G’d said this to the trees
which are very distinct from one another by nature, then surely He is interested in their (herbs) maintaining
their own individuality, seeing that they are in so much greater danger of losing it through growing so closely
to other species of herbs!” As a result, they were careful to emerge on the surface of the earth, each category
according to its species. When the angel in charge of running the universe on G’d’s behalf saw this, he
spontaneously broke out in the words ‫'יהי כבוד ה' וגו‬.
Radak on Genesis 1:11:6 ‫אשר זרעו בו‬, which contained seed of its own kind as part of it. Both the herbs and the fruit contain their seed
within themselves. The meaning is that they are equipped with the means to reproduce themselves, to
perpetuate their existence on earth as a species. The herbs contain their seeds within pods or peels, the
pods acting as protection against these seeds being destroyed. In the case of fruit-bearing trees, the seeds
are contained within the fruit. Only the outer part of the actual fruit is eaten, the seeds being discarded. Even
figs, which are eaten together with their seeds, can reproduce from the edible seeds within them. The interior
of these little grainy particles we eat contain the basic seed needed for them to reproduce. This is the
meaning of the words ‫אשר זרעו בו‬, “whose seed is contained within it.”
Radak on Genesis 1:11:7 ‫על הארץ‬. What is meant is that when such seed falls onto the earth it will develop into a plant of the same
kind as the one it had fallen from. Compare the Jerusalem Targum on this translation.
Radak on Genesis 1:11:8 ‫ויהי כן‬, it came forth exactly as G’d had directed.
Radak on Genesis 1:12:1 ‫ותוצא הארץ‬, had the Torah written [in verbatim response to G’d’s directive]‫ ותדשא הארץ‬, I would not have
known that it was only one, as we explained on verse 11. The Torah wanted to make sure that we did not get
the impression that the earth suddenly proliferated with a carpet of herbs. The remarkable thing was that
although the earth produced only a single herb, ‫ויהי כן‬, it endured, i.e. survived until it had many others added
after the sun had become strong on the fourth day.<br> Alternatively, the meaning of this formulation is that
from this moment on the earth always produced all these kinds of plants in their unadulterated form, each
true to its species. There never was an occasion when nature suddenly produced a tree combining the
properties of two different species. This only happened when man deliberately introduced an additional
species through grafting it onto a tree. This is the reason why G’d commanded man not to crossbreed plants
or animals. Both Adam and Noach were commanded this as our sages (Sanhedrin 60) state in conjunction
with the verse‫ שדך לא תזרע כלאים‬,‫את חקותי תשמרו בהמתך לא ים‬, “do not crossbreed animals, nor seed your
field with a mixture of more than one seed (trees).” (Leviticus 19,19). This referred to statutes G’d had
already promulgated prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. Concerning the mixing of seeds of herbs, no such
prohibition exists for gentiles. Concerning the uprooting of such hybrids gentiles are not commanded to do
this, and even Israelites are only obliged to do this in the Land of Israel. The entire subject revolves around
deliberately upsetting the way in which G’d created His universe.[in the Sefer Hachinuch the applicability of
part of this legislation to gentiles is described as ‫מפי הקבלה‬, “based on tradition.” Ed.]<br> This is also why a
scholar questioned what the halachah is according to Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa who had quoted the herbs
arriving at the conclusion that they must maintain the purity of their species although the Torah had not
written anything about ‫ למינו‬in connection with the herbs. The scholar wanted to know what the situation
would be if someone had deliberately crossbred two species of herbs. According to the opinion of Ravina one
could not hold such a person culpable for such an innovation. Alternatively, the question it that seeing that
the herbs had voluntarily taken it upon themselves to maintain the same standards as did the trees and
plants which carried their seed in them, would anyone violating that standard be held responsible for violating
a law of nature which G’d had approved even though it was instigated by nature itself? The question was left
open.
Radak on Genesis 1:12:2 ‫וירא אלוקים כי טוב‬, even though there are herbs which generate heat, they too are included in what is
described here as “good,” seeing that they have therapeutic value and by being applied as bandages to
injuries serve to cure such injuries.

Radak on Genesis 1:14:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים יהי מארות ברקיע השמים‬, we do not find many occasions when the verb ‫ היה‬occurs within strictly
defined grammatical parameters in accordance with the rules applying to differentiating between singular and
plural, or the rules applying to distinguishing between masculine and feminine subjects. As a result, the
Torah here writes ‫ יהי‬in the singular mode, although G’d gave a directive involving a whole multitude of new
phenomena that were to appear in the sky. Compare also Deut 22,23 ‫כי יהיה נערה בתולה‬, where the Torah
employs the masculine pronoun when referring to a young girl, still a virgin.<br> These luminaries were
created during the first “day” together with the planets (fixed stars) as we explained on verse 3; however,
their light was not transmitted to earth seeing there had not been an atmosphere at yet. [our astronauts only
discovered that there is utter darkness beyond the stratosphere when they took the first space flight beyond
these regions. Ed.] Besides, the earth was not yet sufficiently dry. Once it had dried sufficiently, in
accordance with G’d’s will, it commenced complying with G’d’s directive on the morning of the third “day” to
produce herbs, etc. By the fourth “day” it had become much stronger, firmer, so that when G’d gave a
directive to the luminaries, these were able to respond in accordance with G’d’s directive. As a result the
plants produced by the earth would contain seeds, the trees would bear fruit, etc. This is the meaning of the
statement by our sages in Rosh Hashanah 11 that the entire work of creation was created in their full
potential, fully mature, i.e. on the fourth day the vegetation, including herbs and trees had attained its full
growth. All the creatures created subsequently also were created in their full size, maturity, as appropriate to
each separate species. When the Talmud there adds the words ‫בדעתן בצביונן נבראו‬, this means that the
creatures equipped with intelligence possessed it from the moment they were created, whereas those not
meant to possess intelligence would not develop it at a later stage either. Man was able to recognise the
nature and essence of each creature as well as its function in the universe. This is what Solomon had in mind
when he said in Kohelet 3,11 ‫את הכל עשה יפה בעתו‬, “He brought everything to pass precisely at its time.”<br>
The reason the herbs, etc. attained their ultimate size, etc. on the fourth “day,” was because they required
the input of the celestial bodies for this, something that had not been present on the third “day.” This is what
the sages (Chagigah 12) referred to when they said ‫הן הן המאורות שנבראו ביום ראשון אלא שלא תלאן עד יום רביעי‬,
“these (the ones mentioned on the fourth ‘day’) are the ones which had been created on the first ‘day,’ but He
had not placed them in orbit until the fourth ‘day.’” The word ‫ תלה‬means to hang something from the top
down. ‫ברקיע השמים‬, the atmosphere; this is also the meaning of the word when we read ‫על פני רקיע השמים‬.
(verse 20) This region is called ‫רקיע‬, because, as we explained on verse 8, it is something stretched taut over
a large expanse of space. G’d attached it to the heaven, i.e. to the various planets, seeing that it is secondary
in importance to them, receiving its light from them.
Radak on Genesis 1:14:2 ‫להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה‬, to create a separation between the day and the night. Up until this point there was
either complete light (day) or complete darkness (night). From now on there would be some light at night.
The large luminary, the sun, would provide its light for the day, whereas the smaller luminary, the moon,
would provide some light at night. We know from Deut. 33,14 that the influence of the moon on certain crops
is beneficial, i.e. that light provided during the night promotes the growth of crops sensitive to such light.
Radak on Genesis 1:14:3 ‫והיו לאותות ולמועדים ולימים ושנים‬. The word ‫ לאותות‬refers to hours; the word ‫ ולמועדים‬refers to the seasons of the
year and the festivals to be observed during these seasons. For, just as the year is divided into four seasons,
a hot season, a cold season, spring and fall, so day and night are divided into 24 hours. The word ‫ולימים‬
refers to the number of days in a month, i.e. 29 and a half days plus 2/3rds of an hour and 73 parts [of the
1080 parts an hour is divided into halachically. Ed.] The word ‫ ולשנים‬refers to years, i.e. solar years of 365
and a quarter days [as opposed to lunar “years,” i.e. 12 x a lunar month. Ed.] This is implied by the very
meaning of the word ‫שנה‬, which refers to something which occurs again and again, such as the completion of
the sun’s orbit around the earth after the four seasons. [the assumption of the astronomers in the author’s
time. Ed.] According to Targum Yerushalmi the appropriate translation of the word ‫ שנים‬is ‫לאתין וסימנן‬, as
visible reminders ‫ למקדש רישי ירחין ושנין‬when to sanctify the new moon and the New Year.
Radak on Genesis 1:15:1 ‫והיו‬, they should also serve as luminaries, i.e ‫להאיר על הארץ‬, to provide illumination on earth. Prior to the
fourth “day” the sun and moon had already been sources of light for the earth. Suspending these luminaries
in the sky on the fourth ”day” only made them visible to creatures who possessed a sense of sight. Their light
also had an effect on all of these creatures, each according to their physical constitution.

Radak on Genesis 1:16:1 ‫ויעש‬, “He completed making;” now the Torah reports how G’d arranged that the luminaries give their light onto
the surface of the earth. Each luminary had a certain period assigned to it during which it would function.
Radak on Genesis 1:16:2 ‫הגדולים‬, the Torah did not write ‫ גדולים‬which would have described their physical size, seeing that all the
planets with the possible exception of ‫נגה‬, Venus, are larger than the moon. According to our astronomers
they are further removed from earth, and this is why they appear to be smaller. The Torah speaks of the
relative strength of the light provided by sun and moon respectively. The reason that both luminaries are
referred to as ‫הגדולים‬, is simply because they both appear larger than the fixed stars. Of these two, however,
the sun is larger than the moon, as pointed out when the Torah says that the larger one is to shine by day.
This also appears to us to be the case when we look at these two luminaries. According to the astronomers
the sun is 170 times the size of the moon. The moon, being basically black, does not produce any light of its
own but merely reflects the light of the sun, as a mirror reflects light. This accounts for the fact that its light
varies in intensity depending on the day of the month, and on its position vis-à-vis the sun on such a day. The
Torah therefore describes it as ‫המאור הקטן‬, the small luminary.
Radak on Genesis 1:16:3 ‫ואת הכוכבים‬, for they too function at night, providing some light both when the moon is shining and when it is
not on the horizon. The sun, on the other hand, does not shine at all during the night, seeing it is beneath the
earth at that time. [the earth being perceived as flat at that time. Ed.] The moon and stars do not shine by day
as the light of the sun, which is so much stronger, outshines them. When the Torah speaks of ‫ ממשלה‬in
connection with these luminaries, it refers to the commanding influence the light of these luminaries have
during the periods when they are functioning as providers of light.

Radak on Genesis 1:17:1 ‫ויתן‬, He placed, positioned; after the Torah had written ‫ויעש‬, that G’d completed the making of the luminaries
by enabling them to illuminate the earth, the word ‫ ויתן‬now describes where G’d placed these luminaries to
enable them to effectively carry out their assignment. Until the fourth “day” they had not been in the sky of the
heaven.
Radak on Genesis 1:17:2 ‫להאיר‬, we have already explained this on verses 15-16. There the word appeared alone, and the word
‫ לממשלת‬appeared by itself, whereas here the two expressions appear in conjunction with one another, i.e.
“and to exercise dominion, etc.;” the word ‫ ולמשול‬here is in a construct mode, i.e. the two functions are
dependent one upon the other, the light exercising the dominion once it has reached the surface of the earth.
The word ‫ להאיר‬refers to the light itself, the word ‫ולמשול‬, to the activity and its impact.

Radak on Genesis 1:18:1 ‫ולמשול ביום ובלילה‬, the one, i.e. the sun by day, and the other, i.e. the moon, to govern by night.
Radak on Genesis 1:18:2 ‫ולהבדיל‬, from the time the sun rises it is light, day, and the domain of the sun, whereas from the time the stars
become visible in the sky, it is nighttime, the moon’s domain. The night is called “darkness,” even though
there is some light in the sky illuminating parts of the earth in a fashion.
Radak on Genesis 1:20:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים ישרצו המים‬, the expression ‫ שריצה‬refers to multiple births, meaning multiple eggs being deposited
for hatching. Seeing that the waters and the dry land had been completely separated by now, G’d decreed
that each region was to produce offspring to perpetuate the various species of its habitat. The waters were
addressed first, seeing they occupy the upper part of the globe. Not only that, but they had been first in the
order of creation. G’d’s directive that a rakia be inserted had also preceded His directives to what should
happen on earth. When addressing the waters directing that its inhabitants should multiply, G’d employed the
plural mode ‫ ישרצו‬instead of the singular mode seeing there are so many different species of creatures which
inhabit the oceans. When addressing the earth, ordering that the earth do something parallel, G’d used the
singular mode ‫תוציא‬, to let the reader know how relatively few species of creatures were involved in that
directive.
Radak on Genesis 1:20:2 ‫שרץ נפש חיה‬, the reason why the word ‫ שרץ‬is in the singular mode has already been explained in connection
with the expression ‫ תדשא הארץ דשא‬in verse 11. Another reason why the singular mode was chosen by the
Torah here, may be that the word ‫ שרץ‬describes any moving creature, as implied by the Targum, ‫רחשא‬, as in
‫רחושי מרחשן שפוותיה‬, (Sanhedrin 67) meaning “they are moving their lips.” The words ‫ השורץ על הארץ‬in
Genesis 7,21 also are a description of a certain type of motion on earth. Nonetheless, the word does not lose
its original meaning, i.e. that it describes multiple reproduction by a certain species.
Radak on Genesis 1:20:3 ‫נפש חיה‬, an expression for anything equipped with the means to move of its own accord. What the earth had
produced on the third “day” did not have the ability to move from the spot from which it emerged from the
earth. It is‫נפש צומחת‬, a living plant, as distinct from ‫נפש חיה‬, a mobile form of life.
Radak on Genesis 1:20:4 ‫ועוף יעופף על הארץ‬, the directive to multiply by means of multiple births applied also to the birds which are
flying above the earth. The birds are composed primarily of a combination of factors found either in the air or
in the sea.
Radak on Genesis 1:20:5 ‫על פני רקיע השמים‬, a reference to the atmosphere as we explained already. The Torah omitted to report
specifically that this directive had been carried out as ‫למיניהם‬, according to their respective species, not
because the birds crossbreed, but in the interest of brevity. The word ‫ למיניהם‬at the end of verse 21 sufficed
to make this point.

Radak on Genesis 1:21:1 ‫ויברא אלוקים את התנינים‬, we do not find the expression ‫ ויהי כן‬in this paragraph. The reason that the Torah had
to introduce this paragraph with the words ‫ויברא אלוקים‬, “G’d created,” as distinct from “the waters brought
forth,” or something similar, is that the waters were not capable of producing creatures of such dimensions
and capabilities without additional input by G’d Himself. Both G’d and the waters combined to produce these
monsters, hence their creation is described by the word ‫ויברא‬.
Radak on Genesis 1:21:2 ‫אשר שרצו המים‬, you should know that in parts of the oceans which are far distant from the dry land there are
no fish, seeing the waters by themselves are unable to sustain their lives by supplying the fish with additional
food such as plants which grow on land or vegetation on rocks which are close to land, or refuse left by man
as food for the fish by the passing ships. Fishermen do not explore the areas we have mentioned, as it is
impossible for their boats to enter such waters without risking their lives. Fishermen are alerted to the fact
that they approach such areas by the absence of fish in the regions close to the ones described. The oceans
are constantly stormy in such regions.
Radak on Genesis 1:21:3 ‫הגדולים‬, this description is justified seeing that on the dry land there are no creatures which are of a size
comparable to whales, etc. Compare the stories told in the Book of Job (chapters 40-41) extolling the size
and power of these creatures. Some people believe that the various names by which these creatures are
described refer to a species and a sub-species, whereas others believe that the descriptions refer to a single
species or specimen. Still others believe that all the large sea monsters are known by the collective name of
“Leviathan.” The scholar Rabbi Avraham bar Chiya wrote that the reason why the Torah employs the word
‫ ויברא‬in connection with the fish instead of writing ‫ויעש‬, “He made (completed),” is because fish are not truly
fully developed living creatures, seeing they do not possess a lung with which to breathe, and due to their
inability to live on land. G’d blessed all these creatures in the water at the time they were created, as we
know from Genesis 1,22, although a similar blessing is not recorded in connection with the creation of either
domesticated beasts or free-roaming beasts.<br> It was due to this blessing that the various fish and water-
based creatures survived the deluge without having to take refuge in Noach’s ark. Furthermore, it is due to
this blessing that these marine creatures increase and multiply at all times of the year, seeing the blessing
contained the words “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the oceans, and also the birds shall multiply
on earth in a similar fashion (during any period of the year).” In this respect both the fish and the birds
behave in a manner similar to human beings who can and do mate and fertilise their female partners without
regard to the season of the year. The mammals which did not receive this blessing from G’d are only able to
create progeny at certain times of the year, something called “the mating season” (compare Rosh Hashanah
11).
Radak on Genesis 1:21:4 ‫הרמשת‬, its mobility testifies to it being a living creature.
Radak on Genesis 1:22:1 ‫פרו ורבו‬...‫ויברך אותם‬, the land-based mammals were created on the sixth day, on the same day man was
created, seeing that both categories of creatures make their habitat on the dry land.
Radak on Genesis 1:22:2 ‫את המים בימים‬, the waters which are in the oceans; for in the rivers and streams the fish do not reproduce at
such rapid rates. The directive by G’d to multiply was not addressed to them directly, seeing they do not
possess the intelligence to receive and understand such messages. What the Torah means is that G’d’s
goodwill towards them was equivalent to His having addressed such a blessing to them directly.
Radak on Genesis 1:23:1 ‫והעוף ירב בארץ‬, the emphasis here is on the word ‫הארץ‬, i.e. even though its origin is in the waters the birds will
grow and generally behave more like land-based creatures.
Radak on Genesis 1:24:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים תוצא הארץ נפש חיה‬, on the sixth day both the mammals and man were created, seeing both of
them inhabit the dry land on the earth.
Radak on Genesis 1:24:2 ‫נפש חיה‬, the word ‫ נפש‬is a general rule, whereas the word ‫ חיה‬describes the detail.
Radak on Genesis 1:24:3 compare Rash’bam ,‫בהמה ורמש וחיתו ארץ‬
Radak on Genesis 1:24:4 ‫ויהי כן‬, earth complied with the directive by its Creator in producing these creatures

Radak on Genesis 1:25:1 ‫ויעש אלוקים‬, the reason why the Torah reports G’d as ‫ויעש‬, completing something after having already written
‫ ויהי כן‬signaling that G’d’s directives had been carried out, is that G’d’s directive consisted of 3 parts in
addition to the directive to create man, i.e. domestic mammals, free-roaming mammals and creeping
creatures. G’d constructed each category in such a way that they would make their habitat on different parts
of the earth. This has been emphasised by the words ‫ למינהו‬,‫ למחנה‬,‫למינה‬, being inserted between the names
of each category of creatures.<br> G’d did all this in order that one category of creature should not inflict
harm, damage on its counterpart by interfering with the other’s lifestyle in its respective domain. This is also
the reason why He did not bless them. How could G’d have blessed them with the formula: “be fruitful and
multiply and fill the earth,” seeing that He did not want that the harmful creatures amongst them would
multiply in such a fashion? Some of these animals’ very grazing on the earth would be a form of causing
irreparable harm on the surface of the earth. Our sages (Rashi on verse 22) claim that the reason G’d did not
extend His blessing to these beasts was on account of the serpent which became a destructive force.
Radak on Genesis 1:25:2 ‫הבהמה‬, these are the animals which live in close proximity to man, are used by him on a daily basis. This
includes, cattle, sheep, goats, horses donkeys and camels.
Radak on Genesis 1:25:3 ‫חית הארץ‬, this includes “wild” beasts such as lions, tigers, bears, wolves, etc., beasts which are predators. G’
d arranged for the nature of these beasts to be such that they do not choose urban areas as their natural
habitat. If they would tend to make their habitat on earth indiscriminate instead of confining themselves to
virgin regions, they would lay the earth waste, and would take over by multiplying themselves while
devouring weaker species. (compare Exodus 23,29) you will find that anywhere in Scripture where mention is
made of the destruction of man’s habitat, that the wild beasts took over the regions formerly inhabited by
man. (Leviticus 26,22)
Radak on Genesis 1:25:4 ‫ורמש האדמה‬, this also refers to specific locations in certain deserts, as mentioned by Moses in Deut. 8,15,
when he mentioned the presence of such lethal snakes, etc., in certain areas in the desert. Other creeping
creatures are found on a regular basis also in the regions inhabited by man, and those do not pose a threat
to man. The expression ‫רמש‬, refers to a type of motion. Note how G’d in His wisdom arranged all this. The
worms which appear to spontaneously develop from decaying vegetable or animal matter have not been
mentioned at all in connection with G’d’s creative activities, even though they possess the ability to move.
Radak on Genesis 1:25:5 ‫וירא אלוקים כי טוב‬, even though among these newly created creatures there are those which function as
predators, and otherwise harmful beings, they still are also useful in many respects as has been proven by a
number of scientists who are able to use the stings of wasps, etc., to help extract poisonous venom from
human tissue and neutralise it. G’d provided each of the species with limbs or organs suitable to their
individual lifestyle. The lion and other predators are equipped with special teeth and claws in order to
facilitate their attacks on more peaceful creatures who serve as their food. At the same time, gazelles, deer,
etc., which are primary targets of these ferocious beasts have been given musculature to enable them to
escape from the clutches of such predators by their superior speed. Each species has been equipped with
means to help it to ensure its survival in a hostile environment. This is proved by the fact that these species
have not become extinct over thousands of years. Although, basically the animal kingdom can be divided into
the aggressors and the victims, G’d has provided nourishment for both types of species. Each type of animal
enjoys the food G’d has provided for them in nature. At the same time, each will have to die in due course.
The predators will meet death either at the hands of hunters or other stronger predators, or through natural
disasters depriving them of their means of survival. Job 4,11 “the lion perishes for lack of prey,” already
attests to this phenomenon, as does Amos 3,4 in which the prophet describes that when these beasts
succeed in killing their prey they call out in triumph. The prophet Nachum (2,13), as well as many other
verses in the Bible testify to the fact that even these ferocious beasts are frequently neutralised by natural
disasters. Still, the fact is that none of these predators are genetically unable to subsist on a vegetarian diet,
else, at the time when G’d created them and there were only herbs to feed on, they would have perished
before being able to even reproduce themselves. If, at that time, the lion had already fed on sheep, one of G’
d’s species would have been eliminated from earth, contrary to G’d’s design. He had not created them in
order for them to become extinct. It is quite clear from verse 30 in our chapter that originally, G’d had
assigned the herbs as food for all ‫חיות‬, free-roaming animals.
Radak on Genesis 1:26:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים נעשה אדם‬, in connection with all the other matter created in the “lower” regions of the universe, G’
d issued a directive to earth phrasing it in the third person, i.e. indirect mode such as ‫תדשא הארץ‬, “let earth
produce herbs,”(verse 11) or ‫ישרצו המים‬, “let the waters teem, etc.” (verse 24). When it came to creating the
human being, the last of the creatures composed of several elements, He said ‫ נעשה אדם‬in the first person.
Man was created last, as a sign that he is the crown jewel of creation, to make clear that all the creatures
who preceded him in the order in which they were created are to serve as making life more pleasant and
convenient for him. He is to be master of them all. <br> When the Torah wrote ‫ נעשה‬in the first person plural
mode, my father explained this as including the various elements all of which had also been the product of G’
d’s creative activity which had aimed at ultimately creating man. G’d implied that in creating man He would
make use of all the ingredients in the universe that He had already created. They were all His partners in that
respect, supplying parts of the raw material G’d used to make man. We may understand the entire line as if
G’d had said to all these raw materials: “let us, you and Me together, construct a human being.” We find that
our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 8,3 took a similar approach when they said that G’d consulted when creating
heaven and earth. Rashi explains that the plural in the word ‫ נעשה‬is accounted for by the fact that G’d
consulted with the angels. They could be included in the “we,” seeing that both G’d and the angels share the
fact that they are disembodied intelligences. G’d meant to imply that man would share an attribute with
Himself and the angels, namely an intelligence which was not dependent on the body. <br> We are taught in
Bereshit Rabbah 8.3 that the Torah wanted to teach us by the wording of this verse that whenever 2 people
who are disparate in stature plan an undertaking involving both of them, the intellectually superior one should
consult with the other before going ahead on his own. Furthermore, in the same paragraph of Bereshit
Rabbah, Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachman in the name of Rabbi Yonathan says that at the time when Moses had
to write down the details of everything G’d had created on each of the six “days,” he balked when he came to
this verse. He asked G’d if this formulation would not encourage heretics to think that G’d had a partner (as
Divinity). G’d replied: “write it down as I dictated it to you; if someone wants to fool himself into believing that I
must have a partner, let him delude himself.” G’d called this crown jewel of His creation Adam, as we are told
in Genesis 5,1. (referring to Adam/Chavah). If the reason that G’d called man ‫ אדם‬was that he was made
from ‫אדמה‬, “earth,” this hardly seems to justify the name ‫אדם‬, seeing that all the other creatures on earth
were also made from earth. G’d wanted to distinguish man both by name as well as by body and spirit.
Everybody knows that all other living creatures on earth have as their raw material earth, dust; there was
therefore no need to remind us that they were inextricably tied to earth. <br>G’d called Man, whose spirit
originated in heaven, as distinct from the spirit of the animals, ‫אדם‬, to prevent his being perceived as part of
life in the celestial regions. People should not think that man was simply an angel who had come down to
earth. Residents of the celestial spheres have not been equipped with a body at all. The basic elements from
which they are formed are none of them raw materials found in our “lower” universe. Even such creatures as
‫שדים‬, demons, which do possess a body, (Chagigah 16) are totally different from man. Demons, though
superficially similar to man, have been constructed from a fifth element, not from one of the four elements. At
least this is what we have been told by the scientists of our time. When the Creator formed man using
ingredients that are at home in the celestial regions as well as ingredients which are common in our domain,
He called this creature ‫ אדם‬in spite of the fact his spirit originated in heaven, seeing his habitat was earth.
Even though man has been equipped to make matters spiritual his principal pursuit in life, not one in a
thousand does so. Hence, a name that reflects man’s predominant concern with earthly matters is quite
appropriate. King Solomon had already lamented this fact in Kohelet 7,28 when he mentioned having found
only one “man” in a thousand.
Radak on Genesis 1:26:2 ‫בצלמנו כדמותנו‬, according to the interpretation of my father of blessed memory, the meaning of the word
‫ בצלמנו‬applies both to a physical likeness as well as to a spiritual likeness, the ending ‫ נו‬not applying to two
different subjects, “our,” but applying to two different parts of the same subject. It matches the prefix ‫ נ‬in the
word ‫נעשה‬. If we understand the word ‫ נעשה‬as applying to the angels, we must treat the words ‫ צלם‬and ‫דמות‬
as referring to spiritual attributes only, the meaning being that man would be endowed with parts of the
spiritual attributes known as ‫ צלם‬and ‫ דמות‬respectively. The expressions ‫ צלם‬and ‫ דמות‬respectively, are
sometimes applied to something physical and on other occasions applied to something abstract, spiritual.
The word ‫ צלם‬is an attribute sometimes applied to a physical entity, such as in Samuel I 6,5 ‫צלמי טחוריכם‬,
“images of your hemorrhoids,” or in Numbers 33,52 ‫צלמי מסכותם‬, “their molten images.” The same expression
is also used to describe something spiritual, as in verse 27 of our chapter here.<br> The same is true of the
word ‫ דמות‬as for instance, in Song of Songs 7,8 ‫קומתך דומה לתמר‬, “your posture resembles that of a date
palm,” or Ezekiel 1,13 ‫ודמות החיות‬, “and the appearance of the chayot,” (a category of angels shown to the
prophet in this vision). The same word is also used to describe physical appearances such as in Ezekiel 32,2
‫“ כפיר גוים נדמית‬you were compared to a young lion;” or in Psalms 102,7 ‫דמיתי לקאת מדבר‬, “I am like a great
owl in the desert.”<br> The word ‫ נעשה‬is justified seeing that these attributes are means employed by G’d.
The letter ‫ ב‬which serves as a prefix to ‫צלמנו‬, is to be understood as a “helper,” meaning “equipped with our
attribute ‫צלם‬, i.e. our intelligence, we shall produce a creature whom we will endow with portions of these
attributes of ours.” We will do this although, essentially, man is of the earth, to wit his name ‫אדם‬. Alternately,
it is possible to understand the prefix ‫ ב‬in the word ‫ בצלמנו‬as a letter that describes that something is
equipped with an attribute. G’d would be saying that this new creature called ‫אדם‬, man, shall be equipped
with the attribute known as ‫צלם‬.
Radak on Genesis 1:26:3 ‫כדמותנו‬, this explains the reason why man would be equipped with this heavenly kind of ‫צלם‬, in order that he
should resemble celestial beings more than other creatures on earth, seeing he has been equipped with
intelligence. The prefix ‫ כ‬in the word ‫ כדמותנו‬must be understood as a ‫כף הדמיון‬, a descriptive prefix in the
imaginary sense, seeing that it cannot be understood literally, i.e. earth-bound man cannot be compared in
all his parts to celestial beings, else what does he do down here on earth? G’d declares that at least in some
respects ‫ אדם‬will be similar to the celestial beings.<br> Man will have a certain amount of latitude concerning
whether he will be more tied to his habitat, i.e. ‫איש האדמה‬, as Noach was after the deluge, or whether he will
strive to become more like his celestial counterparts. G’d gives man this ‫בחירה‬, choice, and it is up to him to
choose his path in life. King Solomon expressed this thought when he said in Kohelet 7,29 ‫אשר עשה אלוקים‬
‫'את האדם ישר וגו‬, the word ‫ ישר‬meaning that “balanced,” Man has as much basic tendency to cater to his
spiritual part as he has to cater to his secular, physical attributes. He has been given the additional attribute
of intelligence in order to help him make the correct choices. A correct choice is to use the part which is ‫עפרי‬,
i.e. “earthy,” primarily to secure his livelihood, not to indulge his body more by catering to what his senses tell
him and by pampering his mortal body. His intelligence is to be used to secure him an infinite existence in his
afterlife. Kohelet adds at the end of the verse we quoted, that sadly, Adam has chosen many intrigues, i.e.
has not made the best of the choices that were open to him. He refers to the variety of attractions available in
our world, which appeal to our senses and tempt us to remain enslaved to the pull of earthiness exerted by
our bodies, which are made of earth.
Radak on Genesis 1:26:4 ‫וירדו בדגת הים‬, this line stresses that all the creatures on earth had only been created in order to be of use to
man. Due to his superior intelligence, man is to exercise dominion over all of these creatures. Man is
reminded who it was Who created all these living creatures other than himself. As to the plural mode of the
word ‫וירדו‬, [which seems out of place when ‫ אדם‬is understood as a reference to man the species, Ed.] this
mode was chosen because the term ‫ אדם‬includes the male and the female of the species, as we know from
the formula of G’d’s blessing in which He is reported as blessing ‫אותם‬, “them,” although at the time only a
single human body had been created. (verse 28) The very term ‫ וירדו‬-as opposed to such terms as ‫ וימשול‬or
‫ וימלוך‬which are far more common terms to express authority, reign or rule, - indicates that this “dominion” is
more of a potential kind than an actual one, such as a king ruling over his subjects.<br> Besides, whereas
rulers generally exercise control only over people who are their contemporaries, and cannot extend their
authority automatically over subsequent generations of their subjects, the root ‫רדה‬, implies superiority based
on natural law by one species over another. Man is superior to the animals both by reason of his intelligence
and by reason of the means at his disposal to establish physical superiority over them. Eventually, by having
rescued the animals from extinction during the deluge, man even acquired the right to use the animals as
food. Prior to the deluge the “dominion” mentioned here was evident primarily in man using the animals as
beasts of burden, etc. The various kinds of birds were used by man to enjoy its eggs, its feathers, etc. At any
rate, the right accorded to man to exercise control over the animal kingdom was not fully implemented until
after the deluge.
Radak on Genesis 1:26:5 ‫ובדגת הים ובעוף השמים‬, actually, the species mentioned here are the most elusive for man to demonstrate his
control over. It requires extreme intelligence and skill for man to effectively control either the fish in the sea or
the birds in the air. Both of these categories of creatures do not share the same habitat on earth with man.
This is the reason why the Torah mentions these unlikely candidates for man’s control before the
domesticated beasts, control over which is something we have no real problems with. The Torah, so to
speak, tells us that if man can bring his authority to bear on the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea, he
can obviously exert his control over those species that share the same habitat as he, i.e. the dry land.
Radak on Genesis 1:26:6 ‫ובבהמה‬, the species of animals that grow up in man’s vicinity.
Radak on Genesis 1:26:7 ‫ובכל הארץ‬, meaning the beasts on earth, anywhere, including the free-roaming beasts, ‫חיה‬. Sometimes the
word ‫ בהמה‬includes only domesticated animals, other times the expression ‫ חית הארץ‬includes all mammals
on earth. It all depends on the context in which the Torah uses these terms.
Radak on Genesis 1:26:8 ‫ורמש‬, we explained the term previously (verse 25). It is a reference to small or tiny creatures, predominantly
living in desolate areas, or even in regions that are not desolate. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 8,12) explain
the expression ‫ וירדו‬as a combination of two words, the words ‫ רדיה‬and ‫ירידה‬, “dominion” and “ decline,
descent.” They see in the term a veiled warning to man. As long as man qualifies for the description ‫בצלמנו‬
‫בדמותנו‬, i.e. that the spiritual part of him predominates, he enjoys this control over the inferior creatures on
earth. Should he forfeit the right to be described as ‫ בצלמנו בדמותנו‬he suffers a ‫ירידה‬, a decline, not only in the
spiritual sense but also in the manner in which the animals relate to him by accepting his authority. In
commenting on the meaning of these expressions ‫בצלמנו בדמותנו‬, the sages say that just as man’s soul is
pure, so his body (man) is meant to be pure; just as his soul is holy, so his body is supposed to be holy; just
as his soul is able to see without being seen, so his body is to be able to see without being seen. Just as his
soul puts up with the problems of the whole word, so his body has to endure all the problems involving his
physicality.<br> Furthermore, in order to explain the dual nature of man, our sages explained that G’d had
said to Himself: “if I make him out of matter found only in the “upper” regions of the universe he will live
forever, if, on the other hand I make him out of materials extant only in the regions of the “lower” universe, he
will never attain an enduring afterlife;” therefore G’d decided to make man out of a mixture of matter found in
the heavens and of matter found on earth. Now, if man sins he will die, if he will resist sin, he will live.
(Bereshit Rabbah 8,11)
Radak on Genesis 1:27:1 ‫ויברא אלוקים את האדם בצלמו‬, the expression ‫ברא‬, i.e. a totally new creation, refers only to man’s soul, as
indicated by the word ‫בצלמו‬, in G’d’s image, something that had not yet been created. The Torah wanted to
draw a line of distinction between the construction of man’s body and that of his soul. When describing the
construction of man’s body, (chapter 2 verse 7), the wording is ‫וייצר אלוקים את האדם עפר מן האדמה‬, “G’d
fashioned man from dust of the earth, etc;” the expression ‫ יצר‬is not one that can be applied to something
abstract such as the soul. However, the word ‫ מעשה‬,‫עשה‬, is applicable both to bodies and to abstract beings
such as souls.<br> As far as the verse (Zecharayh 12,1) ‫ויוצר רוח אדם בקרבו‬, “He fashioned man’s spirit inside
of him,” is concerned, the prophet referred to an instrument used by the body, something like the heart of the
brain. These organs are instruments supporting the power of the spirit. The reason why, at this point the
Torah (Moses) did not mention the making of man’s body, is because it is mentioned in the paragraph
beginning with the words ‫אלה תולדות השמים והארץ‬. (Genesis 2,4) In that paragraph some other details are
mentioned which have been omitted at this point in order to refer to them in that passage in chapter 2. The
whole story mentioned there also belongs to the report of what had transpired during these 6 days of
creation.
Radak on Genesis 1:27:2 ‫בצלם אלוקים‬, a reference to an angel. Basically, whether we speak of “the image of G’d,” or of “an angel,” the
common denominator is that we speak of disembodied spiritual beings. G’d is distinguished by the fact that
none of the other disembodied intelligent beings (angels) amounts to anything at all, seeing none of them
can understand their Creator’s essence. This is an axiom, seeing that G’d is the ultimate cause of their
existence. He is the Creator, whereas they are merely creatures. This is why Moses added the word ‫אלוקים‬,
when mentioning ‫צלם‬, to make sure that we get the point that if man is compared to something celestial, he is
compared to a creature in the celestial regions, not to the Creator himself.
Radak on Genesis 1:27:3 ‫זכר ונקבה ברא אותם‬, in the following paragraph Moses explains how G’d created man as both male and
female.
Radak on Genesis 1:28:1 ‫פרו ורבו‬..‫ויברך‬, the word ‫ הפריה‬describes the fertilisation, leading up to birth; the word ‫ רביה‬refers to the
quantitative development of such offspring. Even though, in the first instance this is a blessing, just as it is in
verse 22 when G’d blessed the fish, our sages in Yevamot 65 and in Bereshit Rabbah 8,12 understand this
verse as a commandment to the human race to reproduce. They say: “man is command to practice this
commandment, whereas for woman it is not an active commandment.” Although the commandment was
addressed to man in the plural mode,‫פרו ורבו‬, encouraging us to think that the commandment applies to
males and females equally, this is not so. As far as the blessing contained in this verse is concerned, it
applies to both males and females; the commandment part applies only to the males, and is based on the
singular mode in the word ‫ וכבשה‬where the missing letter ‫ ו‬which would have made this a plural mode
indicates to our sages that as a directive the whole verse is applicable only to the males of the species. They
use psychology to arrive at this conclusion, saying that it is in the nature of the male to engage in conquest,
‫כבוש‬, not in the mature of the females of the species. Even though this matter is the subject of some
disagreement among the sages, (on that folio in Yevamot), the halachah has been decided according to the
view that only the male is obligated to fulfill the commandment to have children. The defective spelling of the
word ‫ וכבשה‬without the letter ‫ ו‬in the middle, gives rise to additional halachic points, such as that it is not the
nature of a woman to go out into the public marketplace, and that the male is to be the instigator of marital
intercourse and not his wife. (Bereshit Rabbah 8,12)
Radak on Genesis 1:28:2 ‫ורדו בדגת הים‬, we have already explained the meaning of this on verse 26.
Radak on Genesis 1:28:3 ‫ובכל חיה הרמשת על הארץ‬, the word ‫ רמשת‬here includes both the free roaming beasts and the domestic beasts
seeing that all of them move about on the face of the earth.

Radak on Genesis 1:29:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים הנה נתתי לכם‬, the words ‫ נתתי לכם‬are similar to Genesis 23,13 ‫נתתי כסף השדה‬, “I had given the
money for the field.” Alternately, it could be G’d saying that as soon as He had created them He had
assigned these plants as food for man who had not yet been created. This would justify the distant past
mode of the word ‫נתתי‬. “I had given.” The advanced kinds of plants had been assigned as food for man, the
fruit of the trees, etc., whereas the more primitive plants, herbs and grass, had been assigned as food for the
animals.
Radak on Genesis 1:29:2 ‫זורע זרע‬, generating seed; the meaning is similar to the expression ‫ מזריע זרע‬in verse 11
Radak on Genesis 1:29:3 ‫לכם יהיה לאכלה‬, only the ones mentioned in this verse. Permission to eat meat would be granted only after the
deluge, and we are not sure of the reason for this. Perhaps the reason is that G’d had already foreseen that
during the generation of the deluge Noach would be the one who would be directly instrumental in saving the
animals, and permission to eat meat became part of Noach’s reward for his labour feeding all the animals in
the ark for a full year. Seeing that G’d does not withhold reward from any creature, He would certainly not
withhold it from human beings when warranted. We have a parallel example of Nevuchadnezzar, King of
Babylon, being rewarded by G’d for a good deed (Ezekiel 29,18) as a result of which G’d told the prophet that
He would reward him by making him victorious over the leading military might in his day, over Egypt.
Radak on Genesis 1:30:1 ‫אשר בו נפש חיה‬.. ‫ולכל‬, seeing that any creature possessing a life-force called nefesh chayah is superior to
even the most advanced form of vegetation. It is a rule within this universe that inferior beings have been
created to be made use of by more advanced types of beings.
Radak on Genesis 1:30:2 ‫ירק עשב‬, the word ‫ ירק‬has been placed in the construct mode to the word ‫ עשב‬because generally ‫ עשב‬is not
consumed totally, only the green part, ‫ירק‬, is generally considered as attractive enough to serve as food as
long as it is fresh.
Radak on Genesis 1:30:3 ‫ויהי כן‬, each of the species G’d had created ate the kind of plant allocated to it as food by the Creator.
Radak on Genesis 1:31:1 ‫וירא אלוקים‬, in this verse G’d includes His assessment of the creation of man with that of His overall
assessment of all He had done previously. The word ‫ טוב‬applies to all of G’d’s creative activities. This
judgment had been withheld until after the creation of man, as it might have been conceivable that with the
appearance of man previously created matter would appear in a different light. The verse tells us that in G’d’s
judgment, and looking at it after execution of His plan, it appeared just as good as it had during each of the
stages the Torah had reported on. Having found confirmation of the success of His blueprint for the universe,
the Torah added the word ‫מאד‬, “very much.” Up until that moment the perfection of G’d’s handiwork was not
yet complete. Even though, as a result of these six “days” of G’d’s creative endeavour, something had been
lost forever, i.e. the ‫אפס‬, the absolute nothingness which had preceded creation of the universe, silence this
very “nothingness” had now become inextricably interwoven with the “something,” all the phenomena which
G’d had called into existence, G’d described the sum total as good.<br> Maimonides, in commenting on the
words ‫והנה טוב מאד‬, (Moreh 3,10) writes: “even death, which appears to constitute a return to ‫ אפס‬to
nothingness, G’d considered as something positive, constructive, seeing it is only a prelude to rebirth, albeit
sometimes in a different guise than that the previous incarnation. Death is perceived as the result of the
‘nothingness’ which had preceded the universe having become an integral part of this universe. Hence it had
become a necessary phenomenon. [these words are mine, I am not sure that I could literally translate the
words of Maimonides, themselves a translation, rendered differently by different super-commentaries, such
as Crescas, Shem Tov, and Afudi, as well as Abravanel. Ed.] Having all these considerations in mind, we
can now understand the meaning of the Midrash claiming Rabbi Meir (Bereshit Rabbah 9,5) as saying that in
his version of the Torah instead of the word ‫ מאד‬there appeared the word ‫מות‬, “death.” [a brilliant explanation
of this by Rabbi Zeev Wolf Einhorn is that the key here is the word ‫והנה‬, which is altogether extraneous, and
especially the prefix ‫ ו‬in that word. Ed.]<br> (author speaking): “I have found (Midrash Bereshit Rabbati,
Albeck edition page 209) that in a hidden archive in Rome there has been found a Torah scroll in a church by
Severus (a Roman Biblical, scholar) in which actually (not just figuratively speaking) the word ‫ מות‬had been
substituted for the word ‫ מאד‬in our verse.<br> In Bereshit Rabbah 9,7 there is also a view expressed that the
words ‫ והנה טוכ‬refer to the ‫יצר טוב‬, the urge in man which prompts him to do good, whereas the words ‫והנה‬
‫ טוב מאד‬refer to the opposite, to man’s urge to do evil, to rebel against dictates by the Creator limiting his
freedom of action. The reason why this evil urge is considered good, -astounding as the concept sounds at
first- is that without it man would not possess initiative, would not engage in building anything, in mastering
the potential contained in our earth but waiting for man to harness it. Without this “evil urge” man would not
even marry, raise a family, etc. King Solomon in Kohelet 4,4 also describes the evil urge as responsible for
man’s competitive spirit. Rav Hunna understands the words ‫ והנה טוב‬as a reference to the ‫יצר טוב‬, whereas
the words ‫ והנה טוב מאד‬he understands as a reference to the ‫יצר הרע‬, in the sense of it being responsible for
man suffering afflictions during his life. To the question how suffering afflictions could be considered as
something “very good,” he explains that the repentance which is triggered by man suffering afflictions and
examining what he done to deserve them, ultimately assures him of eternal life in the hereafter. Such an
approach is also taken by Solomon in Proverbs 6,23 where he invites the reader to examine which route
leads to eternal life and concludes by singling out ‫ תוכחות מוסר‬as one of them.<br> Rabbi Zei-ra understands
the words ‫ והנה טוב‬as a reference to Gan Eden, and the words ‫ והנה טוב מאד‬as a reference to Gehinnom. Is it
then conceivable that Gehinnom is something qualifying for the adjective “very good?” You have to
understand this with the help of a parable. A king owned an orchard, allowing labourers to enter into it
because he was building a treasure house at its entrance. He announced that any of the labourers who
performed their work to his satisfaction would be allowed into this treasure chamber. Those who would be
found remiss in their performance record would not be allowed into this treasure chamber. Similarly, G’d
announced that all those who would perform the laws of the Torah both vis a vis G’d and vis a vis man, would
be allowed into Gan Eden, whereas those who failed to do this would not be allowed entry. Denial of entry to
Gan Eden means remaining in “Gehinnom.” In other words, the conditions offered man in Gan Eden are so
wonderful that anyone who does not experience them must consider himself as being in Gehinnom. This is
the meaning of the words in Psalms 5,5 ‫לא יגורך רע‬, “evil cannot abide with You.” [not being allowed to dwell
in G’d’s proximity, Gan Eden, is equivalent to residing in an evil place. Ed.] There are still other explanations
offered in the Midrash on our verse.
Radak on Genesis 1:31:2 ‫ יום הששי‬,‫ויהי בקר‬. Seeing that on this day the creative work of G’d was completed and He had created man
on this day, the importance of the day is reflected in the prefix ‫ה‬. In other words, this significant day had now
arrived. In Bereshit Rabbah 9,14 Rabbi Yudan interprets the additional letter ‫ ה‬at the beginning of the word
‫ הששי‬as referring to the additional hour which we add to the holy Sabbath and thereby shorten the number of
hours of the sixth day. It is during this hour that the universe received it finishing touches.
Radak on Genesis 2:1:1 ‫ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם‬, this verse refers to both the hosts of heaven and the hosts of earth, including their
respective derivatives, ‫תולדותם‬. They had all been completed on the sixth “day,” and henceforth there would
not be any new phenomena in the universe, unless created by a special act of miracle. The fact is, that
already during the first six “days” when the laws of nature were formulated by the Creator, He inserted
escape clauses into this system of natural law that would allow Him, if and when required, to temporarily
suspend such laws at His discretion.<br> This is explained in Bereshit Rabbah 5,5 where Rabbi Yochanan
(or Yonathan) is quoted as saying that G’d entered into an agreement with the oceans that when the time
would come they would respond to Moses’ command to be split, etc., in order for the Israelites at that time to
cross on dry land. This is the meaning of the words in Exodus 14,26 ‫וישב הים לפנות בוקר לאיתנו‬, “the sea
returned towards morning to its original format.” This is a reference to the condition which G’d had imposed
on the sea at the time He set certain rules for it to follow. Rabbi Yirmiyah ben Eliezer added that G’d had not
only made such arrangements with the oceans, but also with all other phenomena which He had created
during those six “days;” this is reflected by Isaiah 45,12‫ ידי נטו שמים וכל צבאם צויתי‬,‫אני‬, “My own hands
stretched out the heavens and I marshaled their host.” The extra word ‫צויתי‬, refers to this clause. We also
have Joshua 10,13 in which Joshua is described as arresting the sun and the moon in their respective orbits.
Had it not been for the provision by G’d at the time of the creation of these planets, Joshua could not have
successfully ordered them to perform what would have been an act of disobedience against the rules set for
them by G’d. The same holds true for G’d’s dispatching the ravens to feed meat to the prophet Elijah (Kings I
17,4-6), or His ordering the fire not to burn Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah. (Daniel 3,23) G’d had also
ordered the lions not to harm Daniel (Daniel 6,26). Similarly, G’d had commanded the whale to swallow
Jonah, keep him alive, etc. (Jonah 2,11)
Radak on Genesis 2:2:1 ‫ויכל ביום השביעי‬, by the time the seventh day had started, all G’d’s work had been completed so that there was
no creative activity left for G’d to perform on the seventh day. It is therefore technically correct to state that
the meaning of the words is that G’d’s work had been completed, and completion of work cannot be termed
“work.” The meaning of the words ‫אשר עשה‬, therefore is that “all the creative activities which G’d had
performed during the preceding six “days” had been terminated with the advent of the seventh day, so that
there was nothing left to be done on that day.” We have similar constructions in the Torah, for instance in
Exodus 12,16 ‫ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור‬, which means that on that day leavened things should be in a state of
having been destroyed, banished. (compare Pessachim 5) ‫וישבות‬, He discontinued, what He had completed
(‫)שבת‬.
Radak on Genesis 2:2:2 ‫מכל מלאכתו‬, this means that after the sixth “day” G’d did not “create,” ‫ברא‬, anything new. When the Torah
used the expression ‫וישבות‬, which gives the impression that G’d “retired” into inactivity, this is not accurate;
the Torah used terminology that we humans can relate to. There is of course, no such things as ‫יגיעה‬,
fatigue, exhaustion, in connection with G’d. He is, by definition “tireless.” Compare Isaiah 40,28 who
describes G’d as ‫לא יעף ולא יגע‬, expressing exactly these sentiments. Creating the universe was not
something tiresome for G’d. Another way of understanding the word ‫וישבות‬, would be ‫ויפסק‬, “He stopped,
terminated.” This would also fit with Exodus 12,15 ‫תשביתו שאור‬, “terminate leavened things!”

Radak on Genesis 2:3:1 ‫ויברך‬, this refers to the addition of something beneficial. The seventh day is distinguished by the fact that it
enjoys additional good, i.e. additional Divine blessings. These consist of the fact that the Jew is afforded an
opportunity to study Torah in a quiet unhurried setting, allowing him to derive the maximum benefit from such
study. G’d extended this blessing at the time when He commanded the Jewish people to observe this day as
a day of “rest” by sanctifying that day.
Radak on Genesis 2:3:2 ‫ויקדש אותו‬, the day was to be sacred in the sense that it is set apart from other days precisely because the
Jewish people treat it as such. In other words, its sanctity is due to the way the Jewish people relate to it.
This day constitutes a visible sign linking G’d and His people, i.e. that they, just as He, are holy through
observing the Sabbath which by itself is testimony to the fact that G’d created the universe. It is a statement
aimed at all of mankind announcing that the existence of the universe did not precede the existence of G’d. A
researcher has stated that there is a fish in the ocean which does not swim on the Sabbath, spending the
entire day resting near the beach or near a rock.<br> Our sages (Sanhedrin 65) describe the river
Sambatyon as carrying huge stone down from the mountain every day of the week except on the Sabbath.
This is why it is called Sabbatyon. They report further (Bereshit Rabbah Albeck edition pages 92-93) that the
hostile Roman governor Turnusrufus asked Rabbi Akiva (in a sarcastic manner) how the Sabbath was
different from the other days of the week. He answered: “what makes one warrior greater than another
warrior?” Thereupon he told him that G’d had made it such. Turnusrufus enquired how Rabbi Akiva could
prove this. Rabbi Akiva then told him about the strange phenomenon of the river Sambatyon resting on that
day and not hurling stones down from the mountain. This simply proves that G’d, the Creator, has equipped
His creatures with a sign indicating to them that the universe is the product of His creative activity, and had
not preceded His existence. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 11,1) also explain the sequence of ‫ויקדש‬...‫ ויברך‬in
our verse in this fashion when they say ‫ברכו וקדשו במן‬, “He blessed it and sanctified it by means of the
manna,” i.e. by the fact that on that day the manna did not descend from the celestial regions, seeing that G’
d already provided a double portion on the previous day.
Radak on Genesis 2:3:3 ‫אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות‬, He had created them, whereas it was now up to the plants, animals, etc., to continue
the process G’d had begun and to perfect the earth as well as themselves, each species according to its
potential.
Radak on Genesis 2:4:1 ‫אלה תולדות השמים והארץ‬, the word ‫ אלה‬refers to the phenomena mentioned during the 6 “days” of creation.
Even though we have been told that G’d created the universe, as is clear from the verbs ‫ ויברא‬and ‫ ויעש‬all
referring to G’d Himself doing these things, so where did the derivatives, ‫ תולדות‬come from? The Torah
means that indeed G’d had created all these, but He had employed intermediaries, i.e. heaven and earth to
whom He had issued directives. In Bereshit Rabbah 12,7 we are told ‫לכל יש תולדות‬, everything has
derivatives. We know that heaven and earth have derivatives. Rain has derivatives as it says in Job 38,28 do
you know who is the father of rain, do you know who sired dew? [The concept being described is that none of
these phenomena created themselves but were the product of something preceding them. Hence all
phenomena that we perceive are derivatives of heaven or earth, which alone had been created by G’d
directly, without intermediaries. Ed.]<br> Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that pearls are derivatives of dew; he
referred to the bedolach mentioned in verse 12 of our chapter. Basically, the message of our verse is that
everything that does produce derivatives, offspring, is itself slated to die and to disintegrate. This fact is proof
that it is a creature and not a creator. On the other hand, if a phenomenon in the universe does not produce
derivatives, this is proof that the phenomenon is not mortal, not subject to dissolution but that we are faced
with a Creator and not a creature. Rabbi Azaryah in the name of Rabbi added that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’
s comment was directed toward heaven, i.e. seeing that G’d is eternal and not subject to disintegration He
needs no derivatives, “offspring” in order to perpetuate Himself. Everything which is a visible phenomenon is
a derivative of either heaven or earth, seeing that the Torah commenced with the words ‫בראשית ברא אלוקים‬
‫“ את השמים ואת הארץ‬First, G’d created heaven and earth.”<br> ‫בהבראם‬, on the very day G’d created the
heaven it already began to produce derivatives . This is the meaning of the words: ‫ביום עשות ה' אלוקים ארץ‬
‫ושמים‬. This is a reference to the day on which G’d confirmed that heaven was to be the upper waters, rakia,
and earth was to be the dry land, yabashah. Starting with that day, heaven and earth each produced
derivatives, i.e. a process of evolution began, one that followed rules set by G’d. The meaning of the word
‫ ביום‬is that this occurred simultaneously, i.e. both heaven and earth began this process on the same day, as
we explained on Genesis 1,6. Our sages explained the reason for the minuscule letter ‫ ה‬in the word ‫בהבראם‬
as meaning that G’d had used the letter ‫ ה‬as His agent in creating the physical universe. (Bereshit Rabbah
12,10.) The peculiarity of that letter is that all the other letters in the Hebrew alphabet demand an effort to
pronounce them, whereas the letter ‫ ה‬demands no effort. The use of this letter here symbolises that the work
involved in creating the physical universe did not cause fatigue, etc., to the Creator.<br> ‫ה' אלוקים‬, this
combination of two names to describe G’d occurs here for the first time, not having occurred during the report
of the creation. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 13,3 explain it as appropriate saying that now that the universe
was complete, also G’d’s name had to be spelled out in full. Ibn Ezra writes (in his book ‫ יסוד מורא‬chapter 12
page 42) that seeing that in this world nothing is permanent and enduring except the soul of man, as long as
man did not exist there was no point in revealing another facet to G’d’s name. The only aspect of G’d’s
essence which was revealed until that point was the attribute of Justice, i.e. the attribute designed to instill
awe in the creatures whom He had created.<br>The superior soul of man is called ‫לב‬, heart; but the heart is
both ‫ גוף‬and something over and beyond merely a physical organ pumping blood. It is called by a name
describing something physical, seeing it is the original organ combining spiritual and physical features.
Seeing that also all of G’d’s activities had been implemented by means of angels, disembodied agents at
home in the celestial spheres, these angels bear His name ‫אלוקים‬. The name Hashem was co-opted on
account of man, i.e. on account of the superior essence of man, the soul, which is of an enduring eternal
nature. Man, after all, represented the purpose of G’d creating the entire universe. There is a reason why the
name Hashem has not simply replaced the attribute ‫ אלוקים‬used by the Torah to describe the Creator until
now, until the birth of Kayin (man’s first derivative, ‫)תולדה‬. We will have more to say on this on chapter 4,1.
Radak on Genesis 2:5:1 ‫וכל שיח השדה‬, now the Torah fills in details of the report of G’d’s creative activity during the preceding days
which had been omitted, including how man had spent the hours remaining on the sixth “day” after his
creation. It refers to some aspects of the plants created already on the third “day,” as well as to the animals
which had been created on the sixth “day” which share the same habitat as man, i.e. they live on dry land.
<br> Seeing that the Torah would shortly have to refer to the vegetation in Gan Eden, including references to
the trees of knowledge and the tree of life which are part of the vegetation on earth, the Torah first describes
the fact that the shrubs, etc., had not yet been able to grow to their full maturity due to an absence of rain on
earth. The fact that even shrubs are significant plants, is demonstrated in Genesis 21,15 where Hagar is
described as abandoning her son Ishmael under one such shrub. At this point the Torah informs us that
although in response to G’d’s directive on the third “day” that earth produce herbs, etc., and that in response
to this directive the earth did indeed produce not only herbs but fruit-bearing trees, G’d had not yet decreed
that rain fall on earth, seeing that man the beneficiary of such rain, had not been created as yet. Rain, by
itself, without man working the soil does not accomplish a great deal.<br> This raises the question how the
vegetation described as coming into existence on the third “day” managed to do so? The Torah answers this
by describing vapours which rose from the surface of the waters at that time, and through whose influence all
these plants were enabled to develop temporarily. There are numerous plants, shrubs included, which do not
depend on man’s labour for their continued existence. The only plants which do require man’s input first and
foremost, are the plants which serve as his food. David already referred to this in Psalms 104,14 where he
describes that bread is produced from the earth and that rain is required to ensure that this will materialise. If
the Torah, at the beginning of this verse, mentions that G’d had not let it rain, prior to mentioning that the
vapour had risen (by itself, without G’d’s input, apparently) and had irrigated the earth, this was to inform us
that rain is produced as a result of the vapours rising, forming clouds, etc, but that all of this needs to be
initiated by G’d’s goodwill in the first place.<br> The gaon Rav Saadyah, in his commentary on this verse,
writes that the letter ‫ ו‬in the word ‫ ואד‬means, that there had not been a vapour rising from the face of the
earth which could have irrigated the plants either; in other words that this is a continuation of the statement
that there had not been any rain as yet, neither had there been dew or vapour, or any of the types of
moisture which we know promote growth. Up until that point G’d Himself had seen to it that these plants
developed, until the laws of nature had become activated as they were needed for the sake of man. If the
Torah bothered to tell us that just as G’d had not yet initiated rainfall, neither had He caused vapours to rise
from the earth to form clouds, (which would have been all that we needed to know) this is a lesson in why no
rain had fallen. Seeing that no vapours had risen from the earth, no clouds had formed which could discharge
their water at the appropriate time.<br> In Bereshit Rabbah 13,1 the author addresses the apparent
contradiction between our verse in which we are told that due to the absence of rain even grass had not yet
grown properly, and verse 9 where G’d is described as having made every desirable tree grow in Gan Eden.
Rabbi Chaninah there solves the problem by saying that the conditions that prevailed at that time in Gan
Eden were different from those prevailing in the rest of the earth, hence trees could grow there. Rabbi Chiyah
disagrees, saying that no growth had taken place at that time in either region. How then does he resolve the
apparent contradiction? He finds no contradiction, seeing that man’s creation had also been reported already
in chapter 1,27, and here it is reported again. At this point, the Torah simply fills in details it had omitted in its
earlier report. Whereas the various creatures and phenomena created during the first six “days” had been
fully developed, man, as distinct from the other living creatures, had not received its life-force, ‫נפש‬, from the
part of nature producing it, as had the fish or the mammals. Hence this point had to be described graphically,
i.e. G’d blowing the soul into Adam’s nostrils.

Radak on Genesis 2:7:1 ‫וייצר ה' אלוקים את האדם‬, the word is written with two letters ‫ י‬as is appropriate. We find this fact commented on
allegorically in Bereshit Rabbah 14,2 where it is suggested that these two letters ‫ י‬allude to man’s basic
urges, contradictory tendencies of either being obedient to G’d or rebelling against His dictates. [there is an
obscure reference to two different kinds of development of the fetus before birth, i.e. a seven month
pregnancy or a nine month pregnancy respectively, being alluded to by the two letters ‫י‬. If that is the meaning
of the spelling, there is no moral lesson involved here. Ed.] ‫עפר מן האדמה‬, the Torah here mentions only one
of the four raw materials man is made of, seeing it is the predominant one, at least quantitatively, in all land
based living creatures as opposed to the creatures whose habitat is the water, whose predominant raw
material is the water. In the case of the birds, air is the quantitatively predominant raw material. This fact
enables the birds to fly in the air. Mention of the raw material ‫ עפר‬means that this raw material distinguishes
man, is the most visible, the result of G’d’s directive to earth to bring forth a lifeless human being beautifully
shaped, functional, awaiting only the soul G’d would insert to turn it into a living creature. ‫מן האדמה‬, the prefix
‫ ה‬was used here to let us know that only the choicest earth was employed in constructing this golem. Man’s
body is superior to the bodies of the other mammals that had also been produced by primarily using earth as
their raw material. Proof that this claim is correct is the fact that man alone of all the mammals on earth walks
upright. The scholar Rabbi Yoseph ben Tzadik (in a book called olam hakatan) writes that we can understand
this by comparing pure oil and impure oil respectively supplying a wick with its fuel. When pure oil is used,
the flame rises perpendicularly, not flickering from one side to another, whereas when impure, insufficiently
refined oil is used, the flame does not rise in an uninterrupted upward motion. Similarly, the fact that man
walks upright is a reflection of the purity of the raw material used in his composition. An additional reason
why man is able to walk upright is the fact that he contains the soul whose origin is in heaven. This fact would
reflect that whatever grows reflects its origin in the manner in which it grows. Seeing that man’s head is his
most important part, it being higher than the rest of his body, it is no more than natural that he would walk in
a manner which illustrates the superior importance of his head, i.e. walking upright, head held high. By
holding his head high, he symbolically points toward heaven, his origin.
Radak on Genesis 2:7:2 ‫ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים‬, G’d blew into man some of the spirit prevailing in the highest regions on earth. Whereas
the life force of the animals is described as ‫נפש חיים‬, something abstract but originating in physical earth,
man’s life force is called here ‫נשמה‬, to alert us to the fact that the origin of this life force is not physical, has
not been supplied by earth, in fact could not have been supplied by earth. Our verse illustrates what G’d had
meant when He had announced that man would be ‫בצלמנו כדמותנו‬, “in Our image, Our likeness.” (1,24). This
is so in spite of the fact that sometimes man is equipped additionally with ‫ רוח‬and ‫נפש‬. The expression ‫נשמה‬
is reserved exclusively for describing man, whereas the other two expressions, describing non-tangible
animalistic forms of energy called “life-force,” are shared by man and beast. You may argue that the Torah
describes all of the living creatures by invoking the term ‫ נשמה‬in Genesis 7,22. We are told there: ‫כל אשר‬
‫'נשמת רוח חיים באפיו וגו‬, “every creature which had the soul and spirit of life in its nostrils… died.” We must
understand that verse as meaning that man who possessed both a ‫ נשמה‬as well as ‫רוח חיים‬, died.”
Radak on Genesis 2:7:3 ‫באפיו‬, all land-based living creatures, man as well as mammals, need the nose to breathe, i.e. to stay alive. It
is the organ through which cold air enters man from the outside and blows on the heart. It is also the organ
through which the air exits after it has performed its task. The air exiting through the nostrils is the one left
over after digestion, having previously nestled around the warmth of the heart. It (the heart’s task) is divided
into three parts as the biologists and anthropologists have told us. It comprises growth potential, sensitivity i.
e. ability to move, and the ability to think.
Radak on Genesis 2:7:4 ‫ויהי האדם לנפש חיה‬, man now appeared similar to other living creatures that move on their feet, propelled by
the ‫נפש‬, life-force which becomes active as soon as the baby leaves the mother’s womb. Original man is
described here as fully mature, not like subsequent human beings who were born by woman, and who could
not walk, etc., as soon as they were born. The reason why he could walk immediately was because he was
created as a grown up, did not have to grow from being an infant first. The weakness of human beings at
birth, and therefore their inability to walk from birth, etc., stems from the fact that while in the womb, the
nourishment provided by the mother’s menstrual blood is impure, unlike the animal young who had shared
the same food as their respective mothers while inside the womb. This is why these animals are practically
able to fend for themselves soon after they have been born. [mobility, i.e. the ability of moving about on its
own is considered a crucial part of the definition ‫ נפש חיה‬being a living creature. Ed.] Both Adam and Chavah
resembled the animals in that respect, never having been fed polluted food. This is the reason why our verse
uses the term ‫לנפש חיה‬, to alert the reader that the first pair of human beings was different from subsequent
humans in that they were fully developed as soon as they could breathe.<br> As to Onkelos’ translation of
‫נפש חיה‬, as ‫רוח ממללא‬, “talking spirit,” a well known commentary, perhaps the way we have to understand his
commentary is that only after G’d blew the ‫ נשמה‬into Adam’s nostrils did he become a creature that could
express his feelings and thoughts in words. It is also possible to interpret the expression‫ויהי האדם לנפש חיה‬,
as man now becoming capable to possess eternal life by being directly connected to the source of eternal
life. The words ‫ לנפש חיה‬are to be contrasted to ‫נפש מתה‬, a life force which is mortal, i.e. which dies as soon
as its body dies.
Radak on Genesis 2:8:1 ‫ויטע‬, the planting of Gan Eden is reported with the same verb ‫ ויטע‬as has been used by David in Psalms
104,16 for describing G’d as planting the cedar trees in Lebanon. At that point David described what G’d had
done on the third day of creation; here too the Torah describes a garden whose origin G’d had planted
already on the third day of creation. The distinction of Gan Eden is clear from the fact that no other region on
earth was deemed worthy of being singled out as warranting G’d’s personal involvement.
Radak on Genesis 2:8:2 ‫בעדן‬, a location so named because it was extremely fertile, its vegetation affording man’s body extreme
pleasure when merely contemplating its beauty with his eyes, and even his invisible soul enjoyed its hidden
beauty.
Radak on Genesis 2:8:3 ‫מקדם‬, in an easterly direction. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,3) understand the word ‫ מקדם‬as describing a
time frame preceding the creation of man, i.e. whereas man was created on the sixth “day,” the garden was
created on the third “day.” Other scholars quoted in Bereshit Rabbah there believe that the word ‫ מקדם‬is a
reference to a “date” prior to the creation of the universe. This explanation is based on the Kabbalah. The
great scholar Avraham Ibn Ezra (verse 11) writes: “we know that the location of Gan Eden was on the
equator, a region in which day and night are of equal duration all year round.
Radak on Genesis 2:8:4 ‫וישם שם את האדם אשר יצר‬, Now that the Torah told us this we know that originally, man had not been created
in Gan Eden. Perhaps he had been created in a region nearby, and G’d told Adam to take up residence in
Gan Eden. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 14,8 state that man had been formed from the earth on Mount
Moriah, and that from there G’d had transplanted him to Gan Eden. In Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 31 we
are told that Adam offered a sacrifice to G’d on Mount Moriah already. Also Adam’s sons, as well as Noach
sacrificed to G’d on that mountain. The reason why when the Torah tells us about Avraham building ‫המזבח‬
“the” altar instead of simply ‫ויבן אברהם מזבח‬, “Avraham built an altar,” is that this altar had already existed,
had been known since Noach’s sacrifice. Adam had prophetic inspiration telling him of the significance of that
location for offering a sacrifice. Still, G’d brought Adam to Gan Eden in order for him to appreciate the
excellence of its fruit and eating of it without having to toil, deriving great satisfaction both for his body and his
soul.
Radak on Genesis 2:8:5 ‫וישם‬, the choice of this word suggests that G’d appointed Adam as the gardener for this garden, to prevent
wild beasts as well as domesticated beasts from entering there and from eating of its fruit. The fruit of the
trees of that garden were reserved for man and his offspring, provided they would be found worthy to do so.
‫אשר יצר‬, the reason why the Torah wrote these words, seeing we all know that G’d had formed man, is to tell
us that man’s habitat, Gan Eden, had been a prime objective of G’d when He created man. (based on the
Kabbalists) The letter ‫ ה‬which precedes the word ‫ אדם‬is necessary to help describe, define him, seeing he
had no other individual name as yet. The word ‫ אדם‬is both an adjective, a derivative of the noun ‫אדמה‬,
describing a creature formed out of earth, as well as a noun in its own right. This noun has comprehensive
meaning, similar to such nouns as ‫חמה‬, sun, ‫לבנה‬, moon, ‫זכוכית‬, glass, etc. The fact is that most of man’s raw
material has been directly derived from earth, even though he also contains material from the other three
basic elements.<br> The bones making up man’s skeleton, supporting man’s body are formed out of earth,
being cold and dry just as the earth itself. Seeing that they are an integral part of the earth they remain more
or less intact for many years after the rest of man’s body has long rotted away and dissolved. The scholar
Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote on verse 8 that the letter ‫ ה‬in the word ‫ האדם‬in our verse contains a hidden element.
I believe that what he had in mind is that the letter ‫ ה‬indicates that the word ‫ אדם‬in this verse is a reference to
“man” as the name of the human species. We find that among our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,2) there
surface disagreements as to the meaning of the whole concept of Gan Eden. Rabbi Yehudah understands
the meaning of the term as a great garden originating in a place called Eden. He quotes Ezekiel 31,9 in
support of his view. We read there: ‫ויקנאהו כל עצי עדן אשר בגן האלוקים‬, “all the trees in G’d’s garden envied it”
(the cedar described by the prophet in the verses leading up to this one) In other words, Rabbi Yehudah
understands the prophet Ezekiel as viewing this garden as having been located in a region known as Eden.
His view is buttressed by Ezekiel 28,13 ‫ גן האלוקים היית‬,‫בעדן‬, “in Eden, the garden of G’d, you have been.”
<br> Rabbi Yossi views ‫ עדן‬as something bigger than a ‫גן‬, basing himself on the letter ‫ ב‬in the expression ‫גן‬
‫בעדן‬, i.e. “a garden within the area known as Eden.” Also, the verse (2,10) ‫ונהר יצא מעדן להשקות את הגן‬, “a
river originated in Eden in order to irrigate the garden, supports his view. [Actually, in the Yalkut another
verse supporting the view of Rabbi Yehudah is quoted (‫בעדן גן האלוקים‬, in Eden the garden of G’d, which
proves that the garden was bigger than the location described as Eden. Ezekiel 28,13) According to the view
of Rabbi Yossi the amount of water squeezed from an area of 30 sa-ah ‫ בית כורת‬can adequately irrigate a
half sa-ah. (Taaanit 10) The fountain of that river was within the garden, in the center, so that the vegetation
all around it would be irrigated by its waters. According to Targum Yerushalmi, Exodus 15,27 which speaks
of the 12 wells in an oasis encountered by the Israelites on their journey, the meaning of the expression
‫ מעיינות מים‬is ‫פיגין דמיין‬, “springs of water.” At any rate Rabbi Yehudah has two verses supporting his view,
whereas Rabbi Yossi could find only one verse supporting him. Rabbi Chanin of Tzippori had an inspiration
supporting the view of Rabbi Yossi, and found another verse relevant to our subject in Isaiah 51,3 ‫מדברה כעדן‬
‫'וערבתה כגן ה‬, “a desert like Eden, and a wilderness like a garden of the Lord.”
Radak on Genesis 2:9:1 ‫ויצמח‬, after having mentioned the existence of the garden in the previous verse, it is clear that the words ‫מן‬
‫ האדמה‬at the beginning of the verse, refer to the soil of Gan Eden. Our verse informs us inter alia that G’d
had not planted any non fruit-bearing trees in Gan Eden. All of them were distinguished from the trees in
other parts of the earth by their excellence. This is why the Torah added the words ‫נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל‬,
the fruit of every tree in this garden was delicious. The word ‫למראה‬, refers to the external appearance of the
trees, whereas the words ‫ טוב למאכל‬refer to the quality of their fruit. Seeing that Adam did not have much
time to enjoy any of this, unless he ate some between the time he repented and was expelled (3,24), Adam’s
sons did not get to taste the fruit of the garden at all, and Gan Eden in its entirety has been stored up by G’d
for use by the Jewish people in the times after the Mashiach has come. At that time, everyone will be able to
experience at first hand what Adam had lost by having eaten from the tree of knowledge. At that time they
will all know G’d and the reason why they have been created. This is what the sages had in mind when they
spoke of the ‫יין המשומר בענביו מששת ימי בראשית‬, that in those days we will taste “the wine which has been
stored up within its grapes ever since the six days of creation.” This represents the most enjoyable product of
Gan Eden. We must not forget that such stories as the one of Gan Eden have meaning both as literal peshat,
but also have a hidden meaning which is subject to understanding by people probing the text of the Torah
more deeply ‫ועץ החיים בתוך הגן ועץ הדעת טוב ורע‬, the word ‫בתוך‬, normally translated as “within,” or “among,”
here means literally “in the middle.” (Targum Onkelos) The reason it was dead in the center is that if you
want to protect something carefully you place it in the center where it is surrounded, i.e. protected, from all
sides equally. Man’s heart, lung, liver, his most precious organs, are surrounded by all manner of protective
bone, flesh, and other tissue. These all act like a wall protecting the interior organs from injury.<br> The
explanation of the words “‫ועץ החיים‬,” is: “G’d had also made a tree of life grow in the center of the garden.”
The normal function of this tree, i.e. its fruit, is to reinforce the vital organs and parts of the human being.
Anyone eating from the fruit of this tree regularly would enjoy very long life. According to the aggadah, which
deals with the hidden meaning of this text, (compare Genesis 3,22, ‫ )פירוש הנסתר‬anyone eating of this tree
would live forever. According to Bereshit Rabbah 15,6 Rabbi Yehudah bar IIai is quoted as saying that this
tree travels a distance of 500 years, and all the waters dating back to the days of creation split beneath it
when it approaches. [this distance of 500 “years” is a standard expression in the Midrash for the length and
breadth of the earth, i.e. this tree’s roots spanned the entire globe. It is therefore a euphemism for one’s
whole lifetime, also meaning that every living creature anywhere on earth benefits from this tree. Ed.]<br>
Rabbi Yitzchok, in the name of Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai, adds that not only the trunk and the roots influence
all creatures on earth, but also the branches and foliage of that tree. According to this Midrash, the middle of
the garden, i.e. the two trees named, could effect man’s life both spiritually and physically in an extraordinary
degree. It is possible to understand the verse as meaning that these two trees stood very close to one
another. It is also possible to understand the word ‫הדעת‬, as not being in a construct mode, [as opposed to
‫ הדעה‬which is definitely not in the construct mode, Ed.] so that the Torah meant that the knowledge to be
gained from this tree by eating its fruit could be both beneficial and harmful.
Radak on Genesis 2:10:1 ‫ונהר יוצא מעדן להשקות את הגן‬, Adam, who had been placed in the garden, had also been instructed to tend it
and protect it from intruders, and without water he could not perform the work he had been instructed to
perform. However, the Torah attests that Adam did not also have to irrigate the soil; this was accomplished
by an external; source of water originating in Eden and flowing through the garden.
Radak on Genesis 2:10:2 ‫ומשם יפרד‬, having flown through the garden and irrigated its plants, this river would exit and its course would
break up into four main streams. Each of its new river beds would still have enough water to qualify for even
the tributaries to be called “stream,” ‫נהר‬. [the word “tributary” as I have used it, is the reverse of its usual
meaning, as it is normally applied to smaller rivers joining a larger stream. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 2:10:3 ‫ראשים‬, this means “parts, offshoots.” Each “tributary” would be an independent stream, eventually branching
out into minor rivers.

Radak on Genesis 2:11:1 ‫שם האחד‬, it appears from the Torah’s report that the land called ‫ חוילה‬was situated in the immediate vicinity of
Gan Eden, and that this is the reason that it is a land superior to other parts of the earth. Just as Gan Eden is
superior to other parts of the globe due to its superior trees and their fruit, so this land ‫ חוילה‬has other
advantages, as the Torah enumerates, i.e. that this is where gold is found. The reason the Torah prefaced
the word ‫ זהב‬with the letter ‫ה‬, as if speaking of a special kind of gold, is that although gold can be found in
other countries also, it is more abundant in this land known as ‫ארץ החוילה‬. The Torah itself states that the
gold found there “is good,” suggesting that instead of quartz containing gold being found there, gold nuggets
who are pure gold were there in abundance. Perhaps, being so close to Gan Eden was the reason why gold
was found there in abundance and the Torah suggests that the Gan Eden which has been lost to mankind,
did indeed exist, to wit that even a land only bordering on it, shows that it is superior to other countries on our
globe. The shoham “jewels,” [type of gemstone, which according to Rabbeinu Bachya possessed therapeutic
qualities for its wearer and was used later in the garment (ephod) of the High Priest, could also be found
there. [Exodus page 1293 this editor’s translation of Rabbeinu Bachya’s commentary]

Radak on Genesis 2:12:1 ‫והבדולח‬, Rabbi Saadyah gaon, as well as Ibn Ezra say that it is a small spherical white gemstone. This is
supported by the reference to ‫ כעין הבדולח‬in Numbers 11,7 where the Torah describes the appearance of the
manna. The same scholars believe that this stone is formed by what were originally small drops of dew which
had descended on that river. This is the reason why this “stone” is round, just as a drop of dew. Seeing that
each individual such stone is so small that it is useless as an effective tool in commerce and industry, this is
the reason why the word ‫ אבן‬is not mentioned in connection with ‫בדולח‬, as opposed to the ‫ שהם‬gemstone
which is specifically described as a “stone.” The latter is a large stone, and many different kinds of vessels
are made out of its material. Due to its cost, these vessels are found only in the homes of kings and wealthy
individuals. The shoham stones on the epaulets of the High Priest had the names of the twelve tribes etched
into them. (Exodus 28,9) This gemstone was chosen in preference to others as it is more precious than most,
and is found in an almost pure form, not containing any flaws due to discolouration.<br> This river flows in an
easterly direction and does not continue through the ‫ארץ חוילה‬, but flows around it and then enters the sea on
its eastern shores. The reason most people called this river Pishon is because its waters help seeds irrigated
by them to expand and produce substantial crops. Etymologically, the word ‫פישון‬, is a derivative of the word
‫ פוש‬found in Jeremiah 50,11 ‫כי תפושו כעגלה דשה‬, “when you stamped like a heifer treading grain.” Onkelos
renders the word ‫פרו‬, “be fruitful” as ‫ פושו‬in Genesis 1,28.

Radak on Genesis 2:13:1 ‫ושם הנהר השני גיחון‬, this river flows in a southerly direction flowing around the whole land of Kush from which
it enters Sarnediv known as the great sea, (Mediterranean) according to the experts in geography. After the
Torah used the expression ‫ הסובב‬when describing the manner in which the first two rivers wended their way
on the surface of the earth, it switches to the verb ‫ הלך‬in describing the flow of the rivers Euphrates and
Tigris. It appears that these first two rivers did not cross a certain country diagonally but detoured around it.
‫גיחון‬, this name appears to reflect the manner in which this river splits up into many smaller rivers. [again we
appear to face the concept of “tributaries” as being reversed, the main river creating something like a delta, i.
e. breaking up into smaller distributaries. Ed.] The word means “exit” We find it appearing in this context in
Job 40,23 ‫כי יגיח ירדן אל פיהו‬, or in Ezekiel 32,2 ‫ותגח בנהרותיך‬, as well as in similar instances. Incidentally, the
‫ שילוח‬is also called ‫גיחון‬, seeing it splits into so many different rivulets in order to irrigate the gardens in
Jerusalem.
Radak on Genesis 2:14:1 ‫קדמת אשור‬...‫ושם הנהר השלישי‬, it flows more or less in a continuous direction to the eastern region of what was
the land of Ashur at the time the Torah was given. It does not circumvent that country but flows in a northerly
direction, seeing that both Babylon and Ashur are situated north of Gan Eden. [In order to make even partial
sense of all this, it helps to understand such definitions as “northerly, southerly, easterly,” as relative to the
location of Eretz Yisrael, not as relative to the north and south poles of our globe. Rashi already found it
necessary to describe the river Nile as running underground for a considerable distance in order to make the
Biblical report compatible with the facts as known in his time, much earlier than Kimchi. Ed.] ‫חידקל‬, this river
is so called because its waters are clear and flow rapidly (Berachot 59).
Radak on Genesis 2:14:2 ‫והנהר הרביעי הוא פרת‬, our sages have divergent views on the identity of this river. According to Rabbi
Yehudah it is the river Euphrates, whereas according to Rav Hunna it is the river ‫כבר‬, also in Babylonia, the
river where the prophet Ezekiel received prophetic revelations and instructions. (Ezekiel 1,1) The reason it is
called ‫פרת‬, according to Rabbi Yehudah, is that its waters keep increasing until it becomes a navigable
stream, and it cannot be crossed on foot or raft, but must be crossed by ferry. Also, the word ‫ פרת‬alludes to
these waters continuously increasing (due to its tributaries). According to Rav Hunna the rivers ‫ פרת‬and ‫כבר‬
are not 2 names for the same river, but refer to two entirely different rivers. Rabbi Yehoshua from Sakkinin,
speaking in the name of Rabbi Levi, says that when people ask the river ‫ פרת‬why it does not make any
sound, the river replies that it does not need to advertise its existence by being noisy, but that its deeds, i.e.
the contribution it makes to the people living alongside it are sufficient to make it well known. It could say of
itself that if someone plants a tree near its banks it will grow within 30 days, whereas if he plants seeds of
vegetables it will sprout within three days.<br> ‫הוא פרת‬, this river is known by this name in the land of Israel.
This is why the Torah did not need to add more details about the region in which this river flows. The river is
further west than other countries which have been mentioned. Once this river has reached Eretz Yisrael, it
ends up in the ‫ים האחרון‬, the gulf of Basra. [the reader is reminded that the reference to the Euphrates
reaching the land of Israel is most likely the author’s definition of the land of Israel consisting of the lands of
10 nations, not 7, i.e. as promised to Avraham Genesis 15,18. Ed.] The 4 rivers mentioned symbolise that the
four directions on earth are all supplied with fresh water by these rivers. Seeing that the land of Israel is
considered as in the center of the civilised world, all these rivers touch the land of Israel at one point or
another The reason why all this was recorded here is to show how Moses, at his time, was able to provide all
these details having been imbued with holy spirit. Otherwise, how would Moses have known all this, seeing
that he had not been a world traveler but had spent almost all the 40 years that he was a leader in a narrow
desert. Seeing that all these stories recorded in the Book of Genesis do not contain commandments either
between G’d and man or between man and man, it is clear that unless G’d had endowed Moses with the
requisite knowledge he could not have recorded all these details. G’d’s purpose was clearly, to implant in
man knowledge of how the early years of man on earth had begun, after G’d had created the world and had
placed Adam in Gan Eden. Our sages, looking for deeper allusions to man’s history in all this, also saw in the
4 rivers mentioned a reference to the four exiles the Jewish people would endure before being redeemed.
(Bereshit Rabbah 16,4) There are more explanations about these 4 rivers (on verse 10) in the kabbalistic
writings of our sages.
Radak on Genesis 2:15:1 ‫ויקח ה' אלוקים‬, even though we have been told already in verse 8 that G’d placed Adam in Gan Eden, the
Torah repeats this by stating that “G’d took man etc.,” because at this point the Torah wanted to inform us of
the commandment which accompanied Adam’s taking up residence in that idyllic place. Our verse also spells
out something that had not been mentioned previously, i.e. that Adam was not to treat Gan Eden as a retreat,
but that he was made responsible for maintaining it in good order.
Radak on Genesis 2:15:2 ‫לעבדה ולשמרה‬, to work it and to preserve it intact. The verse makes plain that G’d removed Adam from a
nearby location where he had been created, depositing him in Gan Eden The question is why G’d had not
created Adam in Gan Eden in the first place, seeing He was going to transfer him there anyway? The reason
is that He wanted him to appreciate the quality of that garden. Had he been created there, he would not have
had any means of comparing it to another region on earth, and would not have cherished its excellence. By
transferring him to Gan Eden, G’d demonstrated to Adam that He had his best interests at heart. The word
‫ ויקח‬may be understood as similar to G’d saying about Avraham ‫ואקח את אביכם את אברהם מעבר הנהר‬, “I took
your father Avraham from beyond the river Euphrates.” (Joshua 24,3)<br> ‫לעבדה ולשמרה‬, although the noun
‫ גן‬is masculine, the Torah treats it here as if it were in the feminine mode. The reason is that the work would
be performed on the soil, ‫ אדמה‬of the garden, and the word ‫ אדמה‬is a feminine noun. Alternatively, the word
“garden” appears in the Bible both in a masculine mode, ‫ גן‬and in a feminine mode ‫גנה‬, when the letter ‫ ה‬is
added at the end. An example of this is found in Isaiah 61,11 ‫וכגנה זרעויה תצמיח‬, “and its seeds will sprout like
those in a garden.” The word ‫ לעבדה‬refers to constructive labour, furthering the growth and fruit-bearing
capability of the trees, whereas the word ‫ ולשמרה‬refers to the taking of preventive measures to counter
invasion of the garden by predators, and other measures to prevent its deterioration. Our sages, reading into
this expression also a moral/ethical teaching, understand the word ‫ לעבדה‬as the dedication to study of G’d’s
commandments, whereas the expression ‫ לשמרה‬refers to the carrying out of these commandments in
practice. (Sifri Eykev 21)
Radak on Genesis 2:16:1 ‫ויצו ה' אלוקים‬, the commandment mentioned here may either apply only to the specific fruit Adam was not to
eat, or it is a dual commandment, the positive commandment being to eat the other fruit in order to keep
healthy, and to shun the fruit of the tree of knowledge precisely for the same reason, as it would prove
extremely harmful. G’d emphasised the importance of eating in order to keep alive and healthy by repeating
and saying ‫אכול תאכל‬, meaning: “be sure to eat!” Such repetitions are always used in the Torah when the
Torah wants to underscore a point. A well known example is Deuteronomy 11,22 ‫שמור תשמרון‬, where the
Jewish people are warned insistently not to become guilty of violating the preceding commandments by
ignoring them. A similar repetition is found a few verses earlier (11,13) when the performance is urged with
the words ‫שמוע תשמעו‬, “be sure to listen (and carry out).” <br>Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 15,6) claim that
Adam had been commanded 6 commandments. This verse was written where it was to illustrate that
chronologically, this was immediately after he had received these commandments.<br> They said
furthermore that the word ‫ ויצו‬referred to the prohibition to commit idolatry. This word has again been used to
describe such a prohibition in Hoseah 5,11 ‫כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו‬. “because he followed the path of idolatry.”
The word Hashem in that verse refers to the law prohibiting cursing G’d by invoking His name. (compare
Leviticus 24,16) The word ‫ אלוקים‬in the same verse refers to the need to deal with offenders of the law by
legal means (compare Exodus 22,27) The words ‫ על האדם‬in our verse refer to the prohibition to shed human
blood, something spelled out in greater detail in Genesis 9,6. The word ‫ לאמור‬alludes to illicit sexual relations
including incest. The prophet Jeremiah 3,1 refers to widespread non-observance of this legislation even
among the Jewish people. The seventh law was spelled out in detail, i.e. not to eat flesh while the animal
from which it stems is still alive. This law was not applicable before Noach had thanked G’d for his
deliverance, as all flesh had been forbidden as food until that time.

Radak on Genesis 2:17:1 ‫ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע‬, one of the operative, though apparently superfluous, words in this verse is the word ‫ממנו‬,
“from it.” Seeing that the verse had already commenced with the words ‫ומעץ‬, “and from the tree,” this word
appears redundant. It may therefore have been inserted in order to emphasise the severity of the effects of
ignoring this warning. Alternately, the word refers to the fruit, seeing the fruit of the tree had not been
mentioned at all previously. Interestingly, G’d had not forbidden Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of life,
but, on the contrary, the fruit of this tree was included in the instruction to eat “from all the trees of the garden
you shall surely eat.” This subject is dealt with at greater length in the kabbalistic writings of our sages.
Radak on Genesis 2:17:2 ‫מות תמות‬, mortality will be decreed for you as something occurring far sooner than would have been the case
otherwise. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,8) explain that the word ‫ ביום‬does not refer to a day of our lives, i.
e. a period of 24 hours, but refers to a “day” in G’d’s calendar, i.e. 1000 years in terms of our lives. Man was
henceforth not to reach the age of 1000 years. Adam, who had been slated to live for 1000 years, actually
lived only 930 years, having bequeathed the other 70 years to his descendants. They base this on Psalms
90,10 ‫ימי שנותנו בהם שבעים שנה‬, “the number of years of our lives is 70.” [according to Rabbi David Luriah the
words ‫ לבניו‬in this Midrash refer specifically to David. Ed.] According to the above we must conclude that the
sages of the Midrash consider death per se as a curse, based on Deuteronomy 30,15 ‫כי הרע הוא המות והטוב‬
‫הוא החיים‬, “for life is good and death is evil.”<br> As to “knowledge of good and evil,” there are a number of
explanations of these words. (Ibn Ezra) It may refer to the intimacy experienced between man and his wife
when engaging in marital intercourse. The fruit of that tree created the mating instinct in man. The word ‫טוב‬
refers to copulation that is permitted and the word ‫ רע‬would refer to copulation which is forbidden. Adam was
full of knowledge, and it is preposterous to assume that he had no concept of what is good and what is evil
before he ate from that tree. However, he had lacked the biological urge to engage in marital intercourse.
This is proved by the fact that after both he and his wife had eaten from the tree of knowledge they are
quoted as saying that “their eyes were opened and they realised that they were naked,” in the sense that
they lacked something which they had not been aware of needing. (Genesis 3,7). The meaning of the words
(3,5) ,‫ והייתם כאלוקים‬is “you will be like the angels.” The common denominator between Adam and the angels
at that stage was that both the angels and man had no inkling of the mating instinct. It is true that merely by
observing the animals’ behaviour they realised that the males and females engaged in such activities,
however they had no understanding of how such a process of creating progeny applied to themselves.<br>
Alternatively, we may understand the serpent as not having the slightest idea of what the concepts ‫טוב ורע‬,
“good and evil” represented. Even though Chavah is not quoted in the text of having used these words, it is
quite impossible to assume that the entire dialogue between the serpent and Chavah has been recorded
here. Unless there had been some discussion between them before the words recorded in the text, whence
did the serpent know that G’d had forbidden the fruit of the trees, as it had claimed to know? She must have
learned such details from the words of the woman. Furthermore, the very opening remark of the serpent, ‫אף‬,
suggests that this is a continuation of the preceding parts of the dialogue which the Torah did not consider
worth reporting. Nowhere else is the word ‫ אף‬used as the opening remark in a dialogue. (Ibn Ezra)
Radak on Genesis 2:18:1 ‫ויאמר ה' אלוקים‬, G’d did not utter these words audibly, as is the meaning of the word when applied to human
beings, but He “spoke” to Himself. Alternatively, G’d did utter words to that effect without directly addressing
Adam, but Adam happened to hear these words. When the Torah speaks of “G’d speaking,” we must
understand this as a sound created especially for that particular occasion. Seeing that Adam overheard the
words ‫אעשה לו עזר כנגדו‬, “I shall make for him a suitable companion,” he had entertained the hope that when
all the animals paraded before him that he would encounter among them the helpmate, companion, G’d had
spoken of. This is how we must understand the words in verse 20 ‫ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו‬, that he had not
found a suitable helpmate when reviewing all the animals and naming them.<br> The Torah inserted these
words between reporting on the commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge and the sin, in order to
make plain that man’s sin was due to the influence of the woman, as he had not eaten from this tree before
she had been formed and been given to him as a mate, companion. Clearly, also when G’d gave Adam the
commandments and forbade him to eat from that tree, seeing that the woman had not been created yet, she
could not have heard this commandment from the mouth of G’d, but only from the mouth of her husband. The
woman was clever enough to know that G’d had created both her husband and her. She presumed that
communication from G’d took place by means of both her and her husband’s intellect, seeing that they were
the only creatures who had been endowed with superior intellect.
Radak on Genesis 2:18:2 ‫לא טוב היות האדם לבדו‬, it is not good that he has no partner seeing that among the beasts he cannot find a
partner, as none of them is on a par with him.
Radak on Genesis 2:18:3 ‫אעשה לו עזר‬, an assistant when the need should arise. Solomon, in Kohelet 4,9, paraphrased this when he
wrote: ‫טובים השנים מן האחד‬, “two are better than one alone.” Furthermore, woman was a necessity if man was
to leave offspring behind to insure the continuity of his species.
Radak on Genesis 2:18:4 ‫כנגדו‬, she should be constantly present to attend to his needs; the prefix letter ‫ כ‬is to be understood as in
Samuel I 9,13 ‫כהיום‬, and as in Numbers 11,1 ‫כמתאוננים‬, and as in Hoseah 5,10 ‫כמסיגי גבול‬, in all of which
instances the letter ‫ כ‬serves to emphasise what follows. (compare Genesis 25,31 where Yaakov insists that
the sale of the birthright be effective immediately with the words ‫כיום‬, “as of today”) Other explanations of the
word ‫ כנגדו‬are that if and when her husband would embark on a sinful path of action, it would be woman’s
task to prevent him from doing so by opposing it; these are familiar to all my readers, I am sure. The basic
difference between man the species and woman his mate who were not initially created as two separate
individuals as opposed to all the other living creatures, is to distinguish him favourably from all those other
creatures. It draws attention to the fact that man is made from superior raw materials, and that as opposed to
the other creatures among whom the male does not enjoy an advantage over the female, man, i.e. the male
of the human species, does enjoy such an advantage. The male of the human species enjoys a position of
authority vis a vis his female counterpart. The reason that he enjoys this right is the fact that woman is –after
all- one of his own original limbs, and a person does have control over the various parts of his body. Seeing
that the male of the human species had been the principal creation, woman became an adjunct to him, so
that it is logical that man possesses superior strength to woman, and that also the power of his intellect is
more manifest than that of his female counterpart.

Radak on Genesis 2:19:1 ‫ויצר‬, this time the word is spelled with only a single letter ‫י‬, not as in verse 7. In other words, a letter ‫ 'י‬which is
part of the root of the verb ‫ יצר‬has been omitted from the written text of the Torah. The meaning of the line is:
“seeing that G’d had already formed from the earth all the living creatures and all the fowl of the sky, etc.”
The expression ‫ חית השדה‬in our verse includes also all the domesticated mammals. This is clear from verse
20, where Adam is portrayed as naming all of them. All of these creatures had been created before Adam
had been created. G’d told Adam that he would have authority over all these creatures. He was challenged to
name them in accordance with the special qualities each animal possessed; their characteristics should be
alluded to in their names.
Radak on Genesis 2:19:2 ‫לראות‬, G’d did not need to see how clever Adam was. The exercise was designed to show his descendants
what a brilliant forbear they had had, someone who had at one glance been able to determine the essence of
each of these creatures. Adam was clever enough to divine the nature of the birds which, though described
in 1,20 as having been produced by the waters, are treated in our verse here as if they had been products of
the earth (or even of the sky). The Talmud, which describes the origin of the birds as being puddles of water,
i.e. combination of water and earth, did not tell us anything Adam had not known already and taken into
consideration when naming the birds. (Chulin 26) Alternately, the reason the Torah speaks of G’d having
fashioned all the categories of creatures listed in our verse as stemming ‫מן האדמה‬, is that G’d brought all of
these creatures to Adam from the earth, seeing that this was the habitat on which all these creatures
developed to their maturity. Proof is the fact that even the birds which fly in the sky are described not as
flying in the sky, in the atmosphere, but as flying over the ‫ארץ‬, emphasising that they too are an integral part
of “earth” as opposed to the fish whose habitat is not “earth” but the waters. When fish leave that habitat they
die. Seeing that this is so, G’d could not parade them in front of Adam who was on land and could not
determine the nature of the various water-based creatures from his present vantage point. As a result, the
names of fish actually vary, depending in which ocean they are found, and in what climates they make their
habitat.
Radak on Genesis 2:19:3 ‫וכל אשר יקרא לו האדם נפש חיה‬, the meaning of this line is as if the Torah had written: ‫וכל נפש חיה אשר יקרא לו‬
‫האדם שם‬, “and any living creature whom Adam assigned a name, etc.” ‫הוא שמו‬, that remained its name. We
find something analogous in Ezekiel 39,11 ‫מקום שם קבר‬, which is the same as if the prophet had written ‫מקום‬
‫קבר שם‬, “a place as a grave there.” There are numerous other examples of what we might consider at first
glance as an unusual syntax. The name Adam assigned to each creature described the body, contours of the
animal in question. The expression ‫ נפש חיה‬in our verse includes every creature that moves. This expression
is the Torah’s way of telling us that Adam realised that no creature is really a “living” creature unless it
consists of a male and a female of its species, ensuring that they can reproduce and keep the species alive.
This brought home to him the full meaning of his having no female partner. He realised that G’d had done
this in his own interest, to show the world that he was not on the same level as all the other creatures.
Radak on Genesis 2:20:1 ‫ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו‬...‫ויקרא האדם‬, he saw all these creatures parading before him as males partnered by a
female, whereas there was no such partner available for him. We find a similar construction in Exodus 24,1
of the Torah writing ‫'ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה‬, or in Genesis 4,23 ‫ נשי למך‬or in Samuel I 12,11 ‫ואת יפתח ואת‬
‫שמואל‬. According to Tur, quoting Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, our author’s father, what gave rise to our author
supplying other examples of such a strange syntax is the fact that Adam is portrayed as if viewing himself
from the outside, as a third party.<br> The names Adam gave the animals were all in Hebrew, seeing that
this is the language he spoke. This is also the language in which G’d addressed him. G’d had called him ‫אדם‬
since he was a product of ‫אדמה‬. Similarly, Adam called his wife ‫חוה‬, to reflect the fact that she was the
mother of the human race, i.e. ‫אם כל חי‬. Chavah in turn called her son ‫קין‬, describing him as an acquisition
‫ קנין‬of an ‫איש‬, a man, paralleling G’d Who up until then had been the Only One who had acquired an ‫איש‬,
meaning her own husband Adam. (Genesis 4,1). Similarly, when Lemech named his son ‫נח‬, he mentioned
that the name symbolised the hope that his son would provide comfort for man, ‫זה ינחמנו‬, (Genesis 5,29). The
way these names reflect words in the Hebrew language closely related to such names, all prove that Hebrew
was the language spoken at that time. The fact that we do not know the meaning of all the other names
mentioned in the Torah for people of that era only proves our ignorance, knowing neither enough Hebrew nor
being endowed with the level of wisdom possessed by our forefathers. We will have to await the end of our
exile to once again qualify for the command of Hebrew at the disposal of our ancestors.
Radak on Genesis 2:21:1 ‫ויפל‬, the word ‫ תרדמה‬describes a sleep far deeper than ordinary sleep every night,‫ שינה‬, and ‫ שינה‬itself is a
deeper sleep than ‫תנומה‬. The reason why G’d made Adam fall into such a deep sleep was to ensure that he
would not feel the surgery being performed on his body. Although, if G’d had wanted to, He could have
performed painless surgery while Adam was awake and watching the proceedings, we must always
remember that G’d does not perform miracles unless they are absolutely necessary. When there is a solution
to a problem within the parameters of well known laws of nature, G’d makes use of them. Putting Adam into a
deep sleep known as ‫ תרדמה‬was not something miraculous, seeing that such deep sleep does occur quite
frequently in some people’s lives.<br> Our sages (Sanhedrin 39) state (surmise) that if G’d had removed this
part of Adam’s body (skeleton) from him while he had been aware of it, he might subsequently have detested
Chavah, remembering how she looked before she was fit to be presented to him. [The Talmud there
illustrates the manner in which Rabban Gamliel’s daughter explained to the Roman Emperor who had
claimed that G’d had stolen a rib from Adam, why it had been necessary to do this in a clandestine fashion.
She invited the Emperor to watch her prepare a piece of raw meat and to observe every step before this
piece of meat was fit to be served on the table. Having watched this, the Emperor lost his craving for the
meat in question. Rabban Gamliel’s daughter told the Emperor to imagine what Adam would have felt like if
he had had to watch how his mate was produced step by step. Ed.] Not having watched any part of the
process, but being presented with a beautiful female all of a sudden, Adam was bound to be overjoyed and
grateful to G’d not only for having taken care of his problem, but for the manner in which G’d had taken care
of it. He realised, of course, that men in the future would not have their wives “manufactured” in the same
way. We already explained on verse 18 why the other females of the species were not literally created
through removing part of the male’s body and building it up with externally secured tissue made from earth.
Having described Adam as in a state of ‫תרדמה‬, the kind of sleep induced by an anesthesia, why did the
Torah add the words ‫ויישן‬, “he slept?” The Torah wanted us to know that the deep sleep lasted only until the
operation had been performed and the wound had been closed up. After that Adam only slept the kind of
sleep which is a form of quiet relaxation. It is possible that the sleep referred to in our verse as ‫ויישן‬, was
actually Adam’s first experience of sleep since he had been created. We must not forget that all the details
we heard about man occurred in the second half of the sixth “day” of creation. This day was so full of
activities that it did not end until the children Kayin and Hevel had been born (Sanhedrin 38).
Radak on Genesis 2:21:2 ‫ויקח אחד מצלעותיו‬, concerning the precise meaning of these words we find a disagreement among the sages
(Bereshit Rabbah 17,6). Some scholars believed that when G’d created Adam he had two faces –seeing that
the Torah reports G’d as having created ‫אותם‬, “them,” not “him.” They understand man’s original appearance
to have been something like the Siamese twins, and the word ‫ צלע‬meaning the same as when used in
connection with the “sides” of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26,20) Other scholars understand the word ‫צלע‬
literally, as referring to one of Adam’s ribs. This is also the way Onkelos translates it. ‫תחתנה‬, as if the Torah
had written ‫תחתיה‬,”in its stead.”
Radak on Genesis 2:22:1 ‫ויבן ה' אלוקים את הצלע‬, the word ‫ צלע‬here has to be pronounced on the last syllable. The Torah says, in effect,
that G’d “integrated” this ‫ צלע‬to be an integral indistinguishable part of Chavah’s other limbs and organs. She
became basically a creature similar in all respects to Adam himself, except for her specifically female
features.
Radak on Genesis 2:22:2 ‫ויביאה אל האדם‬, after Adam had woken up G’d brought Chavah to him to be his mate. In other words, when
Adam awoke he saw her standing upright facing him.

Radak on Genesis 2:23:1 ‫זאת‬..‫ויאמר‬, for on the first occasion when G’d brought the domesticated animals, the free roaming beasts and
the birds to be inspected by Adam, he had not seen among them one that would qualify as his mate. The
reason was that none of them matched him in physical features even, not to speak of intellectual
compatibility. However, this time, finally, when G’d brought Chavah to him, he recognised immediately that
he had found a truly compatible mate. He did not only realise this by comparing her visible features, but he
became aware that part of his body, or at least one of his ribs, had been removed, which confirmed his
impression that Chavah must indeed be his other half.
Radak on Genesis 2:23:2 ‫לזאת יקרא אשה כי מאיש לוקחה זאת‬, note that he did not say ‫לזאת יקרא אדמה‬, “this one must be called ‫אדמה‬, (as
the feminine form of ‫)אדם‬. The reason he did not call here this was that she, as opposed to him, had not
been formed directly from earth, but from refined matter, i.e. his own rib. Even though subsequent human
beings who are born by woman and from sperm supplied by the male, are still referred to as ‫אדם‬, although
they do not originate in the ‫אדמה‬, the custom is justified just as is the fact that the Jewish people whose
ancestor was Yisrael, are called ‫בני ישראל‬, “Children of Yisrael” though their genetic connection to the original
Yisrael is extremely tenuous.
Radak on Genesis 2:23:3 The word ‫ איש‬is a general term for man, also sometimes used to refer to a specific human being. This is why
sometimes the word is used as describing people in general, such as ‫ואיש לא נעדר‬, and “no one was missing,”
(Isaiah 40,26) or ‫גדעון איש ישראל‬, “or ‫איש ואשתו‬, “male and his mate” (Genesis 7,2). Seeing that the man is the
predominant partner and the woman’s husband, seeing she is as if literally one of his organs, he is often
referred to as ‫אדון‬, “master.” In Judges 8,23 we read ‫'ויאמרו איש ישראל אל גדעון וגו‬. The meaning is not that a
particular Jewish man said something to Gideon, but that the Jewish people at that time suggested to Gideon
that be become their ruler on an ongoing basis, even his children having a claim to succeed him. The reason
why Adam did not refer to Chavah as ‫אישה‬, as the feminine form of ‫איש‬, was to avoid confusion with the word
‫ אישה‬when it means “her husband.”
Radak on Genesis 2:23:4 ‫לוקחה זאת‬, the letter ‫ ל‬is pronounced as a long syllable, whereas the vowel kametz is shortened into a chataf
kametz. When Adam referred to Chavah merely as ‫זאת‬, “this one,” as if she were merely some chattel, he
did so because he did not refer to her alone but to her entire species, i.e. the female of the human species. `

Radak on Genesis 2:24:1 ‫על כן יעזב איש‬, some commentators believe that these words were spoken by Moses, not by Adam. The
correct interpretation is that they were spoken by Adam, seeing that he was aware that he would father
children, for this was why he had been created, in order to populate earth and ensure that his species would
be perpetuated on earth, just as all the other species of living creatures. The plain meaning of our verse is
close to the words of Targum Onkelos: ‫על כן ישבוק גבר בית משכבי אבוהי ואמיה‬, “for this purpose a man will
leave the house of his father and mother, etc.” The point of all this is that the Torah did not give permission
for man to leave, move away from his parents, in order to devote himself to his wife instead, but in order to
fulfill the commandment to found his own family, have children. Man is supposed to live in a separate
dwelling, separate from that of his parents, in order to have and raise his children.
Radak on Genesis 2:24:2 ‫והיו לבשר אחד‬, this means that they are to be as if they were made of the same flesh. It is a reminder to man
that the wife of the first male was indeed made of the same flesh as his own. When the two joined in marital
intercourse, they did indeed become once more one flesh. In the future, when engaging in the act of
procreation, they would relive the experience Adam and Chavah had when their separate bodies joined for
the first time after Chavah had become a person in her own right. Our sages (Sanhedrin 58) explained this
verse as words uttered by Adam with holy spirit, i.e. prophetic vision. The words were meant as a warning to
the descendants of Noach not to engage in incestuous sexual relations with one another. The reason the
Torah mentioned this as a warning to mankind in general is because mankind in general is responsible for
the survival of the human race, having come so close to being wiped out altogether because of promiscuous
sexual practices. The line does not mean that this prohibition commenced only as something applicable at a
later stage in history, it applied to Adam himself and his direct offspring. All the seven “Noachide” laws
applied to Adam already, with the exception of the prohibition of consuming flesh or tissue from animals that
were still alive. This law did not have to be promulgated until after the deluge, seeing that consumption of any
kind of meat was forbidden until then.<br> The same folio (58) in the Talmud understands the word ‫ ודבק‬in
our verse literally, meaning a prohibition of engaging in homosexuality. Only embracing one’s wife in an
intimate sexual embrace is permitted, not embracing any other human being in such fashion. Even
embracing one’s fellow’s wife in such an intimate embrace, though something heterosexual, is prohibited, this
is why the Torah added the pronoun “his” when referring to “his wife, ‫באשתו‬.”

Radak on Genesis 2:25:1 ‫ויהיו ערומים‬, with a dagesh in the letter ‫ו‬
Radak on Genesis 2:25:2 ‫ולא יתבוששו‬, this verse tells us that until after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge they had not
experienced a feeling of shame due to the fact that their entire bodies were fully exposed. Seeing that they
had not yet engaged in sexual intercourse due to their not having experienced a desire for copulation, their
sexual organs did not appear to them as any different from all their other organs. They had no reason to be
ashamed of them.
Radak on Genesis 3:1:1 ‫והנחש היה ערום מכל חית ה שדה אשר עשה ה' אלוקים‬, It is in order to ask in what fashion the serpent conversed
with Chavah. If G’d had opened the serpent’s mouth by means of a miracle, as He did when Bileam’s ass
started speaking to him (Numbers 22,28), why did the Torah not report, as it did in that verse that “G’d
opened the mouth of the serpent?” If, on the other hand, if, as in the view of Rabbi Saadyah gaon, the
conversations reported in the Torah between both the ass and Bileam and the serpent and Chavah were
conducted by an angel on their behalf, why was the serpent punished and cursed for all times? Besides, how
is it possible that G’d assigned to an angel the task to seduce Chavah to sin against G’d? Furthermore, what
reason was there to introduce the serpent into the story at this point? Why did the Torah have to write: “and
the serpent was the wiliest of all the beasts of the field, etc.?” If the serpent was unable to speak, i.e. to
communicate with Chavah in his own right, how do we know that it was such a clever creature? If we are to
assume that the angel was dispatched to subject the woman to a test of her faith and obedience, how was
the serpent to blame for the outcome? Besides, it would have been so much more appropriate for the angel
to test Adam himself, seeing it was he who had been commanded by G’d not to eat from the tree of
knowledge? Chavah had heard of this only second hand from her husband!<br> The whole subject is
extremely confusing, when we look only at what has been revealed to us by the text. We need to resort to the
writings of the Kabbalists to make better sense of this whole episode.(Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13)[in
that chapter’s introduction, the point is made that jealousy and envy, some of the most destructive character
traits, exist also in the celestial regions, and that when the angels who had not been delighted at man’s
creation in the first place, saw how clever Adam was, and how he had named the animals immediately upon
looking at them, they became afraid that their dominant role in G’d’s entourage would be jeopardized now.
They therefore schemed to seduce man into sinning against His Creator in order to safeguard their role as
being closest to G’d. Thereupon, Samael, the most powerful angel, the one who had 12 wings whereas all
the others had only 6 wings, took his underlings with him to take a closer look at what went on in the
terrestrial regions. He found that in those regions the serpent was by far the most intelligent of the beasts,
and he could not find another beast as capable and willing to fall in with his wicked plans. We are informed
there that the serpent was huge, and looked like a camel and Samael was riding on it. The sages, with their
insight into then hidden aspects of the Torah, wanted to illustrate how G’d sometimes amuses Himself to
make playful use both of the “camel,” i.e. the serpent, and its rider, i.e. Samael.<br> Another comment
offered by the sages (Shabbat 146) is that after the serpent had engaged in sexual relations with Chavah, it
had left behind within her some of the spiritually poisonous residue, which had contaminated her personality.
This was so pervasive that until the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai they had not been able
to totally cleanse themselves of that poison. The other nations of the world never cleansed themselves of this
spiritually poisonous material. Students of such mystical aspects of the Torah will understand what I refer to,
but I have no intention to use my commentary to dwell on such matters, having been warned by my teachers
not to reveal what the Torah clearly had not seen fit to reveal to one and all. We will relate to such allusions
only in the same way as the sages have seen fit to do themselves. Hopefully, those who are attuned will
understand what the sages had in mind to convey to us. Some commentators, cited by Ibn Ezra, say that the
serpent did not speak at all, but managed to convey its meaning to Chavah by whistling, hissing to her.
Chavah was clever enough, according to that view, to understand what the serpent was trying to
communicate to her. It seems very far fetched to credit Chavah with understanding what the serpent tried to
hint to her in such a fashion. It is even more far fetched to credit the serpent with understanding what Chavah
answered her in Hebrew.<br> The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the serpent did indeed speak,
and it used to walk upright, just like man. Originally, G’d had equipped the serpent with superior knowledge
and intelligence, i.e. “more crafty than any of the beasts of the field, but not as crafty as man.” this was also
the opinion of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 20,5) This is what they write: At the time G’d punished the
serpent, He said to it: “here I had made you so that you are king of the all the beasts, something that you had
not been satisfied with. I enabled you to walk upright just like man. You were not satisfied with this either.
Now you will have to crawl on your belly and eat dust.” We must ask ourselves that if all this is so, why the
Torah had not mentioned that the serpent had enjoyed such distinctions, that the Torah’s report of G’d’s
creative activities makes no mention of this, as it did in Genesis 1,26 when man’s distinction over the other
creatures is introduced by G’d saying “we will make him in our image, etc?” Furthermore, when G’d cursed
the serpent, mention is meant of it having to crawl and having to eat dust. Why did the Torah not also
mention that G’d deprived it of its superior intellect? This would have been the most severe part of the
punishment and the Torah does not mention it at all? The most likely answer to all the points that we have
raised is that the serpent was enabled, -miraculously,- on that occasion, to speak in a voice and language
Chavah could understand, even though the Torah did not write specifically that “G’d opened its mouth,” as it
did in connection with Bileam. seeing that this represented something far more extraordinary [Bileam’s ass
speaking, which occurred in a world that was post Gan Eden, as opposed to an idyllic world where such
miracles were not out of the ordinary. Besides, Bileam’s ass had saved her master from death by opening
her mouth, whereas the serpent’s speaking had led to Chavah’s and her husband’s eventual death. Ed.]<br>
Still. The question remains why the serpent was punished if G’d Himself had put these words in its mouth?
We need to answer that the serpent had already planned its craftiness how to set a trap for man to discredit it
in the eyes of G’d so that it would replace man as the superior creature on earth. G’d was aware of all this,
and all He did was to follow the principle in Shabbat 104 of ‫בא לטמא פותחים לו‬, “when someone is bent on
defiling something, one facilitates this for him.” Furthermore, G’d had to make sure that Adam (mankind)
knew that the serpent had been punished with good cause. [this editor is astounded by the use of Kimchi of
the quote in Shabbat 104 as it is my understanding that whereas when planning to do good one enjoys
heavenly assists, when planning to do evil one is merely not interfered with. Besides, this saying applies to
human beings who have freedom of choice; whoever heard of this saying applying to animals? Ed.]<br> ‫היה‬
‫ערום‬, clever. Seeing that the word refers to intelligence, it is spelled with the vowel shuruk to distinguish it
from the adjective arum naked, which is spelled with the vowel cholam. [in our editions of the Torah both
words are spelled with the letter shuruk representing the vowel shuruk. Ed.] Seeing the word occurs in the
plural, the letter ‫ מ‬does not have a dagesh, compare ‫ מחשבות ערומים‬in Job 5,12 where it means :“the designs
of the crafty ones.” When the word is used to described nudity, the letter ‫ מ‬is written with a dagesh. Compare
Job 22,6 ‫ובגדי ערומים תפשיט‬, “You leave them stripped of their clothing.” When the Torah wrote here ‫היה ערום‬,
it meant that the serpent possessed extraordinary powers of imagination, totally superior to other animals in
this respect. Our sages generally describe the fox as crafty, able to scheme, something other animals are not
credited with doing. (Berachot 61) This is not the same as possessing didactic intelligence, something
reserved for man. When the Torah adds the words ‫מכל חית השדה‬, it excludes the domestic animals, ‫ בהמות‬as
not possessing even a modicum of such powers of imagination, The serpent at that time was superior to the
fox in its ability to scheme. ‫אשר עשה ה' אלוקים‬, even though all these creatures had been constructed out of
the same raw material, G’d had given added an advantage to different ones of these creatures. Some had
Radak on Genesis 3:2:1 ‫ותאמר‬, not so, said Chavah; G’d did not deny us the fruit of more than one single tree which is ‫בתוך הגן שאמר‬
‫ לנו לא תאכלו מממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמותון‬in the middle of the garden of which He has forbidden us to eat on pain
of death. Perhaps it is in the nature of that tree that its fruit causes death to anyone eating from it. The
meaning of the word ‫ פן‬in that verse is the same as ‫ אולי‬or ‫ שמא‬, “maybe.” G’d told Adam that he would
certainly die if he ate from it, as the Torah wrote literally in 2,17 “on the day you will eat from it you will
certainly die.” Seeing that she had not quoted the prohibition correctly as G’d had not said anything about
maybe dying as a result of eating from the tree, we must assume that Chavah had invented this word
meaning for it to apply to touching the tree, an addition which had been altogether her own. She meant to
say that G’d so loves us that He denied us to touch the tree as a safeguard against eating from it.<br> An
alternate way of explaining the words ‫ פן תמותון‬is similar to ‫ פן תשיב את בני שמה‬which Avraham warned Eliezer
about (Genesis 24,6) which meant “do not bring back!” or Genesis 30,24) ‫פן תדבר עם יעקב‬, “do not speak to
Yaakov, etc.,” G’d warning Lavan.

Radak on Genesis 3:4:1 ‫ויאמר‬, the serpent in its craftiness, said: ‫לא מות תמותון‬, not as you say that G’d loves you so much that He
forbade eating you to protect you from dying, but the reason is that not only will you not die from eating, but
He made you more afraid so that you will not acquire the additional advantage by eating from it,
Radak on Genesis 3:5:1 ‫ונפקחו עיניכם‬...‫ כי יודע‬He knows that your mental eyes will be opened to be like angel ‫יודע טוב ורע‬, who know
good and evil. The serpent had heard these words only from Chavah herself in her previous words. (verse 1)

Radak on Genesis 3:6:1 ‫ותרא האשה‬, she believed the words of the serpent and saw with her heart ‫כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה הוא לעינים‬,
as the Torah had already described this tree in its own words in 2,9 when we were told that all “the trees of
the garden were pleasant to look at and good to eat.” The tree of knowledge did not distinguish itself in
external appearance from the other trees of the garden. Therefore, Chavah argued, there is no reason to
believe that we will die if we eat from it. She agreed that the serpent had spoken the truth when it said that
the distinction of this tree must lie in the spiritual benefits its fruit bestow on us not in the taste of its fruit. The
serpent must be right when saying that we will become G’d-like (verse 5). ‫ותקח מפריו ותאכל‬, and afterwards
she gave to her husband who at that time had been in some other location inside the garden; she brought
him some of the fruit and told him what the serpent had said to her and why she had eaten from the fruit.
They then ate from the fruit jointly. This is the meaning of the additional word ‫עמה‬. In other words, Chavah
ate from the fruit twice, whereas Adam ate from it only once. It is important to understand this. Our sages
(Bereshit Rabbah 19,5) explained that the word ‫ גם‬which is supposed to add something means that she fed
the fruit also to the animals and the birds. We need to reflect on this statement by our sages.

Radak on Genesis 3:7:1 ‫ותפקחנה עיני שניהם‬, their mental eyes. This is why the Torah continues with ‫וידעו‬, “they knew,” and not with
‫ויראו‬, “they saw.” They “saw” the same objects they had seen previously. However, after having eaten from
the fruit of the tree of knowledge they experienced a biological urge to engage in sexual relations with one
another. Adam’s organ stiffened as a result of this feeling of desire. This became a source of shame for them
as it meant that one his organs was out of his control. The punishment in this instance fitted the crime. They
had removed themselves from the control of their Creator by ignoring His instructions. As a result, an organ
of theirs had removed itself from its owner’s control. Furthermore, engaging in sexual relations other than for
the purpose of reproduction is a shameful activity. This is why they felt shame now. They felt ashamed to be
seen in such a state by G’d and this is why they hid themselves.
Radak on Genesis 3:7:2 ‫עירומים‬, the word is spelled with the letter ‫ י‬here to make the syllable sound longer.
Radak on Genesis 3:7:3 ‫ויתפרו עלה תאנה‬, they sewed a fig leaf. They used this leaf as fig leaves are wider than those of other trees.
They sewed one to another until they had enough to make aprons out of them to cover their genitals. Some
of our sages (Berachot 40) say that the tree they ate from was a fig tree. They wanted to rehabilitate
themselves with the very material with which they had sinned. Other scholars maintain that the tree they ate
from was the wheat tree. They base themselves on the fact that infants do not display any signs of
intelligence until they have graduated to eating cereals. Still other scholars believe that the tree was the etrog
tree, as the Torah wrote ‫ותאכל מן העץ‬, “she ate from the tree.” Clearly, she ate fruit. The words from “the tree”
therefore allude to the fact that the trunk of the tree was as edible as its fruit, and only the etrog tree was
known to have edible wood. (2,17)<br> Rabbi Yehudah ben Simon, quoting Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, says
there can be no question that G’d has not revealed the type of tree it was in the past, nor will He do so in the
future. Consider what it says in Leviticus 20,16, ‫והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה‬, “you are to execute both the
woman and the beast” (who engaged in sexual relations with one another). Granted that the woman sinned,
but why does the beast have to die if the woman sinned? The Torah decrees this in order that people seeing
the beast should not be able to point at it, saying: “here is the beast that caused her mistress to be stoned to
death.” G’d would not want the tree which innocently became a passive partner in Chavah’s sin to be
stigmatized throughout human history, forever more. Hence the identity of the tree has never been revealed.
If G’d was concerned with the reputation of one of creation’s derivatives, how much more so would He be
concerned with the reputation of a tree which was a direct creation of His. [consider the fact that G’d,
personally, is credited with having planted all the trees in the garden 2,9] The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn
Ezra wrote (verse 6) that the two trees, i.e. the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, were situated in the
middle of the garden and were not ever found anywhere else on earth. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,6)
explain the matter as a parable, the fig tree serving as metaphor, just as in Judges 14,4.
Radak on Genesis 3:8:1 ‫וישמעו‬, some commentators explain what happened not as G’d’s voice “walking,” but as Adam and Chavah
walking and hearing the voice of G’d while going for a walk. If that were correct, the word “they heard” should
have been written after our being informed that they had been walking in the garden. Besides, the word
‫ מתהלך‬should have been in the plural mode. The correct interpretation of the verse is: while Adam and
Chavah went for a walk they heard the voice of G’d “going for a walk.” We have a precedent for this, i.e. the
“voice” of the serpent being described as “walking” in Jeremiah 46,22.
Radak on Genesis 3:8:2 ‫לרוח היום‬, towards evening, when the day becomes cooler and the breeze blows. He recognized at once that
the voice belonged to G’d, and that G’d had come to speak to them about their sin. As a result, they hid
among the trees of the garden out of shame over the fact that their genitals were exposed. Even though they
had made these ‫ חגורות‬for themselves by sewing together the fig leaves, these were not enough to hide the
areas of their bodies they felt ashamed of. They were perfectly aware, of course, that it is impossible to “hide”
from G’d, else their entire intelligence would not have amounted to much. The Torah merely describes that
they reacted in the time honoured human fashion when one is ashamed and wishes to hide the source of
one’s shame.<br> The reason why the Torah informs us that they heard G’d’s “voice” before they heard what
He had to say, is that the Torah wishes to teach us something about good manners. 1) G’d wanted to give
them an opportunity to hide; 2) one should not frighten people by addressing them suddenly without a person
having had a chance to compose himself first in order to receive a visitor and to meet such a visitor after
preparing for his visit. One should either knock on the door, or try and make voice contact by inquiring if the
person is at home, etc. (Massechet Derech Eretz ) The reason why the Torah had to mention the expression
‫ רוח היום‬is that the wind carried the sound of the voice to them.
Radak on Genesis 3:8:3 ‫עץ הגן‬, the word ‫ עץ‬here does not refer to a specific tree, but to the category of “trees,” as opposed to other,
smaller plants. They took refuge due to their feeling of shame.

Radak on Genesis 3:9:1 ‫איכה‬..‫ויקרא‬, He called out “where are you?” G’d used these words as an opener for the conversation, not
because He was unaware of their whereabouts. We find a repeat of this when G’d opened His conversation
with Kayin (Genesis 4,9) or with Moses (Exodus 4,2).
Radak on Genesis 3:10:1 ‫כי עירום אנכי‬..‫ויאמר‬, the word ‫ עירום‬is again spelled with the letter ‫ י‬serving to elongate the syllable
commencing with the letter ‫ע‬.
Radak on Genesis 3:11:1 ‫המן העץ‬...‫ויאמר‬, the letter ‫ ה‬in the word ‫ המן‬is like the letter ‫ ה‬in Kings I 29,19 ‫הרצחת וגם ירשת‬, “did you really
expect to get away with murder and inheriting (the murdered man)?” The question is merely rhetorical, it
does not require an answer.
Radak on Genesis 3:12:1 ‫האשה אשר נתת עמדי‬...‫ויאמר‬, he meant to say that “You G’d are the cause of my sin, seeing that You have
given me such a woman who seduced me to eat from the tree.”
Radak on Genesis 3:13:1 ‫הנחש השיאני‬...‫ותאמר‬, “if I did indeed seduce Adam it was only because the serpent seduced me first. You
have created my seducer.”
Radak on Genesis 3:14:1 ‫ויאמר כי עשית זאת‬, he did not have an answer to this, no excuse whatsoever. Adam and Chavah, though their
excuse was indeed feeble, at least had some sort of an excuse, whereas the serpent had no excuse
whatsoever. This is why G’d immediately proceeded to curse the serpent, without even waiting if the serpent
would try and come up with an excuse. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 10,11: ‫ואין‬
‫יתרון לבעל הלשון‬, “a slanderer (the serpent) has nothing going for him at all (having bitten without
provocation).” (compare Taanit 8) Our sages (Sanhedrin 29) say that the serpent did have an answer ready
but that G’d did not give it a chance to use it seeing it had initiated this seduction. (The Talmud, quoting one
of the possible excuses of the serpent, cites the well known phrase: “if the words of the student are at
variance with those of the teacher, whose words does one have to heed?” Whatever excuse the serpent
could have used, it had no answer to the accusation why it had engaged in seduction.)
Radak on Genesis 3:14:2 ‫ארור אתה‬, the serpent would be deprived of the legs with which it had been created. The meaning of the
words ‫ על גחונך תלך‬is that this will be the practical result of this curse. Whenever the Torah speaks of a curse
it involves the loss of something, being deprived of something. On the other hand, every time a blessing is
mentioned in the Torah it implies that the recipient will experience additional goodness, spiritually or
materially. G’d cursed the serpent first, seeing it had been the cause for Adam and Chavah being punished.
Our sages (Berachot 61) learn from here that one always begins with cursing the least important party
deserving to be cursed, for instance the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 20,4 point out that the period of gestation
of a large pure animal, such as a cow, one fit for consumption by Jews lasts 9 months, whereas their impure
counterparts require 12 months before they are born after the mother animal has been fertilized. Smaller
mammals require 5 months in the case of pure animals and dogs 50 days, cats 52 days, pigs 60 days,
marten 70 days, deer and fox 6 months, whereas all the other creeping animals require 6 months before their
embryos are ready for birth. Lions, elephants, cougars, etc., require 3 years, whereas the serpent requires 4
years to reproduce. Some animals require even 70 years according to that text.<br> Furthermore, in the
same section of Bereshit Rabbah we are told that the dog in line with other impure animals requires 50 days
whereas the larger impure mammals require 12 months. Basing ourselves on the wording‫ארור אתה מכל‬
‫ הבהמה ומכל חית השדה‬would mean therefore that the snake’s disadvantage vis a vis other impure animals will
be proportionate to that of other impure animals vis a vis the pure beasts. [the ratio supposedly is 7 to 1. If an
impure large mammal requires a gestation period of 12 months, then the snake being cursed requires a
period of 7 years, i.e. seven times 12 months. There are inconsistencies in that Midrash, as well as
inaccuracies which I cannot account for. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 3:14:3 ‫ ¸על גחונך‬as the Targum says, i,e. “on your belly.” This is also the way the Targum renders Leviticus 11,42
‫הולך על גחון‬. This is all very similar to the Talmud Baba Metzia 59. Basically, the curse consisted of the
serpent which had been the most superior of the animals, haughty because of its height and its ability to walk
upright, was now reduced to move in the way lowly worms move on earth. The fact that the serpent had
bragged about its superior status, caused it to be dealt with especially harshly, seeing it had exploited its
position by plotting to cause havoc.
Radak on Genesis 3:14:4 ‫ועפר תאכל כל ימי חייך‬, the punishment fitted the crime. “You, the serpent were jealous of the human beings
seeing they were allowed to eat the fruit of the trees in Gan Eden, and you schemed in order to seduce the
woman into eating something forbidden; as a result you yourself will feed on the lowest kind of nutrient and
the least tasty food on earth, i.e. dust.” If you were to argue that the very curse with which the serpent had
now been afflicted was, in fact, a blessing in disguise, seeing that its food supply could be found all over, and
it would never have to go hungry, Rabbi Chilfai in Bereshit Rabbah 20,5 has already explained that this is not
as simple as it appears. The supply of earth is quite limited, what appears on the surface of the earth as a
sort of powder is so only superficially, whereas lower down there are many ingredients which are quite
inedible even for snakes. In fact, due to its ignorance of this, the snakes may inadvertently eat things which
are harmful to their intestines.
Radak on Genesis 3:14:5 ‫כל ימיך‬, these apparently superfluous words teach that even in the Messianic era this curse will not be lifted.
This is what Isaiah 65,25 had in mind when he described that future and mentioned that the snake will eat
dust as its bread. As long as the species snakes, serpents, will not become extinct this will be its diet.

Radak on Genesis 3:15:1 ‫ואיבה אשית‬, you, the serpent, made the woman feel as if you had her best interests at heart, as if you loved
her; and as if your advice to her was motivated by love; I, G’d, will turn this love into hostility. ‫בין זרעך ובין‬
‫זרעה‬, between your offspring and between her offspring. The hostility between the serpent and the human
species will not be an unalterable condition of life, seeing that in the Messianic era this enmity will be
resolved and as we know from Isaiah 11,8 in those days an infant will suckle at its mother’s breast next to a
snake’s lair without worrying.<br> ‫הוא ישופך ראש‬, when he finds you he will smash your head whenever he is
able to, whereas ‫ואתה תשופנו עקב‬, when you slither along the ground on your belly and are unable to harm
him higher up, you will bite his heel. The words ‫ ישופך‬and ‫ תשופנו‬describe inflicting of injury and smashing
respectively, as we know from Job 9,17 ‫אשר בשערה ישופני‬, “for he crushes me for a hair.” [with minimal
provocation. Ed.] All of these verses are dealt with by the kabbalah, the interpretation of the text along
mystical lines.
Radak on Genesis 3:16:1 ‫הרבה‬...‫אל האשה‬, the word ‫ הרבה‬here is in the infinitive mode.
Radak on Genesis 3:16:2 ‫עצבונך והרונך‬, the word ‫ עצבון‬appears again in connection with man eating bread, (verse 17), both words
describe the pain and discomfort associated when woman as well as man try to achieve their major tasks,
woman to have children, man to produce food from the soil. Everything will be achieved only with toil and
wearing oneself out in the process. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explained that the pain referred to is the pain
involved in a virgin losing her hymen. The word ‫הרונך‬, on the other hand, refers to her subsequent experience
when pregnant and carrying a fetus in her womb.<br> My own father, of blessed memory, explained the word
‫ עצבונך‬as applying to the discomfort experienced during pregnancy, and the word ‫ הרונך‬as applying to the
long period the pregnancy lasts. [as opposed to the almost immediate birth after fertilization which occurred
in Gan Eden when Chavah bore Kayin and Hevel. Ed.] Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 20,6) understand both
words in a figurative manner, i.e. the frustrations experienced by the parents in raising their children in their
image. They interpret the word ‫ תלדי‬as referring to the physical pain involved in giving birth, and the word
‫ בנים‬as referring to the mental anguish involved in raising these children.
Radak on Genesis 3:16:3 ‫תשוקתך‬, the meaning of the word is equivalent to ‫תאותך‬, “your physical desire.
Radak on Genesis 3:16:4 ‫והוא ימשול בך‬, but he will rule over you, as a master over a slave telling him what to do. In Bereshit Rabbah
20,6 we are told that the numerical value of the word ‫הרבה‬, i.e. 210 is an allusion that a fetus carried by its
mother for 212 days before being born, is a viable baby.” [Each of the words ‫הרבה ארבה‬, apparently counts
as 1 also, in addition to the letters in the word ‫הרבה‬. Ed.] This is the kind of baby born after 7 months
pregnancy. Concerning babies born after 9 months of pregnancy, the Talmud Niddah 38 (also the same
Midrash) states that a woman gives birth (normally) after 271, 272, or 273 days of pregnancy. Concerning
impure large mammals the sages say that birth occurs 12 months after fertilization.<br> Chiyah bar Ada, who
attended the lecture of Rav and failed to comprehend what Rav explained to him. Upon trying again to
explain the matter to him, Chiyah bar Abbah still did not understand it Upon being asked by Rav why he had
such trouble understanding the matter, he said that his ass was in labour trying to give birth and he was
nervous, fearing that the ass would die due to complications. Rav told him that an ass being overdue or
giving birth a few days prematurely was nothing to worry about, seeing we do not know the precise day it is
anyways beyond our power to arrange for the birth to occur on that precise date.. If she gives birth
prematurely, she would not give birth in fewer days than corresponded to the respective lunar months. If she
gave birth late, she would still not exceed the number of days in a solar year. Thereupon Chiyah bar Ada
quoted the verse in Job 39,1 “do you know the precise season when the mountain goats give birth? Can you
mind the time when the hinds calve?” [he meant that how can I be unconcerned?. Ed.] Rav answered him by
quoting the very next verse in Job 39,2: “Do you know the season they give birth, when they couch to bring
forth their offspring? He replied: “The one verse refers to smaller mammals, [whose period of gestation is
shorter] the other verse refers to larger mammals, whose pregnancy is lengthier.

Radak on Genesis 3:17:1 ‫מן העץ‬..‫ולאדם אמר‬, the words ‫ מן העץ‬must be understood as “from the fruit of the tree.”
Radak on Genesis 3:17:2 ‫ארורה האדמה‬, the earth would be deprived pf part of its goodness. It would not respond to Adam’s efforts to
cultivate it in full measure, i.e. many of the seeds he would plant would fail to germinate and grow. Bereshit
Rabbah,20,8, quoted by Rashi, writes that instead of producing useful plants, the earth would henceforth
also produce weeds and harmful plants. Not only that, but that these plants would germinate certain
parasites.
Radak on Genesis 3:17:3 ‫בעצבון תאכלנה‬, you will have to work the soil until you will be able, finally, to eat its produce, whereas up until
now you did not have to toil in order to assure yourself of your food supply. All you had to do was to pluck the
fruit from the trees in Gan Eden. When the Torah had spoken of Adam’s task in Gan Eden being ‫לעבדה‬
(2,15) ,‫ ולשמרה‬the amount of physical work required to attend to that task was minimal. Now he would have
to work intensively, as illustrated by the metaphor “you will eat your bread in the sweat of your brow” (3,19).
Radak on Genesis 3:17:4 ‫תאכלנה‬, a reference to the harvest. We have similar constructions, where at first glance one might think that
the text refers to eating what is inedible. Adam was not meant to eat ‫אדמה‬, soil, anymore that the people who
sat at King Solomon’s table were meant to eat the table. (Kings I 2,7) ‫באוכלי שולחנך‬, refers to the people
mentioned in that verse, eating from the food served on the king’s table. We find more such examples, such
as Isaiah 36,16,‫ואכלו איש גפנו ואיש תאנתו‬, where the reference is not to people consuming their vineyard and
their fig tree, but the fruit of their vineyard and the fruit of their fig tree, although the prophet mentions only the
source of that fruit. We have elaborated on this in our volume on Hebrew grammar ‫ מכלל‬in the first section of
that book.
Radak on Genesis 3:17:5 ‫כל ימי חייך‬, as long as the human species will exist on earth.
Radak on Genesis 3:18:1 ‫וקוץ ודרדר‬, in lieu of the seed you plant beginning to sprout, the earth will produce thorns and thistles, which
are not only useless, but which harm the plants your seed will produce, so that you will have to engage in
eradicating them
Radak on Genesis 3:18:2 ‫ואכלת את עשב השדה‬, you will eat the grass of the field instead of the fruit of the garden.

Radak on Genesis 3:19:1 ‫בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם‬, if you prefer to eat bread to eating grass, herbs, you will have to toil in the sweat of your
brow in order to produce cereal grain which can be turned into bread. Even though the whole body will
perspire, not just the brow, the Torah mentions the face especially, seeing that this is where his perspiration
will be most visible. Furthermore, a face does not begin to perspire until one has exerted oneself
considerably. Man will have to be fatigued by a variety of strenuous activities before finally being able to
consume bread. He has to plough, to sow , to remove weeds, to cut the grain, to thresh the kernels in their
husks, to winnow, to grind the kernels into flour, to knead the dough and to bake it.
Radak on Genesis 3:19:2 ‫עד שובך אל האדמה‬, seeing that you have chosen to prefer your close connection to earth rather than that to
the celestial regions in which your soul originated, ‫כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב‬, when you die, no part of your
heavenly origin will remain behind on earth. The reason why the Torah emphasized the physical element
earth rather than any of then other elements which are part of the human body, is that earth, including the
bones which are cold and hard and man’s basic skeleton, and are the element predominates in the human
body.

Radak on Genesis 3:20:1 ‫ויקרא האדם‬, when Chavah had originally been placed before him, he had named her just as he had named all
the animals, the name ‫חוה‬, however, was her individual name, not the name of the female of the human
species. It is possible to explain that after Adam and his wife had eaten from the tree of knowledge, Adam
gave her this name, seeing that due to having eaten from that tree, their libido had been awakened, and they
knew that they would reproduce themselves. This is why Adam added: ‫אם כל חי‬, the meaning of the word ‫חי‬
here referring to the kind of living creatures who possessed the power of speech. Generic names for human
beings such as ‫ חי‬here, are also found in Psalms 145,21 ‫ויברך כל בשר‬, where David does not refer to the
animals blessing the name of G’d, but only to the human species doing this. The same applies to Isaiah
66,23 ‫יבא כל בשר‬, where the prophet predicts that all of humanity in those days will come once a month to
Jerusalem or even weekly, to pay their respects to the Lord in Jerusalem. [probably those living near
Jerusalem will come once a week, whereas those living farther away will come only once a month. Ed.] The
letter ‫ ו‬in the word ‫ חוה‬instead of the letter ‫ י‬was to distinguish her from the beasts of the field.

Radak on Genesis 3:21:1 ‫ויעש ה' אלוקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור‬, seeing that they had been naked, but had made themselves the aprons
made from fig leaves, to cover only their genitals, G’d now provided them with protective clothing for their
entire bodies, probably also having in mind different climatic conditions outside the garden. ‫ולבישם‬, “He
dressed them in those coats. There is no point in asking how G’d made these coats. Surely, by comparison
to the entire universe which G’d had created, making leather coats was a very insignificant accomplishment
by comparison.<br> When we find a sage saying in the Midrash (Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem
Kasher items 176,and 186 on our chapter) that these garments were made of skin, i.e. that man had
consisted of bones and flesh without an outer layer of skin. G’d now provided the skin as a protective cover.
(attributed to Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 20) [the Talmud Niddah 25, discussing when an aborted fetus
is to be treated as a human being in some respects, states hat the fetus is not covered with a skin until it is
fully formed inside the mother’s womb. Ed.] We do not understand how this solves any problem at all. They
would have been worse off than before, even their genitals having remained exposed, as these too are
covered by skin. Some scholars claim that the skin was skin of the serpent which G’d had removed from it
and clothed Adam and Chavah in it. Yet other scholars claim that G’d commanded one or two of the larger
mammals to remove their skin, and that Adam and Chavah then proceeded to dress themselves in those
skins.<br> There is no need for all these fancy explanations, i.e. speculations. G’d simply issued a directive
and the tunics came into existence, just as the material from which the first set of Tablets was made by G’d
had to come into existence by miraculous means. Our sages (Sotah 14) record the opinions of the great
scholars Rav and Shmuel, the former saying that the meaning of ‫ כתנות עור‬is “coats, tunics, made from
material removed from skins.” Shmuel said it refers to raw material from which the skin (man’s) derives
pleasure. To be specific, it refers to cotton. Our sages also say (Midrash hagadol on this verse) that these
garments belonged to the things that were created in the twilight zone of the 6th day of creation, immediately
before the onset of the Sabbath. Rabbi Simlai (Sotah) uses the opportunity to tell us that the Torah
commenced with acts of personal kindness by G’d for His creatures, and ends in the same vein. Here, in
Bereshit, we are told about G’d, personally, providing clothing for Adam and Chavah, whereas at the end of
the Torah we read of G’d, personally, burying Moses. (Deut. 34,6)
Radak on Genesis 3:22:1 ‫כאחד ממנו‬...‫ויאמר ה' אלוקים‬, G’d included Himself when speaking about the angels, just as He had done when
about to create man in 1,26, when He had said‫נעשה אדם בצלמנו‬, “Let Us make man in Our image.”
Radak on Genesis 3:22:2 ‫לדעת טוב ורע‬, we already explained that the term ‫ לדעת טוב ורע‬refers to perceptive powers equal to that of the
angels in our commentary on 2,17. In Bereshit Rabbah 21,5 Rabbi Pappus explained the words ‫ כאחד ממנו‬to
mean “like one of the ministering angels.” Rabbi Akiva violently disagreed with him, saying “you have
overstepped the boundaries of permissible interpretation, i.e. ‫דייך פפוס‬. What then is the meaning of these
words? G’d has placed two paths in front of man, one is the path of life. If he chooses the other path, he
automatically abandons the path of life.<br> Rabbi Berechyah, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, said that as long as
man was single he was similar to the “One,” i.e. immortal. The moment his one side had been removed he
became a split personality, i.e. that is the meaning of “knowing good and evil.” The opinion of the Onkelos
sides with that of Rabbi Akiva who interpreted the word ‫ כאחד‬as being similar to the One and only One,
having received his knowledge of good and evil directly from Him. In other words, his choice over good and
evil stemmed directly from G’d, not from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Radak on Genesis 3:22:3 ‫כאחד‬, the word achad spelled with the vowel patach does not necessarily have to be in a construct form. Ibn
Ezra does not agree that this is grammatically possible.
Radak on Genesis 3:22:4 ‫ועתה פן ישלח ידו‬,.originally, Adam had not been forbidden to eat from the tree of life, but, on the contrary, had
been commanded to eat from it, as we explained on 2,17. This tree was one of the trees of the garden from
all of which Adam had been instructed to eat. As long as he would eat from the fruit of that tree, he would
lengthen his original life span. However, as soon as he had violated G’d’s commandment by eating from the
tree of knowledge, his punishment was premature death, i.e. death before he had attained the life span
originally set for him. Therefore, G’d did not want him to remain inside Gan Eden so that he would not now
take from the fruit of the tree of life just as he had taken from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. If he were to
do that he would live far longer than G’d meant for him to live. It was the nature of that tree to reinforce man’s
natural powers and to extend his life span. Seeing that Adam had violated the commandment he would now
receive his punishment, i.e. shortening his life span. It was appropriate to expel him from the garden on that
account to prevent him from eating the fruit of that tree. The meaning of the words ‫ גם מעץ‬is a reference to
the other tree he had eaten from without permission. G’d reasoned that if He allowed man to remain in the
garden and commanded him not to eat from the tree of life, he would once again violate His commandment
just as he had done previously concerning the tree of knowledge. The meaning of the word ‫ לעולם‬is not to be
understood literally as “forever, but describes a long period of time. It is similar to the meaning of the word
‫ לעולם‬in Exodus 21,6 where it cannot possibly mean “forever,” seeing that the servant who is the subject in
that verse does not live forever.
Radak on Genesis 3:23:1 ‫ וישלחהו‬, the expression here means “expelled.” It is also used in this sense in Jeremiah 16,6 ‫שלח מעל פני‬,
“expel from my presence.
Radak on Genesis 3:23:2 ‫לעבד את האדמה‬, seeing Adam had not been content with light duties in Gan Eden, while he lived from the fruit
of the trees, something which was effortless, and he had preferred to violate G’d’s commandment, he would
now have to leave the garden and perform hard work, as already indicated in verse 17. ‫אשר לקח משם‬, to the
same place he had been taken from by G;d when He had brought him to Gan Eden. Alternately, the meaning
of these words could be in accordance with Onkelos, “the place from which he had been created;” a
reference to the earthly part of him, not the divine part of him.

Radak on Genesis 3:24:1 ‫ויגרש את האדם‬, this is not a repetition, but the Torah explained that simultaneously with Adam’s expulsion
from the garden G’d had placed the cherubs there as guardians ‫מקדם‬, in the East. It is possible that the
entrance of the garden was in the east, and that is why the cherubs were placed at the entrance. They were
beings who appeared to the onlooker just like cherubs, in order to put fear into Adam, to discourage him from
attempting to return to Gan Eden, this is why it continues with the words ‫לשמור את דרך עץ החיים ואת להט החרב‬
‫המתהפכת‬, the revolving sword blades held by the cherubs were meant to frighten Adam. Seeing that the
sword was not real, but only appeared so to Adam, the Torah speaks of the ‫להט החרב‬, “the blade of the
sword,” and not the sword itself. The word ‫ להט‬does not describe something of substance but something
imaginary, flashes of the spectacle being what is frightening to behold. When this “fire, flame” keeps
revolving around itself, as described here, this increases the fear inspired in the person watching such a
spectacle. In Ezekiel 32,10 we have a similar expression ‫עופפי חרבי‬, when G’d is described as frightening
people by “brandishing My sword.”<br> There is an additional element in this, i.e. the spectacle is meant to
inspire feelings of remorse over what he had done in Adam. Once Adam felt remorse, the way would be
paved to full repentance. Once he had done ‫ תשובה‬the frightening spectacle would disappear and he would
return to the garden from time to time, alternating between performing work there and working the soil
outside. (one opinion in Bereshit Rabbah 21,8) All these matters have also been discussed in their mystical
dimension in the writings of the Kabbalists. In Bereshit Rabbah 21,9 the word ‫ להט‬is understood as applying
to certain angels, as mentioned in Psalms 104,4 ‫ משרתיו אש לוהט‬,‫עושה מלאכיו רוחות‬, “He makes the winds His
messengers, fiery flames His servants.” <br> ‫המתהפכת‬, a reference to G’d’s servants revolving, be they
mane, women, or spiritual, disembodied beings such as winds, or even angels.

Radak on Genesis 4:1:1 ‫והאדם ידע את אשתו‬, seeing that their libido had developed, they engaged in marital relations, Chavah became
pregnant and gave birth after 7 or 9 months. The formulation of the words here does not prove that Chavah
gave birth immediately after becoming pregnant, as stated by the Midrash (Sanhedrin 38, and Bereshit
Rabbah 22,2) The words used here are the same as when Sarah’s pregnancy is reported (Genesis 21,2) and
no claim has been made that Sarah’s pregnancy was so short-lived.
Radak on Genesis 4:1:2 ‫ותלד את קין‬, she bore a son whom she called Kayin, to symbolise what she meant when she said ‫קניתי איש את‬
‫'ה‬. Even though the word ‫ קין‬is a composite of 2 different roots, such a construction is quite common.<br>
'‫קניתי איש את ה‬, the meaning of these words is: “I have now produced a human being in this world who was
not the result of a direct activity by His Creator, which makes me a partner to G’d the Creator.” G’d has given
this human being His divine soul also, just as He had given it to the creation of His own, Adam, into whom He
Himself literally blew this soul. The rest of this human being grew and developed within my body. The word
‫ קניתי‬as used by Chavah here is similar to G’d being described as‫ קונה שמים וארץ‬by Avraham in Genesis
14,22 where it meant that G’d owns heaven and earth because He made it, produced it. The reason why
Chavah attributed production of the child to herself was that she, rather than her husband, provided the
home for the fetus during the whole period of its development. She credited the attribute of Hashem without
mentioning the attribute elohim of G’d, seeing that she considered that with the birth of Kayin the universe
had become complete, human offspring having been missing up until now. This was the last time, in the
normal cause of events, that G’d’s creative talent elohim would need to be called for, as from now on all the
pieces were in place for the earth to function on the basis of natural law. This was already intimated at the
conclusion of the sixth day (2,3) when the Torah wrote ‫אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות‬, “which G’d had inititated, now
to continue to function normally.” We already explained this attribute in connection with the construction of
the world; G’d’s attribute ‫ אלוקים‬refers to ‫טבע‬, natural laws, as we explained on 2,4. From hereon the holy
name of G’d appears sometimes as His attribute ‫אלוקים‬, and sometimes as His attribute ‫הוה‬-‫י‬, and only very
rarely do we find a combination of both attributes. Every time such a variation occurs there is a good reason
for it. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote in this vein in his commentary on our verse here, pointing
out that Chavah reminded us that the attribute elohim is constantly present among the human species on
earth, no less so than it is in the celestial regions. His words are well worth remembering.
Radak on Genesis 4:2:1 ‫ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל‬, the construction of ‫ ותוסף ללדת‬instead of ‫ותהר עוד ותלד‬, “she again became
pregnant and gave birth,” supports the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 22,2 that the two brothers
Kayin and Hevel were born as twins. The birth was additional, not the pregnancy. Our sages added further
that not only were these two brothers born as twins, but that a twin sister was born at the same time to each
of them. This also is in line with a statement by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah in the same Midrash that on that
day three miracles occurred. 1) Adam and Chavah had been created on that day. 2) They had engaged in
marital intercourse on that same day. 3) They produced twin children on that same day.<br> Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Korchoh phrased it as follows: “2 human beings united on the bed and eight descended from
the bed.” He referred to Kayin and his twin sister and Hevel with two twin sisters. [in my count this makes
only 7. Actually, in my version of Bereshit Rabbah, it says that “seven” descended from that bed. Ed.] The
Torah fails to mention why Chavah called her second son Hevel. [In fact, the Torah does not say that it was
Chavah who named Hevel. Ed.]<br> There is nothing unusual in the Torah not providing the reason for the
name Hevel, as there are hundreds of names which have not been explained in the Torah. None of the
names of the people in the generations between Sheth and Noach have been explained. Perhaps, the
reason why Chavah called the second son Hevel is an allusion to Psalms 62,10 ‫כי הבל בני אדם כזב בני איש‬,
“men are mere breath; mortals illusion.” Perhaps Chavah expressed her realisation that even the good found
in this material world may prove short-lived, illusory, as her brief sojourn in Gan Eden had taught her. Seeing
that both her husband’s and her own life had become very difficult compared to what it had been like, she
showed that she had assimilated this truth as being something she had to bequeath to her offspring now that
she had children. It is immaterial in this connection if Hevel was named by her or by her husband.
Radak on Genesis 4:2:2 ‫ויהי הבל רועה צאן‬, as the brothers grew up, they divided their occupation in accordance with their respective
needs. The one who became the shepherd was interested in eating the dairy products obtainable from the
sheep and goats. He was also in need of the wool of the sheep to make clothing. They restricted themselves
to these vocations, seeing that G’d had not permitted the eating of meat but only grass, fruit of the trees, and
bread after backbreaking labour, as we have explained. The generations until the deluge adapted
themselves to this lifestyle. It was only in Genesis 9,3 that G’d permitted killing animals for the purpose of
eating their meat.
Radak on Genesis 4:3:1 ‫ויהי מקץ ימים‬, it was some time after Kayin had become a farmer tilling the soil, that he offered a gift to G’d.
The Torah is deliberately vague about how much time had elapsed, writing only ‫מקץ ימים‬, at the end of a
number of years. It is reasonable to assume that the word ‫ ימים‬refers to years rather than days, as it is clear
from Leviticus 25,29 that in that verse the word ‫ ימים‬represents the number of days that make up a year. It
would seem therefore, that after having worked the soil for a full year Kayin offered a gift to G’d, part of what
he had harvested. He did this in the spot in which his father Adam had offered prayer and had offered a
sacrifice of his own as an acknowledgement of his gratitude, his sons presumably having been in attendance.
Although the Torah does not spell out the composition of Adam’s sacrifice, the Talmud in Shabbat 28
suggests that it included a one-horned ox, basing itself on Psalms 69,32 ‫משור פר מקרן מפריס‬, “ox with horn
and hooves,” His sons imitated him, each one bringing a gift from what his labour had produced. The offering
was meant to be an expression of man’s gratitude to G’d for the success of his endeavours.<br> ‫מפרי‬, the
Torah is vague about precisely what the offering consisted of, other than saying that it was part of the fruit
produced by the earth. We know nothing about the quality or quantity of this offering. Seeing that when
describing Hevel’s offering the Torah adds the words: “from the firstborn of his sheep and from their best
ones,” it is reasonable to assume that Kayin’s gift, by comparison, was stingy, in fact represented an insult to
G’d rather than a grateful acknowledgment of G’d’s part in making the earth produce a crop for him. This is
why his offering was not welcome, was rejected. Had Kayin at least brought of the best quality of the produce
he had grown, the Torah would have mentioned this to his credit, just as it had done in the case of Hevel’s
offering. As a result of the philosophical contrast expressed by these two offerings, i.e. Kayin’s flax and
Hevel’s wool, mixing these two fibres in one garment has been outlawed by the Torah for the Jewish people.
The lesson for us is that the gifts proffered by a Kayin and the gifts proffered by a Torah-observant Jew are
not compatible with one another.
Radak on Genesis 4:4:1 ‫והבל הביא גם הוא‬, this could have been before Kayin brought his offering, or it could have been after Kayin
had brought his offering. In the event that Hevel had brought his offering first, we must understand the words
‫גם הוא‬, “also he,” as referring to the story as such, not to the specific incident.
Radak on Genesis 4:4:2 ‫מבכרות צאנו ומחלביהם‬, this brother brought a gift which was honourable, generous. Mention of the word
‫ מבכורות‬emphasises that the reason he brought from the “first,” is that before enjoying the fruits of his labour
himself, he wished to express his gratitude to G’d. Only after that would he use the milk and the wool for his
personal consumption. He also included in the gift the best quality, seeing that not all were of the same
uniform quality. The word ‫ חלב‬is used in that sense on the author’s book ‫ספר השרשים‬.<br> ‫ומחלבהן‬, there is a
letter ‫ י‬missing before the letter ‫ ה‬as would be customary in a plural mode. The Torah did not mention that
Hevel built an altar on which he presented his gift, as it did when describing Noach offering animal sacrifices
in Genesis 8,20. It seems to me that Hevel did not slaughter the sacrifice (sheep) but left it bound but alive,
expecting heavenly fire to descend on it and to consume it. The same had happened when his father had
presented the ox which we described earlier as Adam’s offering. There was no point in slaughtering these
animals since there was no one who was allowed to eat the meat thereof.<br> In Bereshit Rabbah 22,5 there
is an opinion that Hevel offered the animal without stripping it of its skin, and without cutting it up into pieces,
whereas in the future all animal sacrifices would have their skin stripped and their bodies cut up into pieces.
There are still more differences of opinion concerning the nature of these offerings, some scholars saying
even that they were meat-offerings, i.e. that the owners consumed some if not most of the sacrificial meat.
According to the view of the scholars who hold that Hevel brought a meat-offering, the word ‫ מחלבהן‬would
describe the fat parts burned up on the altar, similar to the fat pars burned up on the altar in any other meat-
offering the Israelites would offer in the future. The text permits us to draw conclusions in both directions,
seeing it appears to be deliberately inconclusive. It is possible that the words ‫היא העולה‬, best translated as
“this is the type of burnt-offering” in Leviticus 6,2 tips the scale in favour of those who believe that it must
have been a burnt-offering, also considering the fact that we have no record that they were allowed meat
when the part of a sacrificial offering.
Radak on Genesis 4:4:3 ‫וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו‬, the reason why G’d turned with goodwill towards Hevel’s offering was that He
observed that Hevel’s attitude throughout had been honourable, pure, not make believe, as if he only did
what he perceived to be his duty. The nature of his offering testified to his good intentions.

Radak on Genesis 4:5:1 ‫ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה‬, but to Kayin and to his offering G’d did not turn benevolently. His intention had not
been good and pure; G’d does not need to accept gifts proffered reluctantly, as He is not in need of them.
How did Kayin find out that G’d had not looked with favour on his offering? He found out that Hevel’s offering
had been accepted, fire descending on it from heaven and consuming it. Nothing of that kind happened to
Kayin’s offering. This caused Kayin dismay and anger and his face became downcast. The expression ‫נפלו‬
‫פניו‬, describes that someone feels insulted, depressed..
Radak on Genesis 4:6:1 ‫ויאמר ה‬, the reason that G’d addressed him was in order to discipline him and to bring him back to a lifestyle
that would endear him to G’d. He wanted to teach him how to repent, something of the utmost importance for
subsequent generations. He taught him that there is atonement for sinners if their repentance is 100%
sincere.
Radak on Genesis 4:7:1 ‫הלא אם תיטיב שאת‬, when your heart will be good and your deeds will be of benefit for you. The meaning of
such terms as ‫ סליחה‬,‫כפרה‬, is like ‫ נושא עון‬in Exodus 34,7. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains the
concept ‫ שאת‬mentioned in our verse as derived from ‫ נשיאה‬the lifting of something, the opposite of ‫ויפלו פניו‬,
Kayin’s face having “fallen.” G’d told Kayin that if he were to become good, mend his ways, then his face
would be “lifted,” he could hold his head high. G’d Himself would raise his face for him. In Bereshit Rabbah
22,6 the words ‫ אם תיטיב שאת‬are understood as a blessing, whereas the words ‫ ואם לא תיטיב‬are understood
as a curse, quoting Leviticus 20,19‫את עונם ישאו‬. Another approach, also taken from the Midrash: “if you will
improve your ways I will forgive all your previous sins, if not the very sin you were guilty of will weigh even
more heavily in the scale.” (seeing you have spurned My offer of forgiveness). Rabbi Berechyah, quoting
Rabbi Shimon bar Ami, explained Psalms 32,1 ‫ אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה‬to mean: “hail the man who towers
above (is higher than) sin,” as opposed to the sin which towers above man.”
Radak on Genesis 4:7:2 ‫ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רובץ‬, as if the Torah had written not in general terms ‫לפתח‬, “at the entrance,” but
‫לפתחך‬, “at your entrance.” The word ‫רובץ‬, crouches, lies in wait, is in the infinitive to underline that the
temptation to commit a sin is ever present for such people. Sin is a constant peril, an obstacle waiting to trip
you up. It awaits you both coming and going. The apparent contradiction between the masculine mode ‫רובץ‬,
and the feminine mode for sin, ‫ חטאת‬instead of ‫חטא‬, is a reminder of the evil urge, the ‫נחש‬, the serpent,
masculine, the force causing sin, being very powerful.
Radak on Genesis 4:7:3 ‫ואליך תשוקתו‬, its desire is centered on you; it is constantly engaged in trying to seduce you by making you
stumble.
Radak on Genesis 4:7:4 ‫תשוקתו‬, a word meaning desire, greed, lust. The word also occurs in this context (more or less) in Song of
Songs 7,11 ‫ועלי תשוקתו‬, “His longing is for me.”
Radak on Genesis 4:7:5 ‫ואתה תמשול בו‬, he will have control over you only if you do not actively remove him (it) from your presence. If
you want to, you can control it, govern it, resulting in your humbling it before you. By saying these words G’d
demonstrated to Kayin the immense power inherent in his possessing free choice. Moses repeated this
thought at the end of his life when in his parting speech he said to the Jewish people (Deut. 30,15) ‫ראה נתתי‬
‫לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב ואת המות ואת הרע‬. “See here, I have placed before you this day life, and the good,
or death and the evil.” Moses added the admonition: ”choose the life!”

Radak on Genesis 4:8:1 ‫ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו‬, apparently, Kayin had no remorse, did not try to respond to G’d’s promise and warning.
Proof is that he proceeded to do something far worse than what he had been guilty of thus far, by killing his
brother.
Radak on Genesis 4:8:2 ‫ויאמר קין‬, Kayin accused his brother of being the cause that G’d had rebuked him. As a result his anger had
intensified. He did not attack Hevel physically at that time as he was afraid of the reaction of his father. He
kept his fury under control until the two of them were alone together in the field. This is when he killed him out
of jealousy.
Radak on Genesis 4:8:3 The word ‫ אל‬in our verse is to be understood as equivalent to ‫על‬, upon. We have a similar use of the word ‫אל‬
in Ezekiel 18,6 ‫אל ההרים לא אכל‬, “he did not eat upon the mountains.” There are numerous examples in
Scriptures of such a use of the word ‫אל‬. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,7 the subject of the conversation between the
two brothers is described as follows: They were discussing how to carve up the earth between them. They
agreed that one of them would lay claim to the real estate, whereas the other would own all the movable
objects on earth. Thereupon one of them claimed that the ground the other stood on belonged to him,
whereas the second one claimed that the clothing his brother wore actually belonged to him. Kayin, who had
laid claim to the earth, told Hevel to fly off as he did not want him to set foot on his earth. Hevel countered by
telling Kayin to strip off his clothing. The resulting feud led to Kayin killing Hevel.<br> Rabbi Yehudah bar Ami
said that they quarreled about whether the original woman had died immediately after having eaten from the
tree of knowledge, and that G’d had given Adam a substitute for her, [so that they had both not been the
children of a sinful mother and therefore not inherited a tendency to sin, Ed.] or if they had been born of
Chavah, Adam’s original wife.<br> Yet another opinion (Rav Hunna) quoted in the Midrash describes the
subject of their quarrel as being the extra twin sister born with Hevel. Hevel claimed her as his wife, seeing
she had been born with him, whereas Kayin claimed her as his wife, seeing he was the eldest. We need to
understand why these scholars in the Midrash offer so many divergent views as to what Kayin and Hevel
quarreled about. Not only this, but in the commentaries dealing with the mystical dimension of the Torah, the
kabbalah, we find yet more opinions on this subject. Moreover, in the Jerusalem Targum the version of our
verse is equivalent to: ”Kayin said to his brother: ‘lets go outside and have a talk.” When they had gone
outside, Kayin said to his brother that there is no justice and no judge in the universe, that there is no
afterlife, neither is there a reward or punishment. If there were, why would G’d have rejected his offering and
accepted that of Hevel? Hevel disagreed, saying that there was a judge (G’d) that there was justice, and that
there was a judge, There was reward and punishment and there was an afterlife beyond the material physical
world they lived in. The world had been created as an act of love, not as Kayin had said that there was no
love. Proof was the very fact that his offering had been accepted, seeing that he had served his Creator
faithfully. Seeing that their argument had become not merely philosophical but personal, Kayin attacked his
brother Hevel and killed him.
Radak on Genesis 4:9:1 ‫ויאמר ה‬, the reason G’d spoke to him now was only in order to show him that he could not hide his deed from
G’d, and that whatever man does, or even plans to do is fully known to Him. Kayin had thought that by
burying Hevel he could hide his deed from G’d, just as he had been able to hide it from his father. This is why
he had killed Hevel in the field where there had not been any witnesses. The additional reason why G’d
addressed him was to inform him of his impending punishment. The reason that G’d phrased His remarks as
if He questioned him, saying: ‫אי הבל אחיך‬, was only an opening line, just as He had asked Adam in 3,9 ‫איכה‬,
“where are you?,” knowing full well where Adam was hiding. He also had asked Moses in Exodus 4,2 ‫מזה‬
‫בידך‬, “what is this in your hand?,” knowing full well that Moses held a staff in his hand. There are more such
examples of a question by G’d being for purposes other than to obtain information not at His disposal.
Seeing, however, that He had not said to Kayin: “why did you kill your brother?” Kayin thought that G’d was
not yet aware of Hevel being dead. He denied all knowledge, saying: ‫ השומר אחי אנכי‬,‫לא ידעתי‬, claiming that
Hevel had gone about his work just as he, Kayin, had gone about his work.. He added, gratuitously, that he
could not be expected to know the whereabouts of his brother all the time, seeing he had not been hired to
be his keeper. He acted far worse than his father at the time, as Adam had never denied that he had done
wrong. He had only made excuses for himself. Adam was well aware that G’d was well informed about all
such matters, and that even though He had commenced the conversation with a question, it was not because
He had not known the answer.
Radak on Genesis 4:10:1 ‫דמי אחיך‬...‫ויאמר‬, He said: “the blood of your brother whom you have slain cries out to Me from the very earth,
and the sound of its cry is what I have heard and what caused Me to confront you.” This was, of course, a
figure of speech. ‫מן האדמה‬, upon which you spilled his blood. The fact that the Torah uses the plural mode
when referring to blood, writing ‫ דמי‬instead of ‫דם‬, is not especially significant, as the word ‫ דם‬occurs
frequently in the singular mode and also in the plural mode. (Compare Leviticus 20,9 and Leviticus 20,11 to
mention just as few examples.) Actually, the justification for treating the word ‫ דם‬as both singular and plural is
the fact that on the one hand it is an entity, but at the same time it contains 4 different categories of moisture.
Onkelos explains that the reason why here in particular the use of the plural mode is appropriate is the fact
that by killing Hevel who had not yet been married and sired children, spilling his blood also meant spilling
the blood of the children he would now never have. He may not even have had marital relations with his wife
as yet, just as his brother Kayin had also not yet had marital relations with his wife until after he had
murdered Hevel (comparer 4,17).

Radak on Genesis 4:11:1 ‫ועתה ארור אתה מן האדמה‬, the curse will be spelled out in the verse following, where G’d explains that Kayin
will experience that the source of his curse is the very earth he had used to hide his crime. This earth would
not continue to provide its strength for Kayin.
Radak on Genesis 4:11:2 ‫אשר פצתה את פיה‬, a reference to soaking up Hevel’s blood, [not as in the case of Korach being actively
involved in swallowing Hevel. Ed.] We have a similar incident in Job 16,18 ‫ארץ אל תכסי דמי‬, “Earth, do not
cover my blood!” Also Ezekiel 24, 7-8 uses similar language, i.e. ‫כי דמה היה על צחיח סלע שמתהו לא שפכתהו על‬
‫הארץ לכסות עליו עפר‬, “For her blood remained within her, she placed it on a smooth rock. She did not pour it
upon the ground to cover it with dust.”
Radak on Genesis 4:12:1 ‫כי תעבד‬, G’d cursed the earth because Kayin’s occupation involved getting his sustenance from the earth. ‫לא‬
‫תסף תת כוחה לך‬, even though the earth had already been cursed ever since Adam had eaten from the tree of
knowledge, now G;d added another curse on account of Kayin. He said that even the amount of yield that the
earth had been in the habit of providing since being cursed previously, it would not be capable of producing
for Kayin the murderer. It is entirely possible that this new curse was restricted to the results Kayin’s efforts
would have, and does not mean that all other human beings, farmers, were made to suffer for Kayin’s act of
fratricide. Possibly, it applied only to Kayin and his direct descendants until the time of Noach. Maybe it even
applied also to the descendants of Sheth until Noach. It seems that with Noach’s birth, Lemech his father,
had knowledge that the curse had run its course. We read in Bereshit Rabbah 22,10 that in the view of Rabbi
Eleazar the word ‫ לך‬in our verse means that whereas the earth would not yield up its strength for Kayin, it
would do so for others. On the other hand, Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina is on record that the curse applied both
to Kayin and to others. It appears more likely that the word ‫ לך‬in our verse is indeed restrictive and means
that other people farming the earth would experience better success than Kayin. [Kayin’s failure as a farmer
would demonstrate to the others that he, and not they, had indeed been punished on an ongoing basis for his
having committed murder, hoping to benefit by it at the expense of his brother. Ed.] There is no question,
however, that the first curse earth experienced after Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge was a
permanent curse still in effect nowadays. The word ‫ בעבורך‬in 3,14 has a different connotation entirely from
the word ‫לך‬, meaning “on your account,” not “for you personally.”
Radak on Genesis 4:12:2 ‫נע ונד תהיה בארץ‬, this is yet another curse, one that most certainly applied only to Kayin personally, a curse
which resulted in his not being able to feel at home permanently in any one place on earth. This was
something psychological, forcing Kayin to adopt a nomadic lifestyle, trying his luck at growing things by
moving to a new location every time he experienced crop failure. G’d did not kill him outright, something that
every murderer deserves. The reason was that killing him now would be counterproductive as it would leave
the earth without males other than Adam, and Adam could not be expected to sire more children after he had
lost the two sons he had helped produce. We know, that even with Kayin surviving, the trauma of what
happened prevented Adam from maintaining marital relations with his wife for 130 years. (5,3)<br> Although
G’d had not killed Kayin, he was under sentence of exile in addition to the earth having been cursed as an
instrument of providing his livelihood. The words ‫ נע ונד‬are as if the word ‫ נע‬had been repeated, stressing the
seriousness of the curse. Our sages, in commenting on the line ‫כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם‬, “that anyone killing
Kayin, he (Kayin) will be avenged sevenfold,” explain that seeing that Kayin personally had not been
executed for his murder, people would reason that murder goes relatively unpunished. In order for people not
to draw such a conclusion from what had not happened to Kayin, the curse of murdering even someone
already as guilty as Kayin, had to be highlighted in such terms. (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) <br> Another reason
explaining why Kayin was not subjected to immediate execution is that Kayin, being the first murderer, had
not known that the penalty for murder is execution. Subsequent generations knowing the penalty for murder,
could not expect to be treated so leniently. It is even possible to consider Kayin’s killing Hevel as having been
an inadvertent killing, seeing that he did not know what injury would prove fatal. He had never seen a person
who had been killed, and when hitting Hevel he had not thought that he had injured him fatally. If that is so,
the penalty of exile, i.e. ‫נע ונד תהיה בארץ‬, “you will not be at home anywhere on earth,” is exactly the penalty
devised by the Torah for people who killed inadvertently In Torah Shleymah on our chapter item #96 the
word ‫ נע‬is understood to mean that Kayin will be forever on the move, whereas the word ‫ נד‬is understood to
mean that he will not be able to sit down and relax but that his body will remain in constant motion, much like
that of a drunken person. Once he had repented, one of these curses was removed from him, as we know
from Genesis 4,15 ‫וישב בארץ נוד‬. The Torah did not say, however, ‫בארץ נוע‬, because he was not able to settle
in one location for long.
Radak on Genesis 4:13:1
Radak on Genesis 4:14:1 ‫מעל פני האדמה‬...‫הן גרשת אותי‬, a reference to the soil of Eden, near the garden, where his father and mother
had taken up residence. This is what the Torah had meant with the words ‫לעבוד את האדמה אשר לקח משם‬, “to
work the soil from which he had originally been taken.” (3,23)
Radak on Genesis 4:14:2 ‫ומפנך אסתר‬, “and I have to hide from You, seeing that You are angry at me and have hidden Your face from
me. I am in a position where everybody will be entitled to kill me, seeing You have withdrawn Your protection
from me. Even the wild beasts will be entitled to kill me as I am forced to roam around a fugitive on earth.” In
Bereshit Rabbah 22,11 Kayin’s complaint is “yesterday You expelled my father, and now You expel me. Am I
supposed to hide from You, how could I?”

Radak on Genesis 4:15:1 ‫ויאמר לו ה' לכן כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם‬, I have decreed that anyone killing Kayin will be punished twice
sevenfold for that deed, irrespective of whether the killer is man or beast. The number “seven” mentioned
here is not to be understood literally, but is a figure of speech for multiples of one. The number is used in a
similar sense in Leviticus 26,21 where it also does not mean that G’d will punish the Jewish people sevenfold
for each of their sins, but He warns them that their punishment will be very severe. In Proverbs 24,16 ‫שבע‬
‫יפול הצדיק וקם‬, the meaning is also not that the righteous will fall down seven times and rise again, but that
even if a righteous person falls on bad times repeatedly, being righteous, he will recover. These many ways
in which a killer of Kayin would be avenged could be that his killer will be afflicted with numerous sicknesses,
diseases, not with just one. They would afflict him successively, until he will succumb to the last such
disease.<br> According to Torah Shleymah on our chapter item #114 G’d told Kayin that in consideration of
the fact that he now displayed fear of and reverence for G’d, he would have his lifespan extended for seven
generations. Onkelos explains the expression ‫ שבעתים‬as receiving punishment spread over seven
generations. Just as Kayin’s eventual death was suspended for 7 generations, so he who killed him would
experience a similar fate. Eventually, Lemech killed Kayin. He was the sixth generation after Kayin, but the
seventh counting from Adam.
Radak on Genesis 4:15:2 ‫וישם ה' לקין אות‬, He gave him a sign in his heart, i.e. He fortified his self-confidence which had been shattered.
G’d made the various beasts and men who would be born after him be in awe of him so that they would not
attack him. We will come back to allegorical material pertaining to this verse when we explain verse 23.
Radak on Genesis 4:16:1 ‫ויצא קין מלפני ה‬, He went forth away from the presence of the Lord, from one place to another, away from the
proximity of Gan Eden, the area where G’d’s presence was most in evidence, until ‫וישב בארץ נוד‬, a play on
words, i.e. he moved from place to place, ‫נד‬. Eventually, he settled down in an area east of the Garden of
Eden, a good distance away from where his father and mother lived. Even there he remained restless due to
the curse he had been smitten with. The Torah merely informs us that if and when he did settle down for
short spaces of time, it was in that vicinity, east of Eden. His wife and children lived there permanently,
whereas he was always on the go, doomed to roam on the surface of the globe. Of course, at intervals he
would return to his wife and children, even building towns for them.
Radak on Genesis 4:17:1 ‫ויהי בונה עיר‬...‫וידע קין‬, at the time when a son was born for him he was engaged in building a town to serve as
residence for himself and his children in subsequent generations. All of this was east of Eden. This is why he
named the town the same as he named his son, i.e. Chanoch.
Radak on Genesis 4:18:1 ‫ויולד‬, he called the first one ‫ מחויאל‬with the letters ‫ ו‬and ‫י‬, whereas the second one he called ‫ מחייאל‬with two
letters ‫י‬. The first one has dagesh in the letter ‫ ו‬and is read with the vowel kametz, whereas the second letter
‫ י‬in ‫ מחייאל‬is not heard. We have a similar example in Jeremiah 37,13. All the names mentioned here are a
reminder of certain events in the lives of the fathers naming the sons. This was a very common method of
people remembering important occurrences in their lives in former times. Sometimes, the Torah recorded the
event in question, other times it did not. In Bereshit Rabbah 23,2 an attempt is made by Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Levi to see in these names proof of the father’s rebellious attitude. [Basically, according to this line of
approach, the names reflected the fact that Chanoch, or the respective father naming his son, wished for the
name of G’d to be uprooted from the earth. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 4:19:1 ‫ויקח לו למך‬, it appears that the generations prior to Lemech and even subsequent to him did not marry more
than one wife. Lemech, who was the first one to marry two wives, was also the first one of whom
disagreements between him and his wives have been recorded. The two wives were jealous one of the other
so that Lemech had to scare them that he would kill them if they would disturb his domestic peace.
Radak on Genesis 4:20:1 ‫אבי ישב אהל ומקנה‬..‫ותלד‬. The word ‫אבי‬, is the same as “the first of,” The meaning of ‫ יושב אהל ומקנה‬is that he
dwelled in a tent to supervise what was happening to his herds and to tend them. Apparently, the need for a
tent, i.e. temporary shelter, was due to his leading his herds to pastures far away from his home. People prior
to him were content to graze their flocks within walking distance of their homes. The letter ‫ ו‬at the beginning
of the word ‫ ומקנה‬is to save having to write the word ‫רועה‬. We find similar constructions in Proverbs 20,1 ‫לץ‬
‫היין‬, where it refers to someone drinking wine, the author saving himself the word ‫ שותה‬by writing the letter ‫ה‬
in front of the word ‫יין‬. It is also possible that the meaning of the letter ‫ ו‬in front of the word ‫ מקנה‬means “with.”
A similar construction occurs in Exodus 1,5 in the line ‫ויוסף היה במצרים‬, where it means that when one
combines Joseph (and his family) who were already in Egypt with the number of Israelites descending to
Egypt now the total comes to 70.
Radak on Genesis 4:21:1 ‫אבי כל תפש כנור ועוגב‬...‫ושם אחיו‬, he was the first man to invent music and musical instruments. The reason why
the Torah uses the term ‫תפש‬, “holding in one’s hand,” is probably because the instruments such as guitars
and violins have elongated parts which are held by hand.
Radak on Genesis 4:22:1 ‫וצלה גם היא‬, the word ‫ גם‬relates to the sons of Adah, both of whom had acquired special skills. Tzilah,
contrary to her function, to be decorative, also acquired another skill, giving birth to a son or sons. The son
mentioned here is mentioned by name because he too excelled in a new skill, becoming a coppersmith. The
reason why he was given a dual name, Tuval Kayin, might be that when born he was simply called Tuval.
When Kayin died, this name was added to his original name to provide a memorial of sorts to his ancestor
Kayin.
Radak on Genesis 4:22:2 ‫לוטש כל חרש נחשת וברזל‬, sharpener of copper and ironcraft; this description by the Torah, as opposed to the
previous introduction of artisans as ‫אבי‬, “father of, i.e. inventor of or discoverer of, maybe that his
predecessors had already worked with these metals and had fashioned tools and vessels out of them. Tuval
Kayin’s contribution may have been that he learned how to sharpen these tools so that they did not have to
be replaced by new ones all the time. The word ‫ לטישה‬in this sense occurs in Samuel I 13,20. During the
period described in Samuel, the Israelites had to travel to the land of the Philistines to have their agricultural
tools sharpened, as they were not allowed to have weapons made of metal. The word ‫ חרש אבן‬is found in
Exodus 31,6 where it describes the parallel art of working with stone. (compare Samuel I 15,15 and Joshua
8,7 where the word ‫ תפש‬appears in a related manner)
Radak on Genesis 4:22:3 ‫ואחות תובל קין נעמה‬. The reason the Torah mentions this is to inform us that Tuval Kayin did not have a
brother, as opposed to his half-brother ‫יבל‬, but that the sibling he did have, i.e. a sister, was called ‫נעמה‬
According to Bereshit Rabbah 23,3 this Naamah became the wife of Noach, being the only surviving
individual of the offspring of Kayin. She was called ‫ נעמה‬in recognition of her good character. Other scholars
in the same Midrash do not agree that the Naamah who became Noach’s wife was the one mentioned here.
They attribute the name Naamah here to this woman’s ability to play music on these instruments.
Radak on Genesis 4:23:1 ‫ויאמר למך לנשיו‬, our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 state that when Lemech wanted to sleep with his wives
they refused him. They used several arguments, one being that they were afraid of the deluge and they did
not want to give birth to children already doomed. Lemech countered that if Kayin whose deed of foul murder
had resulted in suspension of his death sentence for 7 generations, then he, Lemech, who had killed
inadvertently, accidentally, would not be punished for far longer than that, and his wives had no reason to
worry. Even if a deluge would come tomorrow, he was free from the taint of sin and would not become its
victim. He went further, saying that even assuming he had deliberately killed a man or a child, G’d would
forgive him, seeing he had many merits which would offset one such sin. Kayin had not had such merits even
before he killed his brother but had sinned so that G’d had rejected his offering, and still his sentence had not
been carried out for seven generations. This is how he arrived at the expression ‫ שבעה ושבעים‬as opposed to
‫ שבעתים‬the period during which G’d had suspended the carrying out of the sentence of death on Kayin. He
appealed to G’d’s patience to extend this patience to him. It is also possible that Lemech’s logic was totally
foolish, as hinted at by Rashi, as the wives of Lemech did not worry about retribution for Lemech’s sin but the
long overdue retribution for Kayin’s sin, something that would include all of Kayin’s offspring. We have to
assume that Lemech’s speech to his wives took place before his wife Adah had given birth to Yaval.<br>
Some of our sages (Tanchuma 11), claim that Lemech was blind and that when whenever he went out
hunting a child (Tuval Kayin) would serve as his guide. When the child spotted the animal he would tell
Lemech to draw his bow and aim his arrow in a certain direction. In this fashion Kayin, while being mistaken
for an animal, was killed. Other sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) claim that the “sign” provided by G’d for
Kayin to warn people and beasts not to kill him, was a horn which grew out of his forehead. Kayin, being
constantly on the move in the field due to G’d’s curse, was mistaken by the boy accompanying Lemech for a
wild beast seeing that it had a horn on its forehead. Once the boy and Lemech came close to inspect the
“beast” they thought they had killed, the boy told Lemech that they had killed a human being. Lemech then
suddenly realised that he had killed his ancestor Kayin and this gave rise to his words ‫איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד‬
‫לחבורתי‬, he told his wives not to worry because whereas Kayin had murdered intentionally, he had reason to
believe that G’d would delay punishing him for longer even than He had delayed Kayin’s punishment.<br>
Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked Rabbi Yochanan why our verse mentioned both ‫ איש‬and ‫ילד‬, would not either
have been enough? Rabbi Yochanan replied that the word ‫ איש‬refers to the slain’s physical size, i.e. he was
an adult, whereas the word ‫ ילד‬refers to the age of the slain person. [in which case the slain person was not
Kayin at all, seeing that if he was still alive during Lemech’s time he must have been at least 500 years plus
at the time he was killed by Lemech who was already married. Ed.] It is also possible to understand the
passage as hinting at the jealousies between Lemech’s two wives, especially, since it appears that no one
prior to Lemech had taken two wives. This is also why in Talmudic parlance such wives are known as ‫צרות‬.
This expression occurs first in connection with Chanah and Peninah the two wives of Elkanah (Samuel I 1,6).
Lemech threatened to kill both his wives if they would continue to feud with one another. He made it plain
that he had no reason to be afraid of the punishment for killing them, since G’d would be even more lenient
with him than He had been with Kayin who had not had any good reason to kill his brother. Seeing that the
number ‫ שבעה‬had already been used in connection with Kayin and his punishment, Lemech used an
amended version of the number seven in describing how long it would take for him to be punished. <br>
According to our commentary earlier on verse 15, Lemech intended here to make plain to his wives that
whoever would kill him if he were forced to kill his wives, would experience far greater retribution than the
one who killed Kayin, concerning whose killing G’d had warned the killer of especially severe (not sevenfold)
retribution. The justification for such drastic retribution was that G’d Himself had assured Kayin of protection
against being killed arbitrarily, hence the crime would be both against G’d and against Kayin. In practice this
meant that the penalty could be paid only by the offspring of the killer. In addition to the killer himself. G’d’s
retribution would include those who are close to the killer, for instance. His reasoning was that whereas he
would have killed with provocation, Kayin had killed without provocation, ergo anyone killing him would be far
more guilty than Kayin had been at the time. Seeing that G’d had not bothered to warn anyone who would kill
Lemech of such draconian punishment, he had to go on record himself. The reference to ‫פצע‬, which seems
unrelated to killing, is to a wound which results in the victim bleeding, whereas ‫ חבורה‬is an injury that does
not result in blood flowing from the victim. He associated the word ‫ חבורה‬with children, as these, being frail,
are more likely to die from injuries that did not result in loss of blood. The word ‫ הרגתי‬is to be understood as
the same as ‫אהרג‬, i.e. a future mode, seeing he is warning of what may yet occur. Alternatively, the
references to injuries refer to he himself being injured, and he is warning those who might injure him that he
would retaliate by killing them. According to the first explanation the letters ‫ י‬at the end of the word ‫ לפצעי‬and
‫ לחבורתי‬would refer to the people causing such injuries, whereas according to the second explanation these
letters would refer to the ones sustaining such injuries. We have numerous examples of such constructions,
for instance Psalms 2,6 ‫ואני נסכתי מלכי‬, “but I have installed my king, etc.” or Psalms 74,12 ‫ואלוקים מלכי מקדם‬,
“O G’d my King from old;” in the former the letter ‫ י‬refers to the passive subject, in the letter to the active
party.
Radak on Genesis 4:23:2 ‫נשי למך‬, constructions in which one refers to people close to oneself in the third person, as Lemech did to his
wives in this verse, also occur in Exodus 24,1 as well as in Genesis 2,20 and in Samuel I 12.11.

Radak on Genesis 4:24:1 ‫כי שבעתים‬, this has already been explained in the previous verse. The purpose of the Torah recording all this
for all posterity is to demonstrate that in former times, even during the era of idolatry which began with
Enosh, people were convinced that G’d supervises the personal fates of His creatures here on earth, meting
out punishment to the wicked and reward to the deserving.
Radak on Genesis 4:25:1 ‫וידע אדם עוד את אשתו‬, this occurred 130 years later than the last time, as is evident from 5,3. During the
intervening years Adam had not sired any children because Chavah had been the cause of his being
punished. He had kept his distance from her during all these years.
Radak on Genesis 4:25:2 ‫כי שת לי אלוקים זרע אחר‬, seeing that this time she had given the credit to G’d, saying ‫שת לי אלקים‬, “G’d gave
me,” she named the son ‫שת‬.
Radak on Genesis 4:25:3 ‫כי הרגו קין‬, seeing that Kayin had killed Hevel she had not had any other seed from him. She perceived the
birth of Sheth as G’d’s gift to her, compensating her for the loss of Hevel, who had not even left behind any
offspring. This is why the Torah immediately continues telling us that Sheth, as opposed to Hevel, had
offspring born to him whom he called Enosh. The meaning of the word ‫גם‬, “also,” here is that “just as Chavah
bore a son, so her son also sired a son, not only that but such offspring endured.” The Torah, significantly,
does not tell us about Kayin’s offspring other than what we know about Lemech. The reason is that all of
Kayin’s offspring was wiped out during the deluge. Noach was descended through Sheth.

Radak on Genesis 4:26:1 ‫ולשת גם הוא‬, just as Adam had sired a good son, one in his image, so Sheth sired a good son, one in his
image.
Radak on Genesis 4:26:2 ‫אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה‬, some commentators understand the word ‫ הוחל‬in the sense of ‫חלול‬, desecrating,
profaning. Others, including Rashi understand it in the sense of ‫התחלה‬, beginning. In Onkelos we find two
versions. According to one version, people became lax in worshipping G’d in the days of Enosh; according to
the other version of Onkelos, in Enosh’s days people began to proclaim the name of G’d, [i.e. what had been
something natural up until then had to be reintroduced as it had become practically extinct. Ed.] If the second
interpretation is correct, the decline of religious observance was arrested for the first time in the days of
Enosh when people found it necessary to pray to G’d when they found themselves in trouble. Up until that
time they had not even thought that prayer could be helpful in affecting their fate on earth. They considered
G’d’s decree as irreversible under any circumstances. According to what we have seen in the writings of our
sages, (Shabbat 118) and according to the understanding of most people, that idolatry was widespread in the
days of Enosh, the meaning of the verse before must be that that in Enosh’s time many people began to look
upon the celestial phenomena as deities and address them and worship them as gods. They did so because
they considered these phenomena as intermediaries between them and the invisible G’d. Seeing that these
phenomena had been appointed by G’d to run the terrestrial part of the universe on His behalf, they
considered these forces as capable of bestowing favours on those worshipping them. Gradually, such initial
errors spread until most forms of idolatry nowadays are totally devoid of any rationale. In people’s minds
natural forces are perceived as competing with each other and possessing overlapping domains, so that
unless one worships at least several of them one would arouse the jealousy of the one ignored. The matter
has become so grotesque that man made statues that neither see, hear, etc., are credited with being able to
influence the lives of intelligent human beings.<br> According to the Targum Yerushalmi [not found in the
regular editions. Ed.] only Sheth had a son born to him whom he called Enosh, and in his time people began
to worship other forces as deities, i.e. applying G’d’s name to them. When the Targum wrote ‫לחוד‬, “only,” the
meaning is that Enosh was the only one of Sheth’s sons who survived, and all of mankind is descended from
Enosh, neither offspring of Kayin or Hevel surviving. It is difficult to understand how an expression such as ‫גם‬
‫הוא‬, which suggests something additional, can be interpreted by the Targum as the opposite, i.e. as a
restrictive clause.
Radak on Genesis 5:1:1 ‫זה ספר‬, the word ‫ ספר‬here does not mean “book,” but is derived from the verb ‫ספור‬, “to count.” The Torah
introduces an account of events, providing numbers in order to make these events more intelligible. The
objective is to provide us with the knowledge of how many years elapsed from the creation of Adam to the
deluge. Kayin and Hevel are not mentioned again. Hevel is not mentioned seeing he left no offspring,
whereas Kayin is not mentioned because none of his offspring survived the deluge. Mankind is therefore
traced back only to Sheth.<br> ‫ביום ברא אלוקים אדם בדמות אלוקים עשה אותו‬, the Torah reminds us that on the
day G’d created man He made him possessing divine qualities like the angels, i.e. He implanted in man a
soul of celestial proportions. If man degraded himself by not observing his Creator’s commandments, the
blame cannot be laid at the doorstep of his Creator. The emphasis on man being created male and female
(verse 2) is to allude to the fact that the female had seduced Adam not to obey his Creator.
Radak on Genesis 5:2:1 ‫ויברך אותם‬...‫זכר ונקבה‬, the blessing, mentioned already in 1,28 consisted of his ability to reproduce, fill the
earth and conquer it. If man was equipped to conquer others, he must certainly be able to conquer the evil
urge within himself.
Radak on Genesis 5:2:2 ‫ויקרא את שמם ארם ביום הבראם‬, a reference to 1,26 when G’d had announced His intention to create Adam,
saying ‫נעשה אדם בצלמנו‬, G’d’s purpose in creating him was that he be an ‫אדם‬, and not another species of
‫ בהמה‬or ‫חיה‬. Woman too, is included in the description and definition of the word ‫אדם‬. Proof that woman was
included in that term ‫ אדם‬is the plural mode of G’d’s original announcement, uttered before Chavah had been
separated from Adam’s body (1,26) ‫'וירדו בדגת הים וגו‬, “they shall rule over the fish of the sea, etc.” This name
‫ אדם‬distinguishes the human species from all other mammals, for, although his body too has been formed
from the earth, he possesses a divine soul which originated in heaven. If he allows himself to be drawn by
the spiritually negative gravitational pull exerted by the material part his body consists of, he is considered as
if no better than ‫אדמה‬, as if the spiritual soul inside of him had been neutralised. This is exactly what the
descendants of Kayin had become guilty of, and this is why the Torah does not bother to enumerate them in
this chapter.
Radak on Genesis 5:3:1 ‫ויחי ארם‬, after Adam had lived on earth for 130 years, he begat a son in his image and in his form, as we
have explained already. (1,26 where this term has been explained) This was possible now, since Adam, after
having completed his penitence had become a thoroughly good person. It is possible to understand the word
‫ כדמותו‬as referring to Adam’s body reflecting the quality of his soul, whereas the meaning of the word ‫בצלמו‬
refers to his intellectual qualities. After he had done ‫תשובה‬, Adam’s intellectual qualities also had fully
recovered from the negative fallout they had experienced as a result of his sin. It is also possible that he did
not recover these faculties to the full until the last tenth of his life on earth, seeing that the prophet Isaiah
65,20 describes people in the times of the Messiah as remaining adolescent until they attain the age of 100.
Adam’s offspring also might have been in an adolescent state until they came of age at about 100 years old,
and that is why they did not marry until then. Once they had matured both physically and mentally, they could
be expected to reproduce so that their children could be described as being ‫בצלמיהם בדמותיהם‬, reflecting the
good qualities of their respective parents.<br> Our sages (Eyruvin 18) say that during all these 130 years that
Adam had lived the life of a bachelor he was generating all kinds of spirits, demons, and the like, (whenever
he had a nocturnal seminal emission, these emissions did not go to waste). The sages derive this from the
emphasis in our verse that finally Adam “begat in his image in his form,” i.e. up until then he had involuntarily
begotten inferior beings. [the Talmud implies criticism of Adam, who, though he flagellated himself in this
manner, did not fulfill the commandment to be fruitful during those years. Rabbeinu Nissim, in the name of
Rabbi Sherirah gaon, writes G’d had indicated to him at the time of his sin that henceforth his children, if any,
would not be true reproductions, i.e. that he just like women sometimes who suffer from giving birth to
malformed beings, would produce such malformed creatures. The matter is discussed in Niddah 24. Rabbi
Yehudah in the name of Shemuel says that when a woman gives birth to a malformed being with wings, she
is still considered as ritually as impure as if she had given birth to a normal human being.<br> While Adam
was in a state of disgrace he was unable to sire regular human beings, but grotesque looking creatures with
ugly faces, resembling demons. We know that people are in the habit of referring to such malformed human
specimens as demons and ghosts. When Adam regained his former good standing in the eyes of G’d, and
He lifted the curse from him, he was once more able to father children that could be described as ‫בדמותו‬
‫כצלמו‬, in his image.

Radak on Genesis 5:4:1 ‫ויהיו ימי אדם‬, it appears that all the people mentioned prior to Noach, whose lifespan is given by the Torah,
were included in the ones described as being born ‫בדמותו כצלמו‬, as reflecting the qualities expected of a
human being in the true sense of the word, whereas their brothers and sisters did not. This is why they were
wiped out during the deluge. It is possible that the long lives of the people mentioned in this list was a
standard set by G’d at the time, and shared by their contemporaries, their siblings. On the other hand, it is
possible that only the select list mentioned by the Torah enjoyed such an exceedingly long life on earth.
Perhaps the reason G’d granted those generations such long lives may have been to enable them to study
phenomena over a long period of time and to record the results of their observations for posterity. A lifespan
of 70 years as we know it today is simply not long enough to accumulate this type of knowledge. Once these
basic data had become known and recorded, later generations could study them out of books, making it
unnecessary for them to live for so many years. The outstanding scholar Rabbi Moses Maimonides wrote in
his Moreh Nevuchim 2,47 that only the men mentioned by name in our chapter lived to such an old age. He
goes on to write that exceptional sizes, years, and numbers mentioned in the Bible are all just that i.e.
exceptional. They do not purport to describe the norms in the time or environment during which such
exceptions occurred. There were varying sets of circumstances which accounted for these exceptions.

Radak on Genesis 5:5:1 ‫ויהיו כל ימי אדם‬, the reason why the Torah summed up once more the total of the number of years Adam lived
since his creation, although anyone who is not a simpleton could have figured this out from the data already
provided by the Torah, is in order that the scribe should not make a mistake. Once both the individual
numbers and the sum total is provided one can double check the total and no mistake will be made. When
the number of the soldiers in the army of Israel is recorded, an individual number being supplied for each
tribe, the Torah nonetheless troubles itself to spell out the grand total of all these numbers combined.
Compare (Numbers 1,46 as well as 26,51).
Radak on Genesis 5:24:1 ‫ויתהלך‬, similar to Genesis 48,15 ‫ויתהלכו אבותי לפניו‬, “before Whom my forefathers walked.” The wording
means that Chanoch channeled all his love and desire into fulfilling the will of G’d, and he acquired a deep
understanding of the ways of his Creator already at the age of 65. For the remaining 300 years of his life on
earth he walked with G’d. In spite of this, he did not neglect his duties of producing offspring. As a result of
his ever more profound study of theological matters he came to despise his body, so that when he no longer
performed the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying, G’d decided that he had served his purpose on
earth, and He removed him from the earth even though he had lived only less than half a normal lifespan.
<br> ‫ואיננו כי לקח אותו אלוקים‬, the word ‫ ואיננו‬is meant to convey that he did not die from sickness, nor did he
suffer pains before he died. His contemporaries had not considered his impending death as even a remote
possibility, so that they were totally unprepared for it. They did not notice his absence until he had actually
died. When the Torah employs the unusual phrase ‫כי לקח אותו אלוקים‬, this is an allusion to the fact that G’d
removed his soul to the heavenly regions. We have the same expression in Psalms 73,24 ‫ואחר כבוד תקחני‬,
“You took me toward honour.” Similar uses of the expression occur in Psalms 49,16 ‫כי יקחני סלה‬, the thrust of
the word ‫ לקח אלוקים‬being that instead of death leading to gehinnom, the party described as subject to G’d
taking him, is transported by G’d immediately to his life in the hereafter.<br> On the other hand, the
expression cannot be explained in this fashion in Ezekiel 24,16 ‫הנני לוקח את מחמד עיניך במגפה‬, “see I shall
take from you the darling of your eyes, by the plague.” Even though the verse is introduced by the word ‫הנני‬
which always introduces something constructive, positive, and which might mislead the reader into thinking
that what follows will be something good, something pleasant, the word ‫במגפה‬, by the plague, makes it plain
that being deprived of his wife is not presented by G’d as a positive experience for the prophet. It implies that
not only will the prophet suffer mentally, but his wife will suffer physically. Also in Exodus 21,35 when the
expression ‫( כי יגוף‬same root) is used it is followed by the words ‫ומת‬, that the party who has been gored will
die as a result of such a goring. All this proves that ‫ מגפה‬is descriptive of a painful disease, or injury. On the
other hand, it is a sudden affliction, whether in the form of a disease or assault by the horns of an ox.
<br>People who have led blameless lives do not experience death throes, but die without experiencing such
painful afflictions. By contrast, the popular understanding of the departure from earth of both Chanoch and
the prophet Elijah, is that G’d transferred them to their afterlife, Gan Eden, complete with their bodies.
Though a widespread popular perception, it is shared by some of our sages (Derech Eretz zuttah 1,9 as well
as a remark in Bereshit Rabbah 25) These people imagine both Chanoch and Elijah as leading the kind of
idyllic life in Gan Eden that Adam had enjoyed briefly before he sinned. They are presumed to continue in
this fashion until the arrival of the Messiah. We may be allowed to ask why in the story here in chapter 5, the
Torah concludes the reference to each individual named with the concluding word: ‫וימת‬, he died, whereas in
chapter 10 when the generations after Noach are enumerated, the Torah does not even bother to mention
that these people had died. One answer given is that seeing that the people mentioned here died during the
deluge their death had to be mentioned, i.e. that they did not die of natural causes. [this cannot not be
correct, as the deluge occurred in the year 1556 and several of the people mentioned in our chapter whose
ages at death are given, died earlier than that, including Noach’s grandfather Metushelach, and Lemech, his
father, who died during the lifetime of his father Metushelach. Ed.] <br> I believe that the people mentioned in
our chapter whose death is reported were righteous people; as a result their death left behind a spiritual void.
Not a single one died a violent death during the deluge. This is why the Torah reports their death as a death
from natural causes. Only their respective offspring died during the deluge. The people whose life (but not
whose death) is recorded in chapter 10 were evil, so that their deaths did not leave behind a spiritual void at
all, and their death did not warrant mentioning. Also, seeing that they did not live nearly as long as their
antediluvian counterparts, there was nothing special about their dying when they did.
Radak on Genesis 5:29:1 ‫ לאמור זה ינחמנו ממעשינו‬,‫ויקרא את שמו נח‬, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 25,2) say that ‫ ולא‬,‫לא השם הוא המדרש‬
‫המדרש הוא השם‬, that the name ‫ נח‬is not compatible with the allegorical explanation offered by the Midrash,
neither is the Midrash compatible with the name ‫נח‬. Lemech should not have related the name ‫ נח‬to ‫נחמה‬,
but should have related it to ‫נח זה יניחנו‬, “this one will bring relief,” as opposed to: “this one will comfort us, i.e.
the meaning of the word ‫נחמה‬. On the other hand, if what he had in mind by naming his son ‫נח‬, was ‫נחמה‬,
the comfort that he expected or hoped that his son would bring to the world, he should have named him ‫נחמן‬
‫זה ינחמנו‬. “this one will bring us comfort, consolation.” The Midrash is absolutely correct. However, if someone
finds rest, relief after having experienced troubles, this is in itself his comfort, his consolation. The Hebrew
language does not make such fine distinctions when it comes to the names reflecting linguistically accurately
what the giver of the name had in mind. When Chanah named her first born son, the one for whom she had
prayed in the Tabernacle at Shiloh, ‫שמואל‬, giving as her reason for this name ‫כי מה' שאלתיו‬, “for I have
borrowed him from the Lord,” she should have called him ‫שאול‬, if she had taken the words of our Midrash to
heart. (Samuel I 1,20) The word ‫ שאול‬means something or someone borrowed. The name ‫ שמואל‬is close
enough to make us realise what she had had in mind. In fact Chanah’s thoughts are reflected more
accurately in the name ‫ שמואל‬than they would have been in the name ‫שאול‬. The name ‫ שמואל‬actually
contains not only the thought that he has been borrowed, or asked for, but that he had been borrowed, or
asked for from G’d. Similar considerations apply to the name ‫יעבץ‬, derived from ‫עצב‬, anguish, sadness,
(Chronicles I 4,9) His mother mentioned that she named him so because he had been born out of pain.
There are more such examples to be found throughout the Bible.<br> According to our sages Lemech must
have been a great prophet, for how else could he predict that Noach, his son, would turn out to be a boon to
mankind? What did he see or know that caused him to make such a prediction? According to Tanchuma
Bereshit 11, people did not know what a plough was and they had to do all their work on the soil by hand.
Noach invented the plough, thus becoming a great benefactor of mankind. He trained oxen and donkeys to
pull a ploughshare, thus easing the labour the farmers had to perform. This was the relief and consolation he
provided for all of the human species. When Lemech referred to ‫ממעשי ידינו‬, “from what we had to do with our
hands,” he meant that henceforth due to his son, animals could perform some of the labour which, up until
then had been performed by each farmer literally with his own hands. [In accepting this interpretation, we
must assume that the name Noach was not bestowed on Noach at birth. Ed.] The word ‫ מעשה‬as applying to
working one’s field, appears in Judges 19,16 ‫ממעשהו מן השדה‬, “from his work, from the field.” Even though
the word ‫ מעשה‬can apply to any kind of work, it is used in the main in connection with work in the field. ‫ומעצבון‬
‫ידינו‬, from the frustration we have been experiencing over the work of our hands '‫אשר אררה ה‬, which the Lord
had cursed. Lemech referred to 3,17 where G’d had told Adam that as a result of his having listened to his
wife, the earth would be cursed and he would have to eat his bread only after experiencing ‫עצבון‬. In spite of
Noach having invented the plough, people after him continued to work very hard to gain their livelihood
through tilling the soil. However, he had definitely made their chores easier due to his clever invention.<br>
According to the plain meaning of the text, when Lemech had said ‫זה ינחמנו‬, he had certainly not expressed a
prophetic vision with these words, but he had called Noach by that name as a sort of prayer, seeing in his
birth a special blessing. [perhaps the fact that he had not become a father until he was 182 years old had
something to do with this. Everyone else mentioned in the chapter fathered a son at a much younger age.
Ed.] When Rachel gave birth to Joseph, she called him Joseph as a good omen, saying that she named him
thus so that G’d might give her another son. (Genesis 30,24). Moses recorded, at the command of G’d, all
these vital statistics of the people from Adam until Noach, in order that we, who have inherited the Torah,
should know that the universe has not always existed but was created by G’d, an important fact for every
human being to be aware of.
Radak on Genesis 5:32:1 ‫ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה‬, we do not know why Noach waited for such a long time to sire children, seeing that
all the generations who had preceded him generally sired children at about the age of 100. It appears that
the early generations did not chase after women during their youth and did not feel the need to mate and
settle down until they had become close to 100 years old. When they did marry, their main concern was to
leave offspring behind them, not to indulge their libido. They were aware according to what they had
observed that they had a long lifespan at their disposal. This belief was reinforced by their confidence that
their lifestyle was pleasing in the eyes of G’d. Noach, who had observed the corrupt ways of his
contemporaries wanted to hold off siring children, because he was afraid that any children of his might also
be displeasing in the eyes of G’d. He waited until he was 500 years old when he felt the urgent need to mate
with a woman. It is also possible, that he had prophetic insight, i.e. that G’d told him to get married and to sire
children. These children were good, but Cham was not as good as his brothers. Noach did not produce
daughters. According to Bereshit Rabbah 26,2 G’d had reasoned that in the event that Noach’s children
turned out to be wicked, He did not want them to die in the deluge. In the event they should turn out to be
good people, G’d’ did not want Noach to have to construct separate cabins for all of them in the ark so that
they could enjoy their privacy. G’d therefore made Noach sterile until he reached the age of 500. According
to the view of Rabbi Eleazar, son of Rabbi Yossi Haglili, even Yaphet, Noach’s eldest, was not quite 100
years old when the deluge began and people under 100 years of age were not considered culpable for their
deeds in those times.
Radak on Genesis 5:32:2 ‫ ואת יפת‬,‫ את חם‬,‫ויולד נח את שם‬, in the opinion of our sages (Sanhedrin 69) Yaphet was the oldest. They
derived this from Genesis 11,10 where the Torah writes ‫ויהי שם בן מאה שנה ויולד את ארפחשד שנתים אחר המבול‬,
“Shem was 100 tears old when he begat Arpachshad 2 years after the deluge.” If Shem had been the eldest,
he would have been 100 years old already at the end of or during the deluge, not 2 years later. We think that
Shem was born during Noach’s 501st year, allowing for the fact that the year was a leap year, and his wife
had become pregnant when Noach married her when he was 500 years old. The deluge commenced in the
600th year of Noach’s life. As a result, Shem was 99 years old when he entered the ark at the start of the
deluge. After the deluge he was only 100 years old. How could the Torah describe him as 100 years old 2
years after the deluge? We must therefore conclude that Yaphet was the eldest. This is also how we must
understand Genesis 10,21 ‫אחי יפת הגדול‬, “the brother of Yaphet, the senior.” Even though our sages have
arrived at this conclusion, we must wonder why, every time, the three brothers are mentioned together, Shem
is always mentioned as the first one. Surely, this suggests that Shem was the oldest. The words “2 years
after the deluge,” may be understood as “2 years after the beginning of the deluge.” At that time Shem would
have been 99 years old as we have mentioned already. When the Torah speaks of his son being born 2
years after the deluge, we must understand this as at the beginning of the second year after the deluge.
Radak on Genesis 6:1:1 ‫ויהי כי החל האדם‬, a reference to the human species.
Radak on Genesis 6:1:2 ‫ובנות ילדו להם‬, there was not really any need to tell us this, seeing that the species cannot survived without
females and males. The entire story concerns the females, seeing that the male elite made the mistake of
intermarrying with physically attractive, but otherwise morally inferior females, as a result of which the entire
human race became progressively more corrupt.

Radak on Genesis 6:2:1 ‫ויראו בני האלוהים‬, the sons of the judges, the elite of the species who are here referred to as ‫אלוהים‬, just as in
Exodus 22,27 ‫אלוהים לא תקלל‬, “you must not curse a judge.” There are numerous similar examples in the
Torah of the attribute ‫ אלוהים‬being applied to morally high ranking human beings. Onkelos also translates it in
this vein when he speaks of ‫בני רברביא‬. The explanations offered that the Torah refers to Uzza and Uzael are
very far fetched. (compare Torah shleymah on this verse). [The two aforementioned are supposed to have
been angels who had voted against the creation of man and who belittled man’s effort to conquer the evil
urge. They were supposedly punished by being consigned to earth to experience life on earth by themselves.
Instead of proving their superiority, they were the first to succumb to the allurement of physically attractive
females. Their request to return to the celestial regions was denied by G’d. Ed.]<br> According to Bereshit
Rabbah 26,5 Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai cursed anyone who translated the words ‫ בני האלוהים‬as “the sons of
G’d.” He added that when the elite of the people are themselves guilty of the sins they want the common man
to refrain from, their efforts are doomed to start with. Another reason offered why these people were referred
to as ‫בני האלוהים‬, (according to both Rabbi Chaninah and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, is that these were the
people enjoying carefree long lives, free from sickness and other impediments. [This may have given them
the illusion of being able to get away with whatever they felt like doing. Ed.] Rav Hunna, quoting Rabbi Yossi,
says that these people were granted such long lives in order to enable them to study the sky, observe the
orbits of the stars and make calculations resulting in our calendar.
Radak on Genesis 6:2:2 ‫את בנות האדם‬, the daughters of the weaker specimen of the human race. The women were unable to resist
the physically superior specimen referred to as ‫בני האלוהים‬, and as a result if fancied by the latter, they would
be taken by them as wives or concubines against their will, and the will of even their husbands. [The Torah
describes the first time the law of the “survival of the fittest” was practiced by the human race. The result was
the deluge. Ed.] The term ‫ אדם‬next to the term ‫ אלוהים‬simply compares the weak to the strong In the Sifri¸
(Behaalotcha 86) the point is made that when ordinary individuals observed that the judges took the law into
their own hands, they reasoned that they themselves would most certainly be able to get away with the same
thing, seeing that the judges are supposed to set a good example.<br> Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understands
the expression ‫בני אלוהים‬, as referring to spiritually superior people, people who knew what G’d expected of
them. They chose wives according to what they perceived was suitable for them basing themselves on their
reading of astrology. As a result of such careful mating, their offspring were in many instances giants, etc., as
we read about at the end of our verse. It is possible that they took women of their choice even against the will
of these women.
Radak on Genesis 6:2:3 ‫כי טובות הנה‬, Rabbi Yudan, noting the defective spelling of the word ‫ טובות‬as ‫ טבת‬claims that this is a
transitive form of the verb, and that the judges when handing over the virgin bride to her prospective husband
would first sleep with her. The missing letters ‫ ו‬in the word ‫ טבת‬refer to these girls having been deprived of
their hymen.
Radak on Genesis 6:2:4 ‫ויקחו להם נשים‬, a reference to married women.
Radak on Genesis 6:2:5 ‫מכל אשר בחרו‬, the word ‫מכל‬, “from all,” includes homosexual unions, and mating between man and beast.
Radak on Genesis 6:3:1 ‫ויאמר ה' לא ידון רוחי באדם לעולם‬, G’d either said this to Himself, or to Noach. My father of blessed memory
(Joseph Kimchi) explained the line ‫ לא ידון‬in the same sense as the word ‫ מדון‬in Proverbs 15,18 as referring
to a struggle, strife. The soul G’d had blown into Adam’s nostrils was meant as an antidote to the pull of the
raw material man was made of. The body, basically is in tow of the animalistic urges of the animals,
something natural, seeing that man’s own body is made of the same raw material as are the animals. G’d
now decided to grant man an extension of 120 years to do ‫תשובה‬, repentance, failing which He would wipe
out mankind from the earth. Other commentators, including Ibn Ezra, explain the word ‫ ידון‬as related to ‫נדנה‬
in Chronicles I 21,27 ‫וישב חרבו אל נדנה‬, “he returned his sword to its sheath.” Actually, if correct, the word ‫ידון‬
should have been spelled with a dagesh in the letter‫ד‬, replacing the missing letter ‫נ‬, however, in this
instance, instead of such a dagesh, the Torah simply omitted the letter ‫ נ‬at the beginning, as it did in Genesis
25,29 ‫ ויזד יעקב נזיד‬where the letter ‫ נ‬in front of the letter ‫ ז‬has also been omitted. At any rate, the meaning of
the expression is that G’d would not let His spirit rest until both man’s body and spirit would be wiped out.
<br> Rabbi Yishmael son of Yossi, (Bereshit Rabbah 26,6) understood this verse as G’d saying that when
the time would come to share out reward to the righteous, these people would not participate in it. He was
speaking of ‫ ידון‬in the sense of “passing judgment.” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish as well as his colleague Rabbi
Yannai, said that there is no such thing as the popular concept of a hell, gehinnom, lasting a long time, but
that at the time when G’d passes out judgment the wicked will be burned by the fiery heat of a flame. They
based themselves on Maleachi 3,19 ‫הנה יום בא בוער כתנור‬, “here a day will come when the fire will burn as in
a furnace.” The other sages said that there most certainly is such a thing as gehinnom, as we have a verse in
Isaiah 31,9 ‫נאום ה' אשר אור לו בציון ותנור לו בירושלים‬, “says the Lord Who has a fire in Zion and an oven in
Jerusalem.” Rabbi Yehudah bar Ila-i claims there is neither a specific day, nor a specific place such as
gehinnom, but fire will come forth from the very bodies of the wicked and will consume them with its heat. He
based himself on Isaiah 33,11 ‫תהרו חשש תלדו קש רוחכם אש תאכלתם‬, “you shall conceive hay, give birth to
straw; My breath will devour you like fire.”<br> We have also written what the sages of the Midrash wrote
concerning the matter of gehinnom in connection with Genesis 1,31 ‫וירא אלוקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד‬,
“G’d saw all that He had made and here it was very good;” the point made there was that the word ‫ טוב‬refers
to Gan Eden, whereas the expression ‫טוב מאד‬, refers to gehinnom. [refer to page 72 in my translation. Ed.]
Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Ila-i (also in Bereshit Rabbah 26,6) interprets the words ‫לא ידון רוחי עוד‬,
that “these wicked spirits of man will never be allowed to come to rest before Me.” Various sages concur that
the generation destroyed during the deluge will neither be judged for an afterlife during the time that the
world awaits its own rejuvenation, nor will it be judged (if any are fit) to be resurrected in the world following
the interval between our present world being turned into chaos and the subsequent resurrection of the
deserving from the former world. (Sanhedrin 107)
Radak on Genesis 6:3:2 ‫בשגם‬, the letter ‫ ש‬has the vowel patach, just as the letter ‫ ש‬in Judges 5,10 ‫שקמתי דבורה‬. The meaning is that
“seeing it too is but flesh (and no better than the beasts.).” In other words: “the reason why My spirit will not
prevail within man is due to the fact that man like beasts are only flesh.” Even though G’d had implanted man
with a divine soul, this soul had been unable to assert itself within him. As a result, G’d said, “I will give him
another 120 years during which he has a chance to improve himself, failing which his fate is sealed.” We do
not know the special significance of the number 120. This was G’d’s arbitrary decision.
Radak on Genesis 6:4:1 ‫הנפילין‬, this verse must be understood as attached to the previous verse (2) in which the mating habits of the
‫ בני האלוהים‬had been discussed. After the Torah had criticised the manner in which the physically stronger
males grabbed their women, G’d now gave them another 120 years and no more to improve their ways. The
people described as ‫ נפילים‬were a group of giants. The reason why they are not described as such, but as
“fallen,” is that people who took one look at these giants were apt to fall down ((‫ נפל‬in sheer fright of such
powerful potential opponents. Examples of similar use of the root ‫ נפל‬can be found in Job 14,18 ‫ואולם הר נופל‬,
“even if the mountain were to fall” a truly frightening experience. The Torah simply relates that during these
latter days before the deluge there were people of gigantic size These were just a few individuals .
Radak on Genesis 6:4:2 ‫וגם אחרי כן אשר יבואו בני האלוהים אל בנות האדם‬, and also after the elite had made a point of mating with the
physically attractive ‫ בנות האדם‬there were even more numerous such giants who reflected the genes of their
fathers in size and the allure of their mothers in beauty. ‫והמה הגבורים אשר מעולם‬, these were the ones always
remembered in later times as the heroic people of their time ‫אשר מעולם אנשי שם‬, people whose reputation
survived their disappearance from the earth. After the deluge survivors realised that it had been displeasing
in the eyes of G’d for those people to have devoted themselves to all the physical pleasures of the world and
to aim at enlarging the size of their bodies as well as aiming to increase the number of years they lived on
earth. [After all they had perished, and normal sized individuals, such as Noach’s family had survived. Ed.]
The physical desires of the survivors of the deluge were far less powerful than that of their forebears so that
gradually also their lifespan diminished, i.e. their entire hold on matters physical became a less dominant
concern. People in the generations after the deluge, in spite of their other failings, gradually resumed a
lifestyle that had been normal before the excesses that the ‫ בני אלוהים‬had indulged in. When the Israelites
came to the land of Canaan there were only a very few of the former giants still surviving, mostly
concentrated around Hebron (Joshua 15,14) Our sages have a tradition that there were only four such giants
still alive at that time. (Joshua 14,15) In the time of David there appear to have been a few such men in Gat
(Samuel II 21,15) Concerning Og, the King of Bashan, the Bible testifies that he had been a remnant of this
race of these antediluvian giants (Joshua 13,12). It is possible that those survivors still practiced a lifestyle
reminiscent of their antediluvian forebears.
Radak on Genesis 6:5:1 ‫וירא ה‬, seeing that the time G’d had allocated to the people to improve their ways had elapsed, G’d saw that
nothing had changed. ‫רק רע כל היום‬, the words ‫וכל יצר‬, refer to both man’s urges, the urge to do good, and the
urge to do evil. The urge to do good had succumbed to the evil urge, completely. The Torah here calls the
planning of wicked deeds based on impulses ‫יצר לב‬, the urge of the heart. The reason is that the heart is
perceived as the origin of all impulses be they good or be they evil in nature. The reason why G’d gave them
120 years extension, although He was well aware that they would not do teshuvah, was only in order for man
to learn from G’d’s attributes, and to adopt this attribute for himself. Just as G’d allowed man plenty of time to
improve his ways, so man, when dealing with his fellow, should also not be impatient, but allow enough time
for people to rethink their evil attitudes.<br> When G’d created the human race He wanted it to be good
completely, or at least predominantly. If mankind would turn to be completely evil it could not endure, seeing
that G’d had chosen the good. When He saw that the generation preceding the deluge was thoroughly evil,
especially in their inter-personal relations, their use of violence as a legitimate tool to gain their ends, their
deeds threatened to undermine the foundations upon which G’d had built His universe. He therefore decided
to destroy all those who were evil and to save only the few good ones, so that these survivors could form the
nucleus of a better human race after the deluge. G’d had found Noach, his sons, and their wives to be good
and they were chosen to provide the seed for future generations. Lemech, Noach’s father had died already 5
years prior to the deluge, and Metushelach, Noach’s grandfather, another good man, had lived his life to the
full before the onset of the deluge. As a result of these two men having died, there were no righteous people
left on earth other than Noach and his family.
Radak on Genesis 6:6:1 ‫וינחם ה‬, the expression, ‫וינחם‬, “He was sorry, He regretted,” has been chosen by the Torah in order for human
beings to have at least an inkling of what G’d’s feelings were when He faced destroying His handiwork.
Clearly, such emotions as “regret” are not part of G’d’s vocabulary. We have it on the authority Samuel I 15
29 that human feelings such as regret, frustration, are not feelings which can be attributed To Him.
Radak on Genesis 6:6:2 ‫ויתעצב אל לבו‬, this too, is a figure of speech, seeing that G’d does not know such emotional ups and downs as
joy and sadness. While David in Psalms 104,31 speaks of ‫ישמח ה' במעשיו‬, he too uses such “emotions” of G’
d only as a figure of speech. It is his way of describing G’d’s reactions to seeing that His plans had worked
out. Similarly, here, the Torah describes G’d’s reaction when His plans had not worked out. [G’d’s plans not
working out can only happen due to the freedom of choice with which He endowed man. Ed.] In other words,
the Torah, in telling us about G’d’s reactions, here and elsewhere, reflects the impressions gained by the
teller of the story. ‫אל לבו‬, we are told in Bereshit Rabbah 27,4 that a gentile asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Korchah if it is not true that the Jews claim that their G’d knows all that is going to happen in advance. Rabbi
Yehoshua answered in the affirmative. Thereupon the gentile quoted this verse as proof that if G’d had
known all of this in advance, how could He have been saddened by it. Rabbi Yehoshua asked the gentile if
he had ever have a son born to him. The gentile said that indeed he was the father of a son. He then asked
him: “what did you do when he was born?” The gentile replied that he was very happy when he heard the
news. Thereupon Rabbi Yehoshua asked the gentile: “did you not know that the son would die one day, and
if so why were you happy that another mortal was born?” The gentile answered that there is a time to rejoice
and a time to be sad. Rabbi Yehoshua told the gentile that G’d, in spite of His foreknowledge, reacts in a
similar manner. G’d was in mourning for the destruction of His handiwork, as we know from 7,10. The reason
the Torah makes mention of the words ‫ ויתעצב אל לבו‬and these seven days, is to teach us that the words ‫אבל‬
and ‫ עצב‬can be used interchangeably, i.e. they describe a state of mourning.
Radak on Genesis 6:6:3 ‫בארץ‬, the reason the Torah writes this word, which does not appear to tell us something we did not know, is
to remind us that the root of the problem of man becoming so corrupt in spite of his having been equipped
with a divine soul, is that he was constructed from and anchored in the earth, in the “lower” universe. This is
unlike the ‫אדם העליוני‬, superior man. This is why G’d did not need consolation for people of Noach’s calibre.
Radak on Genesis 6:7:1 ‫ויאמר ה‬, G’d either said this to Himself, or to Noach.
Radak on Genesis 6:7:2 ‫אמחה את האדם אשר בראתי‬, the prefix ‫ ה‬before the word ‫ אדם‬is meant to tell us that G’d did not mean to wipe
out the human species, ‫אדם‬, but only ‫האדם‬, seeing that some humans were allowed to survive. In supplying a
rationale why the means used to wipe out all these people was the water, Rabbi Berechyah in Bereshit
Rabbah 28,2 describes G’d as saying to Himself, that seeing He had made man out of earth, the only
element (of the four that man is made of) which could neutralise earth is water. The words ‫מאדם עד בהמה‬,
included the free roaming beasts on earth, ‫חיה‬, whereas the word ‫ רמש‬refers to the small creatures as we
explained already on 1,25-26. Why were all these creatures wiped out also? What had they done to deserve
this? They had only been created for the sake of man. If there was no purpose for man on earth, neither was
there a purpose for all of these living creatures. Furthermore, seeing that the waters would cover the habitat
of all these creatures they would die unless saved by a special miracle. The concern of G’d for all those
creatures does not extend to each of them individually, but only to the survival of each of their species. G’d
ensured that the species would survive by commanding Noach to take them into the ark with him, or at least
to accept all those that came to the ark voluntarily, in pairs. If you were to ask why the deluge had to cover
the entire surface of the earth and not only the areas inhabited by man, if G’d had done this, man could have
escaped to uninhabited regions and survived thus foiling G’d’s plan. This is why even the highest mountains
had to be covered by the waters to prevent anyone from escaping to the mountain peaks. Some of our sages
(Sanhedrin 108) claim that the animals had become corrupt, copying man’s corrupt ways, so that they too
deserved to die in their own right. They had become guilty of mating with species not their own, thus
frustrating G’d’s plan that each species remain pure. Other sages (on the same folio) agree with the first
opinion we offered, i.e. that in the absence of man on earth there was no purpose in the earth being
populated by animals.
Radak on Genesis 6:8:1 ‫ונח מצא חן בעיני ה‬, he found favour due to good deeds performed by him. The Torah uses the same
expression in Exodus 33,17 when G’d tells Moses that he had found favour in His eyes. His deeds had been
pleasing to G’d. In Bereshit Rabbah 28,9, Rabbi Acha son of Kahana expresses surprise at the words ‫ונח מצא‬
‫'חן בעיני ה‬, saying that the wording implies that Noach, in his own right, could not have claimed the right of
survival, except for the circumstance that he “found favour in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. G’d had to search for a
reason to let him survive. [He bases himself on the whole verse being superfluous, as Noach’s merits are
discussed in the following verses. Rabbi Einhorn’s comment on that Midrash. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 6:9:1 ‫ נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו‬,‫אלה תולדות נח‬, the meaning of the word ‫ תולדות‬is similar to “history of,” i.e. this it
what happened to Noach, etc. It concerns both the deluge and what came after. We encounter the same
pattern when the Torah introduced a paragraph with the words ‫ יוסף‬,‫ אלה תולדות יעקב‬in Genesis 37,2 where
this is an introduction to history related to Yaakov’s family. In Proverbs 27,1 we have a verse concluding with
the words “the day will give birth to.” The root ‫ ילד‬is the root of the word ‫ תולדה‬and ‫תולדות‬, i.e. it refers to
future developments. Developments are matters that are the result of days following one another.
Radak on Genesis 6:9:2 ‫נח‬, the name occurs three times in the same verse, when a single mention of his name would have sufficed.
In Numbers 8,19 the name ‫ בני ישראל‬occurs 5 times in one verse. According to Tanchuma 5 on our parshah
such apparently needless repetitions are an expression of special affection by the writer for the subject
described. Such formulations are referred to by Rashi in Numbers 8,19), as well as by Ibn Ezra as ‫צחות הלשון‬,
“stylistic purity.” [repeating Noach’s name 3 times indicates his popularity with G’d at that time. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 6:9:3 ‫צדיק‬, his deeds all reflected fairness, charitable considerations, in contrast to those of his contemporaries
who were men of violence.
Radak on Genesis 6:9:4 ‫תמים‬, perfect, without flaw; according to Tanchuma 5, he was born circumcised.
Radak on Genesis 6:9:5 ‫בדורותיו‬, both in the time of his generation, and the generation following him after the deluge. [this is the
reason for the plural ending ‫ יו‬in the word ‫בדורותיו‬. Ed.] Noach lived for 350 years after the deluge, so that he
was a reminder of the deluge to at least 8-9 generations after him. In fact, Avraham was already 58 years old
when Noach died, and he was the 10th generation counting from Noach. An easy way to remember this is
the line that ‫אברהם בן נח‬, “Avraham was a son of Noach“ (family member, as all people before the Torah was
given) the numerical value of the letters in the name ‫ נח‬have a combined value of 58. According to Bereshit
Rabbah 30,9 the word ‫ בדורותיו‬refers to three specific generations, that of Enosh, that of the deluge, and the
generation of the Tower of Babel, and the scattering of mankind and the division into many languages.
Radak on Genesis 6:9:6 ‫את האלוקים התהלך נח‬, a description of how Noach cleaved to his Creator. All his actions were designed to
please his Creator. The reason why this is so remarkable is that it demonstrated the preponderance of his
intellect over his baser urges, especially so as it would have been both more convenient for him and more
socially advantageous for him to conform to the cultural mores of his time.
Radak on Genesis 6:10:1 ‫ויולד נח‬, why does the Torah mention this now when it had already told us about his three sons in 5,32? The
Torah wanted us to know that these sons were born after Noach had already been certified by the Torah as
“walking with G’d.” Mention of these sons here indicates that he raised his sons to believe in G’d and to walk
in His ways, also. Had his sons not been good people they would not have been saved at the time of the
deluge, even though their father was a righteous person. We have already cited Ezekiel 14,20 in which we
were told that Noach’s merits did not suffice to save others beyond himself and his wife.
Radak on Genesis 6:11:1 ‫ותשחת הארץ‬, the people on earth had become corrupted; we have a similar formulation in Exodus 1,2 where
the Torah writes of the Israelites ‫ותמלא הארץ‬, and the meaning cannot be that the whole earth was filled with
Israelites. There are many examples of similar stylistic formulations used in the Torah.
Radak on Genesis 6:11:2 ‫לפני האלוקים‬, this expression is meant to inform us that G’d does indeed watch over the actions of His
creatures in the “lower” regions of His universe not only in a general way, but sometimes even over the
deeds of individuals; now He saw that the human species had become thoroughly corrupted. This is the
meaning of the word ‫ ותמלא‬in our verse.

Radak on Genesis 6:12:1 ‫וירא‬, a continuation of the words ‫ לפני האלוקים‬in the last verse.<br> ‫כי השחית‬, the same as ‫והנה נשחתה‬, i.e. a
passive not a transitive hiphil.<br> ‫כל בשר‬, all of mankind. We find the same expression in Psalms 145,21
‫ויברך כל בשר‬, as referring not to all that lives, but to all of mankind. The same expression also appears in this
sense in Isaiah 66,23 ‫יבא כל בשר‬, “all of mankind will come, etc.”
Radak on Genesis 6:12:2 ‫את דרכו‬, its norms as established at the time of creation. Just as man cleaving to his wife (only) is described
as a norm in Genesis 2,24, so there were other norms all of which were violated by the generation of the
deluge. In retribution, G’d now violates the norms that applied to the conditions prevailing on our planet.

Radak on Genesis 6:13:1 ‫קץ כל בשר‬...‫ויאמר‬, the time had arrived for their destruction from the world. The destruction which G’d had
threatened before allowing for the 120 years grace period. Not only had they not mended their ways, but they
had become ever more corrupt.
Radak on Genesis 6:13:2 ‫בא לפני‬, we have explained the word ‫ בא‬already elsewhere as meaning “that the time had arrived before Me.”
The same expression is used in Jonah 1,2 when G’d describes the impending fate of the people of Nineveh
in the words ‫כי עלתה רעתם לפני‬, meaning that the effect of the wickedness had reached Him. The ‫קץ‬
described in our verse is the natural reaction to the effect the wickedness of the people had on G’d when it
confronted Him.
Radak on Genesis 6:13:3 ‫כי מלאה הארץ חמס‬, the word ‫ מפניהם‬belongs next to the words ‫בא לפני‬, i.e. on account of the violence they
have perpetrated. Our sages (Sanhedrin 108) say behold how powerful is the sin of violence seeing that the
generation of the deluge was not wiped out in spite of all their other sins until they had become guilty of
indiscriminate violence. Iit was only then that the decree of their destruction was sealed.
Radak on Genesis 6:13:4 ‫משחיתם‬, seeing that the people had deliberately corrupted their way of life, G’d matches the punishment to
the crime by depriving them of the control they used to exert over nature inasmuch as it effected their habitat,
earth.
Radak on Genesis 6:13:5 ‫את‬, in this instance it means the same as ‫מן‬, “from.” A parallel verse in which the word ‫ את‬is used in this
sense is Exodus 9,29 ‫כצאתי את העיר‬, “as soon as I leave the city.” Another such example is found in Genesis
44,4 ‫“ הם יצאו את העיר‬they had just departed from the city.”

Radak on Genesis 6:14:1 ‫עשה לך‬, for your needs so that you will be saved from the impending deluge, as well as the other living
creatures in the ark with you.,
Radak on Genesis 6:14:2 ‫גפר‬, a type of light wood, like balsam wood, which floats easily on the water. According to Onkelos it is a kind
of cedar wood.
Radak on Genesis 6:14:3 ‫קנים‬, divided into cabins, small rooms, such as the enclosures allocated to individual birds in a dove-cot. G’d
commanded Noach to see to it that each species of animal would have separate accommodation in the ark.
Radak on Genesis 6:14:4 ‫וכפרת‬, verbalised from the word ‫כופר‬, or ‫זפת‬, waterproof caulking, pitch or tar. Our sages also describe it as
such in Shabbat 67.
Radak on Genesis 6:14:5 ‫מבית ומחוץ‬, the reason why the caulking had to be applied both from the outside and from the inside, was so
that in case the outside would spring a leak or crack due to the violent impact of the waves, the inside
caulking would provide insurance against the people inside the ark getting wet.

Radak on Genesis 6:15:1 ‫וזה אשר תעשה אותה‬, the measurements and shape are introduced by the word ‫זה‬. The reason why the Torah
uses the masculine mode ‫ זה‬instead of the feminine mode ‫זאת‬, seeing that the word ‫תבה‬, ark, is feminine, is
because the word ‫זה‬, “this,” masculine, describes the ‫שעור‬, measurement, a noun which is masculine. G’d
commanded Noach to make the width of the ark one sixth of its length, and the height one tenth of its length.]
According to Bereshit Rabbah 31,10 the reason that the Torah gave these dimensions is precisely that
shipbuilders are advised to stick to the relative measurements of width, length and height recorded here.

Radak on Genesis 6:16:1 ‫צהר‬, this word is derived from the word ‫צהרים‬, “noon,” an instruction that Noach make a window in the ark
that would let in the light after the rain would stop falling, during the long period when the water level would
gradually subside. This is what is meant in 8,7 when the Torah wrote ‫ויפתח נח את החלון‬, “Noach opened the
window.” Some of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 31,11 ) believe that Noach suspended a brilliant gemstone
which provided light inside the ark. The words ‫תעשה לתבה‬, “you shall construct for or inside the ark,”
contradict such an explanation. There is no question that Noach had prepared oil for the lamps he took along
into the ark. The window mentioned here in our verse is a natural source of light, affixed by Noach in the
highest part of the ark.
Radak on Genesis 6:16:2 ‫ואל אמה‬, to the uppermost cubit of the slanting roof of the ark. It is called thus seeing that at the top there was
no more than one cubit of width between the roof sloping down on one side and that sloping down on the
other side. The purpose of the slanting roof was to let the rain run off the ark.
Radak on Genesis 6:16:3 ‫ופתח התבה‬, the entrance/exit which was closed after everybody who was entitled to enter the ark had entered
it.
Radak on Genesis 6:16:4 ‫תחתים‬, a lower deck; the letter ‫ י‬in this word serves a dual purpose, a) to represent the plural mode of the
word, as well as 2) a letter describing a relative and not an absolute position. When speaking of the third
deck, ‫שלשים‬, the letter ‫ י‬which would reflect the relative position is unnecessary (seeing it was the top, i.e.
highest deck) so that we do not find the dagesh in the ‫ י‬in that word. The ‫ י‬describing the plural mode does
appear, just as it does in words such as ‫נכרים‬, gentiles, or in ‫מצרים‬, Egyptians. In Bereshit Rabbah 31,11 we
are told that the lower deck served as the container of refuse, the middle deck as the accommodation for the
family of Noach and the pure animals, [the ones fit as sacrifices], whereas the upper deck served as
accommodation for the impure species of animals. Some scholars believe that the lowest deck
accommodated the ritually impure species of animals, the middle deck was reserved for Noach and his family
as well as for the ritually pure animals, whereas the top deck was for the refuse. Noach constructed sort of a
trap door through which he shoveled the refuse.

Radak on Genesis 6:17:1 ‫המבול מים‬...‫ואני‬, the word ‫ מבול‬after the word ‫ המבול‬is missing, a word which should have been written since
we had not heard about a concept called ‫ מבול‬previously. There are some other parallels to this missing
construct form when we would have expected it, as in Joshua 3,15 ‫הארון הברית‬. The basic root of the word
‫ מבול‬is ‫נבל‬, in the same sense as in Job 38,37 ‫“ ?ונבלי מים מי ישכיב‬who can tilt the water bottles from the sky?”
This is a reference to rain emanating from the celestial regions. At the same time the word also contains an
allusion to “falling”, ‫מפלה‬, as in Isaiah 1,30 ‫נובלת עליה‬, things which fall from the sky and are poured on to
earth The word ‫ מבול‬is an adjective describing a certain type of rain. The word ‫ גשם‬on the other hand, is a
noun. This is why it is possible to use the word ‫ מבול‬concerning any matter that drops out of the sky, such as
snow, fire, hail, etc. Also, this is the reason why the Torah did not need to write ‫גשם מים מתחת השמים‬, if the
Torah had not added the words ‫כל אשר בארץ‬, I would have thought that the fish had also been meant to die.
The word ‫ בארץ‬in our verse therefore means “on the dry land.” The decree of destruction did not include the
fish because since they do not share man’s habitat they did not adopt man’s corrupt ways. (compare
Zevachim 113)
Radak on Genesis 6:18:1 ‫והקימותי את בריתי אתך‬, the covenant that I am going to make with you as part of the deal that you and your
family will be saved. I will keep this promise for you and your descendants.
Radak on Genesis 6:18:2 ‫ובאת אל התבה‬, the ark in which I told you that I would save you from the waters of the deluge.
Radak on Genesis 6:18:3 ‫אתה ובניך‬, the absence of a reference to the females, shows that copulation was forbidden in the ark, seeing
that the women were to have separate quarters. (Chulin 70) G’d separated them by writing: ‫ אשתך‬,‫אתה ובניך‬
‫ונשי בניך‬, The moral lesson in all this is that a time when the entire human species is being wiped out, it is not
appropriate for the survivors to indulge in physical pleasures. All they were allowed to do was to eat enough
in order to keep themselves alive and well.
Radak on Genesis 6:19:1 ‫ומכל החי מכל בשר‬, a reference to the living creatures on the dry land only.
Radak on Genesis 6:19:2 ‫שנים מכל‬, Noach was told that these animals were to be admitted in pairs. G’d specified further, ..‫זכר ונקבה יהיו‬
‫תביא אל התבה‬, after the animals which came of their own accord had been accommodated in the ark. What
prompted some of these animals to come to Noach’s ark on their own? They were inspired by the same kind
of imagination which unerringly enables them to find grazing land etc. G’d, no doubt, aided their imagination
in this instance.
Radak on Genesis 6:19:3 ‫להחיות אתך‬, to keep them alive with you by feeding them on a daily basis.

Radak on Genesis 6:20:1 ‫מהעוף למחנהו‬, some from each species;

Radak on Genesis 6:20:2 ‫ומן הבהמה למינה‬, this includes the free-roaming beasts.
Radak on Genesis 6:20:3 ‫יבאו‬, they will come on their own to the proximity of the ark, from where you will bring in the ones which
qualify.
Radak on Genesis 6:20:4 ‫להחיות‬, we already explained the meaning of this word.

Radak on Genesis 6:21:1 ‫ואתה קח לך‬, seeing that they will come to you in order to survive, you will have to prepare food for them, each
species according to the type of diet it is used to. Even the predators will not be allowed to eat flesh while in
the ark but would have to subsist on a vegetarian diet. They had, after all, been used to such a diet
immediately after they had been created, as we have already explained on Genesis 1,25.
Radak on Genesis 6:22:1 ‫ויעש נח‬, Noach built the ark in accordance with all the instructions given to him by G’d. He built its dimensions
of length, width and height exactly as he had been commanded. He built the many cabins, and collected the
various types of plants and fruit to serve as food for the journey.
Radak on Genesis 7:1:1 ‫ויאמר ה' לנח‬, He told him to enter the ark before the onset of the deluge.
Radak on Genesis 7:1:2 ‫כי אותך ראיתי צדיק לפני‬, you and your family are therefore entitled to escape the deluge in order to form the
nucleus of a new world order afterwards.

Radak on Genesis 7:2:1 ‫מכל בהמה הטהורה תקח לך‬, as they will arrive before the ark take them inside with you. Previously, G’d had told
Noach only to take the animals in pairs, one pair per species. Only now was he instructed to take 6 additional
pairs of each of the species of animal known as ‫טהורה‬, ritually pure. It is not clear if of the ritually impure
animals Noach was to take a single pair or two pairs. How did Noach know which animals were considered
ritually pure? It is possible that G’d told him which peculiarities to watch for in order that he should know
which to use as an offering after the deluge. Alternately, Noach would know when he saw that some of the
animals came to him in lots of seven pairs. This explanation does not suffice for the birds, seeing that
apparently all the birds arrived in lots of seven pairs. We must therefore fall back on the explanation that G’d
provided Noach with information how to recognise which were the ritually pure animals. In that case, we
would also have to conclude that the ritually impure birds did not come to the ark in pairs of seven. What then
is the meaning of the words (verse 3) ‫?גם מעוף השמים שבעה שבעה‬. “also from the birds in the sky seven pairs
each?” Surely, this appears to apply only to the ritually pure birds, and the word ‫ גם‬refers back to the word
‫ הטהורה‬in verse 2. If the birds generally arrived in single pairs, and the ritually pure birds arrived in lots of
seven pairs, the reason was not that they be used as offerings to G’d, seeing that Noach is on record as
bringing only one offering, and he would be able to bring more such offerings from the next generation of
such birds if he so desired. The reason may be that G’d intended for Noach and his family to use the excess
number of ritually pure birds as food without endangering any of the species’ chances of survival. G’d had
already planned to permit the consumption of meat to the survivors of the deluge, something which had been
forbidden to Adam at the time. Even though G’d did not withhold any kind of living creature as food for man,
as we know from Genesis 9,3 ‫כל רמש אשר הוא חי לכם יהיה לאכלה‬, “any moving thing which is a live will be
yours to eat,” this was amended for the Jewish people who were to be a nation of holy people. It is in the
nature of things that the animals described as ritually pure, ‫טהורות‬, are superior as food. In the majority,
gentiles do not eat the meat of the other animals unless driven to do so by hunger. Keeping this in mind, G’d
ordered Noach to take more of the ritually pure animals with him into the ark, to ensure that slaughtering
some of them in due course would not deplete the available supply. The principal concern was to keep these
species alive, i.e. ‫לחיות זרע‬, to make sure man would always find a sufficient number of these animals
available for his needs. G’d, in His wisdom knew that seven pairs of each would suffice, and that the ark
would be unable to accommodate more than that number, and the amount of food needed to keep them alive
for a whole year.
Radak on Genesis 7:2:2 ‫איש ואשתו‬, male and female The words are not to be understood literally as “man and wife,” i.e. exclusive
mates, but are a figure of speech. The best example and proof that the expression is not meant literally, is
found in Exodus 26,3 ‫אשה אל אחותה‬, describing certain boards of the Tabernacle being close matches. No
one in their right mind would translate these words as “woman and her sister.” When the Torah here speaks
in cumbersome language of ‫מן הבהמה אשר איננו טהורה‬, meaning the ritually impure animals, instead of simply
writing ‫מן הבהמה הטמאה‬, this is not an unusual stylistic expression. We find similar cumbersome language in
similar contexts in Deuteronomy 23,11‫ אשר לא יהיה טהור‬or in Samuel I 20,24 ‫כי לא טהור הוא‬. There are
numerous more examples. Our sages in Pessachim 3 say that the Torah meant to demonstrate that it is
worthwhile to write a few extra words in order to avoid the use of coarse or unseemly language.
Radak on Genesis 7:3:1 ‫גם מעוף השמים‬, we have explained this already on the previous verse. The meaning of the words: ‫על פני כל‬
‫הארץ‬, is similar to what we explained in connection with this expression in Genesis 1,25, where it meant that
the animals concerned were distributed across all different parts of the globe.
Radak on Genesis 7:4:1 ‫כי לימים עוד שבעה‬, G’d commanded both Noach and the animals to enter the ark already seven days prior to
the onset of the deluge in order to assign to them their various accommodations and in order to get them
used to their change in diet, especially the flesh eating beasts which had to adjust to a vegetarian diet.
According to the Midrash (Sanhedrin 108) Metushelach had died during these days and G’d suspended the
decree until after the days of mourning for him had expired. He had been a righteous man and it was no
more than appropriate that his passing should be noted with appropriate eulogies and mourning rites. We
know that these eulogies were spread over a period of seven days from Genesis 50,10 where, even though
Yaakov had already been mourned for 70 days in Egypt prior to the transfer of his remains to the cave of
Machpelah in the land of Canaan, he was eulogized again. We had already demonstrated that according to
the data provided by the Torah Metushelach must have died at the time the deluge commenced.
Radak on Genesis 7:4:2 ‫אנכי ממטיר‬, G’d did not make mention of the fountains of the earth bursting forth as it is a well known fact that
this usually happens as a corollary to unusual amounts of rain falling on earth. The fact that the rainwater
softens the earth’s crust, enables these subterranean wells held in check by the earth’s crust to burst forth
without restraint. These additional waters then flood the surface of the globe. After all, as we explained
already during the report of the creation, it is the natural tendency of water to inundate the dry areas of the
globe. From a scientific perspective, all we have to remember is that the specific weight of water is lighter
than that of earth, so that if allowed free reign, earth would always sink to the bottom of the water. The
deluge therefore was not an unnatural event but it was a return to what had been natural until G’d had given
a directive at the beginning of the third day that the waters concentrate in a single area to enable the earth to
become visible. G’d had imposed unnatural restraints on the waters at that time, something that our sages
have called an agreement made by Him with the waters, to comply with G’d’s commands when the need
would arise.
Radak on Genesis 7:4:3 ‫היקום‬, an expression which covers all living phenomena on the face of the globe. The root of the word is ‫קום‬,
the letter ‫ י‬being an addition, just as the root of the word ‫ יריבי‬in Psalms 35,1 is really ‫ריב‬, quarrel. The
expression ‫ כל היקום‬refers to all that remained on the surface of the dray land, excluding fish and the living
creatures inside the ark.

Radak on Genesis 7:5:1 ‫ויעש נח‬, he entered the ark together with the animals slated for survival, as mentioned in ‫ ויבא נח‬in verse 7.
Radak on Genesis 7:6:1 ‫ונח‬, The Torah tells us how old Noach was when he entered the ark on account of the deluge that had begun.
The letter ‫ ו‬in front of the word ‫ נח‬means the same as the word ‫כאשר‬. We find parallel constructions of this
use of the letter ‫ ו‬in Psalms 59,16 ‫אם לא ישבעו וילינו‬, “when they are not satisfied they complain,” as well as in
Psalms 63 7 ‫ושפתי רננות יהלל פי‬, “I sing praises when my lips are joyful.” [clearly, one does not sing with one’s
lips. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 7:6:2 ‫והמבול היה מים‬, the word ‫ והמבול‬is used both as part of the previous part of the verse and as the end of the
verse, i.e. “when the deluge which consisted of water took place, Noach was 600 years old.”

Radak on Genesis 7:7:1 ‫ויבא נח‬, Noach entered 7 days before the onset of the deluge.
Radak on Genesis 7:7:2 ‫מפני מי המבול‬, these words supply the reason why Noach entered. We do not understand the scholar in
Bereshit Rabbah 32,6 who claimed that Noach lacked in faith because he did not enter the ark until after the
rain forced him to. After all, the Torah had specifically stated that Noach was perfect and did all that G’d had
commanded him.

Radak on Genesis 7:8:1 ‫מן הבהמה‬, we explained this already on verse 2 of this chapter.
Radak on Genesis 7:9:1 ‫שנים שנים‬, in pairs. Seeing that a pair is made up of a male and a female, two pairs of each species came.
‫כאשר צוה אלוקים את נח‬, the animals came of their own accord, but Noach brought them into the ark as G’d had
commanded him to do.

Radak on Genesis 7:10:1 ‫ויהי לשבעת הימים‬, at the end of the period which G’d had described previously as ‫ כי לימים עוד שבעה‬in verse 4.
Radak on Genesis 7:11:1 ‫בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נח‬, although Noach’s age had already been reported before, here the Torah adds
further precise data about the month and the day of the month when the deluge commenced. ‫בחודש השני‬,
there is a disagreement between the scholars of the Talmud if the “second month” refers to a count based on
the lunar year or the solar year. According to the view that the world was created in the month of Tishrey, (i.e.
that Adam was created on the first of that moth), the month described here is the month of Marcheshvan,
whereas according to the view that the universe was created in the month of Nissan, the deluge would have
started in the month of Iyar. Rabbi Yonathan (Rosh Hashanah 11) decided that the correct version is that of
Rabbi Eliezer who translated the verse ‫ בירח האתנים‬in Kings I 8,2 as the “ancient” month. It appears that this
month was called ‫איתנים‬, seeing it was the month (‫ )תשרי‬in which the universe had been created. It was only
after the Jewish people left Egypt, that they adopted the month of Nissan as the first month of their calendar
year, (partially), as we know from Exodus 12,1-2. The verses there make sense only if the other nations had
not used the month of Nissan as the first month of the calendar year.
Radak on Genesis 7:11:2 ‫נבקעו‬, they began to crack open, and to emerge from below. As a result of tremendous amounts of rain
having poured down from the skies, the crust of the earth was weakened, so that the waters underneath
found it easy to burst forth in streams all over the place. This process, once started continued and
accelerated and even when the 40 days of rain had stopped, the waters kept rising for 150 days due to the
waters coming out of the bowels of the earth.
Radak on Genesis 7:11:3 ‫תהום רבה‬, the noun ‫ תהום‬here is used as a feminine noun, as it is also in Ezekiel 31,4. However, the same
noun also occurs in the masculine mode in Psalms 42,8.
Radak on Genesis 7:11:4 ‫וארבות השמים נפתחו‬, the letter ‫ ו‬at the beginning of the word ‫ וארבות‬refers to something in addition. The Torah
reports that after the “windows,” or storage chambers of the waters in the heavens had opened and poured
down rain in great quantities, also the fountains in the earth below joined in flooding the surface of the globe.
We already explained the procedure in our commentary on verse 4. The letter ‫ ו‬is used in a similar fashion in
Isaiah 64,4 ‫הן אתה קצפת ונחטא‬, “You are angry seeing that we have sinned.” Similar constructions are found
in Judges 4,21 ‫“ והוא נרדם ויעף‬seeing that he was tired he fell asleep.” Or, Leviticus 9,22 ‫וירד מעשות העולה‬,
“seeing that he had performed the rites of the burnt-offering” he descended.” Seeing there was so much rain,
the Torah, using a figure of speech, describes the source of the rain as the ‫ארבות השמים נפתחו‬, “the windows
of the sky having opened.” The term ‫ ארבות השמים‬also appears in Kings II 7,19 where the grain which had
been in short supply is predicted by the skeptical captain as being inadequate to supply the necessary
quantity even if all of the celestial windows were to be opened and it would rain down from there.
Radak on Genesis 7:12:1 ‫ויהי הגשם‬, as G’d had predicted so it came to pass; it kept raining non-stop for 40 days.
Radak on Genesis 7:13:1 ‫בעצם היום הזה‬, on this very date, the 17th day of the second month, after Noach had entered the ark. How do
we reconcile this statement with the verses 4-6 from which we deduced that Noach entered the ark already 7
days before the onset of the deluge? We must conclude that whereas the animals entered the ark at the
beginning of the seven day period, Noach, who entered with them and made things comfortable for them, still
commuted between the ark and his regular home. It is possible that even the animals and the birds still
grazed in the vicinity of the ark, knowing that as soon as the rains would start their place was only inside the
ark. They did not look forward to having to spend any more time than absolutely necessary for their survival
inside the ark. On the seventh day, i.e. the 17th of the month, they all entered the ark for the last time prior to
the earth having dried sufficiently after the deluge to enable them to disembark. As soon as everybody was
inside, Noach locked the exit door, as well as the window which he had built into the roof of the ark, seeing
the waters of the deluge would commence to descend on this very day.
Radak on Genesis 7:14:1 ‫ כל כנף‬,‫כל צפור‬..‫המה‬, when the Torah used the word ‫ עוף‬it referred to any creature that could fly, ‫יעוף‬. Now the
Torah became even more explicit, writing ‫כל צפור‬, a generic term for all the larger birds. The expression ‫צפור‬
includes both the ritually pure birds as well as the ritually impure ones. ‫כל כנף‬, the Torah adds more detail,
writing that every creature that has wings was included in those entering the ark; alternatively, the word could
be understood as an adjective, i.e. “every feathered creature.”

Radak on Genesis 7:15:1 ‫ויבאו שנים שנים‬, in pairs, just as the first time. They all showed up, not a single one had disappeared or joined
another species.
Radak on Genesis 7:16:1 ‫כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים‬, to place every species in a separate cubicle.
Radak on Genesis 7:16:2 ‫ויסגר ה' בעדו‬, He protected him against the chance of even a small hole opening in the ark as a result of the
powerful rains which continued for forty days.
Radak on Genesis 7:17:1 ‫ויהי המבול ארבעים יום‬, day and night, as has been mentioned in verse 12. The night is usually included when
the Torah speaks of ‫יום‬, day. We have learned this already in Genesis 1,8 ‫ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום אחד‬, “it was
evening, it became morning, one day.”
Radak on Genesis 7:17:2 ‫וירבו המים‬, when the waters had increased for forty days, and the waters of the underground wells were
added to the rainwater, the latter were powerful enough to lift the ark and all the creatures inside. Due to its
weight it had not risen from the ground until the force of the subterranean geysers lifted it, and the ark now
floated on the waters.
Radak on Genesis 7:18:1 ‫ויגברו המים‬, this verse adds a new dimension to what we have been told already, i.e. that the waters became
turbulent. This is why the Torah adds the word ‫ מאד מאד‬twice, something most unusual. The repeated
statement ‫וירבו‬, that the waters still kept increasing in volume, is meant to tell us that the waters did not only
increase in turbulence but also kept increasing in quantity. Whereas originally, the waters could only raise the
ark, now, thanks to the turbulence, the ark was driven in different directions from where it had stood
originally.
Radak on Genesis 7:19:1 ‫והמים גברו‬, this too is meant to give us additional information. This is why the words ‫ מאד מאד‬have been
added, each of these words alerting us to an increasing power of the waters driving the ark. Now the waters
were so powerful that they drove the ark far away from where it had stood originally. The second word ‫מאד‬
hints at the ark rising higher than any of the surrounding mountains.
Radak on Genesis 7:20:1 ‫חמש עשרה‬, this number describes how much above the highest mount the keel of the ark had risen.<br> ‫ויכוסו‬
‫ההרים‬, even the tallest of the mountains were covered by at least 15 cubits of water.

Radak on Genesis 7:21:1 ‫וכל האדם‬...‫ויגוע‬, the reason the word ‫ האדם‬is mentioned last, is to tell us that even man, who thanks to his
intelligence and foresight could have been expected to find ways of escaping this disaster by taking refuge
on top of the mountains, etc., was unable to save himself. The 15 cubits of water that covered even the
tallest of the mountains made it impossible for any person to survive. The addition of the word ‫וכל‬, includes
even the giants drowned in these waters. The expression ‫ גויעה‬as a description of dying, refers to prompt
death, as opposed to lingering death. People who drown die without prolonged agony.
Radak on Genesis 7:22:1 ‫כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו‬, both the words ‫ נשמת‬and ‫ רוח‬are in a construct mode belonging to the word ‫חיים‬,
as if the Torah had written ‫נשמת חיים ורוח חיים‬. Other examples of such a construction are found in Ezekiel
31,16 ‫מבחר וטוב לבנון‬, “the choicest and best of Lebanon.” Or, Job 20,17 ‫נהרי נחלי דבש וחמאה‬, “the streams,
the rivers of honey, the brooks of cream.” The Torah, when referring to man, speaks of ‫נשמת‬, whereas when
speaking of the animals it describes their essence of life as ‫רוח חיים‬.
Radak on Genesis 7:22:2 ‫בחרבה‬, but the fish on the earth did not die. They were, after all in their habitat. Furthermore, apart from the
technical reason why they would not drown in the water, more importantly, seeing that they had never shared
the same habitat as man, they had not learned of man’s corrupt ways and become corrupt themselves. We
must contrast the implication here that the fish did not die, with definitive statements threatening the death of
the fish of the sea as a result of G’d’s retribution to man for his iniquity both in Hoseah 4,3 ‫וגם דגי הים יאספו‬,
“also the fish in the sea will perish,” as well as the statement in Tzefaniah 1,3 ‫אסף עוף השמים ודגי הים‬, “both
the birds in the sky I will sweep away as well as the fish in the sea.” Either what these prophets threaten are
exaggerations, or if we are to take these threats at face value, literally, these predictions apply to specific
countries but not world-wide. If the prophet speaks about events which have happened since he issued the
threat in G’d’s name, he referred to the fish adjoining a specific country being devastated by G’d, but this did
not result in a species of fish being wiped out on a global scale. At the time of the deluge there was a
wholesale destruction of life on the earth barring the seas, except for the few specimen of each species that
survived in the ark. The specimen that were saved did not deserve to die any less than their counterparts, but
they were saved in order not to make it necessary for G’d to create them anew after the deluge. It had been
inappropriate for G’d to destroy the fish, or even to save them by means of a miracle, as they would not have
been able to share the accommodation in the ark, and the ark itself would have sunk if part of it had been
converted into an aquarium holding all the fish.
Radak on Genesis 7:23:1 ‫וימח‬, the word is in the kal conjugation similar to ‫ וישע‬in Genesis 4,4, but it is in a transitive mode. There are
verbs which by definition are in a transitive mode though they appear in the conjugation kal. [prominent
examples are such roots as ‫נתן‬, to give, ‫רצח‬, to murder, etc. Ed.] ‫וימחו מן הארץ‬, if G’d wiped out these
creatures, ‫וימח‬, is it not obvious that they were wiped out, ‫ ?וימחו‬So what do these words tell us? The
repetition is to indicate that they were so thoroughly wiped out that not a trace of them remained. [scientists
digging for their remains would not find any. Ed.] There were no ruins left behind, concerning which anyone
could ever say: “this building had been owned or built by a certain individual.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 108
understand the repetition as‫ וימח‬referring to their destruction in this physical material world, whereas the
word ‫ וימחו‬refers to their obliteration also from the world to come.

Radak on Genesis 7:24:1 ‫ויגברו‬, the Torah now describes for how many days this overwhelming force of the water continued to
increase, i.e. for 150 days. Moses knew all this due to his holy spirit, [which included not only prophetic
visions of the future, but knowledge of the past that no living man had seen. Ed.] We cannot assume that
Noach, personally, was aware that the waters kept rising for 150 days and that he passed on this information
throughout the ages. What instruments did Noach have to arrive at such a conclusion? All he knew for sure
was that the rain had stopped after 40 days. No doubt he had implicit trust that G’d had told him the truth
when He had announced that here would be continuous rain for 40 days. Still, he had ways of confirming this
by his own observations. If there is a question, the question is what way did Noach have to determine that
precisely 40 days had elapsed since the beginning of the deluge? Surely, inside the ark with its windows
closed, he could not be sure when it was daylight outside and when it was night? This is assuming that even
if he had been outside he could have told the difference between day and night, with the sun blocked out
through the clouds all that time. Furthermore, how could he determine that after 40 days the waters had
begun to recede? How could he know for sure that seven days had elapsed between the dispatch of the
raven and the pigeon on two occasions? We must conclude that Noach was an exceedingly smart man who
had prepared [during the preceding 120 years, presumably, Ed.] instruments, such as an hour glass, to
measure the progress of time, so that he could measure hours and therefore day and night by means of
these instruments, even if he could not see either the sun or the sky. There is no question that lamps were
burning inside the ark by means of which one could find one’s way around, serving food, preparing meals
and gaining access to where supplies had been stored. The 150 days that our verse speaks about were after
the 40 days of continuous rain, which had concluded on the 27th day of Kislev. By adding 150 days from that
date on we arrive at the 1st of Sivan, counting the months on the basis of the solar year of 365 days,
allocating approximately 30 days to each month. [I know that the author’s arithmetic is problematic. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 8:1:1 ‫ויזכר‬, there is no “remembering” as far as G’d is concerned, seeing that He could not have “forgotten”
something. When the Torah, nonetheless, uses such terms as “He remembered” as applying to G’d, this is a
figure of speech enabling the reader to employ his imagination and to realise that such wording introduces an
activity by G’d now which had been latent for a while previously. We have numerous examples of such a
term being used when a period of apparent inactivity by G’d had come to an end. Compare Leviticus 24,45
‫וזכרתי את בריתי‬, where the subject is that after a period of retribution, events occur which make it appear as if
G’d had remembered His covenant only at that time. There are numerous other examples of this type. Here,
it describes the fact that G’d concerned himself with the great discomfort experienced by all the people and
creatures in the ark after such a long period of being cooped up.
Radak on Genesis 8:1:2 ‫ויעבר אלוקים רוח על הארץ וישכו המים‬, G’d made this wind blow over the surface of the globe in order to prevent
the waters from rising any further. We find the word ‫ שככה‬used in a similar sense, i.e. suppressing turbulence
of matter or mind in Esther 7,10, and in Samuel II 11,20.the words ‫ תעלה חמת‬describe the exact opposite.
The King’s reaction to Haman’s hanging calmed him down, whereas anger, turbulent emotions coming to the
surface are described as “rising”, ‫תעלה‬. The word ‫ שככה‬is therefore aptly translated as something abating.

Radak on Genesis 8:2:1 ‫ויסכרו‬, they were shut, i.e. prevented from adding further turbulence on the surface of the waters which had
flooded the globe. As a result of the wind blowing, the earth gradually began to dry out, the moisture being
blown away, gradually. However, these subterranean wells were not all of them shut off. This enabled some
of the waters on the surface of the globe to flow back gradually into the bowels of the earth from which they
had come forth. While it is true that at the time these waters had risen to the surface they had found many
more apertures through which to rise, and their appearance on the surface had been rapid, now it seeped
back at a much slower pace.
Radak on Genesis 8:2:2 ‫וארבות השמים‬, those “windows” of the heavens had already closed after the forty days of rainfall. Now no
more water inundated the earth either from above or from below.
Radak on Genesis 8:2:3 ‫ויכלא הגשם‬, the Torah mentions this to tell us that not even normal rainfall still occurred during this period
when the earth returned to normal.
Radak on Genesis 8:2:4 ‫ויסכרו‬, the word is spelled with the letter ‫כ‬,.which in this instance is used instead of the customary letter ‫ג‬, in
the root ‫סגר‬. The construction is not unique, as we also find it in Psalms 63,12 ‫כי יסכר פי דובר שקר‬, “when the
mouth of liars is stopped.”

Radak on Genesis 8:3:1 ‫הלוך ושוב‬..‫וישבו המים‬, this formulation described the gradual nature of the waters abating and the water level
on the globe falling. The period this took corresponded to the 40+150 days described during which the
waters rose, giving us a total of 340 days. When you add the 3 times 7 days which elapsed for the 3 missions
of the raven and the pigeon respectively, you have a total of 361 days, very close to the 365 days described
in the Torah as the period which elapsed from the onset of the rain until Noach left the ark. The beginning of
the return to normal commenced on the second day of Sivan. As soon as the waters had peaked, they began
to recede.
Radak on Genesis 8:4:1 ‫ותנח התבה בחדש השביעי‬, this is the month of Sivan being the seventh month counting from the end of the rain
descending which occurred in Kislev. Even though, as we know, the rains had begun to fall in the month of
Marcheshvan, the Torah speaks here of a count beginning in Kislev seeing that the end of the rains and the
end of the ark floating around have something in common in terms of stages of the deluge ending.<br> ‫על הרי‬
‫אררט‬, perhaps those were the tallest mountain range, or it happened that the ark was in that region on the
day in question. At any event, the mountain range of Ararat is one of the highest mountain ranges that we
know of. What is clear is that lower mountain ranges on earth did not become visible to people in the ark until
the tenth month. The meaning of the line is that the process of the waters diminishing continued
progressively until at the beginning of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible. These
“mountains” were actually only hills. The process continued unabated. The “tenth” month mentioned here
was the month of Av, seeing it was the tenth month counting from the month during which the rains had
started, Marcheshvan.
Radak on Genesis 8:5:1 ‫והמים היו הלוך וחסור‬, the waters kept receding. This construction is not unique, as we encounter it in Ezekiel
1,34 ‫והחיות רצוא ושוב‬.
Radak on Genesis 8:5:2 ‫עד החודש העשירי‬, this does not mean that during this month the waters had already receded completely; what
happened was that the waters receded progressively until relatively low mountain tops became visible. The
process continued further. The “tenth” month described was the month of Av, seeing it was the tenth,
counting from the month of Marcheshvan when the rains had started falling.

Radak on Genesis 8:6:1 ‫ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום‬, these words refer to the end of forty days after the waters had begun to recede;
personally, I feel that the period described dates back to the day when the ark had come to rest on Mount
Ararat. How else would Noach have been able to determine that the waters had begun to recede, seeing that
all around him there was only water? Once the ark had come to rest on Mount Ararat Noach could measure
how much more of the mountain was becoming visible beneath the ark. Noach knew that the ark had come
to rest on something solid. He then waited another 40 days to give the waters a chance to recede still further,
before he saw any point in sending out a bird (raven) to determine if that bird could locate a tree which was
exposed above the water.
Radak on Genesis 8:6:2 ‫את חלון התבה‬, the window of the ark which he had made before departure. The window described here as ‫חלון‬
is identical with what had been described by G’d as ‫ צוהר‬in 6,16. He sent the raven out from this widow. We
may legitimately ask that if Noach knew the day on which the rains had stopped as we stated earlier, why did
he not open the window of the ark immediately, seeing that no more rain was falling? We may answer that
Noach was still worried that the turbulent waves surrounding the ark would come crashing through such an
open window. This is why he waited another 40 days until such waves were much below the lower decks of
the ark and posed no threat.
Radak on Genesis 8:7:1 ‫וישלח‬, why did Noach send out the raven? He had said to himself that the raven is a flesh eating bird and will
most likely find remains of dead animals to feed on. [our author understands the word ‫ עורב‬as referring to
what is better known as the “black raven,” a type of vulture (corvus cornix) which feeds on carcasses. Ed.] If
the bird would return with such remains in its beak, Noach would know that the waters had receded
somewhat. The raven returned without anything in its beak, so that Noach did not learn anything new about
the state of the waters. The raven returned to its nest, leaving from time to time to see if the situation outside
the ark enabled it to survive on the outside. It carried on in this fashion until the surface of the earth had dried
out. In Bereshit Rabbah 33,5 the sages view the fact that the raven was chosen as the experiment by Noach
in a different light. The blackness of that bird is paraphrased in Psalms 105,28 where the psalmist writes ‫שלח‬
‫חשך ויחשיך‬, “he sent darkness and it became dark.” [a figure of speech, meaning that if one pins one’s hopes
on something black, one is likely to receive darkness in return, i.e. not achieve one’s objective. Ed.] Seeing
that this mission of the raven had proved totally unproductive, after waiting seven days, Noach sent out a
pigeon. A pigeon is known to have a well developed sense of imagination and direction, finding its way back
after having flown over a route only once or twice. It knows that it was dispatched for a purpose, i.e. to
receive some information in return for having been dispatched [we know of carrier pigeons in our time, but if
there had been such already in the days of Noach is highly speculative. Ed.] Moreover, it is in the character
of pigeons to be attached to their home base, so that they can be depended on to return to their nest. When
we have been told in Shabbat 49 that the wings of the pigeon protect it, the meaning is that seeing that the
pigeons are being raised as carrier pigeons, transporting messages attached to its wings, the fact that their
owners need them alive is their insurance against being slaughtered prematurely. Noach, in sending out the
pigeon, was therefore convinced that the bird would return to the ark even if there were places on earth in the
meantime where it could make its nest. ‫ותשב אליו אל התבה‬..‫ולא‬, the Torah describes the return of the pigeon
both as a return to Noach, i.e. ‫אליו‬, and as a return to the ark, i.e. ‫אל התבה‬. Why was the return of the pigeon
described in such detail? It is first described as a return to Noach, seeing that the fact that it did not bring
back any bit of vegetation indicated that it had been unable to find any, i.e. had not performed its mission and
brought Noach information. Secondly, it did not re-enter the ark as the raven had done. It remained perched
on the roof of the ark. It was unhappy at not having brought back some kind of message to Noach. This is
why Noach stretched out his hand and brought it back into the ark. The amount of time that elapsed between
the dispatch of the raven, and the dispatch of the pigeon, was seven days. How did we arrive at this
information? ‫ויחל עוד שבעת ימים אחרים‬, the addition of the word ‫אחרים‬, “others,” proves that there had already
been a waiting period of seven days

Radak on Genesis 8:10:1 ‫ויחל‬, the root of this word is ‫חול‬, it is used in the transitive mode, ‫הפעיל‬, similar to Judges 3,25 ‫ויחולו עד בוש‬,
“they waited a long time.”
Radak on Genesis 8:11:1 ‫לעת ערב‬...‫ותבא‬, it came (back) at evening time of the same day it had been dispatched.
Radak on Genesis 8:11:2 ‫טרף‬, both vowels in this word are kametz, indicating that the word is an adjective similar to having been
spelled ‫טרוף‬, as a participle. The word implies that the pigeon had torn this leaf off an olive tree with its beak
in order to bring it back to Noach. This is the reason why the Torah used the word ‫טרף‬, to show that Noach
realised that it had torn it off the tree and broken it from the olive. [not just from a branch. Ed.] This was not a
leaf which had been found floating on the surface of the water.
Radak on Genesis 8:11:3 ‫כי קלו המים‬, that they had decreased in quantity. When something is in short supply it is often referred to as
being ‫קל‬, whereas when something is in ample supply it is called ‫כבד‬. Examples of this are found in Job
14,21 ‫יכבדו בניו‬,”his sons become ‘heavyweights’ (important, of consequence) We have the expression ‫מקנה‬
‫כבד‬, a great deal of cattle (Exodus 12,38) or ‫חיל כבד‬, an army of numerous soldiers (Kings II 18,17). Why did
the pigeon choose a leaf from an olive tree? Perhaps it was the first tree it encountered after flying away from
the ark. Or, seeing that the leaves of the olive tree stay on the tree all year round it was the most likely leaf
available. According to Sanhedrin 108 the pigeon reasoned that even a bitter tasting leaf eaten in freedom
was preferable to being cooped up in luxurious surroundings. In the final analysis, the pigeon preferred to
entrust its future to G’d rather than to man.

Radak on Genesis 8:12:1 ‫וייחל עוד‬, the word is in a passive mode, the root being ‫יחל‬. If it had been in a hitpael mode, the letter ‫ י‬should
have the vowel patach underneath it, but the fact is that it has the vowel kametz.
Radak on Genesis 8:12:2 ‫ולא יספה שוב אליו עוד‬, this is when Noach realised that the surface of the earth had dried sufficiently and that
the pigeon had found a resting place on earth as well as on many trees so that it did not bother to come back
to him. This happened in the 601st year of Noach’s life, seeing that the Torah mentions that it was on the first
of the first month of that year. (verse 13) Noach’s 600th year had been completed on the 30th of Ellul, and he
had entered the 601st year of his life on the first of Tishrey, which is the first month of the year. On the 17th
day of the second month he had completed a full year’s stay in the ark. Even though the surface of the earth
was “dry” in the sense that it was no longer covered by water, it was still too muddy, and the surface was
misleading, seeing that beneath the immediate surface it was soft, spongy. It was not yet ready for walking
on without risking that one would break through a very thin veneer of dry earth. This is why G’d had not yet
commanded him to leave the ark (until the 27th of that month) At that time, as testified by the word ‫יבשה‬, the
earth had dried sufficiently to make using it as one’s habitat a safe endeavour. Noach did not want to leave
the ark until he had been commanded to do so by G’d. He knew that G’d would issue such a command, just
as He had at the time commanded him to enter the ark.

Radak on Genesis 8:13:1

Radak on Genesis 8:14:1 ‫ובחודש השני בשבעה ועשרים יום לחודש‬, this is the month of Marcheshvan Our sages (at the end of section 33 of
Bereshit Rabbah say that these 10 days represent the 10 days which the solar year is longer than the lunar
year.
Radak on Genesis 8:16:1 ‫צא מן התבה אתה ואשתך‬... ‫וידבר‬, in this verse, as opposed to the phraseology used when he was bidden to
enter the ark, Noach and his wife were mentioned together, i.e. an indication that henceforth the mating of
man and wife was once again permitted.
Radak on Genesis 8:17:1 ‫כל החיה‬, a general clause followed by a specific clause. The meaning of the expression ‫ כל החיה‬is “all the
living creatures,” as in ‫ מכל בשר‬on a previous occasion, whereas the meaning of the words later on in 9,10 is
the same. The verse speaks about the life-force {abstract, i.e. ‫נפש החיה‬, often equated in the Torah with the
life-blood, Ed.] hence the prefixes ‫ ב‬before the words ‫ בהמה כל הרמש‬,‫עוף‬.
Radak on Genesis 8:17:2 ‫הוצא‬, the letter ‫ ו‬in the middle instead of the letter ‫ י‬is not unusual in verbs whose first root letter is supplanted
by the letter ‫ו‬. Nonetheless the ‫ ו‬is read as if it were a ‫י‬. We have a similar construction in Psalms 5,9 ‫הישר‬
‫לפני דרכך‬, which is spelled ‫הושר‬, “make Your way straight before me.” Proverbs 4,25 ‫ יישירו נגדך‬is another
such example. The meaning of the instruction is: “take them out just as you have brought them in!”
Radak on Genesis 8:17:3 ‫ושרצו בארץ‬, a duplication of the blessing/command after the living creatures had been created (Genesis 1,22.
The reason why this time G’d uses the word ‫ שרץ‬previously applied to the multiple births by fish, (1,20) is
because this time only a very few of each species left the ark so that they needed the encouragement by
being told they would once more be very numerous.<br> ‫ושרצו ופרו ורבו‬, this is a most unusual sequence,
beginning with the word ‫שרצו‬, implying the very least individuality, switching to relative individuality by the use
of the word ‫פרו‬, implying single births, and ending with the word ‫ רבו‬implying single births at frequent intervals
(compare our comments in chapter 1 20 and 28 on the meaning of these terms. In Bereshit Rabbah 34,8 the
emphasis in this verse is on the word ‫בארץ‬, meaning that whereas it had been forbidden to engage in
reproduction while in the ark, now this could all be made up for.
Radak on Genesis 8:18:1 ‫ויצא נח‬, the fact that the Torah, in this verse, separates the females from the males, may hint that the females
were afraid to leave the ark until after the males had left and assured themselves and them that it was
possible again to live outside the ark.
Radak on Genesis 8:19:1 ‫כל החיה‬, as we explained on verse 17. ‫הרמש וכל העוף‬, followed by ‫כל הרומש על הארץ‬, including both the
domesticated animals and the free-roaming beasts.
Radak on Genesis 8:19:2 ‫למשפחותיהם‬, according to their species, every species separately.

Radak on Genesis 8:20:1 ‫ויבן נח‬, at the very site where he had come out of the ark. It is possible that he left the ark on Mount Ararat,
where the ark had been reported as coming to rest (7,2), or that the ark had moved away from there after
having come to rest there temporarily. Or, Noach, after exiting from the ark walked a distance before he
found a suitable site or cave to establish a temporary residence. As soon as he found a place to start
farming, he built an altar to thank G’d for his and his family’s deliverance. According to Bereshit Rabbah 34,9
this was the great altar in Jerusalem where Adam had brought his offering, and this is what Psalms 69,32
refers to when David speaks of ‫ותיטיב לה' משור פר מקרין מפריס‬, “which will please the Lord more than oxen,
bulls with horns, and hooves.”
Radak on Genesis 8:20:2 ‫ויקח מכל הבהמה הטהורה‬, the free roaming beasts which chewed the cud and had split hooves were included in
the expression ‫ מכל הבהמה הטהורה‬as an expression of gratitude for his survival. He did not take any of the
ritually impure beasts as they were not fit for him to eat from except if there would not be any other meat
available. (compare our comments on 7,2) If they were not fit for human consumption, how could one offer
them for consumption by G’d on His altar?
Radak on Genesis 8:20:3 ‫ויעל עולות במזבח‬, there is a disagreement among our sages if Noach only offered burnt-offerings or if he also
offered peace-offerings, i.e. offerings part of which may be eaten by the owners. (Zevachim 116)

Radak on Genesis 8:21:1 ‫וירח ה‬, the Torah uses a figure of speech to facilitate our understanding of G’d’s reaction, seeing that G’d has
no nose and therefore cannot smell in the accepted sense of the word. When in Psalms 50,13 the psalmist
speaks of G’d asking if He would “eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of he goats,” this is also a figure of
speech, of course. David most certainly did not suggest that such a thing were possible in the literal meaning
of the words. The meaning of such phrases is that the offerings were pleasing to G’d as if, if we had been
speaking of human beings, they smelled good and tasted good. The proof that G’d had accepted the offering
and was well disposed toward all His creatures was the fire which descended from heaven and consumed
the offerings. This is what David referred to in Psalms 104,31 when he described G’d as ‫ישמח ה' במעשיו‬, “that
the Lord took pleasure in His creatures,” as opposed to Genesis 6,7 when we were told ‫ויתעצב ה' אל לבו‬, “that
the Lord was saddened in His heart.”
Radak on Genesis 8:21:2 ‫את ריח הניחוח‬, a noun belonging to the same category as ‫ ניצוץ‬in Isaiah 1,31 meaning that Noach had
succeeded in calming down G’d’s anger at the world, (His creatures).
Radak on Genesis 8:21:3 ‫ויאמר ה' אל לבו‬, He foresaw in His mind that He would not again have to wreak wholesale destruction on earth
seeing that it would not happen again that the majority of the human species would be as depraved as those
before the deluge. The report of what happened during the generation of the deluge was handed down from
generation to generation and served as a warning against man again becoming as corrupt as at that time. G’
d would not again punish the community at large on account of depraved individuals, but He would punish all
the individuals who are wicked, as He demonstrated when He destroyed Sodom and its satellites.
Radak on Genesis 8:21:4 ‫בעבור האדם‬, on account of the wicked people among mankind; rather those will be killed so that the earth will
be at the disposal of the good people. If small parts of the earth would indeed be destroyed as happened in
the case of Sodom and that part of the Jordan valley, this cannot be considered as a destruction of the earth.
Such destructions will be understood as the destruction of that particular population including the earth they
had dwelled on.
Radak on Genesis 8:21:5 ‫כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו‬, this urge is called ‫ יצר‬as it was formed at the same time as the fetus. The reason
why the Torah writes ‫מנעוריו‬, literally “from his youth,” is that the evil urge is with man from an earlier age than
the ‫יצר הטוב‬, the impulse to do good. The latter urge becomes active in man only with the advent of maturity,
at age of 13, as we know from Job 11,12 ‫ואיש נבוב ילבב ועיר פרא אדם יולד‬, “a hollow man will get
understanding, when a wild ass is born a man.” The meaning of that line is that man is like wild ass from the
time of birth, without restraining influences, following his instinct rather than being guided by his intelligence.
As he grows older, becomes more mature, forces known as the ‫ יצר טוב‬begin to assert themselves Seeing
that man had been formed without the benefit of the impulse to do what is good, useful, rather than what is
designed to gratify his baser urges, as G’d decided in His wisdom to do, seeing that man was part of the
overall scheme of nature, he will become guilty of sin again and again, with the exception of an infinitely
small percentage of people. Therefore, G’d would not continue to punish mankind at large on account of
most people acting out their natural inclinations. According to Sanhedrin 91 the Roman governor Antoninus
asked Rabbi Yehudah hanassi, his frequent companion, at what point the “evil urge” entered the human
being. He wanted to know if this occurred at the moment of birth or at the moment when the fetus assumed a
certain shape, say 40 days after fertilisation of the ovum. Rabbi Yehudah answered that this occurred already
at the earlier of these two points in time. Antoninus found it difficult to accept this, saying that if it were so the
fetus would keep hitting out at his mother while in her womb, and as a result, she would give birth
prematurely. Rabbi Yehudah quoted as his source Genesis 7,7 where G’d told Kayin that the evil urge was
lying already at the entrance of the birth canal, ‫מפתח חטאת רובץ‬. Antoninus countered that from our verse
here it seems that the evil urge commences his activity only after the child can be called ‫נער‬, a lad. Rabbi
Yehudah drew Antoninus’ attention to the defective spelling in the word ‫נעריו‬, which if Antoninus were correct,
should have had the letter ‫ ו‬after the letter ‫ע‬, i.e. making ‫נעוריו‬, after he had attained the status of a human
being. Seeing that this letter is missing, this is a clear hint that this ‫ רע‬within the human being predates his
birth. Rabbi Yudan, enlarging on this unusual spelling, plus the fact that the words ‫ לא אסיף‬are repeated
twice in this verse, stated that such repetition, when reported in G’d’s name, is always an equivalent to an
oath by G’d, i.e. something that He will not change for any reason This is why the prophet Isaiah correctly
quoted G’d in Isaiah 54,9 as saying “I have sworn to Myself not to bring on another deluge of water such as
in the days of Noach.”
Radak on Genesis 8:22:1 ‫עוד כל ימי הארץ‬, Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the formulation of ‫ כל ימי הארץ‬here is proof that the
duration of this earth is finite, in fact that G’d had already set a time limit to its existence.
Radak on Genesis 8:22:2 ‫זרע וקציר‬, the year is divided into basically 2 periods, the time to plant and the time to harvest. In the
immediately following words the year is divided into 4 seasons. Still later the Torah speaks of the alternating
periods of day and night. The meaning of all this is that during the four seasons the relative length of day and
night constantly change, summer and winter being indicated by the relative longer periods of daylight and
darkness, depending on the part of earth on which one lives, whereas even in higher latitudes when there is
no true summer or in the equatorial zones when there is no true cold season, the relative length of days and
nights are a guide to the season, i.e. whether it is time to sow, etc. Regardless of which season, the
combined total of darkness and daylight always amounts to the same number of hours, minutes, etc, i.e. a
day has 24 hours of 60 minutes each..
Radak on Genesis 8:22:3 ‫לא ישבתו‬, the fact that G’d promises that such regularity will not cease in the future, is proof that during the
deluge the pattern of day and night and seasonal change had not been as it is now. Noach may not even
have been able to tell if it was day or night while he was in the ark, or at least while the rain was still
descending during the first 40 days. According to Bereshit Rabbah 34,11 in the view of Rabbi Yochanan,
none of the celestial bodies performed their normal functions during the entire year that Noach was in the
ark. Rabbi Yonathan said to Rabbi Yochanan that the celestial bodies did perform their functions, but that
Noach was unable to derive any advantage from this, as he could not be guided by what he could not see.
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehushua, disagreed on another aspect of the meaning of our verse, Rabbi Eliezer
claiming that the word ‫ לא ישבתו‬have to be understood as being in the past tense, i.e. the functions of the
celestial bodies had not been suspended at all, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua understood the words ‫ לא ישבתו‬as
referring only to the future. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar, specifying further, claimed that the second half of the
month of Tishrey, the whole month of Marcheshvan, and the first half of the month of Kislev are devoted to
sowing and planting, whereas the second half of Kislev, the whole month of Tevet and half the month of
Shevat are considered winter. The second half of the month of Shevat, the whole month of Adar, and the first
half of Nissan are called “cold.” [i.e. what the Torah described as ‫קר‬. Ed.] This is followed by two months of
spring, by two months of summer, and two months of “heat.” referred to in our verse as ‫חם‬.

Radak on Genesis 9:1:1 ‫ויברך אלוקים‬, even though they had enjoyed G’d’s blessing already ever since the creation of mankind, the
renewal of life on earth reassured them by their receiving a new blessing also. The blessing consisted
primarily of the promise that they would once again be fruitful and multiply.
Radak on Genesis 9:1:2 ‫ויאמר להם‬, to the sons of Noach, indirectly, who communicated the blessing to his sons. [seeing that Noach
did not have any children after the deluge, the blessing had not included him. Ed.] Alternately, we must
assume that Noach’s sons had prophetic status so that G’d communicated with them directly.

Radak on Genesis 9:2:1 ‫ומוראכם‬, this formulation is parallel to the words ‫וכבשוה‬, which also referred to dominance over other
creatures on earth (Genesis 1,28).
Radak on Genesis 9:2:2 ‫וחתכם‬, the root of this word is ‫חתת‬, and it appears in this sense in Job 6,21 or 41,25. The grammatical
construction is similar to ‫פתכם‬-‫פתים‬-‫פת‬.
Radak on Genesis 9:2:3 ‫בכל אשר תרמוש האדמה‬, in the first half of the verse the Torah employed the preposition ‫על‬, i.e. ‫על כל חית הארץ‬,
whereas now it uses the prefix ‫ ב‬as preposition. Both prepositions are perfectly normal in classical Hebrew. It
is as if the Torah had written ‫בכל חיה שתרמוש על האדמה‬.
Radak on Genesis 9:2:4 ‫ובכל דגי הים‬, even though the fish do not share the same habitat as you, and are therefore presumed to have
nothing to fear from you, G’d puts the fear of man in them also, regardless of their relative immunity from
man. ‫בידכם נתנו‬, the Torah adds these words to include reptiles, etc., be they large of small, whose
movement on earth is very slow, seeing that they too move on the face of the globe. The reason why the
Torah describes their movements as ‫ תרמוש‬in the feminine mode, is to remind us that each of these
creatures possesses a ‫נפש‬, a non-tangible life force, and this life-force called ‫ נפש‬is a feminine noun. The
basic definition of “life” is the ability to move from one place to another.
Radak on Genesis 9:3:1 ‫כל רמש אשר הוא חי‬, the word ‫ אשר‬which follows the word ‫ רמש‬lacks the connecting letter ‫ו‬. This is not
something unique, seeing we find it in Chabakuk 3,11 ‫שמש ירח‬, “sun and moon,” instead of ‫שמש וירח‬, or in
Exodus 1,1 ‫ראובן שמעון‬, instead of ‫ראובן ושמעון‬, and many other such examples.<br> ‫אשר הוא חי‬, these words
refer to the fish. It is also possible to understand these words as if the letter ‫ ו‬had not been omitted at all, so
that the word ‫ רמש‬would be a collective term for all living creatures (as in Genesis 1,21) so that the additional
words ‫אשר הוא חי‬, would compare living creatures now to vegetation in Genesis 1,30 when G’d permitted only
‫ירק עשב‬, the higher ranking plants as food for the human species. The fruit of the trees in the Garden of Eden
were also included in the term ‫ירק עשב‬, seeing that man had been permitted to eat any plant that grew out of
the earth. I explained the meaning of those words on Genesis 1,11
Radak on Genesis 9:4:1 ‫אך בשר‬, even though I have permitted you all moving (living) creatures as food, you must not eat those
animals while they are still alive, i.e. as long as the flesh and the blood are part of one whole you must not
eat such tissue. First you have to slaughter the animal. It would be too cruel to simply cut living tissue from
an animal and consume it while the animal it has been taken from is suffering pain. It appears reasonable to
assume that Noach was permitted to use the animals as his food, seeing that but for his feeding these
animals for a whole year in the ark they would have long since died, so that in effect they owed their lives to
him. Basically, all the animals had been created to serve man’s needs, whether as beasts of burden, etc., or
as food.

Radak on Genesis 9:5:1 ‫אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם‬, even though I have permitted the blood of animals, i.e. you may kill animals, I have
not permitted the animals to kill you, seeing that I have given them into your control, and not vice versa.
Radak on Genesis 9:5:2 ‫לנפשותיכם‬, the meaning of this word is that if an animal kills a human being it becomes guilty of death itself,
unless I use the animal to exact retribution form wicked people, as in the case of the bears who killed the
youngsters who had mocked the prophet Elisha (Kings II 20,23, or Kings I 13, entire chapter). [the fact that
the lion had not touched the corpse of the man he had killed, showed that the lion had acted as G’d’s
messenger, had not acted from impulse in order to still its hunger. Ed] Also in the ‫ תוכחה‬in Leviticus 26,22 G’
d specifically announces that He would use the free roaming beasts as His agents to wreak vengeance of the
Jewish people who had sinned deliberately and for a long period of time. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 34,13)
explain the words ‫דמכם לנפשותיכם‬, as a warning not to commit suicide (especially to people who thereby
expect to escape G’d’s retribution) The message is that the person who killed himself will be held
accountable in the hereafter. They said further that the word ‫ אך‬at the beginning of the verse excludes such
apparent suicides as Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, being prepared to become martyrs to demonstrate
their faith in the G’d in heaven
Radak on Genesis 9:5:3 ‫מיד כל חיה אדרשנו‬, the offending animal which killed a human being will itself be killed by another animal. Even
though the principle of reward and punishment is not generally applicable to any species other than the
human species, seeing that only man possesses intelligence so that he can be held responsible for his sins,
when animals attack human beings G’d did restrict their instincts, and holds them responsible for not
respecting the ‫צלם אלוקים‬, the divine image in which man has been created. Chabakuk 2,17 phrases this
principle as ‫ושד בהמות יחיתן‬, “the destruction of beasts will overwhelm you.” Moreover, when speaking of
retribution, we read in Kings I 13,28 ‫ולא שבר את החמור‬, “nor had it mauled the ass.” [this proved that when the
lion had killed the man of G’d, it had acted as an instrument of G’d’s justice. Ed]
Radak on Genesis 9:5:4 ‫ומיד האדם‬, if man kills man, G’d reserves the right to exact retribution from him either in this life or in the
hereafter.
Radak on Genesis 9:6:1 ‫באדם ישפך‬..‫שפך‬, G’d says: “I ,personally, will demand satisfaction on behalf of the slain person if there are no
witnesses who can testify against the murderer, so that a human tribunal will execute the guilty person. This
is the meaning of the extra word ‫ ;באדם‬i.e. by means of the judges.
Radak on Genesis 9:6:2 ‫כי בצלם אלוקים עשה את האדם‬, for he has been set apart from all other creatures in the universe, so much so
that G’d personally made ‫עשה‬, him in His image by endowing him with an intelligent brain. This is why
humans are also held responsible for killing fellow humans, as they, no less than the animals, destroy a
creature that had been made in G’d’s own image. If man had been forbidden to kill inferior creatures for food
until given special permission to do so now after the deluge, how much more sacrosanct is the life of a
human being who was created in G’d’s image. Remember that it required a special permission by G’d for
man and beast to use even the plants as food for themselves, although the plants are inferior even to the
animals. Keeping all this in mind, it is clear that in order for any creature being allowed to destroy a human
being a special directive from G’d ordering this was required. This is why Moses in the chapters dealing with
the retribution for the Jewish people, both in Bechukotai, and in Ki Tavo¸describes that G’d will issue such
instructions to the beasts, just as He had done during the plagues (#4) in Egypt when the wild beasts invaded
human habitations and wreaked havoc. When man, due to his own deeds, forfeits his claim to wearing the
image of G’d on his face, the beasts no longer seeing such an image, feel free to attack such humans. An
unborn fetus does not possess this divine image, i.e. it has no discernible intelligence. Intelligence is that
which makes a slave obey his master, seeing that he would suffer if he did not; therefore when a human
being disobeys his master (G’d), he displays lack of intelligence, i.e. can no longer demand to be treated like
human being. [I have paraphrased the last few lines. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 9:7:1 ‫ואתם פרו ורבו‬, why does the Torah repeat this, seeing we have been told this already in verse 1 of this
chapter? Seeing the Torah had spoken of bloodshed, a sin resulting in depopulating the earth, it was
important to emphasise that it is man’s task to populate the earth, not the reverse. In fact, this is now not only
a blessing but a positive commandment. The expression ‫ שרצו‬means that mankind should strive to produce
offspring in large numbers, something that happened with the Israelites after they came to Egypt. We have
evidence of this in Exodus 1,7 where the proliferation of
Radak on Genesis 9:8:1 ‫ויאמר אל נח ואל בניו‬, either Noach’s sons were also prophets, or G’d spoke to Noach to tell his sons, as we had
discussed already in connection with verse 1. The reason for the word ‫אתו‬, with him, was to ensure that the
sons would know that the blessing applied both to them and to their offspring.
Radak on Genesis 9:9:1 ‫ואני הנני מקים‬, the letter ‫ ו‬before the word ‫אני‬introduces an addition to the previous words ‫ואתם פרו ורבו‬,
meaning if you will do your part in trying to populate the earth, I for My part promise to keep My covenant with
you, making sure that life on earth will not again be drastically disrupted. G’d can be relied upon to keep His
promises and assurances, as distinct from man, as has been pointed out already by Bileam in Numbers 23,
19.
Radak on Genesis 9:10:1 ‫ואת כל הנפש אשר אתכם‬, the ones which had been in the ark with you; this is spelled out shortly by the words
‫מכל יוצאי התבה‬, “I will make a covenant with all the species of creatures that came out of the ark. None of
these species will again become subject to extinction.” G’d said further: ‫לכל חית הארץ‬, in order to make the
meaning of what had been written before perfectly clear. In Bereshit Rabbah it is pointed out that these
words include all the subsequent generations of these animals, just as the subsequent generations of Noach’
s sons and their wives were included in the blessing as we know from the words ‫ואת זרעכם אחריכם‬, “and your
offspring after you.”
Radak on Genesis 9:11:1 ‫והקימותי‬, earlier the formulation had been ‫הנני מקים‬. At that time G’d had not mentioned the substance of the
covenant. Now the Torah spells out what G’d had had in mind with the line (in verse 9) ‫ואני הנני מקים את בריתי‬.
The promise not to wipe out ‫ כל בשר‬is parallel to the promise not to flood the entire universe with water again.
In both instances G’d reserves the right to flood part of the earth or to destroy part of mankind. The promise
does include the assurance that rain of the dimensions and duration experienced during the deluge will not
occur again, ever. The words ‫ לשחת את הארץ‬are an illustration of what would happen if G’d would bring on
another deluge.
Radak on Genesis 9:12:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים‬, to both Noach and his sons, that the visible sign that they need not worry about experiencing
another deluge when He had occasion to make rain fall on earth, is the rainbow, which will serve as such a
sign of the covenant for all future generations.
Radak on Genesis 9:13:1 ‫את קשתי נתתי בענן‬, the reason why G’d speaks of “My” rainbow, instead of “the rainbow,” is because He had
now made it the visible reminder of the covenant between Himself and mankind, just as He had said ‫ביני ובין‬
‫הארץ‬, “between Me and the earth,” or as the prophet Ezekiel refers to this in Ezekiel 1,28 ‫כמראה הקשת‬, “as
the manifestation of the rainbow.” The prophet considered the vision he had seen in that chapter as
comparable to the spectacle of the rainbow, i.e. something of which he stood in awe. Concerning this the
question is raised in Bereshit Rabbah 35,3 that the word ‫ קשתי‬means ‫מוקש לי‬, “an hidden obstacle for Me, a
stumbling block for Me., [If I understand this correctly, the problem is if the rainbow as a reminder is
supposed to frighten man into conducting himself properly so that no deluge will be necessary, or if he is to
think only of the promise that there will not be another flood, just as now after the rain the sunlight appears in
many different colours, something beautiful and certainly encouraging. Ed] Nowadays, the emphasis is only
on the promise, as we have never experienced a deluge, unlike the sons of Noach for whom each time a
rainbow appeared it reminded them of the horrible ordeal from which they had been saved.
Radak on Genesis 9:13:2 ‫נתתי‬, is in the future mode, as for instance when Avraham speaks of money in payment for the cave of
Machpelah in Genesis 23,13, when he says “‫נתתי כסף השדה‬, “I have given the money for the field,” when the
deal had not even been completed yet, and certainly no payment had been made. It is best to explain the
formulation here as did Rav Saadyah gaon, when he said that G’d, in speaking of what had thus far been
exclusively “My” rainbow, He would from this time on share with mankind, also reinforcing the rays of the sun
as a blessing for man and the crops in the field. Every time rain would cease, and the rainbow would appear
in the sky or on the horizon, man would be reminded of G’d’s promise not to bring on another deluge. The
word ‫ נתתי‬in a distant past mode, actually emphasises that the phenomenon of the rainbow had existed
already since the six days of creation. During the days of the deluge the rainbow had not appeared, first
because the rains had been incessant, and at any rate, there was no one to appreciate it. Now, G’d promises
that there would be a regular appearance of the rainbow after every rainfall. In Pessachim 54 the rainbow is
listed as one of the phenomena created at dusk immediately before the original Sabbath, seeing there has
not been anything new created after the 6 days of creation. The references to the rainbow have been
repeated only in order to impress upon people’s minds that it is a powerful sign of G’d’s covenant.

Radak on Genesis 9:14:1 ‫והיה בענני ענן‬, I will place clouds for a variety of reasons.
Radak on Genesis 9:14:2 ‫בענני‬, this word, though without the dagesh in the letter ‫ נ‬is in the conjugation kal. It is not at all unusual that it
appears without the dagesh. The reason why G’d repeats the word ‫ענן‬having already said that He speaks of
having provided clouds, is to underline the importance of that activity, just as the line ‫מרקר קיר‬, “tumult and
din” in Isaiah 22,5 or ‫ ותשרש שרשיה‬in Psalms 80,10 “and uprooted its roots.”
Radak on Genesis 9:14:3 ‫ונראתה‬, it will be seen by people.

Radak on Genesis 9:15:1 ‫וזכרתי‬, the Torah again uses a formulation we as human are familiar with, although, as pointed out
repeatedly, G’d does not need to remember, never having forgotten. The same formulation is found in
Leviticus 26,42, and in numerous other verses throughout the Torah. They are inaccurate approximations, so
that we can understand G’d’s reaction in terms familiar to us.
Radak on Genesis 9:15:2 ‫ולא יהי עוד המים‬, the meaning is similar to the formulation in Leviticus 11,38 ‫כי יותן מים על זרע‬, “when water falls
on plants (seed), etc.”
Radak on Genesis 9:15:3 The meaning of the word ‫למבול‬, is that there will not be so much rain that anyone will have reason to fear
another deluge.
Radak on Genesis 9:16:1 ‫והיתה הקשת בענן‬, it will be there as a sign, ‫וראיתיהו לזכור‬, a figure of speech, as already commented upon by
us elsewhere. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that actually, the rainbow is not a passing phenomenon but is
in the clouds or sky at all times but at times is visible only to G’d.
Radak on Genesis 9:16:2 ‫בין אלוקים‬, as if the Torah had written this in the first person, i.e. ‫ ביני‬as earlier in verse 12. This formulation of
G’d speaking of Himself in the third person is also found in Exodus 24,1 ‫'ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה‬, “and to
Moses He had said: “ascend to G’d, etc.” The word ‫ אלוקים‬is used as G’d’s attribute when He wants to be
perceived as judge and leader. It is usually found when the generation concerning whom this attribute is used
was found wanting, was disobedient.

Radak on Genesis 9:17:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים‬, G’d repeated His blessings a third time in order to reassure him beyond doubt. According to
Bereshit Rabbah 38 our paragraph contains 6 covenants which were meant to correspond to the six days of
the creation. If you were to question that actually there are 7, the answer is that the first one was needed in
its own right, and cannot be used to relate to other matters. [what are meant by “6 covenants,” are the 6
(respectively 7) separate utterances reported by G’d in this paragraph, utterances which could have been
considerably condensed by the use of longer sentences and conjunctive letters. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 9:18:1 ‫ויהיו בני נח‬, a reminder that when Noach’s sons came out of the ark they did not have any offspring as yet.
They begat offspring only afterwards, and from their children mankind as we know it is descended.
Radak on Genesis 9:18:2 ‫וחם הוא אבי כנען‬, this is mentioned as background to the story of Noach and the, wine.

Radak on Genesis 9:19:1 ‫נפצה‬...‫שלשה‬, the root of the word is ‫נפץ‬, an intransitive verb appearing also in Samuel I 13,11 ‫כי נפץ העם מעלי‬,
“the people were leaving me.” The word is used in this sense also in respect of the people dispersing over
the earth on the occasion of the tower of Babylon and its collapse.
Radak on Genesis 9:20:1 ‫ויחל נח איש האדמה‬, we had already pointed out in 5,29 that Noach was a farmer and excelled in this vocation.
Now, after the deluge, he acquired additional expertise in combining different strains of grapes and making
wine out of the grapes. Up until this time people had used grapes only as a fruit to eat, and had not learned
how to make intoxicating wine. When the Torah writes ‫ויחל ויטע‬, this means that he began by planting grapes
and ended by making wine. The expression ‫ ויחל‬is usually associated with the first stage ‫תחלה‬, in a process
requiring several stages. Alternately, the word ‫ ויחל‬is used in the same sense as in Samuel I 14,35 ‫החל לבנות‬
‫מזבח‬, “it was the first altar which he (Saul) established” Or, the meaning of the word ‫ ויחל‬may be similar to
Joshua 3,7 ‫אחל גדלך‬, “I will establish your greatness.” and similar to Genesis 10,8 ‫הוא החל להיות גבור‬, “he was
the first to become a hero, a warrior.” Or, the word simply means “he began with this work of farming, as part
of which he planted a vineyard.” The line may simply mean that Noach began to plant a vineyard, [in which
case we gain the impression that this was his major concern at this time. Ed.] What leads to all these
explanations is the repetition of two verbs in close succession ‫ויטע‬... ‫ויחל‬, without the Torah telling us what
Noach had done. We have such a construction in Genesis 28,10 ‫ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה‬, “Yaakov left
Beer Shevah heading towards Charan,” where we are also forced to understand the second verb ‫ וילך‬as
meaning ‫ללכת‬, to go. This story has to be understood as portraying two separate subjects. First we have to
remember that Canaan, Cham’s son and his offspring were a cursed tribe, cursed by Noach, that is. We
observe throughout the Book of Genesis how careful our ancestors were not to intermarry with members of
such a cursed part of mankind. Avraham not only went out of his way to forbid Eliezer to take a wife from
such people for his son Yitzchok (Genesis 24,3) but Yitzchok and Rivkah both warned Yaakov against such
liaisons (Genesis 28,1). The Torah introduces a story showing how Canaan was even worse than his father
Cham, so that the Torah makes a point of calling Cham “the father of Canaan,” [although he was the
youngest of his four sons. (10,6) G’d had foreseen already that the offspring of Canaan would be totally
corrupt, depraved. This is why He had encouraged Noach to curse his own grandson. (compare our
comment on verse 8 on the wording of G’d’s address to Noach) Seeing that Noach was a prophet, his curse
came true. Another aspect of this story is to warn anyone drinking wine not to overindulge, as this will impair
the functioning of his brain, that which separates him from the animals. Solomon in Proverbs 23,2 is
extremely critical of people who drink to excess. Also the prophets, (Isaiah 5,22; 28,1, and Amos 6,6) are
very outspoken about the detrimental effects of drinking too much intoxicating wine. If the first human being
ever to drink wine, i.e. Noach, became so drunk that he was unaware that he had disrobed himself, this
serves as a warning to all of his descendants to be very careful in the manner in which the treat such
intoxicating drink.

Radak on Genesis 9:21:1 ‫וישת מן היין וישכר‬, he drank without setting himself a limit until in the end he became drunk and disgraced
himself.
Radak on Genesis 9:21:2 ‫ויתגל‬, by himself, unaided.
Radak on Genesis 9:21:3 ‫בתוך אהלו‬, the letter ‫ ה‬at the end of ‫אהלה‬, where we would expect the letter ‫ ו‬for the masculine ending “his,” is
interpreted (and quoted by Rashi) as an allusion to the ten tribes who have been referred to as ‫ אהלה‬in Amos
6,6, and whose exile has been attributed to their excessive drinking of strong wine both in Isaiah 28,1 and
Amos 6,6). From a grammatical perspective, the construction here is not really so unusual

Radak on Genesis 9:22:1 ‫וירא‬, by feasting his eyes on his father’s nudity, Cham showed that he was the father of Canaan, i.e. that his
son already had inherited a genetic flaw. The additional impropriety he committed was that he told his
brothers about it, instead of first covering his father’s nudity.
Radak on Genesis 9:23:1 ‫ויקח שם ויפת‬, this formulation is similar to ‫ ויבא משה ואהרון‬in Exodus 6,10, where it describes the promptness
and dedication of Moses and Aaron. Here two of the brothers not only covered their father’s private parts, but
made sure that he was completely covered.
Radak on Genesis 9:24:1 ‫ויקץ נח‬, drunkenness makes a person as insensitive to what goes on around him as does sleep. Therefore,
the Torah describes his becoming sober as “waking up.”
Radak on Genesis 9:24:2 ‫ויקץ‬, the reason why this is spelled with a single letter ‫ י‬so that the letter ‫ י‬which is part of the root is missing,
is because this was not a true “awakening:” from sleep. [The fact is that in all the Torah scrolls nowadays the
word is spelled with two letters ‫י‬, so that there is no need to justify a “missing” letter, seeing it is not missing.
Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 9:24:3 ‫אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן‬, if we were to understand these words as referring to what Cham had done, we would
have to understand the word ‫ הקטן‬as “the inferior one.” We have explained already on 5,32 as well as on
6,10 that Cham was not the youngest of Noach’s sons as he was never mentioned last in the list of Noach’s
sons. If what he did was to only tell his brothers about his father’s nakedness instead of first covering up his
private parts, why did Noach cause Canaan, Cham’s son, instead of Cham himself? He foresaw in prophetic
vision that both Cham and his offspring would forever be evil people. Actually, he could not effectively curse
Cham, as G’d had already blessed him. (compare verse 1 in our chapter) Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 36,7)
therefore say that “Cham saw and Canaan was cursed,” the reason being that once G’d has blessed
someone, man cannot annul G’d’s blessing. Other sages are of the opinion that Canaan castrated Noach,
and that the words ‫ בנו הקטן‬refer to Canaan, seeing that he was the youngest of Cham’s sons. There is
nothing unusual in a grandson being referred to as a “son.”

Radak on Genesis 9:25:1 ‫ויאמר ארור כנען‬, he cursed Canaan by invoking his prophetic vision, so that his curse would take lasting effect.
All he patriarchs were extremely careful not to marry women descended from these cursed tribes. Avraham
had already warned Eliezer his servant, against taking a wife from these tribes for Yitzchok, and so had
Yitzchok as well as Rivkah expressed their opposition to such liaisons.
Radak on Genesis 9:25:2 ‫עבד עבדים‬, even his brothers would be slaves too; but he, Canaan, would be a slave even to them.

Radak on Genesis 9:26:1 ‫ויאמר ברוך ה' אלוקי שם‬, Noach said this as a prophecy. He used the most holy attribute of G’d in conjunction
with the regularly mentioned attribute of G’d when blessing in His name. The reason he did this was that he
foresaw in his vision that the descendants of Shem would serve G’d in His capacity as the “Lord, the Eternal,”
i.e. as Hashem. When we recite our major prayers we always combine mention of these two attributes of G’
d; Noach foresaw this already. We encounter this combination in connection with the Jewish people, the
descendants of Shem for the first time in Exodus 3,6. G’d has described Himself as being especially ‫אלוקי‬
‫ישראל‬, the G’d of Israel. (Exodus 5,1)
Radak on Genesis 9:26:2 ‫ויהי כנען עבד למו‬, Canaan is to be a servant to the descendants of Shem.
Radak on Genesis 9:27:1 ‫יפת אלוקים‬, this expression is appropriately translated as “may He expand,” the root of the word ‫ יפת‬being
‫פתח‬, an opening. It is in the transitive mode, as for instance Isaiah 41,2 ‫ומלכים ירד‬, from the root ‫“ רדה‬to rule.”
Noach prays that Yaphet’s share of the earth will be enlarged. Even though Noach promises quantity to
Yaphet, he reserves quality for Shem, saying that G’d will make His home in the portion of the earth allocated
to Shem’s descendants. (see Exodus 29,45) Moses also specifically prays for a renewal of this blessing after
the sin of the golden calf in Exodus 33,16) when he pleads for the Jewish people to enjoy this distinction.
Radak on Genesis 9:27:2 ‫ויהי כנען עבד למו‬, also to the descendants of Yaphet.

Radak on Genesis 9:28:1 ‫ויחי נח‬, the principal reason why the Torah lists the ages of these antediluvian people is only to enable us to
count back to when human history started with the creation of Adam. All such basic historical data are
provided both in the Torah and in the Books of the prophets.
Radak on Genesis 10:1:1 ‫ואלה תולדת בני נח‬, who were Shem, Cham, and Yaphet. The ones named after this were their offspring,
‫תולדותם‬.
Radak on Genesis 10:1:2 ‫ויולדו להם‬, we have already seen when these sons of Noach had entered the ark that they had not yet had
any children. Why then was it necessary to write the line “children were born to them?” The only reason the
Torah wrote this line is to tell us that neither of Noach’s sons engaged in marital intercourse while in the ark
so that no children were born in the ark. Even though we have already commented on this in connection with
the report of Noach and his family leaving the ark, (8,19) and the manner in which their leaving the ark had
been worded, one could err and conclude that the offspring mentioned here under the heading of ‫ ויולדו‬could
apply to Noach’s own children, the Torah explains in greater detail that only Shem, Cham, and Yaphet are
the sons of Noach, and only they and their wives entered the ark together with him and his wife; (7,13) and
by writing that children were born to them after the deluge this makes this crystal clear.

Radak on Genesis 10:2:1 ‫בני יפת גמר‬, according to Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon, he was the founder of the nation known as Altrach.
Radak on Genesis 10:2:2 ‫משך‬, on the other hand, according to Josephus he was the founder of the nation known as Tushchana, a
people professing the Christian faith nowadays, and leaders of that faith. Rome itself is within the boundaries
of that nation.
Radak on Genesis 10:2:3 ‫ותירס‬, according to our sages (Yuma 10) this is Persia.

Radak on Genesis 10:3:1 ‫ובני גמר אשכנז‬, people say that this refers to the people living in Germany.
Radak on Genesis 10:3:2 ‫ וריפה‬according to Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon these are the Gauls living in France; in Chronicles I 1,6 they are
called ‫דיפת‬.
Radak on Genesis 10:4:1 ‫ובני יון‬, the Torah mentioned only a few of the families descended from the sons of Yaphet; we do not know
why not all of them have been listed.
Radak on Genesis 10:4:2 ‫ודדנים‬, spelled with a double letter ‫ד‬, whereas the same people are spelled as ‫ רודנים‬in Chronicles I 1,7.
Seeing that the letters ‫ ד‬and ‫ ר‬look so similar to one another, it is quite possible that both spellings are used
interchangeably. Someone may have mistaken the letter ‫ ד‬for the letter ‫ ר‬so that this error has been
perpetuated. There can be no question that in a situation such as this, the spelling in the Torah must be
considered authoritative, as Moses wrote at the dictation of G’d and with a high degree of prophetic insight.
According to Josephus, the people concerned lived (in his time) along the river “Rodeno.”
Radak on Genesis 10:5:1 ‫מאלו נפרדו‬, after the debacle with the Tower, the descendants of Yaphet chose for themselves the various
islands in the Aegean as their habitat, resulting in each tribe being separated from the other.
Radak on Genesis 10:5:2 ‫איש ללשונו‬, the people on each of those islands developed a different language or dialect. The word ‫הגויים‬
implies that although all these tribes were offspring of Yaphet, they were in fact as if separate nations. Seeing
that the descendants of Noach listed comprise a total of 70, the concept of mankind comprising “seventy
nations” not including the Jewish people, was born. [If, nowadays, in the United Nations, for instance, we
have far more than 70 nations represented, this in no way contradicts the sages’ reference to “the 70 nations
of the world.” Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 10:6:1 ‫ובני חם‬, Cham is mentioned after Yaphet; if Yaphet was the junior of the three sons, he was mentioned ahead
of Cham because of his superior character qualities. If he was older than Cham, he would qualify for earlier
mention on that account alone. The Torah left the list of the descendants of Shem last, in order to preserve
the continuity of the report which continues with the lives of the patriarchs who are all descendants of Shem.
Radak on Genesis 10:7:1 ‫ודדן‬...‫ובני‬, Rav Saadyah gaon has supplied us with a commentary on all these.
Radak on Genesis 10:8:1 ‫וכוש ילד את נמרד‬, he was accorded prominence, i.e. separate mention, seeing that Nimrod developed into
such a historic personality. ‫הוא החל להיות גבור בארץ‬, this does not mean that there had not been warriors,
brave heroes, before his time. Clearly, amongst the antediluvian giants, ‫נפילים‬, there had been such men.
Besides, the expression ‫ החל‬is never used to describe that some phenomenon occurred for the fist time. The
word ‫ החל‬describes an act that was performed for the first time, not the existence of something or someone
for the first time. Nimrod displayed his power and bravery either vis a vis one nation, or even vis a vis
numerous nations by conquering them and being appointed or appointing himself as their ruler, their king.
Until the time of Nimrod no one had possessed the effrontery to lord it wholesale over his fellow man. Nimrod
invented the concept of “dictator.” These developments were a by-product of mankind having dispersed over
different areas of the globe after the collapse of their attempt to “conquer” heaven.

Radak on Genesis 10:9:1 ‫הוא היה גבור ציד לפני ה‬, the word ‫ ציד‬tells us that Nimrod was also a mighty hunter, i.e. that the beasts were in
awe of him, too. He both shot and trapped them. People wondered how he managed this. His fame became
proverbial. When one encountered an exceptionally powerful individual either then or in the future, one would
compare him to Nimrod, saying that he was as great a hero as Nimrod. The meaning of the words ‫'לפני ה‬, is a
figure of speech, i.e. if one uses this simile one pays the subject described as such a supreme compliment.
Expressions such as ‫עיר גדולה לאלוקים‬, (Jonah 3,3) or ‫ל‬-‫( הררי א‬Psalms 36,7) and numerous other examples,
all use the name of G’d to describe something as outstanding in its category, i.e. as almost divine in nature.
Some scholars understand the words ‫ ''לפני ה‬as meaning that Nimrod offered some of the animals he had
hunted to G’d as a sacrifice, acknowledging His help. Onkelos is closer to our interpretation when he writes
‫גבר תקיף‬, an aggressive and powerful man.
Radak on Genesis 10:10:1 ‫ותהי ראשית‬, first he conquered Babylon, and established himself as king there. Subsequently, he conquered
‫ אכד‬,‫ארך‬, and ‫כלנה‬, all of which are part of the land known as the land of Shinor. After that he went on to
conquer many more and more distant lands.
Radak on Genesis 10:11:1 ‫מן הארץ‬, from the land of Ashur he went forth in the direction of Assyria. The Torah fails to tell us if Ashur
belonged to the descendants of Cham or of Shem. In verse 22 we are told that Eylam and Ashur were sons
of Shem, so that it is unlikely that here we speak of a descendant of Shem, the subject matter being the
descendants of Cham, i.e. Kush. However, seeing the Torah did not mention another Ashur, it is most
probable that he was a descendant of Shem. Perhaps he had made his home for a while in the land of
Shinor, i.e. regions populated by the descendants of Cham, so that the words ‫ מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור‬gain
added significance, seeing that this was the first example of someone migrating from one region to another.
Perhaps Ashur had even overcome Nimrod or his successor in the land of Shinor and founded a rival
kingdom in Nineveh. His kingdom, as distinct from its capital, may have been named after its founder, Ashur.
We definitely have evidence that the King of Ashur ruled over Babylon and its surrounding region. The
various descendants of Cham were expelled from that entire region, being supplanted by the Chaldeans,
‫כשדים‬, in the time of Avraham. These people were descended from Shem, [else how could Avraham have
been at home there? Ed.]<br> This whole story is only meant to remind us that the entire universe belongs to
G’d, no matter how great the conquerors on earth, (Psalms 24,1 and Samuel I 2,9) and if He decides to take
away a country from its ruler and to substitute new inhabitants and rulers, He will do so at will. This is what
the prophet Jeremiah 27,5 spoke about when he said ‫“ ונתתיה לאשר ישר בעיני‬I will give it (the land) to whoever
is right in My eyes.” Ownership of a part of the earth is totally dependent on the deeds or misdeeds of the
people living on that land. (Deuteronomy, 32,4). We are not sure if the word Ashur refers only to a city or to
an entire kingdom. The verses (25,18 in Genesis, or Kings II 15,19), speaking of ‫מלך אשור‬, or Kings II 19,11,
speaking of ‫מלכי אשור‬, do not give clear guidance on that point. According to Yuma 10, in the name of Rabbi
Yossi, Ashur is equivalent to ‫סלוק‬, (Silikia? in Iraq, on the banks of the Tigris)
Radak on Genesis 10:12:1 ‫ויבן את נינוה היא העיר הגדולה‬, most commentators believe that the words ‫ העיר הגדולה‬refer to the city Nineveh,
seeing that this city has been described in similar terms in Jonah 3,3. I believe that actually, these words
refer to ‫רסן‬, seeing that our verse speaks about this city in the first place. The entire story, as we mentioned
previously, has as its objective to demonstrate how ownership of even a sizable land or city is subject to
rapid change. Even though Ashur established a great empire, this empire was crushed by the Babylonians
who replaced them, and who, in turn were replaced in short order by the Persians and the Medes.

Radak on Genesis 10:13:1 ‫ומצרים‬, we do not know why Cham called the name of his son ‫ מצרים‬with the letter ‫י‬, and the letter ‫ ם‬at the
end. We do not find a parallel to this except amongst the sons of ‫ יון‬in verse 4, who was a descendant of
Yaphet, where we encounter ‫ כתים‬and ‫דודנים‬. (plural mode) Perhaps, the spelling of the name ‫ מצרים‬is
related to something that happened at the time he was born. Most names in those days were related to some
incident of which the father had foreknowledge and wanted to be remembered. According to Bereshit
Rabbah 37 all the offspring of ‫ מצרים‬listed are spelled with the ending ‫ים‬. This ending, which also means
yam, sea, is an allusion to the Egyptians being drowned in the sea.

Radak on Genesis 10:14:1 ‫אשר יצאו משם פלשתים‬...‫ואת‬, it is not clear if the Philistines are the offspring of only the Kassluchim or from
both the Patrussim and the Kassluchim who had intermarried among themselves so that the Philistines had
genetic input from both these families. It is interesting that the expression ‫ שם‬or ‫משם‬, i.e. expressions used to
describe physical locations, origins, are also used elsewhere in a genetic sense such as in Genesis 49,24
‫משם רועה אבן ישראל‬, “from there he became the shepherd of Israel.”
Radak on Genesis 10:14:2 ‫כפתרים‬, according to Rav Saadyah gaon, a tribe that used to live in the neighbourhood of Port Said in
Eastern Egypt. The reason they are mentioned here separately is that although the Philistines, basically, are
descended from the offspring of ‫מצרים‬, the land of Egypt did not belong to them, so that the Israelites were
entitled to take over the parts of the land of Canaan then inhabited by the Philistines.
Radak on Genesis 10:15:1 ‫וכנען ילד‬, I have found one commentator who writes that Canaan had 11 sons so that his nation, including the
founding father Canaan, comprised 12 tribes This is supposedly what is meant in Deuteronomy 32,8 ‫יצב‬
‫גבולות עמים למספר בני ישראל‬, “He sets the borders of the people in a manner corresponding to the number (of
tribes) of the Children of Israel.” ‫וכנען‬, Put’s offspring is not mentioned as there is no need to report on this.
Radak on Genesis 10:15:2 ‫את צדון בכורו‬, I have not been able to find a good reason for the Torah describing ‫ צדון‬as a firstborn, seeing
that no other firstborn son of these people is described as such. Normally, the first named son is presumed to
be the firstborn, so that there is no need for adding that attribute, unless we are to assume that the Torah, in
naming someone as the first in a list of sons, does so because he possessed superior qualities to those of
his brothers. One such example would be the mention of Shem ahead of his brothers, although he was not
the oldest (5,32), according to those commentators who believe that Yaphet was Noach’s oldest son. It is
possible that Tzidon did possess superior qualities when compared to his brothers, so that by describing him
as the firstborn the Torah wanted to draw attention to both of these distinctions. We find something parallel in
Genesis 25,13 where Nevayot is described as the firstborn son of Ishmael. We have reason to believe that
he possessed outstanding qualities because his sister Machalat is not described only as the daughter of her
father Ishmael, and her grandfather Avraham, but also as the sister of Nevayot, her brother. (Genesis 28,9)
Radak on Genesis 10:16:1 ‫ואת היבוסי‬, all of these [after Tzidon and Chet, Ed.] have the letter ‫ י‬at the end, signifying who they belong to.
The families emanating from them carried the name of their respective forbear. This is also why they have
the letter ‫ ה‬at the beginning of their names, signifying that they were a known entity. i.e. the letter ‫ ה‬as
definitive article. The ‫ הפריזי‬is not mentioned here seeing that the definitive article is not applied to an
individual person. Perhaps he was one of the sons of Canaan about whom G’d had not spoken to Avraham,
seeing He spoke to him only about ten of these sons (Genesis 15,19-21) Tzidon may be excluded here as
not being included in the list of Canaanite tribes even though the territory of Tzidon was adjacent to the other
Canaanite territories, just north of them. We have this on the authority of Yaakov who said (Genesis 49,13)
that the territory of Zevulun would border on Tzidon. We also have the borders of the Canaanite tribes
described as extending southwards from Tzidon in verse 19 of our chapter. The fact is that G’d gave to
Avraham, i.e. his descendants, the land of the Canaanites i.e. all their territory, everything within its original
borders. [Tzidon never became part of the land of Israel.] On different occasions in the Torah when the
subject came up, only some of the names of the tribes are listed, sometimes 7, sometimes 6, and in chapter
15 ten such names are mentioned. It is possible that one or another of these sons of Canaan was known by
more than one name. Still, they all had the family name “Canaanite” in common tracing themselves to their
ancestor by that name.

Radak on Genesis 10:18:1 ‫ואחר נפוצו‬, after the languages were confused.
Radak on Genesis 10:18:2 ‫משפחות הכנעני‬, the ones who had been mentioned previously, i.e. the Canaanites, were scattered to a
different region, to the land called afterwards ”the land of Canaan.”
Radak on Genesis 10:19:1 ‫ויהי‬, now the Torah mentions the territorial boundaries extending from Tzidon to Sodom, but fails to list all the
boundaries, seeing that these will be mentioned independently on future occasions. The story here has as its
function to inform us that it had been G’d’s will that the Canaanites settle permanently in one region until the
time came for their destruction in the days of Moses and Joshua, seeing that G’d had chosen the Israelites to
dwell in that land. In fact, settlement of the Canaanite tribes in the land later to become the land of Israel was
for the sake of the Israelites. When the Israelites would take over that country which had been developed
agriculturally, and in which their remained most of the infra structure of a wealthy nation, it saved them the
trouble of developing virgin land, [as did the Europeans who settled in America. Ed.] The Torah points that
out specifically in Deuteronomy 6,11 writing that G’d is bringing the Jewish people to a land with beautiful
cities which they did not have to build, houses full of every good thing that the Jews did not have to
accumulate, water cisterns full with supplies of drinking water, etc. It is clear from the verse in Deut. 32,8 to
which we referred already, that the sections of territory occupied by the Canaanites had been designed from
the outset as the territory that would, when the time was ripe, be allocated to the 12 tribes of the Jewish
people. The Canaanites preceded the Israelites, seeing that they had been cursed to be slaves to the
descendants of Shem, i.e. Israel. A slave prepares things so that his master can subsequently enjoy them.

Radak on Genesis 10:20:1 ‫אלה‬, this has been explained already on 10,1.
Radak on Genesis 10:21:1 ‫ולשם‬, the reason that the descendants of Shem are listed last in this chapter is that the story will continue
with the lives of the patriarchs, all of whom are descended from Shem. The Torah is trying to preserve
continuity. As to the unusual phrase
Radak on Genesis 10:21:2 ‫גם הוא‬, the Torah adds these words as if to say that we should not think that seeing that up to now we heard
about Shem always first, that the fact that we had not heard about him in this chapter means that he had not
been blessed with offspring. Not only did he have sons, but he became the founding father of all the tribes
descended from ‫עבר‬, who in turn became the ancestor of the patriarchs. In fact, his descendants were even
more important than those of his older brother Yaphet, described as ‫הגדול‬, the great one. The attribute ‫הגדול‬,
when used in conjunction with Yaphet may be understood as Shem sharing his brother Yaphet’s distinction
of doing good deeds. The Torah invites you to note that Shem has not been compared to Cham, neither in
seniority nor in quality of lifestyle. The word ‫ הגדול‬may equally well be understood as “the great one,” i.e. in
deeds.
Radak on Genesis 10:21:3 ‫יולד‬, a somewhat strange word when we would have expected ‫ יולדו‬in the plural mode, seeing that a number
of sons were born to him. The singular is used to cover the subject of progeny being born. It has been use in
a similar manner in verse 25, when speaking of Ever’s progeny.

Radak on Genesis 10:23:1 ‫ובני ארם‬, the detailed list begins with Aram, the youngest of Shem’s sons, seeing that the previous verse had
concluded with the mention of Aram. Perhaps Terach had married one of the daughters or granddaughters of
Aram. This may have been the reason why Nachor called his own firstborn Utz, as well as his grandson
Aram, to perpetuate the names of his ancestry.
Radak on Genesis 10:25:1 ‫ולעבר יולד שני בנים‬, here too the Torah wrote the singular mode yulad, was born, instead of “were born,” as it
referred to the general subject of providing progeny, just as in verse 21. We find a parallel construction with
Joseph, in Genesis 41,50 ‫וליוסף יולד שני בנים‬. This does not mean that the people mentioned did not have
more than the two sons mentioned, seeing that the Torah specifically mentions (11,15) ‫ויולד בנים ובנות‬, “he
fathered sons and daughters.” The names of the two sons whose births were mentioned here must be
understood as being linked to some important experience in the life of their father, who commemorated the
event by the way he named these sons.
Radak on Genesis 10:25:2 ‫שם האחד פלג‬, the Torah immediately supplies the reason for this strange-sounding name, i.e. hardly a good
omen, by writing that the split in the unity of mankind when the languages were confused occurred during his
lifetime.
Radak on Genesis 10:25:3 ‫ושם אחיו יקטן‬. In this instance the Torah does not reveal the reason why Ever called his second son Yokton.
Our sages surmise that the reason may have been that starting with Yokton, the average lifespan of people
became drastically reduced. (Torah Shleymah 59 on our verse) Whereas Ever himself still lived for 464
years, his son Peleg died at 239 years. Not only did he live only a little more than half the number of years
his father had enjoyed on earth, but he died while his father was still alive. The names of Ever’s sons are
reminders therefore of both the splitting up of a unified mankind into different languages, followed by differing
cultures, and into the shorter lifespan which became the order of the day. Apparently, Ever had been aware
of this already at the time his sons were born. Clearly, Yokton, even as a baby had been so much smaller
than babies had been before his time, that his father had had a premonition that he would not be able to live
that long. We had mentioned earlier that the generations that had lived such long lives had also been
blessed with much bigger bodies than was the case during subsequent generations. (compare 5,4 and 6,4)
According to the view expressed in Seder Olam, and quoted by Rashi, Ever had been a great prophet,
equipped with holy spirit, so that he must have predicted all this long before Yokton had been born, seeing
that according to the sequence in which matters are reported in our chapter the Tower was built several
generations after Yokton had been born already.
Radak on Genesis 10:26:1 ‫חצרמות‬, this is one word though it may sound as if it should be two words.
Radak on Genesis 10:29:1
Radak on Genesis 10:30:1 ‫ויהי מושבם ממשא‬, after the dispersal of mankind, these sons of Yokton chose for themselves the land
extending eastward from the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris. Rav Saadyah gaon understands the
meaning of the word Mesha as what is known nowadays as Mecca, the city to which the Muslims make their
pilgrimage.
Radak on Genesis 10:32:1 ‫אחר המבול‬..‫אלה‬, what does the deluge have to do with this, seeing the people were not dispersed until after
they built the Tower [approximately 300 years later. Ed.]? The meaning of this verse is that all these families
of Noach’s children were born after the deluge, only to be scattered all over the globe, something which
occurred after the building of the Tower.
Radak on Genesis 11:1:1 ‫ויהי כל הארץ‬, the Torah does not mean the earth, of course, but all the people on earth.
Radak on Genesis 11:1:2 ‫שפה אחת‬, everyone was speaking the same language, i.e. Hebrew, as we pointed out already in connection
with Genesis 5,4.
Radak on Genesis 11:1:3 ‫ודברים אחדים‬, they were of one mind. The ‫פה‬, “mouth,” i.e. the organ used to verbalise thoughts in one’s
mind, is used also elsewhere to describe unanimity, such as in Joshua 9,2 ‫להלחם עם יהושע ועם ישראל פה אחד‬,
“to make war against Joshua and Israel, unanimously.” All these kings were united in making common cause
against the invading Jewish armies. In our verse, the people all agreed that the time had come to move down
from the mountainous regions around where the ark had run aground and to search for a valley with
abundant water supply, good topsoil, etc, a region where they could all live near one another in comfort and
safety. This occurred approximately 340 years after the deluge. It appears that Noach and his sons as well
as Ever were not part of this consensus, as they were smart enough and righteous enough to understand
what this might lead to. Noach still possessed books written prior to the deluge as well as books that had
been written by people enjoying a long lifespan after the deluge. In these books the history of mankind had
been recorded and the memory of G’d having communicated directly with man in the very early stages of
human history had been preserved. Avraham was already 45 years of age during the generation of the
Tower, the dispersal. According to some scholars (Bereshit Rabbah 30,8, he was either 45 or 48 years old
when he became truly aware of G’d the Creator.) Other sages credit Avraham with having gained such
knowledge already at the tender age of 3. At any rate, Noach and family were convinced that G’d had
created the universe for no other purpose than to settle all or most of it. They came to this conclusion by
simply noting their population increase and the inadequacy of the environment in which they lived at that
time. They knew also that even the new plan to settle all of mankind in one single irrigated valley would not
be a solution for the long term. Although they knew all this, they decided to go along with the majority opinion
at that time and to preserve the positive values of unity and a common language among all men. According
to Bereshit Rabbah 38,6 the plan to congregate and build the Tower was already idolatrous in its inception,
their argument being that G’d cannot lay claim to the heaven to assign only earth as the domain of man.
They wanted to assert their independence from G’d’s control of their fates. [The language used in the
Midrash is obviously not to be taken literally, i.e. ”conquest of heaven and placing a sword in the hand of a
statute placed there by man,” but is a figure of speech describing the people’s urge to assert their
sovereignty on earth. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 11:1:4 ‫ומגדל וראשו בשמים‬, clearly this is a figure of speech, no one having been foolish enough to believe that it was
possible to build such a structure.
Radak on Genesis 11:2:1 ‫ויהי בנסעם מקדם‬, from the east, for this is where they had lived previously, and this was where G’d had
created man before He placed him in Gan Eden. When Noach had come out of the ark he proceeded to the
place where he had lived before the onset of the deluge. Also the mountain range of Arrarat is in an easterly
direction (eastern Turkey and Georgia in southern Caucasus) Traveling eastward, the people had came to
the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris which they found very much to their liking, a land which was called the
land of Shinor. This land had already been mentioned in 10,10 as Nimrod’s first power base. We already
explained that what is reported in that chapter actually referred to events after the Tower and the dispersal of
mankind. Although the Torah did not elaborate on the meaning of the name Shinor, our sages in Shabbat
113 explain that the dead bodies (skeletons) of the people who had perished during the deluge had been
swept down there by the rivers. It was the lowest place on earth far and wide.
Radak on Genesis 11:3:1 ‫הבה‬..‫ויאמרו‬, this word ‫הבה‬, is customarily used in connection with a plan forming. It describes more a firm
suggestion than a definite order, command. This is one of the reasons this word is always found in the
feminine mode, and followed by a plural mode.
Radak on Genesis 11:3:2 ‫נלבנה לבנים‬, the word ‫ נלבנה‬is a form of elaborating on something which had been said before, similar to
Samuel II 12,16 ‫ויצם דוד צום‬, “David fasted a fast.” If he fasted, he obviously observed a fast; the author
wanted to lend extra emphasis to his words. So here too, the words ‫נלבנה לבנים‬, though an obvious part of
building a city, were repeated merely for emphasis. The words ‫נשרפה לשרפה‬, inform us that the valley lacked
stones for building houses, but that there was clay which could be kiln burned and produce rain proof bricks,
making it possible to build permanent homes.
Radak on Genesis 11:3:3 ‫ותהי להם הלבנה לאבן‬, the zakef; tone sign has the vowel kametz underneath it instead of the vowel segol. We
find a similar construction in Ruth 4,18 ‫ואלה תולדות פרץ‬, where the letter ‫( פ‬with the tone-sign zakef) has the
vowel kametz, instead of the vowel segol. A third example with a similar construction occurs in Genesis
44,17 ‫הוא יהיה לי עבד‬, where the kametz appears under the letter ‫ ע‬which has the tone-sign zakef
establishing that the tone-sign zakef is a strong dividing tone-sign.
Radak on Genesis 11:3:4 ‫והחומר היה להם לחמר‬, the cheymor is the clay found in the earth of that region, and it was mixed into a dough
with water. The product, after kiln drying the bricks formed by the dough, is called chomer. These bricks were
used in lieu of stones that were not found in that valley.

Radak on Genesis 11:4:1 ‫ויאמרו הבה נבנה לנו עיר‬, the purpose of the city was residential, the purpose of the Tower was to serve as an
observation tower enabling the people in the city to keep track of where their flocks and herds were grazing.
It would also serve as a beacon for shepherds who were far away to find their way home by focusing on the
Tower.
Radak on Genesis 11:4:2 ‫וראשו בשמים‬, an exaggeration describing that the Tower would be very tall. We find a similar exaggeration
when Moses described the walls of Canaanite cities in Deuteronomy 1,28 as “reaching into heaven.”
Radak on Genesis 11:4:3 ‫ונעשה לנו שם‬, they meant that as a result of having a permanent residence instead of being nomads, they
would acquire a far greater reputation of being people to be reckoned with. If they were to travel, and when
asked would refer to this city as their home town, this would impress people over the globe. Not only that, the
fact that the traveler himself compared his home town with whatever other town or settlement he would
encounter, would remind him of his home town comparing favourably with the place he had just visited, and
he would be sure to return home. It would act as both a physical and psychological magnet to draw the
traveler back home.

Radak on Genesis 11:5:1 ‫וירד ה‬, When G’d, from time to time, takes a closer look at what His creatures on earth are doing, such an
activity is generally introduced by the expression ‫'וירד ה‬, “G’d descended.” Relative to G’d’s stature, His
involving Himself with the problems of sinful men is below what His dignity could command. [a venerable
Torah sage is exempt from involving himself with the taking home of lost property and looking for its owner. If
this is so out of consideration for the scholar’s dignity, how much more could we expect that G’d does not
bother with us? Ed. (compare Deut. 22,4)]
Radak on Genesis 11:5:2 ‫לראות‬, we encounter the same term when G’d “descended to see” if the reports which had reached Him
about the wickedness of the people of Sodom were as serious as He had heard. (Genesis 18,21) Onkelos
distinguishes between the meaning of the words here and in Genesis 18, describing His action here as
‫לאיתפרעא‬, “retribution,” and the action of G’d vis a vis the Sodomites as ‫דין‬, “justice.”
Radak on Genesis 11:5:3 ‫אשר בנו‬, which they had commenced building; [they never got to finish it. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 11:5:4 ‫בני האדם‬, they are appropriately referred to as ‫בני האדם‬, “children of Adam,” having followed their own
instincts and inclinations instead of heeding G’d’s instructions, just as their forefather Adam had done. G’d
had wanted them to populate the earth, and they had chosen to concentrate in a miniscule part of the earth.
It is interesting that before G’d brought on the deluge, the Torah did not describe Him as “descending” as it
did here or in connection with the Sodomites. Instead, the Torah there spoke about what G’d had seen, i.e.
‫ראיה‬, instead of ‫ירידה‬. (Genesis 6,5) The reason is that the deluge was something everybody knew about,
seeing it was experienced by everybody. The whole point of G’d “descending,” is in order to examine a state
of affairs which is not so widely known, so that it needs investigation. Something known to everybody does
not require examination to determine if it is true. Concerning all these expressions, the bottom line is that the
Torah uses a syntax familiar to people on earth, even if it does not accurately reflect G’d’s thoughts and
feelings.
Radak on Genesis 11:6:1 ‫ויאמר ה‬, to the angels;
Radak on Genesis 11:6:2 ‫הן עם אחד‬, they are all of one mind, as in Genesis 34,16 ‫“ והיינו לעם‬let us become a single nation.”
Radak on Genesis 11:6:3 ‫ושפה אחת‬, they can maintain their unity by speaking the same language.
Radak on Genesis 11:6:4 ‫ולא יבצר‬, shall it not be denied them?
Radak on Genesis 11:6:5 ‫כל אשר יזמו לעשות‬, unless we frustrate their plan from being carried out. The verb ‫ יזם‬describes something
one plans with one’s mind. The roots ‫ זמם‬and ‫ יזם‬mean the same, and can be used interchangeably.
Radak on Genesis 11:7:1 ‫הבה‬, we already explained this expression on verse 3. The entire verse is to be understood as a metaphor,
seeing that the Creator does not mingle with the creature He has created. A similar expression in Isaiah
40,14 ‫את מי נועץ ויבינהו‬, “who did He consult with, who made Him understand?” This is also to be understood
metaphorically. G’d did not literally contemplate if there was someone He could consult with. Here too, when
speaking to His angels who are His agents, He did not actually consult them.
Radak on Genesis 11:7:2 ‫ונבלה‬, the letter ‫ נ‬at the beginning of this word may either represent a plural prefix or a sign that the word is in
the passive mode.
Radak on Genesis 11:7:3 ‫שפתם‬, in either event it refers to the word ‫שפתם‬. According to either interpretation the verb remains in the
conjugation kal, [not in a transitive conjugation hiphil or piel. Ed] which would require the letter ‫ ב‬to have a
dagesh. The meaning of the word is basically the same as the root ‫בלל‬, to mix, to stir. If the letter ‫ נ‬would
refer to the people saying this, i.e. a first person plural mode, then it should have had the vowel cholem
instead of kametz. If it had been a hiphil conjugation then the letter ‫ ב‬should have had the vowel tzeyreh.
Radak on Genesis 11:7:4 ‫אשר לא ישמעו‬, that they will not understand. The root ‫ שמע‬is used here as “hearing” with one’s heart, as
distinct from hearing with one’s ears. We encounter a parallel use of the root ‫ שמע‬in that sense in
Deuteronomy 28,49 ‫אשר לא תשמעו‬, “if you fail to heed, etc.” Words that come forth from the mouth are
described as ‫ שפה‬or ‫לשון‬, “language.”

Radak on Genesis 11:8:1 ‫ויפץ ה‬, G’d did not scatter the people by physically depositing them in different parts of the earth. By mixing
up their languages, the people themselves started moving away from one another, in accordance with their
ability to understand one another, Seeing that they were unable to communicate with one another coherently,
their building project had to be aborted at any rate. The dispersal process was gradual, as methods of
transportation were severely limited. People moved predominantly north from Mesopotamia, rather than to
the desert regions in the southern Arabian peninsula.
Radak on Genesis 11:8:2 ‫לבנות העיר‬, if they stopped building the city, they most certainly also stopped building the Tower. The city, of
smaller dimensions than originally planned, remained, seeing that one group of people speaking the same
language remained there.
Radak on Genesis 11:9:1 They called the unfinished city ‫ בבל‬as a reminder of the fact that this was where G’d had mixed up their
languages resulting in their dispersal.<br>‫ומשם הפיצם‬, and from there G’d had set in motion their dispersal
and the division into 70 languages. The people remaining in Babylon spoke one language. Seeing that the
mixing up of the languages had commenced there, this is the city that was named to commemorate this
event. The one giving this name spoke Hebrew, i.e. the original holy tongue. Both the words ‫ בבל‬and ‫ בלל‬are
Hebrew words. Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write ballel, instead of ballal, however the
word is a condensation of the two words ‫בא בל‬. We have similar condensed words called ‫ מן‬,‫ חן‬,‫קן‬, all of
which are condensed forms of such words as ‫קנן‬, or ‫חנן‬.
Radak on Genesis 11:9:2 ‫כל הארץ‬, a reference to the nations of the earth nowadays, i.e. the time when the Torah was being written.
Radak on Genesis 11:9:3 ‫הפיצם ה‬, as we explained on verse 8.
Radak on Genesis 11:10:1 ‫אלה תולדות שם שנתים אחר המבול‬, we already explained this in connection with Genesis 5,32. Even though the
Torah, earlier, listed the descendants of Shem together with those of his brothers, the Torah repeated this
now in order to demonstrate the direct linkage to Avraham our patriarch. This is why, on this occasion, only a
single one of the sons of Shem, Arpachshad, is mentioned. Avraham is descended in a straight line from
Arpachshad. The reason why the Torah adds that Arpachshad was born two years after the deluge is that
the information the Torah gave us in 10,21 did not tell us when Arpachshad, apparently the third son of Shem
was born. (verse 22). We already mentioned that the reason why the Torah provides us with such data is
only to enable us to count from the creation of Adam to the deluge, to the birth of Avraham, the year of the
Exodus from Egypt, etc. If the Torah had not been interested in reminding us that the earth (universe) was an
original product by G’d, all these numbers would have been relatively meaningless. [if they had related to a
human history extending over millions of years as claimed by scientists nowadays. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 11:27:1 ‫ואלה תולדות תרח‬, these were mentioned already in the previous verse, only Lot being added here. By adding
the word ‫תולדות‬, the Torah makes plain that grandsons, etc., are also called “offspring, ‫ תולדה‬of the older
generation, not only their immediate fathers and mothers. This was especially so, seeing Haran died while
his father Terach was still alive.
Radak on Genesis 11:27:2 ‫והרן הוליד את לוט‬..‫ויחי תרח‬. The offspring of Nachor is not mentioned, as Nachor did not beget any offspring
until after the binding of Yitzchok on the altar in Genesis 22,20. Haran’s son Lot had to be mentioned as his
son, seeing that Lot joined Avraham in his migration to the land of Canaan.
Radak on Genesis 11:28:1 ‫וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו‬, during his father’s lifetime. Something parallel occurred when the two sons of Aaron,
Nadav and Avihu died during the lifetime of their father (Numbers 3,4).
Radak on Genesis 11:28:2 ‫בארץ מולדתו‬, the Torah mentions this seeing that Terach, Haran’s father did not die in the land where he had
been born, but died in Charan after having emigrated there. This became the reason why Lot emigrated with
his grandfather Terach from Ur Kasdim.
Radak on Genesis 11:28:3 ‫באור כשדים‬, a place known nowadays as Ur Kasdim, It could not have had that name at the time Terach and
Avraham lived, as ‫ כשד‬the son of Nachor had not been born until later (Genesis 22,22) The offspring of this
Kessed became were known as the Kasdim.
Radak on Genesis 11:28:4 ‫אור‬, the word means: “valley.” It occurs in this sense also in Isaiah 24,15 ‫'על כן באורים כבדו ה‬, “therefore
honour the Lord in the valleys.” The view of our sages in the Midrash that the name is a reference to the
place where Avraham was saved from the furnace of Nimrod is well known. (Bereshit Rabbah 38,13) They
understand the word ‫ אור‬as meaning “fire.”

Radak on Genesis 11:29:1 ‫ויקח ארם ונחור‬, the singular mode here where we would have expected a plural mode, seeing that each of the
brothers took himself a wife, is similar to the singular mode used by the Torah in Exodus 7,10 ‫ויבא משה ואהרן‬,
“Moses and Aaron came,” where we would have expected the plural mode, seeing that two people came.
The Torah mentioned the names of the wives in honour of Avram. G’d changed Sarai’s name to Sarah.
Seeing that Rivkah was the granddaughter of Milkah and became the wife of Yitzchok they were deserving of
mention by name.
Radak on Genesis 11:29:2 ‫בת הרן אבי מלכה ואבי יסכה‬. This is an unusual sequence the daughter being referred to before the father.
Seeing that the Torah had written earlier that Haran had begotten Lot, (verse 26) I might have formed the
impression that he had not fathered any other children. To make sure we do not make such a mistake, the
Torah, after telling us the names of these girls, reminds us that Haran also fathered these two girls. Our
sages in Megillah 14 state that Yiskah was identical with Sarai. This is very plausible, seeing that in 20,12
Avraham refers to her as “my sister the (grand)daughter of my father. From these words of Avraham it is
clear that Sarai was Haran’s daughter. Still, it is surprising that the two daughters of Haran are not described
as ‫ בנות הרן‬in the plural mode, but each one is referred to separately as ‫בת הרן‬, a daughter of Haran (singular
mode). Perhaps, Sarai was the daughter of a daughter of Terach, although the Torah had not mentioned
specifically that Terach had fathered daughters.

Radak on Genesis 11:30:1 ‫ותהי‬, the Torah makes clear that Sarai was barren, and that even if at a much later stage in her life she did
give birth to a son, Yitzchok, this was not a natural development but was a miracle which could not be
explained scientifically. This is the reason why the Torah did not simply content herself with the words ‫ותהי‬
‫שרי עקרה‬, “Sarai remained barren.” When Sarah did eventually bear a child, not only was the fact that she
gave birth a miracle, but her age at the time, long after she had passed the child-bearing age, was an
additional miracle. Although Sarai’s sister did not bear a child for many years, she is not reported as having
been genetically barren. She apparently suffered some disease which was not connected to her basic ability
of bearing children.
Radak on Genesis 11:30:2 ‫אין לה ולד‬, as long as she lived in the land of Ur Casdim she had no child, but in the land of Israel, eventually
she did give birth. This is part of the reason why G’d, when He told Avram to emigrate, said: ‫לך לך‬, “go for
your own sake.” G’d had added that once there He would make Avram develop into a great nation [although
this was not a promise that his children would be born by Sarah. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 11:31:1 ‫ויקח תרח‬, After G’d had told Avram to move to the land of Canaan (12,1) and Avram had told his father about
this vision, Terach took him and set out on the journey towards the land of Canaan. Seeing that Terach was
willing to accept these instructions Avram had received from G’d, he deserved that the initial stages of this
trip be credited to him. After all, he was the father, and the sons were his offspring. Seeing that Lot’s father
was no longer alive, and he had to depend on his family, Terach took his whole family with him.
Radak on Genesis 11:31:2 ‫ויצא אתם‬, this is the first time that the departure from Ur Casdim is portrayed as having been initiated by
Avram, his father appearing as traveling with his son. The reason is that the command to migrate was issued
to Avram (and wife) and not to Terach. The latter joined Avram and he took his grandson and his livestock
with him. This is why the Torah added the word ‫אתם‬, “with them.”
Radak on Genesis 11:31:3 ‫ללכת ארצה כנען‬, actually, G’d had not told Avram to go to the land of Canaan, as anyone reading 12,1 will
have no difficulty in ascertaining. He had reserved for Himself the right to tell Avram a specific destination at
a later stage. The fact was that the first country under a different rule they encountered would be the land of
Canaan. Avraham was aware that once in the land of Canaan he could expect further directives from G’d so
that it would become clear which country G’d wanted him to settle in.
Radak on Genesis 11:31:4 ‫וישבו שם‬, they experienced a delay in Charan. Terach, after initially agreeing to move to the land of Canaan,
had changed his mind in the interval since leaving Ur Casdim. He simply could not completely sever his links
with his birthplace. He felt that by settling in Charan, which was on the border between Ur Casdim and the
land of Canaan, he had complied with G’d’s command to Avraham to emigrate. By staying in Charan he felt
he would not be too distant from Avraham, while not having severed his ties with his homeland completely.
Avraham moved on. When the Torah described Avram’s wife Sarai as Terach’s daughter-in-law, something
that appears to be self-evident, this is only meant to convey to us the readers, that Sarai was very willing to
uproot herself and to move on with her husband. She was his wife in the first instance, and her relationship to
Terach both as daughter-in-law and as granddaughter was of a secondary consideration. She had full faith in
the Lord, the G’d of Avram, and was prepared to carry out His will.

Radak on Genesis 11:32:1 ‫ויהיו ימי תרח‬, Terach lived for 205 years. Seeing that the Torah had told us that he was 70 years old when
Avram was born, Avram was 135 years old at the time his father died. According to the report in Seder Olam,
Avram buried his father two years before the death of his wife Sarah, a statement that is absolutely correct.
We know that Avraham was 137 years old when Sarah died, as he had previously been reported as being 10
years Sarah’s senior. This means that Terach must have died 2 years before his granddaughter Sarah.
Radak on Genesis 11:32:2 ‫וימת תרח בחרן‬, this line tells us that Terach had not abandoned his idolatry and had moved to Charan only out
of love for his son Avraham. Following Avraham who had obeyed instructions given to him in a vision, did not
mean that Terach changed his philosophy or lifestyle. This is why he saw nothing wrong in remaining in
Charan until the time of his death. [even though his son had attained great prominence in the land of Canaan
during the intervening 62 years. Ed.] If he had really done teshuvah, and returned to the G’d of his
forefathers, he surely would have followed in his sons footsteps and have moved to Canaan. Possibly,
Terach did keep the other Noachide laws, except for his idolatry, seeing that Avraham his son had become
his guide in matters of theology as far as it concerned the dealings with is fellow man. The conviction that
natural forces represent independent powers, even though they in turn might have to obey a higher law, was
something he could not rid himself of, as he, as well as his contemporaries, were too deeply steeped in such
a world outlook. We know that Joshua testified concerning Terach (Joshua 25,2) when he addressed the
Israelites shortly before his death: ”your forefathers dwelled in the land beyond the river (Euprates), Terach
the father of Avram and Nachor. They served alien deities , etc.” If Terach had indeed become a penitent and
had returned to monotheism, it is inconceivable that Joshua would not have credited him with such a
meritorious deed. The final letter ‫ ן‬in the word ‫ חרן‬is meluffaf, i.e. inverted, and our sages explained
concerning this (Rashi and Torah Shleyma 115) that Terach died while being out of favour with his Creator,
seeing that he had failed to repent his erstwhile idolatry. [Having had a son such as Avraham, his obstinacy
was less forgivable than that of other idolaters. Ed.] There is, however, a different explanation offered by
Bereshir Rabbah 38,12 based on G’d promising Avraham that he would die of a ripe old age before joining
his fathers, etc (Genesis 15,15) This is understood as G’d telling Avraham that his father had indeed become
a penitent before he died, how else could the prospect of joining his father after his death be a sort of comfort
for Avraham?

Radak on Genesis 12:1:1 ‫ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך אל הארץ אשר אראך‬, in this instance the word ‫ ויאמר‬refers to
something G’d had already said to Avram before he had even moved away from Ur Casdim, a move he
made at the command of G’d. We know this from Genesis 15,7 where G’d reminds him that “I am the Lord
Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim.” It is possible that G’d repeated this directive once more while Avram
was in Charan. As to the meaning of the word lecha, i.e. “for your own good,” this does not have any special
significance, being a commonly used figure of speech. One example would be Exodus 18,27 ‫ וילך לו‬where
Yitro’s return to Midian is described in a similar way, and no one suggests that he did so “for his own good.”
Another such example is found in Jeremiah 5,5 ‫אלכה לי‬, “I am going,” where no one suggests that Jeremiah
had ulterior motives in going to the wealthy people to speak to them in the belief that they knew the ways of
the Lord. Still other examples of a similar construction are found in Numbers 22,34 ‫ אשובה לי‬or in Genesis
45,19 ‫קחו לכם‬.
Radak on Genesis 12:1:2 ‫מארצך‬, G’d had to add this as it is difficult for a person to leave a homeland in which he had dwelled for many
years, all the more so if that land was at the same time the place where he had been born. This is why G’d
added: ‫וממולדתך‬, since it is doubly difficult to separate from one’s family also and to go to a country where
one knows no one. This is the meaning of ‫מבית אביך‬, “away from your father’s house.”
Radak on Genesis 12:1:3 ‫אל הארץ אשר אראך‬, if G’d had told Avram that He would show him a land which was rich, fertile, good, etc., it
would not have been as difficult to comply with such a directive. But the fact that G’d did not add these
inducements made it more difficult for Avram to decide. The reason why G’d did not offer these inducements
was to show us, the readers, how great was Avram’s love of G’d that he unquestioningly abided by what G’d
had asked him to do. He was determined to carry out the wishes of his G’d.
Radak on Genesis 12:2:1 ‫ואעשך לגוי גדול‬, even though your wife is barren, I will cure her and in this country she will bear a child.
Radak on Genesis 12:2:2 ‫ואברך‬, I will give you additional goodness, such as material wealth, possessions and honour, as we read in
13,2 “Avram was very rich in cattle, silver, and gold.”
Radak on Genesis 12:2:3 ‫ואגדלה שמך‬, your name will be known throughout many nations due to how blessed you are, due to your good
deeds, and the success of your undertakings. Examples were Avram’s defeat of the four most powerful kings
on earth at that time, when he freed Lot and the King of Sodom. The Canaanites (‫ )בני חת‬said to him when he
wanted to buy a burial plot for Sarah “you are a prince in our midst” (Genesis 23,6). We find a similar
statement which G’d made to David in Chronicles I 17,8 ‫ועשיתי לך שם בשם הגדולים אשר בארץ‬, “I will make you
as renowned as the greatest men on earth.” This is part of the good that G’d does for people.
Radak on Genesis 12:2:4 ‫והיה ברכה‬, the construction ‫ והיה‬is similar to the future tense (not imperative) ‫תהיה‬, i.e. “you will become.” [the
author, presumably, finds it difficult for man to be commanded to be a source of blessing. How does one go
about carrying out such a directive? Ed.] We encounter a similar construction as an imperative when G’d
orders Moses to ascend the mountain and to die there on the mountain, ‫עלה ומות בהר‬, seeing that “dying” is
understood to be something passive, not active. Hence he would translate that verse also as “ascend the
mountain where you will die.” (Deuteronomy, 32,48-50) Similar constructions which describe something
impossible are found in Ovadiah 1,4 ‫ואם בין כוכבים שים קנך‬, where one cannot order someone to make his
nest among the stars. These formulations are substitutes for regular future tenses. G’d is telling Avram that
his blessings and his fame will be so great that they will spill over to benefit those around him. This promise
has become fulfilled to such an extent that when people bless their children they wish them: “may the Lord
bless you with the blessing of Avraham”

Radak on Genesis 12:3:1 ‫ואברכה מברכך‬, your allies and those who seek your welfare.” A reference to Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre, Avram’
s allies, as well as others whom the Torah has not named. The blessing‘s effect is that people displaying
sympathy and love for Jews will be recompensed by G’d. A prominent example of this is that the house of
Potiphar was blessed as a result of Potiphar’s positive attitude to Joseph, his Hebrew slave. (Genesis 39,5)
Even Yaakov’s arch enemy Lavan, admitted that his presence with him had resulted in G’d making him rich.
(Genesis 30,27)
Radak on Genesis 12:3:2 ‫ומקללך אאור‬, it is not customary to use the plural mode when speaking of curses. Seeing that there would be
very few people, if any, who would curse Avram, this is hinted at in the use of the singular mode in the word
‫ומקללך‬, “someone who curses you.”
Radak on Genesis 12:3:3 ‫ונברכו בך כל משפחות‬, all the families of the earth within whose radius Avram would make his residence, such
as the land of Canaan, Egypt, and the land of the Philistines, would experience a special blessing due to the
proximity of Avram.

Radak on Genesis 12:4:1 ‫וילך אברם‬, he came as far as Charan where he left his father behind, and proceeded to the land of Canaan.
Radak on Genesis 12:4:2 ‫כאשר דבר אליו ה‬, he did not ask G’d for further instructions thereby “testing” G’d, but continued on his journey
because he believed that G’d would keep His promise as He had said.
Radak on Genesis 12:4:3 ‫בצאתו מחרן‬, perhaps, prior to leaving his father behind, he had spent a few days trying to convince him to
come along with him. At the time he left Charan he was 75 years old. [it is hard to see why he would have
tried to persuade his father to come along, as he then would not have complied with the commandment to
leave his father’s house. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 12:5:1 ‫ואת לוט בן אחיו‬...‫ויקח‬, seeing that Lot was amenable to his uncle’s invitation, Lot left his grandfather behind,
preferring the company of his uncle.
Radak on Genesis 12:5:2 ‫אשר רכשו‬, the plural ending refers to both Avram’s and Lot’s possessions.
Radak on Genesis 12:5:3 ‫ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן‬, the male and female servants they had acquired in Charan. The word ‫ עשו‬must be
understood as similar to Deuteronomy 8,17 ‫עשה לי את כל החיל הזה‬, “has gotten me this wealth.” According to
Onkelos, the word ‫ עשו‬refers to the people whom Avram and Lot had succeeded in bringing back to
monotheism, i.e. the same religion as that professed by Avram. Lot too, professed the belief in the one and
only invisible G’d, the Creator of the universe Lot did not merely join Avram because he was his uncle and
much younger than his grandfather, but he shared his religious beliefs and was active as an evangelist for
that faith himself. This is the reason why the Torah wrote the word ‫ עשו‬in the plural mode instead of the
singular. According to our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 39,14) the plural mode of the word ‫ עשו‬is meant to prove
that both Avram and Sarai, each were active in converting their respective friends to monotheism. The use of
the root ‫ עשה‬to describe such “brainwashing,” is also found in Samuel I 12,6 ‫אשר עשה משה את משה ואת אהרן‬,
where it refers to G’d having been the mentor of both Moses and Aaron.
Radak on Genesis 12:5:4 ‫ויצאו ללכת‬, they were all ready to go to the land of Canaan with Avram and they carried out their intention.
Radak on Genesis 12:6:1 ‫עד מקום שכם‬..‫ויעבר אברם‬, until the outskirts of Shechem. Perhaps the locations mentioned in the Torah are the
ones that any traveler who came from Charan to the land of Canaan encounters in the order in which they
appear in our paragraph. Avram may have briefly lived in these locations until G’d told him to move on and
criss cross the land in 13,17. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, Avram saw a prophetic vision of the
rape of Dinah in that town, and how the sons of Yaakov would avenge that deed. He therefore stopped there
and offered a prayer on behalf of the family of Yaakov, asking G’d to save them from the pursuit and hatred
of the Emorites who would try and avenge their compatriots. We know that this prayer was answered from
Genesis 35,5 ‫'ויהי חתת אלוקים על הערים וגו‬, “the fear of G’d was on these cities, etc.” [according to Eliyahu
Mizrachi, the words ‫ עד מקום שכם‬instead of ‫עד שכם‬, are hard to justify otherwise. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 12:6:2 ‫עד אלון מורה‬, he foresaw that there the Jewish people (at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval) would confirm that
the Torah was binding for them, [especially those commandments that are essentially observed in private,
their observance by individuals being difficult to confirm. Ed.] The word ‫ אלון‬is an allusion to the oath the
people would swear in that location not to violate those commandments. (compare Deuteronomy 11,30)
Avram prayed here to G’d asking Him to make the hearts of the people amenable at that time to take upon
themselves this oath.
Radak on Genesis 12:6:3 ‫מורה‬, according to Onkelos this is the name of an individual, just as ‫ אלון‬.‫ כנעני‬is the name of a plain, this plain
bearing the name of a man known as ‫מורה‬.
Radak on Genesis 12:6:4 ‫והכנעני אז בארץ‬, all these places belonged to the Canaanite, one of the 7 tribes making up that nation. We
encounter such a reference to the Canaanites as a generic term in Deuteronomy 11,30 ‫בארץ הכנעני אשר יושב‬
‫בערבה‬, “in the land of the Canaanite who dwells in the Aravah, wilderness.”
Radak on Genesis 12:6:5 ‫אז בארץ‬, this is to teach us how G’d deals with those whom He loves. Avram was traveling through the land of
the Canaanite with his herds and flocks. He was not challenged by anyone as being guilty of encroaching on
their property, stealing their grazing land, etc. This was proof that G’d was with him. Avram was well aware
that this was a demonstration of G’d’ keeping His promise to him that his very presence would be considered
a blessing for the people surrounding him. There are commentators (Rashi) who say that the reference to the
Canaanite occupying that land ‫אז‬, at that time, means that until shortly before that time the whole land had
belonged to Shem and his descendants, and that only at that time had the Canaanites begun to dispossess
the Semites in that land. The proof quoted for this theory is 14,18 ‫ומלכי צדק מלך שלם‬, that this king was Shem,
the son of Noach who was still king in Jerusalem at that time. In other words, at the time Avram came to the
land of Canaan, the Canaanites had not yet captured Jerusalem.
Radak on Genesis 12:7:1 ‫וירא ה' אל אברם‬, at Elon Moreh, He appeared to him, telling him that this is the land He promised to show him.
Radak on Genesis 12:7:2 ‫ויאמר לזרעך אתן‬, G’d told him that although He had bidden him to leave his homeland and to come to this
country and to settle in it, He had not said that He would give this land to Avram forthwith by dispossessing
the present inhabitants, as this was not practical, Avram being only a single individual. Possession of this
land was possible only after his descendants had become sufficiently numerous. As of the time G’d was
speaking to Avram, the land, instead of being an inheritance, would be like a gift to him, and he was
expected to familiarise himself with his gift. He would encounter only sympathy and goodwill from the local
inhabitants. When, in due course, his descendants, more than 600.000 strong, would come back here they
would encounter hostility, and the conquest would take quite a while, the inhabitants being killed or driven out
in stages, as was spelled out in greater detail in Exodus 23,30.
Radak on Genesis 12:7:3 ‫ויבן שם מזבח‬, in response to this promise, Avram erected an altar there in honour of the G’d Who had
appeared to him.
Radak on Genesis 12:8:1 ‫ויעתק משם ההרה‬, he folded his tent to set out to go to the more mountainous regions east of Bet El, to
examine that part of the land, and pitching his tent anew in the area between Bet El and Ai. When arriving
there he again built an altar proclaiming the supremacy and uniqueness of the Lord G’d. The ending ‫ ה‬in the
word ‫ אהלה‬means the same as the ending ‫ו‬, i.e. as if the Torah had written ‫אהלו‬. Avram in “proclaiming” the
name of the Lord, issued invitations to the local population to visit this altar, pointing out that this altar was
exclusively for serving the Lord and sacrificing to Him. Perhaps the repetition of the words ‫ 'בשם ה‬indicates
that the people whom Avram invited to his altar were already very close to becoming monotheists. According
to Bereshit Rabbah 39,16, quoted by Rashi, he prophesied that at that site or near it, some of his
descendants would fall in battle, due to the sin of Achan and members of his family. (Joshua 7,5).
Radak on Genesis 12:9:1 ‫ויסע אברם‬, he moved on from there, continuing in a southerly direction.
Radak on Genesis 12:9:2 ‫הנגבה‬, until he came to the southern region of the land of Canaan. According to Bereshit Rabbah, all of
Avram’s journeys were in a southerly direction, towards the region where the Kingdom of Yehudah would be
centred.

Radak on Genesis 12:10:1 ‫ויהי רעב בארץ‬, this was one of the ten trials Avram was subjected to by G’d. He successfully mastered all of
them. He never second-guessed G’d, thinking that if G’d had done things differently it would have been
better, especially, better for him. He could have said that G’d had said to him that all the nations of the earth
would be blessed through his presence, and if so how did his presence help them if the now had to face a
famine? He did not question
Radak on Genesis 12:10:2 ‫מצרימה‬, generally speaking, there was always plenty of food in Egypt even if famine was prevalent in
neighbouring countries because Egypt did not depend on rain from above, but relied on the waters of the
river Nile which were most dependable both in quality and in quantity. Even the Torah mentions this as an
advantage of Egypt in Deut. 11,10 when comparing the land of Israel to that of Egypt. Avram could not cope
with the famine in the land of Canaan, due to all his herds and flocks requiring water and grazing land.
Besides, by then he had a household comprising many people for whose welfare he was responsible.
Radak on Genesis 12:10:3 ‫לגור שם‬, he did not intend to settle in Egypt, only to wait out the famine there.
Radak on Genesis 12:11:1 ‫ויהי כאשר הקריב‬, not just he himself, but when he had brought his camp close to the Egyptian border. He was
traveling slowly, in keeping with the pace of those animals that could not move quickly. Seeing that the word
‫ הקריב‬is in a transitive mode, the verse must refer to Avram’s entire entourage. We encounter the same
construction when the Torah reports the pursuit of the Israelites by Pharaoh in Exodus 14,10, i.e. ‫ויהי כאשר‬
‫הקריב פרעה‬, when the reference is to Pharaoh and his army.
Radak on Genesis 12:11:2 ‫הנה נא ידעתי‬, even though the word ‫ נא‬generally describes a knowledge which one has just acquired, Avram
did not want Sarai to think that he had only now discovered her good looks. He therefore used a formulation
which indicated that he had been aware of her beauty ever since he had first met her. Similar constructions
without the addition of ‫ ידעתי‬in the past tense are found in 19,2 ‫הנה נא אדני‬, “now my lords,” or in 19,19 ‫הנה נא‬
‫ חן‬, ‫מצא עבדך‬, “now that your servant has found favour.” The comparison with these examples shows that the
addition of the word ‫ ידעתי‬in our example had as its purpose to reassure Sarai that he had not only suddenly
discovered that she was physically attractive.

Radak on Genesis 12:12:1 ‫והיה כי יראו אותך המצרים‬, the Egyptians themselves are physically not as attractive as the Canaanites, their
relative ugliness being due to their living in a southerly extremely hot climate. Moreover, they are steeped in
sexual licentiousness that makes them disregard moral mores and causes them to ignore obstacles to
satisfying their lust. Avram therefore was concerned that when such ugly people see as beautiful a creature
as Sarai, and they find out that she is married, they will simply dispose of the husband to remove him as an
obstacle to satisfy their lust. Had Avram been aware of this situation, he would never have set out on his
journey towards Egypt, but would have been content to endure the famine just as did most of the other
inhabitants of the land of Canaan. He most certainly would not have put his wife at risk. Even now, Avram
was not concerned that Sarai might be exposed to many rapes, something which would have been
considered as ongoing violence and not have been tolerated even in Egypt. He was afraid that the Egyptians
would commit only a single act of violence, namely to murder him, which would make Sarai a widow, and
anyone sleeping with her would not violate the local laws of the sanctity of marriage. As to why he did not
trust G’d, Who had promised to make him into a great nation, a promise that had not yet begun to be fulfilled,
and preferred to resort to subterfuge, this is not surprising. We find that Yaakov also took extreme
precautions in spite of having been given many assurances by G’d. The promises by G’d are based on man
having taken every reasonable precaution not to require a miracle to save him from danger. When one is
aware that one finds oneself in a situation where danger to one’s life is likely, one must first take every
precaution at one’s disposal to counter such danger. Our sages (Pessachim 64) have told us that it is
inadmissible to sit with one’s hands in one’s hands, waiting for G’d to perform a miracle to save one’s life.
They base this advice on the verse in Deut. 6,16 ‫לא תנסו את ה' אלוקיכם‬, “do not put the Lord your G’d in a
position of having to perform a miracle for you.” When the prophet Samuel went to anoint a son of Yishai
(David as it turned out) as replacement for King Sha-ul (Samuel I 16,2) he told G’d that he was afraid to do
this as King Sha-ul would kill him if he heard about this, G’d did not criticise him for being afraid, but
instructed him to use subterfuge so as to avoid suspicion of traitorous conduct. We learn from these
examples how a righteous person must behave when he faces danger in carrying out what he knows to be G’
d’s will. One must not leave matters to miracles.
Radak on Genesis 12:12:2 ‫ואותך יחיו‬, they will only let you live in order to use you as a sex object for their gratification. We encounter a
similar situation when certain girls who were saved in the punitive campaign by the Israelites against Midian,
were permitted to remain alive (Numbers 31,15) [all of the girls who had been too young to lose their virginity.
Ed.] (compare also what the angel said to Bileam in Numbers 22,33)
Radak on Genesis 12:13:1 ‫אמרי נא‬, tell those who ask you.
Radak on Genesis 12:13:2 ‫למען ייטב לי‬, so that on account of your describing yourself as my sister they will treat me well. The “good
treatment” Avram referred to was not financial reward but simply that they would let him live. It is quite
inconceivable that Avram wanted to use his wife as a pimp uses a prostitute. Even though we read in verse
15 that Avram, in the event, experienced many financial favours as the man whose consent was sought to
have his sister as someone’s wife, this is something he had not counted on at all. In fact, we know how
unwilling Avram was to accept people’s favours when he turned down the spoils of war which were not a gift
to him but his due as he had fought that war. (Genesis 14,23.) Had he not been in Pharaoh’s country and
been afraid to reject these gifts, he would most certainly not have accepted them. Avram was not interested
in acquiring more wealth than G’d had seen fit to grant him.

Radak on Genesis 12:15:1 ‫ותקח‬...‫ויראו‬, our sages, in comparing the abduction of Esther, and that of Sarai, point out that whereas with
Esther the word used is ‫ותלקח‬, here the word used by the Torah is ‫ותקח‬, a pual (strong passive) mode, as
opposed to a nifal-passive mode. (compare Torah Shleymah item 157 on this) In Sarai’s case, the
formulation reflects the fact that she was a married woman, so that her abduction was a violation of her and
her husband’s rights, whereas in Esther’s case it was “merely” a violation of her rights. According to our
author Esther had been agreeable to participating in the contest. [The passive form would only reflect that
none of the girls were active, but were selected by the king’s servants who had to decide if they had a
chance to appeal to the king. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 12:16:1 ‫ולאברם היטיב בעבורה‬, as soon as the king had taken Sarai he showered Avram with favours, seeing that she
had described him as her brother. The favours consisted of the king sending him livestock, as well as other
gifts which he could enjoy personally, so that he would give his consent to the marriage. Afterwards, when he
had been punished by G’d, he did not ask Avram for forgiveness but deported him, as opposed to Avimelech
(Genesis 20,14) The meaning of the words
Radak on Genesis 12:16:2 ‫ויהי לו‬, is that these gifts which used to belong to Pharaoh remained in Avram’s possession.

Radak on Genesis 12:17:1 ‫וינגע ה‬, immediately, in the night following Sarai’s abduction. G’d’s objective was to prevent Pharaoh from
defiling Sarai through sexual contact with her.
Radak on Genesis 12:17:2 ‫ואת ביתו‬, the men of his household, the very men who had praised Sarai’s beauty to their king and had
abducted her. Alternatively, the meaning of these words could be that all members of the palace household,
whether male or female, were afflicted with this plague in order for them to recognise the finger of G’d’s
retribution for violating Sarai’s rights as an individual.
Radak on Genesis 12:17:3 ‫על דבר שרי‬, so that they could not claim that the plague was a coincidence, not related to Sarai’s abduction.
An allegorical approach (related to a Midrash quoted by Rashi) the words ‫ על דבר שרי אשת אברם‬were spoken
by the angel who inflicted this plague on Pharaoh and his household. The plain meaning is that after
suffering this affliction, Pharaoh searched in his mind why this should have happened to him, and it
eventually occurred to him that Sarai might have been a married woman. He then asked Sarai to tell her the
truth. She replied that she was indeed Avram’s wife, and that seeing they had been afraid for Avram’s life,
she had agreed to this semi-deception. As a result of this revelation, Pharaoh called Avram and confronted
him personally.
Radak on Genesis 12:19:1 ‫לאשה‬...‫למה‬, I did not take her merely to sleep with her but I took her to be my wife.
Radak on Genesis 12:19:2 ‫הנה אשתך‬, here she is, as much your wife as before, since I did not touch her.
Radak on Genesis 12:19:3 ‫קח ולך‬, go and leave immediately before any person in my kingdom tries to rape her. She is too beautiful for
most of my subjects to resist the temptation she represents for them. The reason why Avram did not bother
to answer Pharaoh as he did Avimelech later (20,11-13) was because Avimelech had not expelled him, so
that he deserved an answer.

Radak on Genesis 12:20:1 ‫ויצו עליו פרעה אנשים‬, to protect both him and his wife, so that the Egyptians would not molest them.
Radak on Genesis 12:20:2 ‫וישלחו אותו‬, as far as the border of the country.

Radak on Genesis 13:1:1

Radak on Genesis 13:2:1 ‫ואברם כבד מאד‬, he was very wealthy both in herds and flocks, as well as in other possessions, all chattels.
The attribute ‫ כבד‬for great wealth has been chosen since, seeing it consists of chattels, it is “weighty” in the
truest sense of the words. Similar literary formulations are found in Isaiah 1,30 ‫כאלה נובלת עליה‬, “as a
terebinth wilted of its leaf,” the prophet uses the word ‫עלה‬, leaf, as something descriptive of a small tree like
the terebinth whose leaf patterns account for its character. Its leaves make it such an outstanding tree.
Similarly, the expression ‫קרועי בגדים‬. In Samuel II 13,31 “with their clothes rent,” or ‫מגולחי זקן‬, “shorn of
beard,” in Jeremiah 41,5. The adjectives used fit the noun they describe, so here too the adjective ‫כבד‬
“heavy,” fits such metals as silver and gold, so that wealth may be appropriately described in such terms.
[The author explains why a simple term such as ‫עשיר‬, “rich,” was not used instead of the adjective ‫כבד‬,
literally “heavy.” Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 13:3:1 ‫וילך למסעיו‬, one journey after another; he traveled small distances each time, due to the enormous
possessions he had. He continued from a southerly location. The word ‫ מנגב‬means that having already
arrived in the south, i.e. Egypt, he now had to travel in a northerly direction to reach the place in the land of
Canaan from which he had traveled to Egypt. He now resumed what we had already become familiar with as
“his journeys, i.e. in a southerly direction. He continued as far as a place called Beyt El. Eventually, he came
to the site of his altar where he gave thanks to G’d for his deliverance from Egypt. He had retraced his steps
all the way to Beyt El.
Radak on Genesis 13:4:1 ‫אל מקום המזבח‬, the Torah details further that Avram did not only return to the mountainous region of which we
had been told in 12,8 but that he returned to exactly the place where he had prayed previously. We are to
learn from this how important it is for a person to appoint a definitive spot from where to offer his prayers on a
regular basis. It is easier to concentrate when one is in familiar surroundings. Now that he had returned to
this altar, Avram preached a second time in the name of the Lord, [no doubt telling people of his miraculous
escape from Egypt, laden with new riches. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 13:5:1 ‫וגם ללוט‬, the word ‫ וגם‬is meant to add that even Lot, who had only been a member of Avram’s entourage, was
showered with wealth while Avram stayed in Egypt. [clearly a very short time if G’d punished Pharaoh
already on the same night that he had taken Sarai. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 13:5:2 ‫ההולך את אברם‬, his new found wealth was due only to the fact that he was an fellow traveler of Avram.
Radak on Genesis 13:5:3 ‫ואהלים‬, an indication that he had so many chattels that it required many tents to accommodate them. The
word ‫ אהלים‬is spelled with the vowel cholem on the letter aleph, as it is also in Samuel I 4,10 and in Deut.
33,18 ‫ ויששכר באהליך‬According to the regular rules of grammar, the letter ‫ א‬in ‫ אהל‬should have the vowel
chataf kametz as is the case in Jeremiah 35,7 and in Judges 8,11. Perhaps when the letter ‫ א‬has the vowel
cholem, this is an indication that the noun is in a different declination, a declination known as ‫גוזל תולע‬. [I
confess not to know what this is. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 13:6:1 ‫ולא נשא אותם הארץ‬, in this instance the noun ‫ ארץ‬is treated as a masculine noun, as it is also in Isaiah 9,18
‫נעתם ארץ‬, “the earth was shaken.”
Radak on Genesis 13:6:2 ‫לשבת יחדו‬, for there was not enough grazing land to support their herds as well as those of the other
inhabitants of the land.
Radak on Genesis 13:6:3 ‫כי היה‬, for the possessions of Avram and Lot together was too great. As a result, a quarrel broke out among
the respective shepherds. Each group of shepherds wanted to use the same meadows on which to graze
their flocks.

Radak on Genesis 13:7:1 ‫ויהי ריב‬, we already explained the meaning of the words ‫ והכנעני אז בארץ‬on 12,6. In this verse the tribe ‫פריזי‬
has been mentioned which had not been featured previously. This tribe also resided in the region of Beyt El
and Ai.
Radak on Genesis 13:8:1 ‫ביני ובינך‬...‫ויאמר‬, if our shepherds keep on quarrelling it will not be long before we start quarrelling ourselves.
Radak on Genesis 13:9:1 ‫הלא כל הארץ לפניך‬, you have the same options as I have, as no one will object to the area which we will
choose to graze our herds on. G’d’s assistance will be at your side on my account, and on account of the fact
that you had joined me on my search for the true Creator in order to come closer to Him.
Radak on Genesis 13:9:2 ‫הפרד נאת‬, from me; seeing that you are in this country on my account and not vice versa, it is up to you to
move away. It is not my duty to move away from you and abandon this land to you. Avram considered
himself as the principal and his nephew as a mere follower, so that the choice of who would go where was
his. He added, that seeing he was a generous person, all the more so when the other person involved was
his brother, he therefore offered the choice to Lot.
Radak on Genesis 13:9:3 ‫אם השמאל ואימינה ואם הימין ואשמאילה‬, what he meant was “if you will move north I will be south of you,
whereas if you move south, I will be north of you, in the very location that I am now, which was in the south of
the country as we know from 12,9 and 13,3.
Radak on Genesis 13:9:4 ‫ואם הימין‬, if you prefer to remain here, i.e. in the south, I will be forced to move north from here.

Radak on Genesis 13:10:1 ‫וישא לוט את עיניו‬, from the mountain where they were staying, as we know from 12,8. Seeing that this was a
high point in the country, it afforded Lot an opportunity to survey much of the rest of the country all around
him. As a result, he observed ‫כי כלה משקה‬, that the Jordan valley was very well irrigated. When the Torah
uses the word ‫ כלה‬after having already said ‫ כל‬when describing the valley, this is a way of emphasising the
word ‫ כל‬still further. We find a similar construction in Isaiah 14,18 ‫כל מלכי גוים כולם‬, “all the kings of the
nations, all of them.”
Radak on Genesis 13:10:2 ‫ככר‬, a valley; the word occurs in a similar sense in Kings I 7,46 ‫בככר הירדן יצקם‬, “he had them cast in the
valley of the Jordan.” This particular valley was very close to the city of Sodom and prior to that city’s
destruction it was known as being “like a garden of G’d.” (19,25) The “garden” people used as the metaphor
to describe is was the “garden of Eden.” We know that that garden had been irrigated by four rivers.
Alternately, the comparison made here is to Egypt which is thoroughly irrigated by the river Nile.
Radak on Genesis 13:10:3 ‫באכה צוער‬, all the way to the town of Tzoar. The letter ‫ ה‬at the end of the word ‫באכה‬, is used in the same way
as the same letter in Samuel I 1,26 ‫הנצבת עמכה‬, “who was standing next to you.” There are other examples of
this type in the Holy Scriptures. The letter ‫ כ‬at the beginning of the word ‫ ככר‬is not something that has been
added, as many commentators believe, but is similar to that same letter in Leviticus 27,2 ‫בערכך‬, describing
proximity to the priest in that instance, and proximity to the river in this instance. (compare Ibn Ezra on that
verse) The Jordan valley was thoroughly irrigated all the way south to Tzoar.
Radak on Genesis 13:11:1 ‫ויבחר לו לוט את כל ככר הירדן‬, the reference is to one area within the Jordan valley, the use of the word ‫ כל‬here
meaning that all the areas within that region were equally good as grazing land for his flocks.
Radak on Genesis 13:11:2 ‫ויסע לוט מקדם‬, in an easterly direction from the location where he had been with Avram. The river Jordan is
east of the land of Canaan, being its eastern boundary. We already explained the letter ‫ מ‬in the word ‫ מנגב‬in
13,3 as meaning “in a southerly direction,” here too the letter ‫ מ‬in the word ‫ מקדם‬means “in an easterly
direction.” [the author does not want us to think that the letter ‫ מ‬in either word means “away from,” as if it did
the verse would not make sense. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 13:11:3 ‫ויפרדו איש מעל אחיו‬, Lot’s traveling towards the Jordan valley resulted in these two brothers separating from
one another. Seeing that it was Lot who severed the relationship, it seems strange that the Torah describes it
as ‫איש מעל אחיו‬, “one from another,” as if they were both separating from one another. The Torah describes
not the parting, but the result of the parting; after Lot had moved they were in effect apart from one another.
Now Avram was a resident of the land of Canaan, whereas Lot had become a resident of the cities in that
valley, i.e. he no longer shared Avram’s destiny in the land of Canaan. Even though both were essentially
nomads, moving with their herds and flocks, their home bases were different from one another. Lot, although
aware of the evil reputation of the people in the cities of that valley, had decided to ignore this, preferring to
concentrate on the advantages offered by the land itself.
Radak on Genesis 13:12:1 ‫ויאהל עד סדום‬, he moved his tent from place to place, almost as far as the city of Sodom.
Radak on Genesis 13:13:1 ‫ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים‬, the inhabitants of Sodom were evil and wicked. The word ‫ רעים‬describes their attitude
to G’d, whereas the word ‫ חטאים‬describes their attitude to fellow human beings (non-residents.) They ignored
all the seven Noachide laws, including idolatry, the other 6 laws dealing with inter-personal relations. The
Torah, underlining the severity of these people’s wickedness, adds: ‫מאד‬, “very much so.” They did not bother
to conceal their evil deeds but carried them out in the open, brazenly.
Radak on Genesis 13:14:1 ‫וה' אמר אל אברם‬, this occurred while Lot was still with him. [otherwise the Torah would have used the mode of
the immediate past, i.e. ‫ויאמר‬. Ed.] If not, you might have thought that Lot and his descendants could also
have staked a claim to part of the land of Canaan, seeing he was a blood relative of Avram. Now G’d wanted
to correct Avram who had said to Lot in verse 9 “the whole land is in front of you, i.e. at your disposal.” Now
that Lot had separated from Avram, away from the land of Canaan, G’d wanted to make certain that His
promise to Avraham of the land of Canaan applied exclusively to direct offspring of Avram, not to relatives
who were descendants of his father Terach. G’d‘s. words contained an implied criticism of Avram having
offered Lot a choice which would have made him owner of part of the land of Canaan, when he had said to
him: “if to the left, I will go to the right, and if to the right, I will go to the left.” Both the left and the right, i.e.
north and south from where he stood, will be his and his descendants. Also east and west would be his. The
reason why G’d mentioned north and south first, was because those were the areas which Avram had
spoken to Lot about. In Deuteronomy 20,19 Moses quotes the lands which will be the inheritance of Lot’s
descendants.
Radak on Genesis 13:15:1 ‫כי את כל הארץ‬, even though Avram could not see the whole of the land of Canaan from where he stood, G’d
told him to look in all the four directions of the globe to tell him that just as the land extended beyond his
range of physical vision in every direction, so G’d would give to his descendants all of this as an inheritance,
after at this time already having given it to Avram as a gift. The fact that at the moment this land was under
the sovereignty of the Canaanites was legally irrelevant. He, Avram, would transfer title to his descendants
as his heirs. [an inheritance cannot be revoked, whereas a gift can be revoked by the donor. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 13:15:2 ‫עד עולם‬, they would expel the nations living here from this land. Even though, eventually, the Israelites
themselves would be exiled from their land, in the end they would return there on a permanent enduring
basis.

Radak on Genesis 13:16:1 ‫ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ‬, a figure of speech, poetic license, exaggeration. We find more such metaphors,
such as in Genesis 22,17 ‫ככוכבי השמים‬, “as numerous as the stars in heaven.” According to the Midrash
Aggadah, Vayetze 25,13 the reason why on occasion the Jewish people and their numbers are compared to
dust and on other occasions to the stars, is that when they deserve it they are comparable to the stars in
heaven, whereas at times when they do not deserve it, they are compared to the dust of the earth which
everyone steps on.
Radak on Genesis 13:16:2 ‫גם זרעך ימנה‬, if one part of the metaphor comes true so does the other. Just as it is inconceivable to have a
world without stars or dust, so it is inconceivable to have a world without Jews. (compare Jeremiah 13,23)

Radak on Genesis 13:17:1 ‫לארכה‬, according to its length, from east to west; ‫ולרחבה‬, and to its width from north to south.
Radak on Genesis 13:18:1 ‫ויאהל אברם‬, he moved his tent from there and pitched it from one place to another until he arrived at Eloney
Mamre. This is not the same ‫ אלון מורה‬mentioned in 12,6. The previous place was located in the plain, and
the owner of that site was called Moreh. Here we speak of at least two plains belonging to a person called
Mamre, the brother of Eshkol and the brother of Aner.
Radak on Genesis 13:18:2 ‫אשר בחברון‬, within the general area of Chevron.
Radak on Genesis 13:18:3 ‫ויבן שם מזבח‬, in order to call people to worship the Lord G’d at the altar he had built there. Wherever Avram
made a permanent halt, stayed for a period, he used to build an altar and preach in the name of the Lord.

Radak on Genesis 14:1:1 ‫ויהי בימי אמרפל‬, these wars took place during the reigns of the kings described in these verse; details of them
will follow. We find a similar construction in Esther 1,1,‫ויהי בימי אחשורש‬, where the words ‫ ויהי בימי‬also serve
as an introduction to what is to follow. The main reason why the Torah gives us details of these wars,
something that does not appear to be too relevant to our times, is to demonstrate the righteousness,
courage, and sense of responsibility even for a nephew who had suffered a setback, as well as captivity due
to his greed in settling near the Sodomites. When Avram knew that what he was about to do was something
that morality demanded, i.e. not to allow a next of kin even one such as Lot to remain in captivity, he
mobilised the few men he had, and tackled the greatest contemporary war machine to liberate his nephew,
being sure that G’d would assist him in such an endeavour. The word ‫ כדרלעומר‬is one word. The words ‫מלך‬
‫ גוים‬mean “king of a people known as ‫גוים‬. The reason may well be that in that land members of different
nations had decided to live together under a single king.

Radak on Genesis 14:2:1 ‫עשו מלחמה‬, now the Torah tells of the battle between them in the valley of Sidim. The fact that there had been
previous wars resulting in the five kings becoming subservient to the four kings is mentioned only as a
backdrop to this war that prompted Avram’s involvement.
Radak on Genesis 14:3:1 ‫כל אלה‬, the four against the five.
Radak on Genesis 14:3:2 ‫אל עמק‬, this means the same as ‫בעמק‬, “in the valley of.” We have a similar construction where the word ‫אל‬
substitutes for the prefix ‫ ב‬in Exodus 25,22 ‫ואל הארון תתן את העדות‬, “and in the ark you are to place the
testimony (Tablets).”
Radak on Genesis 14:3:3 ‫השדים‬, as translated by Onkelos, an area comprising many fields. The dagesh in the letters ‫ ש‬and ‫ ד‬saves
writing both letters twice, as the word is a composite of two roots, ‫שדה‬, field, as well as ‫שדד‬, ploughed. The
word is also found in Hoseah 10,11 ‫ישדד לו יעקב‬, “Yaakov will do the final ploughing.”
Radak on Genesis 14:3:4 ‫ הוא ים המלח‬,‫השדים‬, the valley in question is close to the Dead Sea. Alternatively, the Torah tells us the region
which nowadays is the Dead Sea, used to be that fertile valley before those cities were overturned by G’d. At
any rate, that region is part of the eastern boundary of the land of Israel as mentioned in Numbers 34, 3, and
12.

Radak on Genesis 14:4:1 ‫שתים עשרה שנה עבדו‬, they were enslaved to Amrafel, paying annual taxes to him.
Radak on Genesis 14:4:2 ‫ושלש עשרה שנה‬, these words mean the same as if they had been written in the ordinal form, i.e. “during the
thirteenth year.”
Radak on Genesis 14:4:3 ‫מרדו‬, their rebellion consisted of their not paying the annual taxes. Contrary to the impression created that
Amrafel was the leader seeing he was named first, the leading king in that group of three was Kedorleomer.

Radak on Genesis 14:5:1 ‫ את רפאים בעשתרות קרנים‬.. ‫ובארבעה עשר‬, they defeated the giants who lived at that place. The place ‫עשתרות‬
‫ קרנים‬was so named seeing it was situated between two mountains, so that the word ‫קרנים‬, “horns,”
describes the way in which these mountains protruded from the earth’s surface. Our sages in Sukkah 2
already mentioned that all the places mentioned in these verses are not far from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Perhaps the inhabitants had supported the insubordination of Sodom and satellites and that is why they were
attacked.
Radak on Genesis 14:6:1 ‫ואת החרי בהררם שעיר‬, they also defeated the Chori on the mountain on which these people lived. We know
that the area was mountainous from Genesis 36,20.<br> ‫בהררם‬, the name of the place without the pronoun-
suffix is ‫הרר‬, with a vowel pattern similar to ‫ ארץ‬and ‫גפן‬. If the word ‫ הררם‬were a derivative from a root in the
piel mode, itself a noun in its own right, as some commentators claim, (including Ibn Ezra), the letter ‫ ה‬would
have had to have the vowel kametz and not patach, as it does. Onkelos, in rendering it as ‫“ דבטוריא דשעיר‬in
the mountains of Se-ir” also understands it as did Ibn Ezra. ‫ איל פארן‬means, as the Targum renders it, “the
plain of Paran.” The words ‫ על המדבר‬mean the same as if the Torah had written ‫סמוך למדבר‬, adjoining the
desert. A similar construction is found in Numbers 2,20 ‫ועליו מטה מנשה‬, “next to him the tribe of Menashe.”
Radak on Genesis 14:7:1 ‫וישבו ויבאו‬, after they had first spread out as far as the edge of the desert, they changed direction and
marched towards Sodom encountering in their path a place called ‫עין משפט‬. They were familiar with the
history of these places and knew why they bore such names. All of these place-names referred to events that
had occurred there at one time or another. There is a Midrash quoted by Rashi in which these names are
understood as allusions to events in the future, such as the time when Moses and Aaron would be judged
there for hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. At that time the place was called ‫מי מריבה‬, “waters of the
strife.”
Radak on Genesis 14:7:2 ‫שדה העמלקי‬, [this name supports Rashi’s opinion that the names referred to events in the future, seeing that
Amalek, a grandson of Esau, had not been born yet for at least another hundred years. Ed.] When a plain is
large enough so that cities can be built in it, it is called ‫שדה‬. One such example is ‫ שדה אדום‬in Genesis 32,3;
another is found in Ruth 1,6 ‫שדה מואב‬.

Radak on Genesis 14:8:1 ‫ויערכו אתם מלחמה‬...‫ויצא מלך סדום‬. The five kings that went out from their cities and prepared plans for a battle
were confident that they would win, and they may have thought that others might join them. Their rebellion
had been inspired by the hope that other kingdoms that were similarly subservient to Kedorleomer would
make common cause with them. They believed that they would enjoy a numerical advantage, seeing the
opposing kings were only four in number. If the four kings proved victorious over greater numbers than
themselves, this was due to G’d wanting that Avram acquire the reputation of being a mighty warrior, if need
be. This is part of the way in which G’d fulfilled His promise to Avram “I will make your name great.” (12,2) It
was also designed to demonstrate to the people at large Avram’s righteousness and his abiding trust in the
Lord, without whose help such a victory by 318 men over the mightiest armies of that period had been
inconceivable. Concerning Avram and men of his ilk, Solomon wrote in Proverbs 29,25: “‫ובוטח בה' ישגב‬, he
who trusts in the Lord will be safeguarded.” In order to underscore the point still further, the Torah describes
the victory of Kedorleomer as the “victory of four kings versus five.”
Radak on Genesis 14:10:1 ‫ועמק השדים בארות בארות חמר‬, the vowel pattern of the construct mode of the word ‫ בארות‬in our verse is
different from the ordinary plural mode of the same word in Genesis 26,18 where it also appears in the
construct mode, i.e. ‫בארות המים‬, “the wells of water.”
Radak on Genesis 14:10:2 The word ‫ חמר‬is equivalent to what we know as (11,3) ,‫ טיט‬where it means mortar. It is unbaked clay, binding
bricks together, loam.
Radak on Genesis 14:10:3 ‫וינסו מלך סדום ועמורה‬, the other kings fled toward the mountains, as we are told ‫והנשארים הרה נסו‬. “those
remaining fled towards the mountain.” The letter ‫ ה‬at the end of the word ‫ הרה‬is equivalent to the prefix ‫ל‬.

Radak on Genesis 14:11:1 ‫ויקחו את כל רכוש סדום ועמורה‬, the ‫ עמק השדים‬was within the boundaries of those 2 kingdoms, whereas the
satellite towns Admah and Tzoyim and Bela were not situated in that part of the terrain. The word ‫רכוש‬
includes both chattels which are inert and animals which can walk on their own.
Radak on Genesis 14:11:2 ‫ואת כל אכלם‬, and all the food they had stored up at home as well as all the inhabitants.

Radak on Genesis 14:12:1 ‫והוא יושב בסדום‬.. ‫ויקחו‬. The Torah had already told us in 13,12 where Lot had settled. This was only meant to
tell us that he had not moved from these since he took up residence there in the first place. Or, whereas at
the beginning he had actually not resided within the city, by now he had moved into Sodom proper.
Radak on Genesis 14:13:1 ‫ויבא הפליט‬, after that individual had escaped from captivity he came and told Avram that his nephew had been
taken captive, also.
Radak on Genesis 14:13:2 ‫העברי‬, a member of the tribe of Ever, he and all his descendants proudly regarded Ever as their ancestor.
They were the only people who still spoke Hebrew, the original language of man. Subsequent descendants,
other than the line which ran through Avraham and the Israelites, changed their language to Aramaic, and
were called Aramim, i.e. members of the people of Aram, in recognition of their specific language. Even
Lavan, a third or fourth generation descendant of Ever, was already known as ‫לבן הארמי‬, Lavan who spoke
Aramaic. The tribe called ‫ עברים‬was Yaakov and his offspring.
Radak on Genesis 14:13:3 ‫והא שוכן באלוני ממרא‬, this escaped captive lived with the brothers who were allies of Avram and had helped
him. He lived on the lands of one of the brothers i.e. that of Mamre.

Radak on Genesis 14:14:1 ‫אחיו‬...‫וישמע‬, the word ‫ אחיו‬here is used in the sense of “his relative.” Nephews are often considered as like
“brothers.” Avram himself had used this term when he spoke to his nephew in 13,8 and said ‫כי אנשים אחים‬
‫אנחנו‬, “we are men who are brothers.”
Radak on Genesis 14:14:2 ‫וירק‬, he issued weapons to them, the verb is in the transitive mode. We encounter it in a similar meaning in
Psalms 35,3 ‫והרק חנית‬, “make ready the spear.”
Radak on Genesis 14:14:3 ‫חניכיו‬, an adjective, similar to ‫ שרידיו‬and ‫פליטיו‬, his trainees, people whom he had instructed in true
monotheism. The word occurs in this sense in Proverbs 22,6 ‫חנוך לנער על פי דרכו‬, train the lad in an
appropriate manner, in accordance with his natural talents.”
Radak on Genesis 14:14:4 ‫ילידי ביתו‬, people born in his household, to parents who had come with him already from Charan as well as
those later in the land of Canaan. They totaled 318 ,‫שמונה עשר ושלש מאות‬. According to a Midrash quoted by
Rashi, he took only Eliezer with him, the numerical value of the letters in his name amounting to a total of
318. If so, why did the Torah have to tell us that he took with him people born in his household? The Torah
must have meant that he took an undisclosed number of people of his household with him, plus Eliezer, who
was equivalent to 318 trained men.
Radak on Genesis 14:14:5 ‫וירדף עד דן‬, the place was not called Dan until much later, when the tribe of Dan expanded its territory under
Joshua in the north of the country. At that time the Danites named the place after their tribe’s founding father.
Radak on Genesis 14:15:1 ‫ויחלק עליהם לילה‬, “when it was midnight, they attacked them. The word ‫ עליהם‬refers to the armies of the four
kings, not as if it was midnight only for Avram and his men. As to the unusual expression ‫עליהם‬, instead of
the normative expression ‫ויהי בחצי הלילה‬, “it was at midnight,” this tells us that until midnight on that night the
four kings had felt absolutely safe and secure. Starting at that moment, they began to flee for their lives as
soon as they found themselves under surprise attack by Avram and his men. He smote them as soon as he
caught up with them, and those whom he did not catch continued fleeing all the way to Chovah, close to
Damascus. The defeat was especially great, seeing that the fleeing armies left behind all their belongings,
aiming only to save their lives. After having chased them such a great distance, Avram turned back and
restored all the loot these kings had captured to their rightful owners.
Radak on Genesis 14:16:1 ‫וגם את הנשים ואת העם‬...‫וגם את לוט‬...‫ וישב‬, they first of all restored all the captives to show that they had not
killed any of them.
Radak on Genesis 14:17:1 ‫אל עמק שוה‬...‫ויצא‬, this was a spot reserved for horse racing as it was a flat piece of land without hills or
depressions. The reason it was also called ‫עמק המלך‬, valley of the king, was that the king and his riders used
it as a training ground for their race horses. Onkelos translates it as ‫למישר מפונא‬, meaning that this plain was
free from obstacles such as stones, tree stumps, etc. He translates the words ‫ עמק המלך‬as ‫בית ריסא דמלכא‬,
describing the size of the 180 cubits, the distances over which horses raced.

Radak on Genesis 14:18:1 ‫ומלכי צדק מלך שלם‬, the word ‫ שלם‬is another word for ‫ירושלים‬, and we find it referred to as such in Psalms 76,3
‫ויהי בשלם סכו‬, “Salem became His abode.” It was customary to give the title Malki Tzedek or Adoni Tzedek, to
kings of Jerusalem in those days, just as the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh. Compare Joshua 10,1
where we find ‫אדני צדק מלך ירושלים‬. Jerusalem traditionally represented the center of righteousness and
peace. It is a place in which iniquity is less tolerated than anywhere else. This is why the Torah warned in
Leviticus 18,28 that the Israelites should take care that the land not spew them out just as it had spewed out
previous inhabitants because they had defiled it. The reason the Torah in Deuteronomy 31,16 uses the
somewhat enigmatic expression ‫אלוהי נכר הארץ‬, is that the kind of conduct by the people in that city that were
spewed out, was a conduct that was irreconcilable (alien) with the very nature, spiritual climate, prevailing in,
and being part of that holy city. The sons of Korach already recognised and extolled this spiritual climate of
the very city when they said in Psalms 48,3 ‫יפה נוף משוש כל הארץ הר ציון ירכתי צפון קרית מלך רב‬, “fair-crested,
joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, summit of Tzafon, city of the great King.” In the Midrash quoted by Rashi,
Malki Tzedek is identified as Shem, the son of Noach.
Radak on Genesis 14:18:2 ‫הוציא לחם ויין‬, seeing that these people came back from battle tired, he brought them bread and wine to
strengthen and refresh them.
Radak on Genesis 14:18:3 ‫והוא כהן לאל עליון‬, he did not worship the stars or other celestial phenomena but only the supreme and
invisible G’d. In this respect he was like Avram and those who had joined him.
Radak on Genesis 14:19:1 ‫קונה שמים וארץ‬...‫ויברכהו‬, the word ‫ קונה‬here must not be understood in the customary sense of acquiring
something from a third party. Malki Tzedek most certainly did not think that “the G’d of heaven and earth” had
“bought” his position from some other force. The word is used in the sense of “having created, or having
invented.” It was used in this sense by Chavah when she gave birth to Kayin and said ‫'קניתי איש את ה‬, “I
have produced, brought forth a man, with G’d,” when she meant that she was now a partner to G’d.” Genesis
4,1)
Radak on Genesis 14:20:1 ‫וברוך אל עליון‬, he described G’d in terms of a different attribute, i.e. “the supreme G’d.” In due course,
Avraham also used this attribute to describe G’d in order to make plain to any listener that any other so-
called deities are all subservient to this G’d, so that they are totally unfree and cannot be considered deities.
Radak on Genesis 14:20:2 ‫מגן צריך‬, “He delivered them into your hands.” We find this verb used in a similar sense in Hoseah 11,8 ‫אמגנך‬
‫ישראל‬, “How can I surrender you, Israel? The choice of the word ‫”צריך‬your oppressors,” is strange, seeing
that no one had mistreated Avram or oppressed him. Since the 4 kings had singled out one of Avram’s
relatives their action was interpreted as a potential attack on Avram, to lure him to come to the defense of his
nephew.
Radak on Genesis 14:20:3 ‫ויתן לו מעשר מכל‬, according to most commentators, Avram was the subject in this verse and Malki Tzedek was
the recipient. Avraham supposedly gave Malki Tzedek 10% of the cattle captured, in his capacity of being a
priest of G’d. My late revered father, Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, explained that actually Malki Tzedek “gave”
Avram the tithe as a legal claim. He pronounced it as Avram’s by right, seeing that the King of Sodom had
had the effrontery to claim that which Avram had captured as his. In the conversation between Avram and
the King, Avram had insisted that he would not accept anything for himself from the King of Sodom, not even
a shoelace. What he meant was that the King was in no position to even make an offer of something that was
not his. (verse 21) At that point, Malki Tzedek intervened, telling Avram (and the King) that at least 10% of
the loot was Avram’s by right, as it is the right of anyone who frees property stolen or forcefully taken from its
rightful owner to retain this as a kind of fee for services rendered. This interpretation is correct; if we accept
the interpretation of the commentators, by what legal right Avram could give away to Malki Tzedek property
that legally belonged to the King of Sodom an d had been illegally taken from him? If he did not think it was
right for him to accept same, why would it be in order to give it instead to Malki Tzedek?

Radak on Genesis 14:21:1

Radak on Genesis 14:22:1
Radak on Genesis 14:23:1
Radak on Genesis 14:24:1
Radak on Genesis 15:1:1 ‫במחזה‬....‫אחר הדברים האלה‬, the expression ‫“ במחזה‬in a vision,” is one that had not been mentioned previously
when the Torah reported G’d as communicating with Avram. The reason is that in this communication Avram
did not only “hear something,” i.e. words spoken by G’d, but he saw something with his eyes [whether mental
or physical does not matter, the point being that visual images are considered as stronger than aural
perceptions. Ed.] Both the look at the stars, and the viewing of the pieces of the sacrifice he had slaughtered
were more “real” than merely “hearing” something in a dream.
Radak on Genesis 15:1:2 ‫אל תירא‬, do not fear that kings whom you vanquished will stage a return engagement against you after they
have regrouped.
Radak on Genesis 15:1:3 ‫אנכי מגן לך‬, as a reward for your having displayed such trust and faith in Me, I will be your shield not only
against these kings in the future, but also against any other adversaries that may attempt to harm you.
Radak on Genesis 15:1:4 ‫שכרך הרבה מאד‬, the combination of ‫ הרבה‬and ‫מאד‬, means that Avram’s reward would be both in this life and
in the hereafter.

Radak on Genesis 15:2:1 ‫רני ה' מה תתן לי‬-‫ויאמר אברם א‬, the first attribute for G’d is spelled with the letter ‫ד‬-‫א‬, an attribute, adjective,
whereas the second name of G’d is the name used to describe the Essence of G’d, what we call Hashem for
short. The adjective precedes the noun it describes in order to make clear that the adjective (G’d’s attribute)
is in a construct mode of the noun (Essence) and not vice versa. It is not possible to convert the name of G’d
the Essence into an adjective mode. If, nonetheless, we encounter such formulations on occasions, when it
appears as if G’d’s name (the Essence) has been used as if it were an adjective, this merely reflects the way
in which human beings use such terms, i.e. the fault is man’s not the Torah’s.
Radak on Genesis 15:2:2 ?‫מה תתן לי‬, Avram’s question did not relate to what G’d would give him as a reward in the hereafter, rather he
wondered what meaningful reward there could be for him on earth seeing he had no children. Any reward in
this life in the absence of children to leave it to, he considered meaningless. His reward would only be
consumed by others, not related to him.
Radak on Genesis 15:2:3 ‫ערירי‬, “childless,” as rendered by Onkelos. If a member of my household will inherit me, even if it is my
servant who is faithful to me, and a willing disciple, You have said to me “to you and to your descendants I
will give it.”
Radak on Genesis 15:2:4 ‫ובן משק ביתי‬, he will become my heir, if I will not have a biological heir. He is, after all, completely at home in
my house.
Radak on Genesis 15:2:5 ‫משק‬, the root of the word is ‫שקק‬, is grammatically parallel to such words as ‫מכס‬, whose root is ‫כסס‬, the
meaning of the word is ‫מן השוק‬, i.e. someone who comes and goes, not someone whose roots are in my
house. The root occurs in that sense in Proverbs 28,15 ‫דוב שוקק‬, “a prowling bear.” Both the roots ‫ כסס‬and
‫ שקק‬describe similar activities.
Radak on Genesis 15:2:6 ‫דמשק אליעזר‬. It is possible that the letter ‫ י‬at the end of the word ‫דמשק‬, i.e. ‫ דמשקי‬is missing here. If so, the
meaning is “Eliezer, the man from Damascus, etc.” It would be similar to ‫ שבט המנשה‬being described in Deut
29,7 as ‫שבט המנשי‬. We also have variations such as ‫ משפחת הימנה‬whereas in the same verse we have
‫משפחת הישוי‬, with the letter ‫ י‬at the end instead of the letter ‫ה‬. (compare Numbers 26,44) Onkelos also
translates it in this sense when writing ‫“ דמשקאה‬from Damascus.” It is also possible that the servant’s name
was Damessek when he came to Avram, and that his master changed his name to Eliezer, seeing that this
is a Hebrew name. He was referred to by either name on different occasions. In that event, Avram was
saying that if my heir were to be at least somebody belonging to my family it would not be so bad, but I will
not even have an heir from my family, but a stranger from Damascus. Seeing that Avram felt that badly about
such a prospect, he repeated, i.e. he continued harping on this subject still further in verse 3 saying:
Radak on Genesis 15:3:1 ‫הן לי לא נתת זרע‬, although You have said to me “I will make you into a great nation and I will make your
descendants as numerous as the dust of the earth” (12,2) When Avram said all this to G’d, it did not cross his
mind that G’d might have deceived him, lied to him, and that this was why the promise had not come true. He
may have thought of one of two reasons being the cause why the promise had not been fulfilled. 1) that he
had committed some sin after G’d had made the promise, so that the premise upon which the promise had
been based was no longer valid. 2) or, he thought that the seed G’d had spoken of was a reference to some
other family member, people carrying many of the same genes. The word ‫ זרע‬does appear in such a sense in
Esther 10,3 where Mordechai is described as ‫דובר שלום לכל זרעו‬, “interceding on behalf of all his seed.” If
Mordechai had interceded only on behalf of personal children and grandchildren, this would hardly have
been worth mentioning, certainly not worth praising him for. Basically, Avram wanted G’d to know that if G’d
had meant that the definition of the word ‫ זרעך‬as mentioned in 12,2 was only in the most general sense, such
as in Esther 10,3, then he, Avram, would not consider this reward as something special seeing G’d had not
seen fit to make his wife conceive offspring from his seed.

Radak on Genesis 15:4:1 ‫והנה דבר ה‬, now G’d’s word in response to his concern about who would inherit him, saying: ‫לא יירשך זה‬, this
loyal servant of yours will not inherit you, ‫כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך‬, do not err in your understanding of the
meaning of the words ‫לך ולזרעך‬, “to you and to your descendants,” I only referred to your biological; offspring.
The word ‫ מעיים‬refers to all the organs within the body, in this instance referring to the reproductive organ.
The word is used in a similar sense in Isaiah 48,19 ‫וצאצאי מעיך‬, “your offspring.”
Radak on Genesis 15:5:1 ‫ויוצא אותו החוצה‬, he had received the prophetic vision and words of G’d while in the tent. As part of this
prophetic insight, Avram felt that G’d took him outside the tent, showing him the stars. This was the ‫מחזה‬,
“the vision.” We have a parallel situation in Ezekiel 8,3 ‫ותבא אתי ירושלמה במראות אלוקים‬, “He brought me to
Jerusalem in visions of G’d;” [the prophet never set foot in Jerusalem, but lived in Babylonia all his life. Ed.]
The new element now was that whereas previously G’d had compared Avram’s offspring as being “like the
dust of the earth,” now it is described as “as numerous as the stars in heaven.” Both statements, of course,
have to be understood as exaggerations, as we pointed out already on 13,16. We also mentioned the
allegorical explanations offered on that verse. It is possible, that in messianic times the Jewish people will be
comparable to the stars in that just as no one is able to impose his will on the stars in heaven, so no one will
be able to impose his will on the Jewish people. They will shine on earth without interruption just as the stars
shine in the sky without dimming. In Bereshit Rabbah 44,10 the words ‫ ויוצא אותו‬are understood as G’d telling
Avram to free himself from his astrological speculations according to which he was not able to beget children.
Once his name would be changed to Avraham, there would be no reason why a person by that name could
not beget children. As soon as G’d would change his name he would be able to sire children, something that
proved correct.

Radak on Genesis 15:6:1 ‫והאמין בה‬, he had already believed in G’d at the start of this prophecy, his doubts having concerned only the
interpretation of the word ‫ זרעך‬as we have explained on verse 3. Now that G’d had added that the ‫ זרעך‬He
had been speaking about meant biological offspring, i.e. ‫ממעיך‬, and He had shown him the parable with his
own eyes by showing him the stars in a prophetic vision, Avram believed in the original promise with even
greater certainty, not entertaining any doubt whatsoever.
Radak on Genesis 15:6:2 ‫ויחשבה לו צדקה‬, G’d credited Avram with having performed an act of righteousness by believing so
unquestioningly in His promise that he personally would become a father. In view of the fact that both he and
his wife were in the process of aging, such faith was even more remarkable.
Radak on Genesis 15:7:1 ‫ויאמר אליו‬, G’d continued speaking to him, in order to reinforce his faith that the promises would be fulfilled.
Radak on Genesis 15:7:2 ‫אני ה‬, He had not previously mentioned His name Hashem, the Essence, to Avram. When G’d mentioned this
name of His now, it was not to inform Avram that this was His true name, His Essence. Avram had been
familiar with that name from the time he had first gotten to know G’d. He only mentioned it now to tell Avram
that He would keep His promise in His capacity of Hashem. It is as if G’d had said: “I swear by My name
Hashem.”
Radak on Genesis 15:7:3 ‫אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים‬, it was not for nothing that I have taken you out of that environment, but in order to
give you this land to inherit it. G’d meant that Avram’s descendants would inherit the land of Canaan. The
relationship between this land and Avram would become comparable to the inheritance a father leaves to his
sons.
Radak on Genesis 15:8:1 ?‫ במה אדע כי אירשנה‬..‫ויאמר‬, he meant: “how do I know that my son will inherit it?” We have a similar
construction in Genesis 48,22 ‫אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי‬, where Yaakov also does not mean that he, personally,
had battled the Emorite, but that his sons had done so successfully. The meaning of the words ‫במה אדע‬
cannot be that the same man who had just been given credit for his utter faith in G’d now has developed
doubts, nothing having occurred to cause such doubts. He wanted to know how he could be certain that
when his sons, i.e. offspring, would inherit the land that it would remain theirs forever. Perhaps, due to some
sin, future generations might forfeit their claim to the land of Canaan, just as the present occupants had
forfeited their claim through their sins. Unless they had, why would G’d want to dispossess them? He hoped
that just as G’d had shown him the stars as an illustration that his offspring would be people of great
substance, so G’d would show him a further illustration of a means by which his offspring would reinforce
their title to that land once they had settled in it.
Radak on Genesis 15:9:1 ‫ויאמר אליו קחה לי וגו‬, the purpose of Avram taking these animals was to offer them to Gd as a sacrifice. G’d
would use this sacrifice to illustrate to Avram the future of his descendants, their settlement in the land of
Canaan, as well as their exile from that land. By means of these animal sacrifices G’d would conclude a
covenant with Avram that was not subject to permanent dissolution, ever. Concluding a covenant is a
procedure such as follows in the next verses. In Jeremiah 34,18 the prophet spells this out more clearly, ‫עגלה‬
‫אשר כרתו לשנים ויעבר בין בתריו‬, “(like) the calf which they cut in two so as to pass between the halves.”
Radak on Genesis 15:9:2 ‫ויבתר אותם בתוך‬, the Torah mentions three species of animals (mammals) which are basically fit to be offered
as sacrificial animals, hinting thereby that as long as these kinds of animals would be offered on the altar to
G’d in the prescribed manner, the Jewish people, Avram’s descendants, would not be exiled from their land.
The reason why 3 of each species were to be offered by Avram at this time was to apprise him of the fact
there would indeed occur three exiles when his descendants would be forcefully uprooted from their land.
Their first such exile would be to the land of Egypt, also known as ‫עגלה‬, calf (Jeremiah 46,20) ‫עגלה יפה פיה‬
‫מצרים‬, “Egypt is a handsome heifer.” In Psalms 80,6 the psalmist writes: ‫ותשקמו בדמעות שליש‬, “You have fed
them tears three times,” a prophetic prediction by the author that the exile of the Jewish people in Egypt
would not be their only one, but that two more were to follow.
Radak on Genesis 15:9:3 ‫עגלה‬, this word was an allusion to the first exile of the Israelites. Seeing that Yaakov’s sons had already
occupied prominent positions in the land of Canaan, the land could have been described as theirs, if not as
their inheritance, as G’d said in Genesis 15,16 “for the measure of the Emorites’ sin will not be full until 4
generations from now.” G’d would not have a legal justification for expelling them from their land until after
that period of time. [Most Midrashim understand ‫ עגלה‬as a reference to the Babylonian exile, compare Torah
Shleymah on our verse. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 15:9:4 ‫ועז ואיל‬, and a she-goat and a ram; these two species are symbolic of the exile to Babylonia and the exile
initiated by the Romans. Even though the Jewish people were badly suppressed by the Greeks, this
happened while they were and remained on their own land. They are, however included in the parable shown
by G’d to Avram. In Daniel’s dream (Daniel 8,8) the Greeks are referred to as a she-goat. Seeing that they
were the first oppressors of the Jews during the period of the second Temple, the parable alluded to them in
second place. The Romans completed what the Greeks had started and exiled the Jewish people from their
homeland. The ‫איל‬, ram, is an allusion to the Persian-Medes exile Seeing that their dominion was based on
Babylon, they are referred to in the parable as the ‫איל‬, the ram, even though eventually they allowed the
exiles to return to their land. Several kings of the Persian-Medes empire had prolonged the Jews’ stay in
captivity before allowing them to return home, so that they were also guilty of “exiling” them in the interval.
The allusion to the second exile, that in Babylonia is called in the feminine mode i.e. ‫עז‬, instead of ‫שעיר‬, to
indicate that the Babylonians never allowed the Jews to return, whereas the third exile is represented by the
species ‫ איל‬in the masculine mode, the Persians-Medes being the only ones allowing the exiles to return to
their homeland. The Persians-Medes possessed the merit of believing in the existence of the Jewish G’d,
Cyrus having had a dream as a result of which he allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and build a
new Temple. (Chronicles II 36,23) Among other merits he attributed his glory to the G’d in heaven Who had
made him such a mighty ruler This compares favourably with the king of Ashur who had attributed his
success to his own efforts (Isaiah 10,13) Similarly, Titus, conqueror of Jerusalem in Roman times,
blasphemed against the G’d of the Jews. The Persians and Medes therefore are represented by a female
animal in the parable G’d shows Avram here, as opposed to the arrogant kings who are represented by the
male specimens of their species.
Radak on Genesis 15:9:5 ‫משלשת‬, three of each, as per Onkelos. Alternately, the meaning could be that these animals were to be three
years old (Ibn Ezra)
Radak on Genesis 15:9:6 ‫ותר וגוזל‬, we are not certain what species of bird is called ‫ גוזל‬by the Torah. Basically, all small birds are
known by the collective name of ‫גוזל‬, as for instances in Deuteronomy 32,11 where the Torah describes the
eagle, ‫נשר‬, as carrying its young on its wings, with the words ‫על גוזליו ירחף‬. Onkelos explains that what is
meant here are young turtle doves. This is one of the few birds that are ritually admissible as sacrifices in
Jewish law. It is the kind of bird that, while subject to other predators, does not itself make its livelihood by
preying on either birds or beasts. The pigeon, ‫תור‬, is very similar to it, and both species share the distinction
of not mating with another male bird after its first sexual partner has died. The Jewish people, while in exile
also considers itself as widowed, separated from its husband, although He is alive and well. It refused to
serve other deities (alternate husbands) even though the exile has lasted this long and no immediate
redemption is in sight. The female pigeons have this loyalty in common with the Jewish people, not giving up
hope that their husbands will return to them. The Jewish people are non-aggressive, though downtrodden by
the nations while they are in exile; they have not given up hope that in the fullness of time the messiah, and
with him the redemption and return to our own land will finally be realised. (Such fond hopes are expressed
by Solomon in his Song of Songs, both in 1,15 and 2,14 in poetical terms. The Jewish people are also
compared to the ‫ תור‬in Psalms 74,19 ‫אל תתן לחיות נפש תורך‬, “do not deliver Your dove to the wild beast.”
Radak on Genesis 15:10:1 ‫ויבתר אותם בתוך‬, both what he cut in half and what he did not cut was at the command of G’d, even though
the Torah did not mention this specifically, The reason for cutting something in half was to show that G’d was
making a covenant with Avram, as we already explained on verse 9. G’d hinted to Avram, by means of these
carcasses being cut in half, that all the nations exiling the Jewish people, would suffer a fate as that suffered
by these sacrificial animals. They would successively fight wars, the younger one against the older one, one
wiping out the other eventually. All those nations represented different cultures, both in their secular outlook
as well as in their religious orientation. All of this would be caused due their competitive spirit, each nation
trying to achieve dominance over the others. Such behaviour is not typical of the Jewish people, although, for
a brief period in our history, the tribe of Ephrayim competed violently with the tribe of Yehudah for pre-
eminence among the 12 tribes of the Jewish people. Even during such periods, these tribes would not remain
divided culturally or religiously. (compare Isaiah 11,13) ‫אפרים לא יקנא את יהודה ויהודה לא יצר את אפרים‬,
“Ephrayim will not be jealous of Yehudah, nor will Yehudah oppress Ephrayim.” To signify this difference
between competition among the gentile nations, and tribal warfare in Israel, G’d told Avram not to cut the bird
in half, seeing that it represented the nation that would emerge with Avram as their founding father.
Therefore, the Torah reported ‫ואת הצפור לא בתר‬, that Avram did not cut the bird in half. The word ‫הצפור‬
includes both the pigeon and the turtle dove, ‫תור וגוזל‬, seeing that the Jewish people are scattered in the four
directions of the globe and have yet remained a single people, clinging to their Torah and their faith in spite
of being scattered all over the world. The people of Israel did not trade their religion for another in spite of the
heavy burden involved in enduring exile.

Radak on Genesis 15:11:1 ‫וירד העיט‬, the word ‫ עיט‬is description of predatory birds generally.
Radak on Genesis 15:11:2 ‫על הפגרים‬, the carcasses which are whole. This term is not applied to the animals which had been cut in half
as part of the sacrificial procedures, [presumably, the author does not feel comfortable in the Torah
describing sacrifices which had been accepted by G’d winding up as the food for vultures. Ed.] The author
quotes a number of examples where the word ‫ פגר‬occurs in the Bible, in all of which the reference is to a
whole carcass, not to a section of it. (compare Isaiah 14,19; Chronicles I 10,12; Samuel I 31,12) The
symbolism in all this is that there would hardly be a generation in which the gentile nations would not attempt
to devour the Jewish people, and to annihilate them utterly. Nonetheless, in the final analysis, G’d has always
saved us from becoming total victims. This confirms the prediction in Leviticus 26,44 that even during our
darkest days when we are being punished collectively for our sins and the sins of our fathers, “I will not
despise you and allow you to be wiped out completely.” In the verse following the one we just quoted, the
Torah adds verbatim: ‫וזכרתי להם ברית ראשונים‬, at such a time “I will remember for them the covenant I
concluded with the forefathers.”
Radak on Genesis 15:12:1 ‫ויהי השמש לבא‬, this verse proves that this whole paragraph describes a prophetic vision, that the entire
sequence is a continuous vision, uninterrupted. Both the story about G’d taking Avraham out of his tent to
gaze at the stars (did not have to have occurred at night) and the time frame mentioned here, i.e. the sun
setting, did not have to refer to 12 hours having elapsed since the earlier reported part of this vision. The
Torah reports matters in the sequence in which they appeared to Avram in the vision. The reason why
“evening” “night” and, by implication, the preceding “daylight” is mentioned, is because they symbolise
periods in Jewish history. Daylight symbolises when the fortune smiled on the Jewish people, whereas
“sunset” symbolises the decline of the fortunes of the Jewish people, and “night, darkness” symbolises the
periods during which the Jewish people are in exile. The approaching evening mentioned in our verse refers
to the first Jewish exile in Egypt.
Radak on Genesis 15:12:2 ‫ותרדמה נפלה על אברם‬, this exhaustion was due to the marshalling of all of Avram’s spiritual resources to
receive these prophetic visions. We have evidence of these reactions in Daniel 8,18 who describes these
physically debilitating reactions when he involuntarily went to sleep on the very ground on which he had been
standing. (he did not have time to lie down on a bed) He had to be revived by the angel. He referred to such
weakness also in verse 17 of that same chapter. Avram, at least at the beginning of his prophetic vision, did
not experience such a weakness. The reason was that at the beginning of the visions G’d showed him there
were only positive developments. Now when G’d showed him the downside, he was overcome with the
impact of what G’d showed him.
Radak on Genesis 15:12:3 ‫אימה חשכה‬, as if the Torah had written ‫אימה וחשכה‬, fear and darkness. We have similar constructions where
the conjunctive letter ‫ ו‬is simply omitted in Chabakuk 3,11 ‫שמש ירח‬, and in Exodus 1,2 ‫ראובן שמעון‬, and many
others like it.

Radak on Genesis 15:13:1 ‫בארץ לא להם‬...‫ויאמר‬, which will never be theirs. G’d describes the lands in which the Israelites will be exiled as
countries which were not included among those of which G’d had said that Avram’s descendants would
inherit them. They would remain strangers in a country or countries not theirs until the conclusion of the
period of 400 years of which G’d speaks here. G’d speaks of 400 years and an additional 30 years
commencing now that G’d revealed this to him. [his descendants could not begin to be exiles until Yitzchok
was born, 30 years after the date of this vision. Ed.] This prophecy was fulfilled, the Jewish people leaving
Egypt at the conclusion of 400 years after the birth of Yitzchok, or 430 years from the date of these
revelations. On the face of it, in light of Avram having been 75 years old when he migrated from Charan, we
can only account for 425 years from that time until the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt. We need to
assume therefore that the vision involving the 400 years was experienced by Avram while in Charan, five
years before he moved to Canaan. At any rate, G’d did not elaborate how many of these 400 years would be
spent in Egypt, or even if any would be spent in Egypt. Our sages however, (Seder Olam chapter 3) have
said that 210 years of the 400 are accounted for by the stay in Egypt, basing themselves on an allusion
contained in the numerical value of the word ‫ רדו‬being 210. (compare Genesis 42,2 ‫)רדו שמה‬. The details of
the 400 years are as follows: we start with Yizchok’s birth. He was 60 years at the time Yaakov was born,
and Yaakov, by his own account was 130 years old when he answered Pharaoh’s question as to his age. We
therefore have the first 190 years accounted for as predating the descent of the family to Egypt. It is totally
impossible to believe that the 400 years referred to by G’d’s announcement to Avram were all spent in Egypt,
seeing that Kehot, a grandson of Yaakov was among those who moved to Egypt with his family, and his age
at death is given by the Torah as 133 years. We know that Moses was 80 years at the time when he made
his first appearance before Pharaoh, about a year before the Exodus. If the Israelites had stayed in Egypt for
400 years, then Amram, Moses‘ father, even if he had been born during the last year of the life of Kehat
would have lived for 187 years assuming that Moses was born during the last year of Amram’s life. Both of
these assumptions are highly unlikely, as is the likelihood of Amram living more that 187 years without the
Torah mentioning any of this. In fact, the Torah specifically states that Amram lived to the age of 137 (Exodus
6,20) It is most likely therefore, that the count of 400 years does indeed begin with the birth of Yitzchok. As
long as Avram’s descendants were so few in number, they most certainly deserved to be described as
“strangers” even in the land of Canaan, seeing they did not own even a small part of it. If you add the fact
that Yitzchok spent many years in the land of the Philistines, and Yaakov spent 20 years with Lavan in Aram,
a land which would never be part of Eretz Yisrael, neither of them could truly be perceived as a resident of
the land of Canaan.
Radak on Genesis 15:13:2 ‫ועבדום‬, the Egyptians will enslave them, and will oppress them. It is not unusual to apply the prefix ‫ ב‬to
people who have been enslaved, as we find a similar construction in Leviticus 25,39 ‫לא תעבוד בו עבודת עבד‬,
“do not make him perform the menial duties performed by a slave.” Or Jeremiah 34,10, ‫לבלתי עבד בם‬, “not to
keep them enslaved.” The word ‫ עבדם‬i.e. ‫ עבודה‬is used to describe the status of the person described,
whereas the word ‫ וענו‬refers to the manner in which such slaves would be treated.
Radak on Genesis 15:14:1 ‫וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו דן אנכי‬, I will judge the Egyptians even though it was I Who decreed that the Israelites
would be enslaved by them. The reason why I will judge them is that they acted with great cruelty toward the
Israelites, something which I had not decreed. The prophet Zacharyah 1,15 spelled out this concept in
connection with the punishment G’d visited on the Babylonians, who, though entitled to destroy the Temple in
Jerusalem, had never been entitled to go about it with such a vengeance. Similar verses justifying G’d
punishing those who had carried out part of His plan against the Jewish people, but with needless harshness,
are also found in Isaiah 47,6. The harshness of the slavery in Egypt was a punishment for the Israelites
having abandoned the traditions of their fathers, having reverted to idolatry, having violated the covenant
between G’d and Avraham, and not even having circumcised their male children. According to Ezekiel 20,7-8
and 9, the Israelites in Egypt had actually been guilty of utter annihilation for forsaking this covenant, and if G’
d nonetheless redeemed them, this was for the sake of His name, not because they had deserved it. Having
sworn to Avraham that He would redeem his offspring from the country in which they would be enslaved, we
must view the Exodus as primarily an exercise of preserving G’d’s image. G’d had told Moses already in
Exodus 6,8 that He had sworn an oath to Avraham, etc. Such statements are meant to demonstrate that the
Israelites while in Egypt had not been forsaken by G’d, that He had not overlooked what was happening to
them, but that they had been the architects of their own misfortune, and that if it had not been for G’d’s oath
to the patriarchs, they would have perished there. Apparently, G’d had sent prophets to them prior to Moses,
warning them of what might happen, but they had turned a deaf ear to such warnings. This is why Moses,
aware of this, said to G’d that He should send another prophet, as He had been in the habit of doing, ‫שלח נא‬
‫( ביד תשלח‬Exodus 4,13). This is also what the prophet Ezekiel had in mind in the paragraph that we have
referred to earlier. All of this demonstrates that when Avram asked in verse 8 of this chapter ‫במה אדע כי‬
‫אירשנה‬, which we explained as his concern that G’d’s promise might not become actual due to some sin of
his offspring, he was quite justified in worrying about such a scenario. It also explains still better G’d’s answer
and His statement that He gave Avram a lot of credit for believing G’d’s assurance that in spite of his fears
the promise would be carried out in due course. G’d’s answer to Avram contained an acknowledgement that
He was aware that the Israelites would indeed sin in Egypt, but also the fact that He would punish them there
but not annihilate them, so that eventually they would leave from there with great riches. The redemption
would occur after their punishment had run its course. [Perhaps, in support of our author’s theory, we might
add that the word ‫וגם‬, “and also,” in our verse, which appears strange since we had not been told who else
had been judged and punished, refers to the Jewish people, who by that time had received their punishment
in full, so that the remnant, the 20% of whom Rashi speaks on Exodus 13,18 (‫ )וחמושים‬were entitled to
redemption after risking their lives by slaughtering the lamb and circumcising themselves. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 15:15:1 ‫ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום‬, you will die in peace, i.e. you will not witness in your lifetime any of the upsetting
developments of which I have spoken to you. As far as the word ‫ אבותיך‬is concerned, this is a common
expression used by most people as a metaphor making death sound less negative. Expressions such as
‫ויאסף אל עמיו‬, "he was gathered in to his people" in Genesis 49,33, or ‫והאסף אל עמיך‬, "be gathered in to your
people" in Deuteronomy 32,50 all express similar sentiments. Some commentators (quoted by Rashi) claim
that the wording proves that Terach, Avraham's father had discarded idolatry and accepted monotheism prior
to his own death. This is problematic, seeing that we find in Chronicles II 34,28 that kind Yoshiyahu is told by
G'd ‫הנני אוסיפך אל אבותיך‬, and we know that his father Amon died as an unrepentant sinner. ‫תקבר בשיבה טובה‬,
you will see sons and grandsons before you die.
Radak on Genesis 15:16:1 ‫ודור רביעי ישובו הנה‬, the fourth generation, starting with those who descended to Egypt, which was the place of
their exile, will return to this their land that they migrated from. This prediction was fulfilled, seeing that Kehat
who was one of Yaakov's grandsons went down to Egypt, and the children of Moses and Aaron who were
the fourth generation were among those who entered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua.
Radak on Genesis 15:16:2 ‫כי לא שלם עון האמורי עד הנה‬, the time when the Emorite is due for punishment will not be until then. G'd is very
patient with sinners, giving them a great deal of time to mend their ways. The punishment for sin is called ‫עון‬,
as we know already from Kayin (Genesis 4,13) who said of the punishment for his having murdered Hevel,
his brother, ‫גדול עוני מנשוא‬, "my punishment is too great for me to endure." We also find that the word ‫ חטאת‬is
used both as sin and as atonement for sin, just as the word ‫ עון‬sometimes means "sin," and sometimes
"punishment." Compare Zecharyah 14,19 ‫זאת תהיה חטאת מצרים‬. The reason the Torah singled out the tribe of
the Emorite among all the Canaanite tribes is because it was the strongest of those seven tribes. The
prophet Amos 2,9 also quotes G'd of having destroyed the Emorite on account of the Jewish people,
although the same fate overtook the other Canaanite tribes also.

Radak on Genesis 15:17:1 ‫ויהי השמש באה‬, the word ‫ באה‬is accented on the first syllable, seeing that here it is a verb in the past tense.
Radak on Genesis 15:17:2 ‫ועלטה‬, a form of intense darkness. G'd hinted by the use of this intense darkness that there would be other
exiles, and that the redemption from the exile in Egypt would not be the final redemption of the Jewish
people. The description of the sun having set followed by ‫עלטה‬, implies that there would be no light at all, no
moon and no stars would be visible in the sky.
Radak on Genesis 15:17:3 ‫והנה תנור עשן ולפיד אשת‬, the word ‫ עשן‬is an adjective used in the same kind of meter as ‫חכם סכל‬, which
means ‫חכם וסכל‬, "a wise man who acts foolishly." We would translate it here as "a smoking furnace." The
point is that within the overall vision, Avram saw another furnace belching smoke, within the general
atmosphere of intense darkness. This latter picture was an allusion to G'd's anger which coats Israel with its
some during the long years of exile, the final exile which is the worst of them all. This is also what David had
to say concerning this long and most difficult exile, when he exclaimed in Psalms 80,5 ‫עד מתי עשנת בתפלת‬
‫עמך‬, "for how long will You remain smoking angrily at the prayers of Your people?"
Radak on Genesis 15:17:4 ‫ולפיד אש‬, a reference to the flame of fire traversing between the cut up carcasses of the sacrificial animals.
This vision contained two separate allusions. First and foremost it part in concluding this covenant with
Avram, a symbol of two humans walking between two parts of something which represents each party's
portion of the covenant, treaty, pact. [the mutuality of a covenant could be demonstrated by each party to it
keeping as a memento one half of a hundred dollar bil cut in half, ownership of which proves that one is a
party to the treaty. Ed.] We find another example of this kind of confir4ming a pact, a covenant in Jeremiah
34,18 ‫העגל רשר כרתו לשנים ויעברו בין בתריו‬, "the calf which the cut in two so as to pass between the halves."
[the occasion was the solemn promise not to enslave again the Jewish slaves whom their owners had agreed
to release in response to the prophet's (G'd's) demand with Nevuchadnezzar already at the gates of
Jerusalem. Ed.] Following up on this symbolic phenomenon, we read here in verse 18 "on that day G'd had
concluded a covenant with Avram, etc." In that verse we have the word ‫לאמור‬, which introduces a second
aspect of this covenant, i.e. that during all the many years that the exiles will last, G'd on His part will
remember this covenant with the Jewish people, the descendants of Avram, and not totally abandon them.
This same flame of fire which originally signified the concluding of the covenant will eventually consume
those who defied the bond between Israel and G'd by cruelly suppressing them and trying to wean them
away from their G'd. This will occur during the wars of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38,22) etc.

Radak on Genesis 15:18:1 ‫ביום ההוא כרת ה' את אברם בריתת‬, on the occasion of that vision G'd concluded a covenant with Avram to give
the entire land of Canaan to his descendants. He hinted to him by means of this vision that they would inherit
all of it at the conclusion of the final exile. We know this because now G'd named 10 tribes as being the ones
whose lands would all become part of the territory of the Jewish people.
Radak on Genesis 15:18:2 ‫נתתי‬, a reference to what G'd had already given to Avram. When G'd makes a promise, it is as if He had
already fulfilled it, as He does not renege. Hence the past tense, ‫נתתי‬. The boundaries of these tribes at that
time extended as far as the river Euphrates.
Radak on Genesis 15:18:3 ‫עד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת‬, our sages (quoted by Rashi in commenting on the word ‫הגדול‬, "the great one," being
applied to the river Euphrates), say that even though among the four rivers listed as emanating from Gan
Eden there was a bigger river than Euphrates, this one is called "the great one," as it traverses some parts of
the land of Israel (in the future).

Radak on Genesis 15:19:1 ‫את הקיני‬, this tribe gets its name from the city in which its members dwelled originally. The name of the city
was ‫קין‬, and the people known as ‫ חבר הקיני‬were descended from Kayin, as per Judges 4,11. Perhaps Kayin
himself had built that city. We are told something to that effect in Genesis 4,17. [it is difficult to accept that
this city survived the deluge, as it is difficult to accept that identifiable descendants of Kayin survived the
deluge. Ed.] It is a fact that such cities as Gilead, or Chavot Yair, and Dan, received their names from their
founders, naming them after themselves. (compare Joshua 19,46; Kings I 16,24; Chronicles I 2,55).
According to Onkelos, it is clear that he did not accept this meaning of the name ‫קיני‬, as in Numbers 24,21 he
renders the Numbers 24,21 where Bileam prophesied about the Keyni's future as if it were one of the
Canaanite tribes.

Radak on Genesis 15:20:1 ‫ואת החתי‬, the omission of the ‫ חוי‬may mean that that tribe was identical with the ‫רפאים‬.
Radak on Genesis 15:21:1 ‫ואת האמרי ואת הכנעני‬, the land of the Philistines is included under the heading of "the Canaanite," as we know
from Joshua 13,3 ‫'לכנעני תחשב וגו‬.
Radak on Genesis 16:1:1 ‫ושרי אשת אברם לא ילדה לו‬, as mentioned already in Genesis 11,30 ‫ ותהי שרי עקרה‬, "Sarai was barren." Now
when Sarai realized that her husband was already 85 years old, and she still had not been able to bear a
child for him, while she herself had already reached the age of 75, she thought that she had no longer any
hope of conceiving herself. She therefore reasoned to herself, that seeing G'd had promised Avram that he
would have children of his own who would inherit the land of Canaan, G'd must have referred to his siring
children from another woman. She reasoned further that it would be in her own best interest that any children
born to her husband should be born by a woman under her control so that she would experience the joy of
motherhood at least vicariously.
Radak on Genesis 16:1:2 ‫ולה שפחה מצרית‬, had Hagar been of Canaanite origin, Avram would not have agreed to sleep with her. Her
name is mentioned out of respect for Avram, [whose sleeping with an anonymous woman would have place
him in a bad light. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 16:2:1 ‫ עצרני ה' מלדת‬... ‫ותאמר‬, she meant that seeing that G'd had prevented her from giving birth during all these
years, she had now abandoned hope of ever bearing a child as she had aged in the interval.
Radak on Genesis 16:2:2 ‫אבנה‬, the son from this union would be called ‫אבנה‬, "I shall be built up." All children are a building consisting
of genetic input by father and mother. Sarai said that any son from this union with her husband would be
accepted by her as if he were part of her biological family. She would treat him as her own son.
Radak on Genesis 16:2:3 ‫וישמע אברם‬, he agreed with Sarai's plan, preferring not to wait any longer for G'd to fulfill His promise in giving
him children from Sarai as he had understood this promise up until now. He decided that since Sarai had
stopped menstruating she would not be able to become pregnant. As a result, he reasoned that G'd's
promise to him was to be fulfilled via Hagar who would become the mother of any children of his. Seeing that
even Sarai had arrived as such an interpretation of G'd's promise, he had no reason to disagree with her.
This is why Avram did not pray to G'd asking Him to make Sarai bear him a son, as opposed to his son
Yitzchok later on who did pray to G'd for Rivkah to bear him a son. It is also possible that Avram did pray
concerning this matter, but that he had concluded that G'd had seen fit to deny his request. In that event, we
must understand G'd's delay in answering Avram's prayer as being designed to show that He could make
even a ninety year old barren woman become pregnant and give birth to a healthy child.
Radak on Genesis 16:3:1 ‫ מקץ עשר שנים‬... ‫ותקח‬, ten years had elapsed since Avram and Sarai had moved to the land of Canaan. She
had waited all these years thinking that G'd would give Avram a son from her in that land. After all, the
instruction to Avram to go forth from his birthplace, etc. had been followed by the promise that there G'd
would make him into a great nation. (Genesis 12,2). Our sages in Yevamot 64 state that if someone was
married to a woman for 10 years during which she was unable to bear a child for him he is not allowed to
simply forego the chance of having children, but should pay her out her marriage settlement (Ketuvah) and
divorce her as it is possible that G'd only decreed that he should not have children from that particular
woman. The Talmud, while admitting that there is no proof for the above, claims that Avram's example can
serve as a guide for such conduct, seeing that he waited ten years after settling in the land of Israel, having
discounted the earlier years during which Sarai had not conceived.

Radak on Genesis 16:4:1 ‫ ותקל גבירתה‬... ‫ויבא‬, she thought that now that it was clear that Avram's seed would be from her she would
become the top ranking wife of Avram. As a result, she refused to carry out instructions given to her by Sarai.
Radak on Genesis 16:5:1 ‫ותאמר חמסי עליך‬, Sarai referred to the insolent behavior she was being subjected to by Hagar as being due to
her having had Avram's interest at heart instead of her own. She accused her husband of not disciplining
Hagar for her insolent behavior toward her. She herself had been unwilling to treat Hagar harshly out of
respect for Avram's dignity.
Radak on Genesis 16:5:2 '‫ישפוט ה‬, our sages in Rosh Hashanah 16 say that if someone invokes Divine judgment on a fellow Jew, he or
she will become subject to such judgment first. They derive this from Genesis 23,2 where Avraham mourned
Sarah's death, i.e. she who was 10 years junior to him died first. The Talmud assumes that this rule applies
in examples such as ours, when Sarai had no evidence that Avram had been aware of Hagar's insolence
toward her. Had he become aware of this firsthand, there is no question that he would not have tolerated
such behavior from Hagar against her. It is quite inconceivable that Avram should have remained silent when
his wife was being insulted. This was so in spite of the fact that Hagar had been raised in status to be his wife
instead of being merely Sarai's slave.
Radak on Genesis 16:5:3 ‫וביניך‬, the word is written plene, i.e. with the letter ‫ י‬between the ‫ נ‬and the ‫ך‬, something that occurs almost
only here in connection with the word ‫בין‬. For instance, we have such spellings of the word ‫בינכם וביניו‬, in
Joshua 3,4 where in the very same verse it occurs both spelled defectively ‫ בינכם‬and plene ‫וביניו‬, "between
you (pl) and between him." There is an allegorical explanation quoted by Rashi for the spelling which
suggests that in her jealousy Sarai looked at Hagar's swollen belly with the evil eye, something which would
have resulted in Hagar losing her fetus. This is why the angel told her that she was pregnant, a fact that
Hagar had been well aware of; however the idea was that Hagar would give birth to a son, etc., i.e. that she
need not fear to abort her fetus on account of Sarai having given her the "evil eye."
Radak on Genesis 16:6:1 ‫ שפחתך בידך‬... ‫ויאמר‬, Avram meant that in spite of Hagar sleeping with him, i.e. being accorded wifely
privileges from his side, she remained Sarai's slave and as such Sarai could determine how to treat her. He
made it clear that his own dignity was not to be a consideration in Sarai's treatment of Hagar.
Radak on Genesis 16:6:2 ‫ותענה שרי‬, Sarai overburdened her with work, and made her perform the work in an intolerably harsh manner.
It is even possible that the word ‫ ותענה‬includes physical as well as verbal abuse of Hagar by Sarai. The
Torah testifies that Sarai did not act piously toward her, Although Avram had given her a free hand when he
said "do to her as appears fit in your eyes," from a moral point of view she should have treated Hagar in a
manner befitting her status as a wife or legal companion of Avram. From the point of view of practicing
human kindness, Although Avram had given her a free hand when he said "do to her as appears fit in your
eyes," from a moral point of view she should have treated Hagar in a manner befitting her status as a wife or
legal companion of Avram. From the point of view of practicing human kindness, ‫חסידות‬, she should have
treated a subordinate with all possible consideration. The scholar Ibn Gabirol said "how beautiful is the
attribute of practicing forgiveness in circumstances when this is possible!" Sarai's actions as reported were
not pleasing in the eyes of the Lord. This is reflected in the words of the angel to Hagar (verse 11) '‫כי שמע ה‬
‫אל עניך‬, "for the Lord has listened to the oppression you have endured." This is why the angel gave her a
blessing as compensation for the harsh treatment she had suffered. Avram did not prevent Sarai from acting
as she did, even though it was displeasing in his eyes, because he was concerned primarily with eyes,
because he was concerned primarily with preserving his relations with Sarai. The reason why this whole
story is preserved for all future generations in our chapter is to teach moral-ethical lessons, and to warn us
not to indulge in injustice.

Radak on Genesis 16:7:1 ‫וימצאה על עין המים‬, after the Torah wrote the words ‫על עין המים‬, it goes on to explain this term, i.e. ‫על העין‬,
"next to the fountain she had discovered."
Radak on Genesis 16:7:2 ‫על העין‬, the definite article ‫ ה‬means that this well on the route to Shur was known. She was therefore on the
way back to Egypt, the land from which she had originated.

Radak on Genesis 16:8:1 ‫ויאמר‬, the vowel patach (instead of segol) under the letter ‫ מ‬is used as if there were a colon after the word.
This is not unusual, seeing that words with the tone-sign revia occasionally signal that the word is meant to
end with a colon or similar, meant to be followed by an explanation. Seeing that here the subject matter itself
introduces an interruption, seeing that what follows is not connected to the word ‫ויאמר‬, we need to
understand the word as referring to what preceded it. This is so whenever the word ‫ ויאמר‬appears with the
vowel patach.
Radak on Genesis 16:8:2 ‫הגר‬, the angel called her both by her name and by her station in life, i.e. the slave of Sarai. Seeing that she
was supposed to be attending to Sarai's needs, he wanted to know what she was doing in this location. He
continued with "where do you come from and where do you think you are headed?"
Radak on Genesis 16:8:3 ‫בורחת‬, Hagar confirmed that she had no idea, seeing that she was merely fleeing in order to escape the
torment Sarai had subjected her to. The vowel patach in the word ‫בורחת‬, at the end of a verse is most
unusual. [the vowel kametz would have been expected. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 16:9:1 ‫ויאמר‬, the word ‫ ויאמר‬occurs here no fewer than three times. When we encounter such a phenomenon it is
usually meant to underscore what will be the subject of the message about to be delivered. [the author refers
to remarks he made on this subject in his book ‫שער דקדוק הפועלים‬. Ed.] It is also possible to explain the
threefold use of the word ‫ ויאמר‬as being justified because of the three messages the angel delivered to
Hagar. There are other commentators who explain this phenomenon of three the word ‫ ויאמר‬in this short
sequence as proof that Hagar was visited by three different angels, each with a single message. (Bereshit
Rabbah 45,7) The author of that Midrash uses this incident to bemoan the fact that whereas the servant maid
of the matriarch rated three messages by three angels, we the matriarch's descendants, do not even rate a
single message from an angel.
Radak on Genesis 16:9:2 ‫והתעני‬, and subject yourself to harsh treatment seeing that ultimately it will be for your benefit. It is better for
you to remain within the proximity of a man such as Avram, seeing that due to his many merits, your offspring
will multiply greatly.

Radak on Genesis 16:10:1 ‫הרבה ארבה‬, the angel being G'd's messenger, may speak in the first person as if he were to do what he says,
seeing that he delivers G'd's message. It is as if G'd Himself had spoken.
Radak on Genesis 16:10:2 ‫ולא יספר מרב‬, the words: "and it will not be capable of being counted due to its large number," are to be
understood as an exaggeration, poetical license.

Radak on Genesis 16:11:1 ‫ הנך הרה‬... ‫ויאמר‬, the angel used these words as an introduction, seeing he was well aware that Hagar knew
that she was pregnant as the Torah had reported in verse 4, as well as Hagar's reaction. The message that
angel had come to deliver was ‫וילדת בן‬, "you will give birth to a son." The word ‫ יולדת‬is a composite
composed from the word ‫וילדת‬, which is a verb in the past tense converted into the future tense by the letter ‫ו‬
at the front, the other component being the word ‫ויולדת‬, the same root as a present participle. The meaning of
the combined composite is that seeing that the birth was something that had not yet occurred, the verb must
contain an allusion to the future, whereas seeing that Hagar knew that she was pregnant, i.e. that the
process which would result in a birth had already begun, the formulation of the verb had to reflect this fact
also. The angel's message was: "just as you are aware that you are pregnant you should be equally aware
that you will bear a son as a result of this pregnancy." There are some grammarians who believe that the root
of the word here is similar to a four-lettered verb.
Radak on Genesis 16:11:2 ‫וקראת שמו‬, the letter ‫ ת‬at the end is a feminine ending future tense, i.e. "you will call." On the other hand, in
Deut. 31,29 the same word ‫ וקראת אתכם‬refers to a third person feminine construction where the letter ‫ת‬
substitutes for the letter ‫ה‬, the expression meaning: "it will befall you." The reference is to the ‫רעה‬, evil, a
noun that is feminine which follows immediately after the word ‫אתכם‬.
Radak on Genesis 16:11:3 ‫אל עניך‬, "to your outcry [complaint instead of prayer, Ed.] concerning your plight." We are forced to explain the
angel's words in this fashion, seeing he spoke of G'd having "heard," ‫שמע‬, instead of ‫ראה‬, "G'd has seen." It
is also possible to explain the angel's words as does Onkelos, i.e. as ‫צלותיך‬, "your prayer." There are
precedents for the word ‫ ענה‬meaning a response to something, to wit Job 3,2 and Isaiah 13,22 as well as
Deuteronomy 26,5 ‫וענית ואמרת‬, and similar examples.

Radak on Genesis 16:12:1 ‫ ;והוא יהיה‬the letter ‫ ה‬at the beginning of the word ‫ והוא‬means that the angel's prophecy referred not only to
Yishmael, but to his offspring as well. He foretold the characteristics of the Ishmaelites based on their
founder's genes.
Radak on Genesis 16:12:2 ‫פרא אדם‬, a desert Bedouin, known as such because most Bedouins live in tents instead of in permanent
dwellings. Compare Jeremiah 3,2 ‫כערבי במדבר‬, "as an Arab, at home in the desert." [the word describes
people who do not impose the restrictions upon themselves that civilized people accept in the interest of
forming communities. Ed.] The Arabs are the people descended from the Ishmaelites.
Radak on Genesis 16:12:3 ‫ידו בכל‬, seeing that he will dwell in the desert, [a region in which there are no laws governing private property,
Ed.] he will violate people's rights, and they in turn will outlaw him, putting a price on his head. In spite of
living in constant friction with his neighbours he will not flee but will continue to dwell in their presence. When
the angel concludes with the statement that he will ultimately die in the presence of ‫כל אחיו‬, the word ‫ אחיו‬is
used as a simile for the word ‫שכניו‬, "his neighbours."

Radak on Genesis 16:13:1 ‫ותקרא‬, the reason why Hagar called G'd ‫ל ראי‬-‫א‬, was that she oly realized in retrospect that she had been
addressed by an angel, i.e. by an angel who brought her G'd's message. She had not previously believed
that a human being could behold an angel with her physical eyes, a lesson also learned by Manoach in
Judges 13,22. As soon as she notice how this messenger who had appeared to her in human garb
disappeared in less time than it takes to blink an eye, she knew that that being had been an angel and she
called out "you are the angel who manifests G'd's presence." She meant that she had seen a Divine being
that is capable of being perceived as such by man. The construction "ro-i" is similar to the construction "o-ni"
in Lamentation 3.1 or in "do-mi" in Psalms 83,2, or in Genesis 43,11, "tzo-ri."
Radak on Genesis 16:13:2 ‫כי אמרה‬, she had said in her heart "I recognize that he is an angel, for when a human being departs from the
presence of another human being the one remaining behind can continue to see the one departing for a
considerable time until he recedes into the distance. I, however, have been unable to see a trace of this
being even ‫הלום‬, when he was still close to me, ‫ראי‬, had seen me, i.e. the being who had revealed himself to
me. It is clear to me therefore, that this must have been an angel, i.e. a disembodied creature."
Radak on Genesis 16:13:3 The word ‫ ראי‬means "the one who sees me."
Radak on Genesis 16:14:1 ‫על כן קרא לבאר‬, this is why anyone who encounters the well where the angel had appeared to Hagar at the
time the "‫ "באר לחי רואי‬. Seeing that an angel lives eternally, the word ‫" לחי‬to the living one," is an apt
description for such a creature. The fountain mentioned in this verse is the same as the one that had been
described previously in verse 7.
Radak on Genesis 16:14:2 ‫הנה בין קדש ובין ברד‬, The Torah gives an indication of where this fountain can be seen, so that when a person
encounters it he will acknowledge G'd's greatness in revealing Himself by dispatching an angel even to the
errant maid-servant of Sarai. The matter is all the more remarkable seeing that Hagar was not in the act of
performing a mission on G'd's behalf at the time. Bared is the same as the previously mentioned Shur. The
location had been known by two names. This is why the Torah mentioned both of these names. Ths is also
why Onkelos translates both Shur and Bared as ‫חגרא‬.

Radak on Genesis 16:15:1 ‫ויקרא אברם‬, even though the angel had instructed Hagar what name to give to the son she would bear, she
conveyed this message to Avram, so that both she and Avram called her son Ishmael, in accordance with the
angel's instructions. We find a similar situation in Genesis 4,25 and (Genesis 5,3) when Adam's third son was
born, where the Torah tells us that both Chavah and Adam called him Sheth. On other occasions we find that
father and mother named the same child differently, such as Rachel calling her youngest son ‫בן אוני‬, whereas
Yaakov call him .‫( בנימין‬Genesis 35,18)
Radak on Genesis 16:16:1 ‫ואברם בן שמנים שנה ושש שנים‬, the reason why the Torah tells us Avram's age at the time Ishmael was born is
to inform us that he was born in the same year Sarai had given Hagar to Avram in order to provide him with
offspring. Avram was to rejoice over the prompt success of the arrangement. We know that Avram was 75
years old when he moved to the land of Canaan so that he must have been 85 years old at the end of the 10
years mentioned previously. (16,3). The word ‫ מקץ‬in that verse refers to the end of a period, i.e. the end of 10
years residence in the land of Canaan. We encounter the word ‫ מקץ‬as also meaning "at the end of" in Deut.
15,1 ‫מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמטה‬, "at the end of seven years (a cycle) you are to make a release," (forgive past
due loans.)
Radak on Genesis 17:1:1 ‫ויהי אברם בן תשעים ותשע שנים‬, after 13 years had passed since Ishmael was born G'd commanded Avram
about the circumcision. G'd had waited with this command until Avram would be close to 100 years old in
order to make the miracle of a 100 year old man and a ninety year old woman having a child all the greater.
Also, Avram, subjecting himself to the operation involved in circumcising himself would acquire an even
greater merit if he did so at such an age when his physical virility had already declined. G'd issued the
command before Yitzchok would be born in order that Yitzchok would be the product of a union with a Jewish
father, i.e. a father who had been circumcised at the time when he impregnated his wife with his sperm.
Seeing that the circumcision weakens the reproductive organ of the person undergoing it, especially at such
an age. Avram's producing a son after that experience was therefore all the more remarkable.
Radak on Genesis 17:1:2 ‫ל שדי‬-‫אני א‬, the word ‫ שדי‬means "strong, victorious." (root ‫ )שדד‬We find the term appearing in that sense in
Ezekiel 1,24, ‫כקול מים רבים כקול שדי‬, "like the sound of mighty waters, like the sound of Shaddai." Also in
Ezekiel 10,5 ‫ל שדי‬-‫ כקול א‬it appears in the same sense. G-d meant to tell him that although you are physically
weak and Sarai is barren, I, G'd will overcome all these impediments and the laws of nature are subject to My
control, so that I can change them whenever it suits me. G'd referred to this power again in Exodus 6,3 when
Moses had despaired of hismission. He told them that he had already demonstrated ths power when He
made the three matriarchs, all of whom had been biologically barren, overcome such a handicap so that each
bore a child or children. G'd had responded to the prayers of these people or their husbands and altered the
laws of nature in order to fulfill their requests. When the word ‫ שדי‬is meant to be an attribute, it should be
spelled ‫שדדי‬, shaddeday." It would then mean something akin to Proverbs 28,23 ‫מוכיח אדם אחרי חן ימצא‬, i.e.
that as a result of being rebuked, the subject of the rebuke will eventually find favour (in the eyes of the
rebuker).
Radak on Genesis 17:1:3 ‫התהלך לפני‬, as rendered by Onkelos, "serve Me" by carrying out what I command you ( in order to become
perfect). This is also that meaning of the word ‫ התהלך‬in Genesis 24,40 as well as in Genesis 48,15. It is a
reference to serving the lord in thought and deed. All service of the Lord is rooted in man's heart. This is why
King Chiskiyah in Kings II 20,3 in his prayer says: ‫אני ה' דבר נא את אשר התהלכתי לפניך באמת ובלבב שלם‬,
"please o Lord remember how I have served you in truth and with a pure heart, etc." Chiskiyah first refers to
his serving G'd with his heart, before mentioning that he had performed deeds which constituted service of
the Lord also, when he said ‫והטוב בעיניך עשיתי‬, "and I have done what is pleasing in Your eyes." At this
juncture G'd commands Avram that He will require additional service from him, service to be performed on
his own body. He had already proven that his heart was pure. He had also already perfected his personality
traits to the extent that his mind and intelligence had suggested such improvements. This form of service to
be performed on his body was something that his mind and reason would reject as illogical. G'd demanded
this only in order for the people whom Avraham would produce would be recognizable by the circumcision of
their body as unique, as wearing the mark of G'd. Even though many of the gentiles do circumcise
themselves also, they do not do so in response to a command by G'd. Only the special seed of Avram, i.e.
Yitzchok was included in this command. Also Yitzchok's special seed was included in that command, [i.e.
according to our author Ishmael's children and Esau's children as well as the sons Avraham had by Keturah
would not have been included in this commandment. Because of these considerations G'd commanded the
circumcision before Yitzchok would be born or even conceived. Any convert, not alive at that time but joining
the Jewish people and its faith are therefore described as being ‫" בני אברהם‬descendants, sons of Avraham,"
[This is an additional meaning of the name change from Avram to Avraham, foretelling him that he would
become the spiritual father of all future converts. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 17:1:4 ‫והיה תמים‬, meaning that by fulfillment of this commandment Avram would then be considered as "perfect.
Once there would be a visible sign of Avram's faith and loyalty to His Creator on his body this would act at
the same time as the symbol of the covenant between G'd and him (and the Jewish people). Every covenant
requires to be confirmed by blood, [this being the "essence" of the party with whom G'd concluded a
covenant. Ed.] At this point G'd spoke to Avram in general terms not spelling out the nature of the covenant
until verse 10. After having heard all of what G'd said to him, Avram now understood the meaning of the word
‫ תמים‬on two levels. 1) The meaning we have already explained about service of G'd consisting both of
intangible parts of man such as his heart and his mind, as well as his body. 2) G'd taught him that although,
at first glance, the loss of a foreskin and the loss of blood might make him conclude that instead of becoming
more perfect he had now become less perfect than he had been previously, this was not so. G'd explained
that the circumcision did not mean the loss of an organ but only the removal of some excess flesh from that
organ, and that the very removal of that excess would result in his becoming ‫תמים‬, perfect. The absence of
this excess would be the symbol of the covenant between him and G'd. If he had already been born with that
piece of flesh missing, the fact that it was missing could not have served as the symbol of the covenant.
Additionally, there would be a need to lose a few drops of blood as the symbol of that covenant, as explained
in Shabbat 135.
Radak on Genesis 17:2:1 ‫ וארבה אותך‬... ‫ואתנה‬, you should not think that on account of the circumcision your future descendants will be
fewer because your reproductive organ has become weakened by the removal of the foreskin. On the
contrary, I will multiply your seed.<br> ‫במאד מאד‬, an expression designed to express the unusual extent of
what is about to happen. The word ‫ מאד‬always refers to some form of multiplicity.

Radak on Genesis 17:3:1 ‫ויפול אברם על פניו‬, he prostrated himself and thanked the Lord Who had told him that He would make this
covenant with him, something he interpreted as a sign of G'd's love for him.
Radak on Genesis 17:3:2 ‫וידבר אתו אלוהים לאמור‬, He said the following word to him ‫לאמור‬, in order for Avraham in turn to communicate
them to the members of this household when he would meet them.

Radak on Genesis 17:4:1 ‫אני הנה בריתי אתך‬, just as you have ben certain that when I said to you that I am ‫ל שדי‬-‫ א‬that I have the power
to change the laws of nature, I am telling you additionally, that you will not only be the founder of one nation,
but that you will became the founder of numerous nations. Both Yitzchok, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah
will al become important nations.
Radak on Genesis 17:4:2 The expression ‫ המון‬means "a multiplicity." In order that this will be remembered for all future times, I change
your name by the addition of the letter ‫ה‬, which by being joined to the letter ‫מ‬symbolizes the word ‫המון‬.

Radak on Genesis 17:5:1 ‫ולא יקרא עוד את שמך‬, the word ‫ את‬after the verb in the passive conjugation "yikarey" is used to make
something more clear. (the author dealt with this principle in his introduction to ‫ )דקדוק המלים‬Other examples
of such a construction are found in Numbers 26,55 ‫וכן יחלק את הארץ‬, as well as in Deuteronomy 20,8 ‫ולא ימס‬
‫את אחיו‬. Our sages say that when a person's name is changed this results in the cancellation of evil decrees
that had been issued against such a person. (Rosh Hashanah 16) They point to Avraham and Sarah as
proof. Both Avraham and Sarah after having had their names changes had become able to jointly produce
Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 17:5:2 ‫ולא יקרא‬, people of subsequent generations will never refer to the original names of Avram and Sarai when
referring to them, but will refer to them only as Sarah and Avraham. You are to tell all the people you meet
that G'd has changed both your names, so that these people will tell others and soon everyone will know
about this. As a result, the miracle that I have worked with you both will become public knowledge when you
and Sarah will have a baby-son.
Radak on Genesis 17:6:1 ‫והפרתי אותך במאד מאד ונתתיך לגוים‬, as we already explained, this refers to Yitzchok, Ishmael and the sons of
Keturah. Alternatively, it refers only to Yitzchok's offspring Yaakov, and his offspring alone. The meaning of
the word ‫ גוים‬then would be "tribes" as suggested by Onkelos. [in a different manuscript from that copied in
our Chumashim. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 17:6:2 ‫ומלכים ממך יצאו‬, this too means the same as Onkelos said, that some of your descendants will become kings
over nations.
Radak on Genesis 17:7:1 ‫ ובין זרעך אחריך‬... ‫והקימותי את בריתי‬, G'd refers to promised made both to Yaakov and to his descendants as
spelled out in Leviticus 26,12. The reciprocal relationship between the Jewish people and G'd is spelled out
there clearly.
Radak on Genesis 17:8:1 ‫ את ארץ מגורך‬... ‫ונתתי‬, a reference to the locations in which Avraham had dwelled, not only these but the
whole of the land of Canaan.
Radak on Genesis 17:8:2 ‫לאחוזת עולם‬, even though the Jewish people would be exiled from that country for a period of time, it would
remain their eternal heritage. They would return to that land and G'd would be their G'd.

Radak on Genesis 17:9:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים אל אברהם‬, once G'd had changed Avram's name Moses never again spelled in the former way.
Our sages have gone so far as to describe anyone referring to Avraham as Avram as having violated a
positive as well as a negative commandment. (Bereshit Rabbah 46,8) They base this on the wording "your
name shall not be called Avram, but your name shall be Avraham." (verse 5) Many people question this,
pointing out that in Nechemya 9,7 we read ‫ אתה הוא ה' האלוקים אשר בחרת באברם‬, "you are the Lord G'd Who
has chosen Avram." The answer is that perhaps what Nechemya meant was that G'd had chosen Avraham
to be Avraham at a time when he was still known as Avram. According to the plain meaning of the text, the
wording of the Torah is only a warning not to call Avraham by this former name, it is not part of the 613
commandments
Radak on Genesis 17:9:2 ‫ואתה את בריתי תשמר‬, G'd makes plain that the overriding condition upon which this covenant is based is the
meticulous observance by Avraham and his descendants of the terms of this covenant. Avraham is to pass
on this condition to his offspring as well as to his household.
Radak on Genesis 17:10:1 ‫זאת בריתי‬, just as I keep and observe my end as spelled out in verse 7, so you must keep and observe it. The
Torah employs the plural mode when speaking of Avraham and his descendants, i.e. ‫תשמרו‬, as it had done
in verse 9 when spelling the word ‫אחריך‬, "after you,: with the letter ‫ י‬indicating such a plural. This covenant
was to be between G'd (sing.) and the Jewish people (ph.)
Radak on Genesis 17:10:2 ‫ביני וביניכם‬, a reference to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov, seeing that Avraham was still alive for 15 years of
Yaakov's life.
Radak on Genesis 17:10:3 ‫ובין זרעך אחריך‬, a reference to Yaakov's descendants.
Radak on Genesis 17:10:4 ‫המול לכם כל זכר‬, every male of you shall be circumcised. By saying ‫לכם‬, he included that both he and his
descendants were meant. After Avraham had heard the words ‫כל זכר‬, he understood that this circumcision
was to be performed on the male member, the reproductive organ. It was to be the area of the body where
the difference between the sexes was most notable.Our sages in Kidushin 29 say that the word ‫לכם‬, meant
that if a baby had no father, the commandment to have the circumcision performed devolves on the court in
the respective city in which the child lives.
Radak on Genesis 17:10:5 ‫המול‬, an infinitive in the passive conjugation ‫נפעל‬, meaning that the subject about whom the Torah speaks,
the Jewish nation, is "to have each male circumcised." The root of the verb is ‫נמל‬, it is parallel to such roots
as ‫ עשן‬,‫ הנדף‬,‫שקל‬, (compare Psalms 68,3). According to my opinion the word ‫ הנדף‬in that erse is a noun, as I
have explained in my book ‫שער הדקדוק‬. In accordance with that theory the word ‫ המול‬is also a noun with an
additional letter ‫ה‬, such as we find it when fully spelled out as ‫הנמול‬, "the circumcised one," parallel to ‫הנדף‬,
"the dispersed one." Alternatively, the root of the verb is ‫ מול‬as in Amos 4,12 ‫הכון‬, from the root ‫כון‬.

Radak on Genesis 17:11:1 ‫ונמלתם‬, this is the positive commandment to the father to circumcise his male child, or to the son to perform
circumcision on himself when he reaches the age of manhood if it has not been performed on him before
then by the court.
Radak on Genesis 17:11:2 ‫לאות ברית‬, as a mark of the covenant; although there are other symbolic acts which are signs of the covenant
and the obligation to keep the laws of the Torah, such as the phylacteries, the fringes, the Sabbath, etc., this
symbol is by far the most potent one, the only one to be performed on one's body. The other "signs" are only
a reminder. This is the only such "sign" to be performed on one's body. Seeing that this is so, The Torah
chose to select the reproductive organ of the male, seeing that most of the sins one commits are somehow
related to this organ and involve misuse of that organ. It is the organ, which, unless handled with care, is apt
to allow the bestial party of the human being to come to the surface, thereby weakening the aspect of our
nature which wishes to cling to godliness. When looking at that part of one's body one reminds oneself
automatically that G'd has forbidden Jews to engage in recreational sexual activities, in mating with partners
which the Torah has forbidden in the interest of purity, etc. Sexual emissions are to be used only for the
purpose of impregnating one's wife or when prescribed for medical reason by a physician.

Radak on Genesis 17:12:1 ‫ובן שמונת ימים ימול‬, he is to be circumcised when 8 days old; a passive mode of the root ‫מול‬. Accordingly, we
must understand that the primary duty of performing the circumcision is that of the baby's father.
Radak on Genesis 17:12:2 ‫כל זכר לדורותיכם‬, this refers to the Israelites.
Radak on Genesis 17:12:3 ‫יליד בית‬, any member of the family born in the house.
Radak on Genesis 17:12:4 ‫ומקנת כסף אשר לא מזרעך הוא‬, or a slave purchased by money who is not of your seed. Both those who were
born to other slaves owned by you, or even slaves purchased from the outside before eight days old must be
circumcised when they reach that age. If such a slave was purchased by a Jew after he was already more
than eight days old, you do not wait with performing this commandment. This is also why all of the male
members of Avraham's household were circumcised by him at the same time he performed the operation on
himself. He did not have any male members of his household who were less than 8 days old. This, at any
rate, is the plain meaning of our text. Our sages, (Shabbat 135) reacting to the repetition of the words ‫המול‬
‫ימול‬, use this to reason that the Torah spoke of two different dates as being appropriate for the circumcision
of gentile slaves. 1) There are some who have to be circumcised immediately; 2) there are others who must
be circumcised on the eighth day. If one had purchased a female slave who was pregnant, he son when born
must be circumcised forthwith. If the female slave had undergone ritual immersion prior to giving birth to her
son he will be circumcised when eight days old like any other Jewish ale baby. If one had purchased a
gentile slave (female) who had become pregnant while in the household of her Jewish master, the baby will
be circumcised on the eighth day. If one had purchased a female slave with a view of keeping only her baby
when born, i.e. not needing to convert his mother, or one had purchased the mother with the express proviso
not to convert her by subjecting her to a ritual immersion, the baby born by her is also one that needs
immediate circumcision, seeing it is not a Jewish baby as yet.
Radak on Genesis 17:13:1 ‫המול ימול‬, this refers to Avraham ensuring that all the male members of his household be circumcised now
with him. The Torah had already issued instructions in the previous verse that Avraham's male descendants
were to be circumcised, as well as any gentile bodily owned members of their households. Just as they were
to study G'd's laws, i.e. "His ways," they would have to carry out this commandment as it is inconceivable for
more than one religion to be observed within the same household. Neither were there to be members of two
different nations within the same household, one of whom circumcised and the other uncircumcised.
Radak on Genesis 17:13:2 ‫בבשרכם‬, seeing that slaves are owned bodily by their Jewish master, it is quite in order to describe their flesh
as ‫בשרכם‬, "your flesh."
Radak on Genesis 17:14:1 ‫וערל זכר‬, and an uncircumcised male' the verse speaks of a Jew. The commandment as well as the penalty
for non-observance applies only to Jews. The members of Avraham's household whom G'd had commanded
Avraham to circumcise, do not in turn have to circumcise their own children - even if they obtained their
freedom and were no longer member of his household. The only reason a Jewish household must consist of
males who have been circumcised is to preserve the uniform nature of such a household. In the event such a
slave in a Jewish household does not want to submit to circumcision, his Jewish master must sell him. The
owner is given 12 months to persuade such a slave to undergo circumcision. (Yevamot 48)
Radak on Genesis 17:14:2 ‫שלא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה הנפש ההיא‬, the penalty for non-performance of this commandment becomes
applicable only once the male in question has reached the age of performing mitzvot, i.e. is over the age of
13. His father - usually the one who has been responsible for such neglect - is not subject to the penalty of
karet, but is treated as having neglected to perform an ordinary positive commandment.
Radak on Genesis 17:14:3 ‫ ;ימול‬the root is ‫נמל‬, conjugation kal, as in ‫ונמלתם‬. The penalty is premature death of the guilty party.
Radak on Genesis 17:14:4 ‫ ;הפר‬My covenant which I established with Avraham. This covenant applied also to the person who failed to
observe this commandment even if he lived a thousand years after Avraham.

Radak on Genesis 17:15:1 ‫ לא תקרא‬... ‫ויאמר‬, a man calls his wife by her name, not vice versa. She addresses him deferentially as her
superior. It is not good manners to address someone of a higher station in life as if he were one's equal. This
is also why it is forbidden to address one's father by his name but he must be addressed in a fashion which
reflects his superior stats vis-à-vis his son. One may preface speaking to one's father by saying first: "my
father," "my master," "my teacher," etc. Jerobam was accused of re belling against King Solomon because
he spoke of him by name instead of first mentioning his title. (Kings I 11,27) [The author quotes from his own
commentary on the Book of Kings. The words ‫ שלמה בנה את המלוא‬are understood as a quotation of
something Jerobam said, when he should have said "King Solomon built, etc." Ed.] In the same vein our
sages (Sanhedrin 100) have said that if someone were to address or refer to his father by his name, he
would cause the Divine presence to depart from the Jewish people. When Sarah spoke to the angel about
her husband, (Genesis 18,12) she referred to him as ‫ואדוני זקן‬, "my master is old." Also in Genesis 3,15 G'd
had already made this point to Chavah, saying that her husband Adam would have authority over her. In
Judges 19,16 the text in merely telling us a story, the parties involved in which had long been dead when the
book was written, refers to ‫פתח בית האיש אשר אדוניה שם‬, "at the entrance of the house in which her master
was at the time,: instead of writing "at the entrance of the house of her husband." The prophet writing the
book was careful to accord to people the title or stature that they possessed when alive. This is therefore the
reason why on the one hand G'd told Avraham not to call his wife Sarai but Sarah, whereas there is no
parallel line for Sarah not to call Avraham Avram, seeing she had never been allowed to call him merely
"Avram." When speaking about Avram's name change G'd speaks only about how other people are going to
refer to him or not refer to him, saying ‫" ולא יקרא‬it will not be called," as He spoke about Avraham's equals
referring to him by name instead of by some title. Only Avraham needed to be warned not to call Sarai by her
former name, seeing that no one else had ever been permitted to address her in such familiar terms. If
someone were to call Sarah Sarai, he would not be violating a negative commandment and a positive
commandment (Berachot 13) seeing G'd had only commanded Avraham not to call her Sarai anymore.
Radak on Genesis 17:15:2 ‫כי שרה שמה‬, her name will henceforth be Sarah, just as in the parallel verse G'd had said to Avraham "your
name will be Avraham. Once you will be heard calling her "Sarah," others overhearing you will follow suit.
The significance of the name change from Sarai to Sarah had the same connotation as that of Avram being
changed to Avraham. Our sages phrase this as "originally she was a princess only for her own people, now
she was a princess for all nations." (Berachot 13).

Radak on Genesis 17:16:1 ‫וברכתי‬, I will restore her youthfulness so that she will begin having her periods again. Another, even greater
miracle, will be the fact that she will give birth. This is meant by the additional words ‫וגם נתתי ממנה לך בן‬, "and
I will also give you a son from her." The word ‫ נתתי‬is similarly used in Genesis 23,13 ‫" נתתי כסף השדה‬I have
given the money for the field," where also the transaction had not taken place yet, but Avraham made plain
that he had already made all the arrangement s from his side. When G'd promised it is as if it had happened
already.
Radak on Genesis 17:16:2 ‫וברכתיה‬, with numerous seed which will emerge from her son. This is the meaning of the words ‫והיתה לגוים‬,
"she will develop into nations." The reference is to her grandchildren Esau and Yaakov, each of whom
became founding fathers of large nations. Possible, G'd referred only to the descendants of Yaakov as per
Onkelos. This too is meant by the words ‫מלכי עמים‬, "kings of nations." Compare verse 6 above.

Radak on Genesis 17:17:1 ‫ויפל‬, as we explained already on verse 3. This was his way of gratefully acknowledging what G'd had told him
concerning Sarah.
Radak on Genesis 17:17:2 ‫ויצחק‬, he rejoiced in his heart, as per Onkelos. This was not a laughter which was derisive.
Radak on Genesis 17:17:3 ?‫ הלבן מאה שנה יולד‬Avraham spoke of being 100 years old, seeing that by the time his son would be born he
would be 100 years old. This would be so even if his wife were to conceive immediately. He had been 99
years old and Sarah had been 89 years old for some time. The amazement Avraham expressed was not due
to his lack of belief, seeing that the Torah had already told us in chapter 15,6 that Avraham did believe in
G'd's promise and was even credited with a merit on account of his belief in this astounding prophecy.
Avraham simply voiced his amazement of the fact that G'd would go to such lengths to change natural law.
He added words about Sarah, seeing that when she would give birth this would be an even greater miracle,
seeing that Sarah - as opposed to her husband - had not given birth at all, whereas Avraham had sired
Ishmael. Her basic barrenness had been proven beyond doubt.
Radak on Genesis 17:18:1 ‫ לו ישמעאל‬... ‫ויאמר‬, he meant to say that he would be content if Ishmael whom G'd had granted him, a gift he
considered an extremem act of loving kindness on the part of g'd, would live a meritorious life, abiding by
G'd's wishes. ‫יחיה‬, a life in the full sense of word, that he would have children, would multiply and generally
be an asset and a credit to his father. If Ishmael were to develop in this manner, G'd could keep his promise
to Avraham to give the land of Canaan to his descendants. (compare 12,7) That prophecy would then be
fulfilled by means of Ishmael.
Radak on Genesis 17:19:1 ‫ אבל שרה אשתך‬... ‫ויאמר‬, Ishmael will not remain your only son, but also Sarah will bear a son for you and you
are to call his name Yitzchok, as a reminder that you laughed happily when you heard Me inform you of this.
Radak on Genesis 17:19:2 ‫לברית עולם לזרעו אחריו‬, the covenant I made with you will be perpetuated through Yitzchok's seed.

Radak on Genesis 17:20:1 ‫ולישמעאל שמעתיך‬, to bless him, to make him fruitful so that he will multiply and to grant him international
prominence.<br> ‫שנים עשר נשיאים‬, "will be descended from Ishmael, just as from Yitzchok. In fact I have
already ‫ברכתי אותו‬, blessed him by means of the angel who appeared to Hagar, and I took personally, will
bless Ishmael. But this covenant which I have entered into with you I will maintain with Yitzchok.

Radak on Genesis 17:21:1 ‫" למועד הזה‬at this time." (anniversary). We do not know precisely on what date G'd had granted Avraham this
prophetic vision.
Radak on Genesis 17:21:2 ‫בשנה האחרת‬. G'd informs Avraham that a year will elapse between the time he received this message and its
realization. It is as if the Torah had written that Sarah would give birth at this time in the following year. He did
not tell him when she would become pregnant, nor the length of time of her pregnancy. Our sages in Rosh
Hashanah 10 assume that the birth occurred on Passover (the date on which Passover would occur in the
future) seeing that Sarah became pregnant on Rosh Hashanah.
Radak on Genesis 17:22:1 ‫ויכל לדבר אתו‬, Up until now G'd had always finished His conversation with Avraham on the same day. The
conclusion of this vision is mentioned specifically as it was unusually long.
Radak on Genesis 17:22:2 ‫ויעל אלוקים מעל אברהם‬, a euphemism for the disappearance of G'd's presence. This teaches that G'd had
appeared and had now withdrawn wrapped in a cloud. Our sages, as quoted by Rashi, conclude from here
that the patriarchs acted as the merkavah for G'd's glory, i.e. as carriers of His chariot. This is a beautiful
explanation for all those who understand it. [clearly, the key to this is the word ‫ מעל‬instead of simply ‫מאברהם‬.
The word ‫מעל‬, "from above," conjures up in our mind a physical contact which preceded this separation. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 17:23:1 ‫ויקח‬, as soon as G'd had withdrawn Avraham proceeded to make all the preparations necessary to perform
the circumcision on all the members of his household who qualified for this, followed by his circumcising
himself. He waited with circumcising himself, realizing that if he would circumcise himself first, he would be
too weak to perform this operation on all the male member of his household immediately afterwards.
Radak on Genesis 17:23:2 .both adults and minors ,‫כל זכר באנשי בית אברהם‬
Radak on Genesis 17:23:3 ‫וימול בשר ערלתם‬, both the removal of the foreskin and the removal of the membrane underneath it. (‫)פריעה‬.
Some of our sages (Yevamot 71) claim that Avraham had not been commanded to perform ‫ פריעה‬also. The
majority opinion is that he had been commanded concerning both these stages of circumcision. This is also
the opinion expressed in Bereshit Rabbah (compare Torah Shleymah 157)
Radak on Genesis 17:23:4 ‫בעצם היום הזה‬, on the very day G'd had issued these instructions.

Radak on Genesis 17:24:1 ‫ואברהם בן תשעים ותשע שנה‬, when he received the most recent prophetic vision he was 99 years old as already
mentioned in verse 1. This had been at the end of 99 years after his birth, so that when he was circumcised
he was still 99 years of age, and had not entered the 100th years. The Torah writes this in order to reinforce
the report that he carried out the circumcision with dispatch, and did not wait until he had turned 100 years
old.
Radak on Genesis 17:24:2 ‫בהמלו בשר ערלתו‬, if we were to say that the word ‫ בהמלו‬is in a passive mode. We would have to ask how it
could conclude with the pronoun ‫ ו‬which introduces an action by him on the flesh of his foreskin. We never
find that a passive mode is followed immediately by an active mode. If, on the other hand, we are to
understand the word ‫ בהמלו‬as standing on its own, without direct relationship to the words ‫בשר ערלתו‬, or if the
Torah had written ‫ בהמול בשר ערלתו‬without the pronoun ‫ו‬, we would not have a problem with the text as it is
before us. One could perhaps resolve the problem of the text that we have by saying that the expression
‫ בהמלו‬describes a condition Avraham experienced as a result of his foreskin having been circumcised. We
encounter a similar construction in Isaiah 1,30 where the word ‫ נובלת‬describes the condition of leaves of the
tree described, i.e. they are shriveled or have wilted. The word is an intransitive verb, and the terebinth
referred to as the trunk to which these leaves belonged is certainly not subject to wilting or shriveling. One
could argue similarly, that Avraham was now considered ‫נמול‬, (verse 26) circumcised, seeing that the flesh of
his foreskin had been removed. In a similar manner we can also understand the words ‫ קרועי בגדים‬in Samuel
II 13,31. The clothes of the men (David's servants) were torn, not the men themselves. The same is true of
Samuel II 15,32 where the word ‫ קרוע‬does not refer to Chushai but to his tunic which was torn. Jeremiah 41,5
has a similar construction, ‫ מגולחי‬describes the condition of these men after their beards had been shaved
off.
Radak on Genesis 17:25:1 ‫וישמעאל בנו בן שלש עשרה שנה‬, seeing the Torah had mentioned Avraham's age at the time of his circumcision,
Ishmael's age was also mentioned as a mark of honour for him. After all, we know how old Ishmael was at
the time, the Torah having told us that Avraham his father was 86 years old when he was born (Genesis
15,16). Perhaps the Torah underlines the fact that Avraham circumcised his son Ishmael, as if he had not
been circumcised by that age, he himself is obligated to either circumcise himself or to arrange for him
circumcision. Ishmael was just young enough for this obligation still to be that of this father.
Radak on Genesis 17:25:2 ‫בהמלו את בשר ערלתו‬, seeing that the Torah added the word ‫ את‬here, a word which had not appeared when
Avraham's circumcision is reported, the meaning of this verse is clearer than the previous verse. The word
‫את‬, here, means the same as if the Torah had written ‫מן‬, "from," i.e. "when his foreskin was removed from his
male member." The word ‫ את‬is used as meaning "from" also in Genesis 44,4 ‫הם יצאו את העיר‬, "when they had
left the city, etc." Also in Kings I 15,23 the word ‫ את‬means "from," I.e. that the line ‫חלה את רגליו‬, means that
Asa's "ailment started from his feet." There is an allegorical explanation for our verse, mentioned by Rashi,
according to which Avraham, whose flesh had become elastic, soft, due to his having engaged in sexual
intercourse during many years of his life, did not need to have the membrane we referred to as ‫פריעה‬
removed, whereas his son who had not yet experienced the use of his male organ in a sexual function did
need this membrane to be removed. According to this distinction, the word ‫ את‬in our verse would refer to
something additional, as is customary with the word ‫את‬. In this case the additional element was the removal
of Ishmael's ‫ פריעה‬at the same time as the removal of his foreskin. The author of this explanation disagrees
with the previously mentioned view of the sages who believe that at that time the command to perform ‫פריעה‬
had not been issued at all. I believe it is far more likely that the instruction to perform ‫ פריעה‬was given to
Avraham at this time. Seeing that our sages state that anyone who has performed circumcision but has
omitted to perform ‫ פריעה‬is viewed as if he had not performed any part of the commandment, (Shabbat 137)
it is hard to accept that the first person performing this commandment should not have performed it in all its
details, i.e. perfectly.
Radak on Genesis 17:26:1 ‫ ;בעצם היום הזה‬we (the Torah) have already stated that Avraham circumcised all the members of his
household on the very day G'd issued the command to him (verse 23). The Torah had not mentioned that he
also circumcised himself and his son on that day. This is why this is added here, to tell us that he brooked no
delay in performing the commandment both on his son and on himself. The meaning of the word ‫ נימול‬is that
he performed the operation on himself and did not delegate anyone to do it as his agent. The use of a
passive mode to describe that someone did something himself is not unique. We find it also in Samuel II
20,10 ‫וכן עמשא לא נשמר‬, "and so Amassa did not protect himself."
Radak on Genesis 17:27:1 ‫נמולו אתו‬, by Avraham. The root of both ‫ נמול‬and ‫ נמולו‬is the verb ‫נמל‬.
Radak on Genesis 18:1:1 ‫וירא ה' אליו באלוני ממרא‬, in the location where Avraham dwelled, as we know from Genesis 14,13 ‫והוא שוכן‬
‫באלוני ממרא האמורי‬, “he dwelled by the groves of Mamre the Emorite. The reason why Avraham had not
moved away from there was that his allies also lived in that proximity. Solomon advised already in Proverbs
27,10:‫טוב שכן קרוב מאח רחוק‬, “better a good neighbour who lives close by than a brother who lives far away.”
G’d appeared to him there after he kept the commandment to circumcise himself, in order to apprise him of
what he had in store for Sodom, a city in which his nephew had made his home. Avraham was the
outstanding human being in that generation. Seeing that G’d was bent to exact partial retribution for the worst
outrages committed by mankind at that time, He did not want to do so before informing Avraham of His
intention. It was G’d’s intention to demonstrate that He does keep track of what individuals in the “lower” part
of His universe are up to, and that He even will not exact collective punishment unless He can demonstrate
that the parties affected are all guilty. There was no need for G’d to “descend” to investigate what He already
knew, but the Torah describes this in terms that we can understand. He wanted to enable Avraham when the
latter would instruct and teach his descendants to walk in the ways of G’d, to show that His ways were truly
not only just but that He made allowances for human weaknesses. It is possible, -if this was indeed G’d’s
purpose- to explain the entire paragraph as a prophetic vision up until verse 23 where the Torah writes that
Avraham returned to his station, i.e. that this line terminated the prophetic vision ‫יושב פתח האהל‬, as explained
immediately following,
Radak on Genesis 18:1:2 seeing that it was ‫כחם היום‬, the hottest part of the day. Possibly, due to the heat of the sun Avraham had
fallen asleep, a fact which facilitated his receiving this vision. Before G’d started speaking to him about what
He intended to do to Sodom, He showed him three angels, the biggest one of whom told him the news about
Sarah‘s going to give birth to a son in the following year, confirming what G’d had told him when He
commanded him to circumcise himself, etc. When Avraham would hear this by a special messenger from G’
d, his faith in the realisation of this promise would be further reinforced. Perhaps, more to the point, G’d
wanted Sarah to overhear what the angel told Avraham, as apparently, Avraham had not told her of the
previous promise, nor of his praying on behalf of Ishmael. [I do not understand how Sarah could hear what
Avraham only saw in dream. Perhaps we must assume that the author continues with the original approach
of all of what is written in this chapter having occurred while Avraham was fully awake. Ed.] Even (assuming)
that this whole paragraph describes a vision, sometimes people close to the recipient of such a vision would
hear a voice, a sound, as we have been told by Daniel who wrote: “the men with me did not see this great
spectacle, but they were gripped by a great tremor so that they fell on their faces and took refuge in places to
hide.” (Daniel 10,7) It seems clear from that verse that these men heard the content of the vision Daniel
experienced without seeing any of it. The vision the Torah speaks about here occurred at the entrance of
Avraham’s tent, so that Sarah could hear what transpired. Our sages’ comment that Avraham sat in front of
his tent recuperating from the wounds inflicted by his circumcision is familiar to all of us, as is the surmise
that he applied bandages to his wound (Baba Metzia 86). They add that the words ‫ וירא‬allude to G’d Himself
visiting Avraham as one visits the sick.
Radak on Genesis 18:2:1 ‫וישא את עיניו‬, the first thing Avraham saw after he had gone to sleep were three men standing next to him,
‫נצבים עליו‬, apparently ready to be of service to him. The meaning of the expression ‫ נצבים עליו‬is similar to
Samuel I 22,7 ‫ויאמר שאול לעבדיו הנצבים עליו‬, “Saul said to the people standing next to him (in attendance) etc.”
The same expression is also used in this context in Ruth 2,6 ‫הנצב על הקוצרים‬, “who was standing next to the
reapers;” we also find this expression in Kings I 5,30 "‫משרי הנצבים‬, and in numerous other places in Scripture.
These three men beheld by Avraham were standing at his disposal. They did not move, but indicated that
they were expecting instructions from him. When he realised this he ran toward them. This explains why the
word ‫וירא‬, “he saw” appears twice in this verse in close succession.
Radak on Genesis 18:2:2 ‫מפתח האהל‬, where he had been sitting. He saw himself running towards these men in his vision.
Radak on Genesis 18:2:3 ‫וישתחו ארצה‬, they appeared to him to be men of great stature. He then addressed them with the words
reported in the Torah. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 50,2) say that Avraham was so familiar with the sight of
angels that their sudden appearance did not cause him to become disoriented, frightened and he perceived
them essentially as ‫אנשים‬, men. On the other hand, Lot, whose spiritual powers were quite minor, perceived
the men as being angels, ‫מלאכים‬, seeing that he had had little experience with such phenomena. (compare
19,1) Manoach’s wife had already told her husband that the face of the man who had told her that she would
have a son was like that of an angel of G’d. (Judges 13,6)

Radak on Genesis 18:3:1 ‫ויאמר אדוני‬, our sages (Shevuot 35) are of two minds as to the meaning of the word A-donay in this verse.
Some say it is sacred, an attribute of G’d; others hold that it is profane. If it is the latter, Avraham would have
addressed the biggest one of these men. He would have used his own intelligence in making this choice.
According to Rashi in the Talmud quoted, Avraham chose the middle angel, (man) as the one whom he
addressed as their leader. We know that the angels are not all on the same level. We also know from the
descriptions in the Book of Daniel that the senior angels may give instructions to their junior companions.
(Daniel 8,16) Even though these men had come to him in the guise of men, human beings, seeing that
Avraham had prepared water for them to wash their feet, he addressed the leader in the plural mode, -with
the vowel kametz instead of in the singular mode with the vowel chirik as an expression of special honour.
We find something parallel in Judges 6,15 when Gideon asked the (lone) angel ”my lord(s), (adonay) how
can I help the people of Israel?” He had not been aware at that time that he was addressing an angel. The
sages who hold that the word a-donay here is sacred, explain that Avraham used the plural mode because
he was addressing G’d Who had visited him, asking Him to wait until he had been able to perform the duty of
being a good host to these travelers who had suddenly appeared at the entrance of his tent. The lesson to be
derived from this is that the merit of welcoming guests and making them feel at home is even greater than
the merit of welcoming G’d into one’s house.
Radak on Genesis 18:3:2 ‫אל נא תעבר מעל עבדך‬, the word ‫ נא‬is a kind of plea, Avraham begging these strangers not to pass him by
without stopping to take some refreshment. The reason why this whole incident has been recorded in the
Torah is to teach people how to relate to fellow human beings with charity and love. It is an act of loving
kindness to welcome guests into one’s home in order to honour them and to look after their personal
requirements, such as letting them wash up and stay overnight.
Radak on Genesis 18:4:1 ‫יקח נא מעט מים‬, the reason why he mentioned “a little,” is in order to understate his generosity, something that
is expected of any person who claims to possess a certain minimum of good character traits. When referring
to the water,” Avraham used the passive form of yukach, meaning the water would be supplied by someone
other than himself, whereas when he spoke about the bread he would supply, he said: “I will take a piece of
bread, etc.”
Radak on Genesis 18:4:2 ‫ורחצו‬, an imperative, seeing that the letter ‫ ר‬has the vowel patach. If this had been a form of the future
constructed with the introductory letter ‫ו‬, the letter ‫ ר‬should have the vowel kametz under it. Examples are:
Exodus 40,31 ‫ורחצו ממנו‬. Avraham meant to tell his guests to allow themselves to have their feet washed by
one of his servants.

Radak on Genesis 18:5:1 ‫ ;ואקחה פת לחם‬from this we learn that the righteous say little but do a lot. (Baba Metzia 87) This is the
appropriate manner of conducting oneself. The Torah wrote these details in order to teach us that this is part
of good manners, ‫דרך ארץ‬. Avraham spoke about a piece of bread, whereas in fact he served a sumptuous
meal. He had even understated the amount of bread he would serve by not saying ‫ואקח לחם‬, but ‫ואקחה פת‬
‫לחם‬, a reference to less than a whole loaf.
Radak on Genesis 18:5:2 ‫וסעדו לבחם‬, an imperative mode of a transitive verb, i.e. “refresh your hearts with a little bread.” We know that
eating bread is a form of refreshment from Psalms 104,15 ‫ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד‬, “but bread sustains man’s life.”
Radak on Genesis 18:5:3 ‫כי על כן עברתם‬, seeing that you have already happened to pass my house, it is not possible that you should
not at least accept some refreshment. The formulation ‫ על כן‬is found again when Lot justifies his hosting the
angels when the Sodomites remonstrate with him. (Genesis 19,8) We also find this formulation ‫ על כן‬when
Yehudah acknowledges his embarrassment with Tamar as a punishment for not giving his third son to
Tamar for her to become his wife. (Genesis 38,26)
Radak on Genesis 18:5:4 ‫כאשר דברת‬, only a piece of bread, do not exert yourself beyond this.

Radak on Genesis 18:6:1 ‫שלש סאים‬...‫ויאמר‬, in order to make a challah, loaf, of bread comprising one sa-ah (measure) of flour for each
of his guests.
Radak on Genesis 18:6:2 ‫קמח סולת‬, flour, suitable to make into cake. Cake is made of flour which can be baked more quickly than
ordinary bread.

Radak on Genesis 18:7:1 ‫ואל הבקר רץ אברהם‬, the term ‫ רץ‬is a variant of the term ‫וימהר‬, he hastened. The Torah wished to give us an
impression of the speed with which a man of 99 years old performed the task of entertaining unexpected
guests, preparing a virtual feast for them.
Radak on Genesis 18:7:2 ‫בן בקר‬, male and young, so that it would be both tender and tasty. The word ‫ טוב‬refers to it being juicy, fat; we
find this expression used in that sense also in Jeremiah 44,17 ‫ונשבע לחם ונהיה טובים‬, “we had plenty of bread
and were fat.”
Radak on Genesis 18:7:3 ‫ ;אל הנער‬to the servant. According to an allegorical interpretation [based on the definitive article ‫ ה‬seeing that
Avraham had many servants, Ed.] this is a reference to Ishmael.
Radak on Genesis 18:7:4 ‫לעשות אותו‬, to prepare it and to cook it.

Radak on Genesis 18:8:1 ‫ויקח‬, he, personally.

Radak on Genesis 18:8:2 ‫ויתן‬, he placed before them butter and milk as well as the young calf. He offered them the choice to eat either
dairy or meaty. There was no need to mention the bread as it is understood that he first brought them the
bread. After all, the very minimum one can serve guests is bread. When one entertains guests who appear to
be distinguished people one most certainly does not fail to offer them bread first. Besides, the Torah had
already mentioned that he prepared the bread in the guise of uggot, cakes. There was also no need to
mention that he served them wine, another, staple at all meals.
Radak on Genesis 18:8:3 ‫אשר עשה‬, by means of his servant.
Radak on Genesis 18:8:4 ‫והוא עומד‬, as explained by Onkelos, i.e. he served them in the capacity of waiter.
Radak on Genesis 18:8:5 ‫עליהם‬, the word is used in the same sense already in verse 2
Radak on Genesis 18:8:6 ‫ויאכלו‬, this is how it appeared to him. All this was part of his prophetic vision.

Radak on Genesis 18:9:1 ‫ויאמרו אליו‬, there are dots on the letters ‫יו‬. Such dots can only be explained by our resorting to allegorical
interpretations. For instance, our sages quote Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar as saying that whenever the dot
appears to include someone or something not mentioned in the text as written, we pay heed primarily to
these dots. When the dots seem to exclude part of the text as written, we stick to the text in our interpretation
of the verse. In our case, the dots mean that the angels also enquired from Sarah where to find Avraham.
This teaches that a guest is to enquire from the host about the hostess and from the hostess about the host.
The sages say further that the angels knew very well where Sarah was at that time, but the question is
reported only to draw attention to the modesty of Sarah who was not in evidence, did not allow her curiosity
about the nature of the guests to cause her to peek out of her tent. Knowing that she was so modest would
endear her even further to her husband. Rabbi Yossi bar Chaninah says that the purpose of the enquiry was
to be able to hand her a cup of blessing. [not literally, but a reference to the good news they brought. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 18:9:2 ‫איה שרה אשתך‬, they asked about her, seeing she was not present when they were being served the meal out
of a sense of modesty. We learn from this that it is immodest for women to appear in front of male guests.
Seeing that in this instance the angels had a message for her, they had to ask after her whereabouts.
Radak on Genesis 18:9:3 ‫הנה באהל‬, she is in the tent as befits a modest woman.
Radak on Genesis 18:10:1 ‫ויאמר‬, the senior angel, the one whom Avraham had addressed in verse 3 with the words ‫אם נא מצאתי חן‬
‫ שוב אשוב אליך‬.‫בעיניך‬, this was the one whose task it was to tell Sarah that she would bear a son. He spoke of
his return visit a year from the present time. The other two were to destroy Sodom and to rescue Lot
respectively. Three angels were required as no angel is charged with more than one mission at a time.
(Bereshit Rabbah 50,2)
Radak on Genesis 18:10:2 ‫כעת חיה‬, at about this time of year next year Sarah will be giving birth. We find the term ‫ חיה‬used to describe
giving birth in Yuma 73. On the other hand, the word may also refer to a time frame, i.e. at this time next
year, seeing that you will both be alive, Sarah will bear a son. G’d had spoken of ‫למועד הזה בשנה האחרת‬
(compare Genesis 17,21) whereas the angel expressed the same thought in the words ‫כעת חיה‬. The angel
did not spell out to Avraham precisely when this birth would take place, as had G’d in the previous chapter.
Radak on Genesis 18:10:3 ‫ושרה שומעת פתח האהל‬, she had been inside her tent; when she heard the voices of the angel and Avraham.
She went to the entrance of her tent to overhear what was being said. Neither the angel nor Avraham saw
her at the time. seeing both their backs were turned towards the entrance. This is the meaning of the words
‫והוא אחריו‬, i.e. Sarah’s tent was behind the angel who was doing the talking.
Radak on Genesis 18:11:1 ‫ואברהם‬, this line has been written only in order to account for the reason of Sarah’s laughter.
Radak on Genesis 18:11:2 ‫באים בימים‬, this is the standard mode in which the Torah describes people who feel that aging has affected
their general physique and imposed limitations on them. What the Torah means is that both Avraham and
Sarah had reached the years when other people are subject to the limitations of old age. These are the years
when the soul begins to separate from the body.
Radak on Genesis 18:11:3 ‫אורח כנשים‬, the signal of old age for women, i.e. cessation of their menstrual cycle. The Torah uses a
euphemism to describe that phenomenon. Rachel used the same euphemism when she explained to her
father Lavan why she could not let him search her camel (Genesis 31,35). During old age, due to the body
drying out, the flow of blood stops, i.e. a woman no longer ovulates. Our sages in Ketuvot 10 relate that the
volume of such a flow of blood is in direct relation to the number of children a woman is likely to bear. There
was a well known family by the name of Dorkaty in those days, whose female members never experienced
either menstrual blood, nor the blood associated with the puncturing of the hymen. This is why the family was
named Dorkaty, meaning that something was radically wrong. None of the females in that family ever had
children, the reason being attributed to this abnormal condition of their not menstruating.

Radak on Genesis 18:12:1 ‫ותצחק שרה בקרבה‬, Sarah laughed derisively internally, not audibly; she did not believe that the man who had
made the prediction was an angel, though she assumed that he was a prophet.
Radak on Genesis 18:12:2 ‫לאמור‬, she contemplated saying out loud what she had only been thinking so far. Even though, she did not
laugh in the angel’s face, but contained herself due to her good manners, asking instead in wonderment:
Radak on Genesis 18:12:3 ‫אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה‬, how is it possible that I, who have stopped ovulating should become sufficiently
rejuvenated? The word ‫ עדנה‬refers to youthful flesh and skin. It describes a certain elasticity of the skin. The
angel was fully aware that she had laughed; this is why he said to Avraham: why did Sarah laugh?

Radak on Genesis 18:13:1 ‫ויאמר ה‬, the angel is accorded the name of his Master, something that we find also in connection with Gideon
in Judges 6,16.
Radak on Genesis 18:13:2 ?‫האף אמנם אלד‬, will such a miracle indeed occur on my behalf even though I am that old? Even though the
angel did not answer her point by point, he did answer her with an overall statement that there simply is
nothing which is beyond G’d’s power to accomplish if he so desires. Our author uses a similar approach
when examining the words Eliezer used in explaining his mission in Genesis 24,39. There too, the fact that
he conveyed the content of what he had asked Avraham before undertaking his mission was important, the
exact wording was not the issue. The angel did not even bother to reply to Sarah’s statement that her
husband too was too old to impregnate her with semen. The reason he did not do so was that Sarah having
had her menopause was the far greater natural impediment to her becoming pregnant. It is not altogether
unknown for old men to father children even in their advanced old age.
Radak on Genesis 18:14:1 ?‫היפלא‬, these matters appear miraculous in the eyes of human beings, and they cannot fathom how such
things can be. However, in light of G’d’s omnipotence, nothing is impossible for Him to accomplish. He who
created the universe, has no problem making changes in His universe.
Radak on Genesis 18:15:1 ‫כי יראה‬...‫ותכחש‬, seeing that she was afraid she denied having laughed;
Radak on Genesis 18:15:2 !‫ויאמר לא‬, not as you say, for you truly did laugh.
Radak on Genesis 18:16:1 ‫ויקומו משם‬, from the house of Avraham.
Radak on Genesis 18:16:2 ‫וישקיפו‬, the direction in which they faced was Sodom. The expression ‫ השקפה‬occurs both in a benevolent
sense and in a malevolent sense, depending on the context. The expression also appears sometimes in the
passive mode and other times in the causative, transitive mode, hiphil. The reason for the latter mode is that
when one looks at someone or something, one is, normally, at the same time visible to the ones one looks at.
Hence the passive mode is justified also. When the viewer remains invisible to the one at whom he looks,
such as G’d or angels, there is no call for the passive mode, hence we have the causative mode here, seeing
that the people of Sodom could not see the angels.
Radak on Genesis 18:16:3 ‫ואברהם הולך עמהם לשלחם‬, to keep them company for a while, to accompany them. [not to make sure they
departed. Ed.] The Torah teaches good manners, i.e. that one does not dismiss a guest abruptly, but by
walking with him indicates that one regrets the time had come to part from one another. Our sages in Sotah
46 suggest that the distance one should accompany a guest from one’s house is approximately 1,2
kilometers.

Radak on Genesis 18:17:1 ‫וה' אמר‬, the Lord, Who had appeared to Him initially to inform him of the sins of the Sodomites (13,13)
informed Avraham now, after the departure of the angels, about His plans in detail. The Torah adds, in its
narrative, what had prompted G’d to take this unusual step of informing Avraham of His plans, seeing that his
own safety was not involved. G’d felt duty-bound to apprise Avraham of His intentions.
Radak on Genesis 18:18:1 ‫ואברהם‬, seeing that he will become the founding father of most of mankind, how can I conceal from him My
plans? Most of the nations of the earth will receive their blessings due to Avraham’s merits. How could I not
share such information with him? ‫כי ידעתיו‬, that he is in awe of Me and loves Me. I intend for his children to
develop in the same way. This is why I will inform him “ ‫למען אשר יצוה את בניו שישמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט‬,
so that Avraham will say to his children that if they practice and emulate G’d’s ways of performing charitable
deeds and at the same time endeavour for justice to prevail, their lives will be successful seeing G’d will help
them. They will then experience the fulfillment of all the promises (conditional) which I, G’d, have made to
him concerning his offspring. If they fail to emulate that lifestyle these promises are liable not to be fulfilled.” If
there are among his children some who argue that G’d does not concern Himself with the deeds of
individuals, as opposed to the conduct of nations, remind them of what happened to the Sodomites so that
they realise that G’d does indeed watch closely over the actions of even small communities. In the event
such non-believers would argue that what happened to the Sodomites was an accident of nature, an
earthquake, such as we all experience in different parts of the earth, Avraham could reply that G’d had
advised him of that event in advance so that it could not be explained away as a natural event. G’d added;

Radak on Genesis 18:19:1 ‫את ביתו ואת בניו‬, both the members of his household who were not biologically related to his as well as his
family, in order to teach us that a man is obligated to monitor the conduct of all members of his household
and is responsible for their misconduct if he did not use his authority to put a stop to it. David spells out this
responsibility of the head of the household in Psalms 101,6-7 when he said: ‫עיני בנאמני ארץ לשבת עמדי הולך‬
‫ לא ישב בקרב ביתי עושה רמיה‬.‫בדרך תמים הוא ישרתני‬, “my eyes are on the trusty men of the land, to have them at
my side. He who follows the way of the blameless shall be in my service.” He who deals deceitfully shall not
live in my house;” Concerning the wicked Solomon says in Proverbs 29,12: “a ruler who listens to lies, all his
servants become wicked.”
Radak on Genesis 18:19:2 ‫על אברהם‬, meaning on his descendants after him.
Radak on Genesis 18:20:1 ‫ויאמר ה' זעקת סדם ועמורה וגו‬, G’d means to say that the reason he now appeared to Avraham was to inform
him that He had heard the outcry concerning Sodom, etc. The same applied to the five kings who were
involved in the war with Kedorleomer in chapter 14 were all killed together with their population when Sodom
was overturned. They were what the Torah referred to in 19,28 as the ‫ארץ הככר‬. Moses also referred to this
overturning of Sodom and Amora in Deut. 29,22 mentioning 4 towns, seeing that Tzoar was saved at the
request of Lot. Also in Hoseah 11,8 the cities of Adma and Tzvoyim are singled out by the prophet, although
the largest of the cities were Sodom and Amora. Sodom was the principal city, and the perversions
committed in all of these cities were presumably dreamt up by the citizens of Sodom. The prophet Ezekiel
16,53 specifically refers to the other cities of that valley as Sodom’s satellites.
Radak on Genesis 18:20:2 ‫זעקת‬, the souls of the people who had been tortured by the inhabitants of these cities reached the heavenly
court. The primary complaint was violence committed against these people. There were other, lesser crimes
committed by these people also. However, the decision to destroy these cities was sealed on account of the
violence perpetrated, just as the deluge was brought about by that crime. This was essentially a repeat of
what happened on a global scale at the time of the deluge.
Radak on Genesis 18:20:3 ‫וחטאתם‬, this refers to the sin of violence, taking the law into one’s own hands. The outcry that had reached
the heavenly spheres was extremely severe. As the prophet Ezekiel said: “they did not support the poor and
the weak.” The poor cry out to heaven on account of their hunger, and they do not have any one who
stretches out their hand to support them.
Radak on Genesis 18:21:1 ‫ארדה נא ואראה‬, we explained the meaning of G’d’s “descending” already on 11,5. This time the text says
‫ואראה‬, “I shall see,” instead of ‫לראות‬, “to see.” The Torah writes in this vein although we know that G’d is
perfectly aware of all that goes on here on earth. The reason why the Torah describes G’d’s activity in this
manner is only to remind people on earth that He is not in a hurry to mete out retribution, but is patient, and
even when His patience is exhausted, He does not act impetuously, but is always in complete control. He
examines if there is any way in which delaying retribution can be justified. It was this very phrase which
provided Avraham with an opening to engage G’d in a dialogue concerning His Justice and man’s perception
of Divine justice. He did this not because he doubted G’d’s justice, but in order to be able to teach man
something about how G’d’s justice works.
Radak on Genesis 18:21:2 ‫הכצעקתה‬, if in accordance with the outcry that has come to My attention, they have indeed done, ‫כלה‬, they
deserve to die, but if not, ‫אדעה‬, I will know about it, and I will welcome the fact that Avraham appreciates this
and will ask Me about how I administer justice. The mappik heh is a hint that Sodom was the city which
determined the fate of the others. Its satellites patterned their lifestyles on that of the city of Sodom. A
comment in the Midrash (quoted by Rashi) suggests that the mappik heh underscores a specific incident in
which a young girl who had a soft heart and gave bread to a stranger was found out and punished most
cruelly, being smeared with honey and suspended between two trees, so that the bees killed her in the
process of licking the honey off her body.

Radak on Genesis 18:22:1 ‫ויפנו משם‬, this is how it appeared to Avraham in his prophetic vision, i.e. that he had accompanied the angels
some distance and after the appropriate distance, the angels turned in a different direction and went away.
The angel who had brought the message to Sarah disappeared, whereas the other two proceeded in the
direction of Sodom.
Radak on Genesis 18:22:2 ‫ואברהם עודנו עומד‬, he felt that the vision he had been experiencing had not yet come to a conclusion.

Radak on Genesis 18:23:1 ‫ויגש‬, the term ‫ ויגש‬,‫גישה‬, when used with a place, ‫מקום‬, invariably refers to the subject ‫משפט‬, judgment.
Avraham enquired how it was possible that the entire population of a city should deserve extinction. Surely,
there had to be some righteous people, and why would they have to share the fate of the wicked? Onkelos
understands the word ‫ האף‬as a reference to G’d’s anger, wrath, as if Avraham asked if because G’d was
angry the innocent would suffer the fallout of that anger and be punished for the sins of the wicked.

Radak on Genesis 18:24:1 ?‫אולי יש חמשים צדיקים בתוך העיר‬, the words ‫ בתוך העיר‬must be understood as referring exclusively to the city of
Sodom, not including its satellites. We know this from G’d’s reply in which He spelled out: in verse 24 “if I
find in Sodom 50 righteous men inside the city, etc.” Avraham’s argument could have been that if there would
be 50 righteous men in the city of Sodom, it was most likely that also the satellite towns would harbour
among their populations some righteous people. Alternately, Avraham may have asked that if there would be
a total of 50 good men scattered in the various towns, this should be enough to allow all the cities to escape
destruction at this time. G’d might then have mentioned Sodom as an example of all of the cities in the valley,
saying that 50 people would suffice for G’d’s forgiveness at this time. He singled out Sodom because Lot,
Avraham’s kin, lived in that particular city. Avraham tested the number of righteous men that would be the
rock bottom minimum for G’d to suspend all or part of the destruction He had planned.
Radak on Genesis 18:24:2 ‫האף תספה ולא תשא למקום‬, he did not mention the people in the place but referred to the place itself. Avraham
could not reasonably expect G’d to forgive the sinners, but he felt that the place could be saved. If the guilty
would be wiped out the righteous would at least be able to continue living in that town, and would not have to
migrate to a new location. Avraham concentrated on the word ‫כלה‬, “total destruction,” of which G’d had
spoken. The prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 22,30 and already in chapter 21, elaborates further on how the
impending destruction which overtook Jerusalem in his time could have been stopped. Not only would there
have to have been interlocutors such as Avraham, but the sins of the city would have had to be in the main
minor sins, i.e. not violence, the sin which provokes G’d’s wrath the most, as we know from the generation of
the deluge already. Not only that, but in order for the righteous to be able to save their townsfolk from
disaster they must be absolutely righteous, not only barely have more merits than debits in G’d’s ledger of
their conduct. In Jeremiah’s time there were righteous people. These were withdrawn, did not mix with the
wicked, and did not dare go out into the streets to admonish their countrymen, as they were afraid for their
own lives and were not prepared to risk their lives in order to urge their fellow Jews to do penitence. Our
author quotes Jeremiah 5,1, Psalms 94,15, 69,12, as well as Ezekiel 14,14 and 14,16 to support his case.
Radak on Genesis 18:25:1 ‫חלילה לך‬, such a procedure must not occur as it would hurt Your image among mankind if You would be
perceived as killing both the wicked and the righteous.
Radak on Genesis 18:25:2 ‫כצדיק כרשע‬, using two letters ‫ כ‬in succession to describe a comparison. It is as if the Torah had written: “this
is like this and this is also like this.” The syntax is intended to abbreviate the sentence. You find similar
examples in Genesis 44,18 and in Isaiah 24,2.
Radak on Genesis 18:25:3 ‫השופט כל הארץ‬, if You will subject the entire earth to judgment, You cannot very well single out only this
location for Your judgment; if however, You will wipe out the righteous together with the wicked this would
not be justice. Therefore, please let me know why You plan to destroy just this region totally?

Radak on Genesis 18:26:1 ‫לכל המקום‬... '‫ויאמר ה‬, the city and her satellites, and I will not destroy them.
Radak on Genesis 18:27:1 ‫הואלתי‬..‫ויען‬, “I wanted to speak some more to G’d, ‫אנכי עפר ואפר‬, even though compared to You I am only dust
and ashes. I did not mean to protest Your justice, but I merely wish to understand it.
Radak on Genesis 18:28:1 ‫אולי יחסרון‬, if there are 5 righteous people missing from the 50 righteous people of whom I said that their
presence should serve to save the city at this time, are You going to going to destroy the earth (surrounding
these towns) and not forgive the place on account of the 45 righteous people that live there?”
Radak on Genesis 18:29:1 ‫לא אעשה‬..‫ויוסף עוד‬, I will not utterly destroy the whole region, as G’d had already said in verse 28 when He
worded this as ‫לא אשחית‬. Basically, the same considerations prevail in respect of all these numbers, G’d
varying His reply by sometimes phrasing it as ‫ לא אשחית‬and other times as ‫לא אעשה‬, “I will not do.”
Radak on Genesis 18:30:1 ‫ויאמר אל נא יחר‬, seeing that Avraham was afraid to belabour the same point of questioning G’d about how He
administered justice, he now prefaced further questions with the request that G’d not become angry at him. In
order not to stretch G’d’s patience, he now omitted reducing the numbers by five at a time, reducing them by
ten each time, i.e. 40,30,20,10.
Radak on Genesis 18:31:1 ‫ויאמר‬, we already explained this type of response.
Radak on Genesis 18:32:1 ‫אך הפעם‬...‫ויאמר‬, Avraham makes clear that if there would not be at least ten righteous people, he would no
longer have any argument to present which could be used to help these towns escape their deserved
punishment. Significantly, he made no mention of Lot, as he believed that Lot deserved to share the fate of
the city having voluntarily associated himself with the wicked inhabitants of that town. Besides, Avraham had
no way of knowing if Lot had adopted the perverted lifestyle of the inhabitants of Sodom. He believed that
Lot’s only way of saving himself from the doom decreed on the city was to voluntarily depart from that city.
Radak on Genesis 18:33:1 ‫וילך ה‬, G’d’s presence withdrew from Avraham, and it became clear to him as part of his vision that he had
returned to his terrestrial home, the very place where he had become the recipient of this prophetic vision.
Radak on Genesis 19:1:1 ‫ויבאו שני המלאכים‬, these were the two who had previously been described as ‫שני האנשים‬, “the two men.” When
next to Avraham, they did not outrank him; therefore the Torah did not accord them the title “angels.” When
compared to Lot, they outclassed him spiritually so much that they could not be described as ‫אנשים‬, men.
(Bereshit Rabbah, 50,2)
Radak on Genesis 19:1:2 ‫וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם‬, he had learned the virtue of welcoming guests while he had been with Avraham.

Radak on Genesis 19:2:1 ‫דוני‬-‫ א‬,‫הנה נא‬, the word ‫ נא‬always expresses a plea. In this instance the word ‫ הנה‬has the vowel segol,
because of the dagesh (dot) in the letter ‫ נ‬of the word ‫נא‬.
Radak on Genesis 19:2:2 ‫דני‬-‫א‬, the vowel under the ‫ נ‬is a patach instead of the kametz we might have expected. This proves that the
word is not a sacred attribute of the name of G’d. Lot, at that stage, had assumed that these strangers were
simply extraordinary important people, judging by their attire and their general demeanour. When looking at
them at the beginning he had thought they looked like angels.
Radak on Genesis 19:2:3 ‫ולינו‬, he had to ask them to stay the night, seeing that had arrived in the evening.
Radak on Genesis 19:2:4 ‫ורחצו‬, the letter ‫ ר‬has the vowel patach, as the word is in the imperative mode. Its meaning is just as it was
when the angels arrived at Avraham’s in chapter 18. The invitation to wash one’s feet is normally extended
as the first step in inviting guests to partake in a meal. In this instance, Lot did not bother to announce that he
would feed these angels, seeing that he had already invited them to spend the night, something which would
include supper as a matter of course.
Radak on Genesis 19:2:5 ‫והשכמתם‬, if you want you may rise early and be on your way, a remark quite similar to that of Avraham in
18,5.
Radak on Genesis 19:2:6 ‫ויאמרו לא‬, from this verse our sages deduce that it is in order to decline invitations from insignificant people,
whereas one must not turn down an invitation from prominent, highly placed people (quoted by Rashi) The
same men, when visiting Avraham, had immediately accepted his invitation, whereas here, when an
invitation seemed even more called for, they at first refused Lot’s offer of hospitality.
Radak on Genesis 19:2:7 ‫כי ברחוב‬, in the public street or square of the town. They were not prepared to be the guests of anyone else in
the city either.

Radak on Genesis 19:3:1 ‫ויפצר בם מאד‬, he spoke to them intently on the subject, urging them to accept his invitation, until eventually,
they did come to his house. Onkelos writes ‫ותקיף בהם‬, that he actually took hold of these men until they
concurred to spend the night with him.
Radak on Genesis 19:3:2 ‫ויעש להם משתה‬, seeing it was night he did not have time to slaughter an animal in their honour, but he
prepared something at short notice, served them drinks, and unleavened bread which can be prepared at
short notice. It is good manners to prepare something at short notice for guests who arrived unexpectedly.
The guest arriving at such a time is usually tired and does not care to wait until an elaborate meal can be
prepared in his honour. The story has been recorded for all times in order to teach us how to serve
unexpected guests arriving at night.
Radak on Genesis 19:3:3 ‫ויאכלו‬. If the whole sequence is a vision which Lot did not actually experience, the meaning of the word ‫ויאכלו‬
must be understood literally; if the Torah describes actual events, the word means that Lot had the
impression as if the angels ate and drank his food. The food and drink, which are composed of different
components, simply dissolved into their basic ingredients so that they were not visible as such. [imagine
water, i.e. H20, being dissolved into the gases oxygen and hydrogen, becoming invisible in the process. Ed.]
This, of course, would occur miraculously.

Radak on Genesis 19:4:1 ‫טרם‬, why did the Torah have to write the words‫אנשי סדום‬, “the men of Sodom,” having already immediately
before identified these men as ‫אנשי העיר‬, the men of the town?” The Torah wanted to emphasise that by
their actions they proved that they must be inhabitants of the city of Sodom. This bore out the Torah’s
previous characterisation of the inhabitants of this city as ‫רעים וחטאים‬, “wicked and sinful,” (13,13)
Radak on Genesis 19:4:2 ‫ועד זקן‬, the old people were no better than the people in their prime whose perversions might have been due
to their youthful vigour. All the people ganged up on Lot’s house. As a result of their extreme self-
centeredness, they had passed a law that no stranger was to be entertained in that city. Lot’s having broken
with this tradition so enraged them that they decided to teach him a lesson by attacking his guests. The
reason why the Torah goes into all this detail is merely so that subsequent generations will realise that G’d’s
action in destroying such people was justified.

Radak on Genesis 19:5:1 ‫ונדעה אותם‬...‫ויקראו‬, who these people are, and how such people had dared to enter our town at night in spite
of our reputation. The word ‫ ונדעה‬is a euphemism for the intention to kill these people, just as it is in Judges
19,22 as reported by a party involved there in 20,5 Other commentators believe that the euphemism
concerns the intention of sodomising these men.

Radak on Genesis 19:6:1 ‫סגר אחריו‬....‫ויצא‬, either the person within the house locked the door from the inside, or Lot locked the door
from the outside.
Radak on Genesis 19:7:1 ‫ויאמר אל נא‬, “please guard the welfare of these men for you are my brothers and neighbours; do it for my sake
and leave them alone!”
Radak on Genesis 19:8:1 ‫הנה נא‬, the words mean “now!” Now restrain your urge to kill these people. I will now hand over to you my two
daughters and you can satisfy your urges with them. You can rape them, seeing that they are still virgins.
Alternatively, you may even kill them. This is what he meant when he added the words ‫ אל תעשו‬.‫כטוב בעיניכם‬
‫דבר‬, “do not do something evil.!” ‫כי על כן באו‬, seeing they have come to spend the night under my roof, leave
them be, in my honour, I would rather have you abuse my daughters or even kill them, than to do any harm
to these men.”
Radak on Genesis 19:9:1 ‫ויאמרו גש הלאה‬, they told him to get away from them, to leave and go someplace else.
Radak on Genesis 19:9:2 ‫נרע לך מהם‬, “we will treat you even worse than them.”
Radak on Genesis 19:9:3 ‫ויפצרו‬, they became very insistent, speaking very threateningly, beginning to assault him physically.
Radak on Genesis 19:9:4 ‫ויגשו לשבר הדלת‬, seeing that the door was locked.

Radak on Genesis 19:11:1 ‫ואת האנשים‬, the angels punished the men of Sodom who were at the entrance to the house
Radak on Genesis 19:11:2 ‫בסנורים‬, with a temporary blindness The word ‫ סנורים‬is a composite of the two words ‫סני ראיה‬.

Radak on Genesis 19:12:1 ?‫עוד מי לך פה‬...‫ויאמרו‬, the same as asking “who else do you have here (in town)?”
Radak on Genesis 19:12:2 ‫ובניך‬, your grandchildren, the children of your daughters. Lot did not have any sons. If he would have had any
they would have been in the house with him, whereas married daughters would not. Or, he would have
spoken to his sons also, just as he went out and spoke to his sons-in-law.
Radak on Genesis 19:12:3 ‫וכל אשר לך בעיר‬, .and any livestock and chattels you may have in this town.
Radak on Genesis 19:12:4 ‫הוצא מן המקום‬, do not only remove it from this town but from the entire region.
Radak on Genesis 19:13:1 ‫ כי גדלה צעקתם‬....‫כי משחיתים‬, the outcry to G’d by the victims of the cruelties of the Sodomites has become too
great. In this construction the pronoun ending has been appended to the subject as well as to the predicate,
just as in Isaiah 56,7 ‫ ושמחתים בבית תפלתי‬it has been appended to the predicate or in Isaiah 38,1 ‫שמעתי את‬
‫ תפלתך‬where it has been appended to the subject.
Radak on Genesis 19:13:2 ‫לשחתה‬, to destroy the town, seeing the town is part of the larger region described as ‫ המקום‬previously.
Radak on Genesis 19:14:1 ‫לקחי בנותיו‬... ‫ויצא לוט‬, they had become the sons-in-law having already betrothed his daughters to them. The
Torah does not report that Lot spoke to his daughters, as it was understood that the daughters would concur
with their husbands’ decision.
Radak on Genesis 19:15:1 ‫וכמו השחר עלה‬, at the time when dawn broke forth.
Radak on Genesis 19:15:2 ‫ויאיצו‬, they urged ‫המלאכים‬, here the angels are described as angels again, not as in verse 10 where they were
described as ‫האנשים‬, “the men.” The reason is that here they performed the tasks of angels, i.e. they saved
Lot and they destroyed the whole region.
Radak on Genesis 19:16:1 ‫ויתמהמה‬, Lot was still hesitant, apparently being loath to leave his wealth behind in the city. The angels
therefore delayed until dawn, at which time they did not allow him time to save anything but his very life and
the clothes he was wearing, even though, initially, they had asked him what else he owned in the city,
implying that this too would be saved. (compare verse 12)
Radak on Genesis 19:16:2 ‫ויחזיקו האנשים בידו וביד אשתו וביד שתי בנותיו‬, in order to ensure that they could escape with their lives. Here the
angels are referred to as “the men,” seeing that they acted like ordinary men, taking Lot and family by their
hands, as if they themselves were physical beings.
Radak on Genesis 19:16:3 ‫בחמלת ה' עליו‬, they hastened to take Lot out of the city for the sake of Avraham even though the time had
arrived when the destruction was to take place.
Radak on Genesis 19:16:4 ‫ויצאהו וינחהו‬, Lot, his wife, and his daughters.

Radak on Genesis 19:17:1 ‫ויהי כהוציאם‬, while they were in the process of removing them from the city of Sodom they urged them to hurry
in order to be saved;
Radak on Genesis 19:17:2 ‫ויאמר‬, the angel whose task it was to save him, even though there were two angels that worked together.
Radak on Genesis 19:17:3 ‫אל תביט אחריך‬, they said that to him in order that he should not thereby create a delay. He was afraid that Lot
would want to ascertain if the city behind him was really being destroyed.
Radak on Genesis 19:17:4 ‫בכל הככר‬, in the entire valley, seeing that all the towns in that valley were being turned upside down.
Radak on Genesis 19:17:5 ‫פן תספה‬, “lest you will be destroyed with the people of the city if you stand still. I have no authority to save
you from the destruction once the process has commenced. The destruction will occur instantaneously and
simultaneously in al the towns slated for this.” (compare Lamentations 4,6 on the expression ‫)ההפוכה כמו רגע‬.

Radak on Genesis 19:18:1 ‫אל נא‬...‫ויאמר‬, he begged them not to make him rush up the mountain as he was physically unable to move so
quickly.
Radak on Genesis 19:18:2 ‫אדוני‬, the word is used in the secular sense, as proved by the fact that it concludes the sentence. Onkelos
also translates it in this sense, writing ‫בבבעו כען רבוני‬. [this may be so in the edition at Kimchi’s disposal; in our
editions the words are rendered as ‫י‬-‫בבעו י‬. Ed.] Our sages in Shevuot 35 claim that every time the word ‫דני‬-‫א‬
appears in connection with Avraham it is invariably a reference to G’d, i.e. is a sacred word. Every time the
word occurs in connection with Lot it is secular, except here. The reason it is understood to be sacred in this
instance is that Lot attributed to these angels the power to kill or to keep alive. The words of our sages are
astounding, seeing Lot addressed them in the plural mode, something not appropriate when addressing G’d.
Besides, when an angel is on a mission from G’d, he can obviously kill or bring to life just as his Master can.
Moreover, the power to revive the dead was exercised even by such prophets as Elijah and Elisha.

Radak on Genesis 19:19:1 ‫הנה נא מצא עבדך חן בעיניך‬, seeing that the angel had told him ‫המלט על נפשך‬, “save yourself,” it had become
clear that the angel’s mission was to save him. Actually, both angels were on a mission of both saving Lot
and destroying Sodom. The one who was speaking did so only because he was the senior of the two. The
one who tried to save Lot said ‫לבלתי הפכי את העיר‬, “I cannot yet overturn the city.” (verse 21) He also
admitted that he was unable to destroy the town until Lot had been saved (verse 22).
Radak on Genesis 19:19:2 ‫תדבקני‬, the vowel patach under the letter ‫ ק‬is in lieu of the vowel tzeyre.

Radak on Genesis 19:20:1 ‫הנה נא העיר הזאת קרובה‬,“near” in the sense of “easy to escape to.”
Radak on Genesis 19:20:2 ‫והיא מצער‬, it is also a small town with few inhabitants. Even though the inhabitants are admittedly wicked,
they are but few in number. They appear to have been spared from the destruction on my account.
Radak on Genesis 19:20:3 ‫ותחי נפשי‬, together with them.
Radak on Genesis 19:20:4 ‫אמלטה נא‬, the emphasis is on the letter ‫ט‬. We have a similar construction in Samuel I 20,29 ‫אמלטה נא ואראה‬
‫את אחי‬, where the emphasis is on the ‫ מ‬instead of on the letter ‫ט‬.
Radak on Genesis 19:20:5 ‫הלא מצער היא‬, he repeated the insignificance of the town due to its few inhabitants. Our sages understand the
word ‫ מצער‬as meaning ‫מזער‬, “young,” of recent origin; they therefore could not yet have accumulated so
many demerits as the more established cities of the valley. (based on Shabbat 10) According to some sages
Tzoar had been founded only 51 years previously, equaling the numerical value of the word ‫ נא‬used by Lot in
his plea.

Radak on Genesis 19:21:1 ‫ויאמר אליו הנה נשאתי פניך‬, from this verse we may deduce that when G’d dispatches an angel on a major
mission, He gives the angel some discretion in the manner in which he is to carry out the task assigned to
him. The angel or angels may use their own intelligence in this respect. Clearly, an angel is not like a golem,
but is an intelligent being.
Radak on Genesis 19:22:1 ‫כי לא אוכל‬..‫מהר‬, because I have been commanded not to destroy the region until you have been saved.
Radak on Genesis 19:22:2 ‫קרא‬, the city formerly known as ‫ בלע‬was renamed on account of what transpired on this occasion [We
encountered the city and its king in Genesis 14,8. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 19:23:1 ‫ולוט בא צוערה‬...‫השמש‬. As soon as Lot had entered Tzoar, the angel set in motion the rain that would obliterate
Sodom, acting on instructions from G’d.
Radak on Genesis 19:24:1 ‫וה‬, the angel now is called by the name of his Master, G’d. We already referred to this phenomenon in 18,3
Radak on Genesis 19:24:2 ‫מאת ה' מן השמים‬, what is meant is that the origin of this lethal rain was very high up in the sky.
Radak on Genesis 19:25:1 ‫ויהפך‬, He turned these cities and the valley from having been most fruitful to becoming most desolate.
According to Job 28,6-8 the region had not only been good pasture land but its soil had yielded gold,
gemstones, etc. The sulfur and brimstone which made up most of this rain made the earth forever incapable
of producing crops or other matters of value to mankind. We know that even birds shun that region.
Radak on Genesis 19:26:1 ‫ותבט אשתו מאחריו‬, Lot’s wife who had been walking behind him turned around, seeing that she had little faith
in such miracles as she had been warned would occur; This, in spite of the fact that she had personally
overheard the angel warning Lot that no one was to turn around on pain of their becoming a victim of this
destruction. Even though salt has not been mentioned as having been part of the lethal rain, the Torah
speaking of sulfur and fire, it appears that the people themselves were turned into pillars composed partly of
sulfur and partly of salt. We have proof of this in Deut. 29,22 when Moses describes the valley as it appeared
in his time. The Israelites had not yet seen it, never having set foot in the land of Canaan as yet.
Radak on Genesis 19:26:2 ‫נציב מלח‬, a ruin resembling a castle of salt which had largely disintegrated.
Radak on Genesis 19:27:1 ‫אל המקום אשר עמד שם‬...‫וישכם‬, this is similar to 18,22 where we were told that Avraham was still standing in
the presence of the Lord. This was the place where the angels had parted from him in his vision. Our sages
(Berachot 26) state that Avraham initiated the morning prayer shacharit, as whenever the word ‫ עומד‬is used it
refers to the amidah, the principal prayer. David makes reference to this in Psalms 106,30 where he said
‫ויעמוד פנחס ויפלל‬, that Pinchas stood and prayed, meaning that it behooves man to recite prayers in the
morning in which he gratefully acknowledges the daylight in the universe which was provided for him before
he set out to go to work. They also add (on folio 6) that it is appropriate for a person to select a specific place
where he offers up his prayers on a regular basis.

Radak on Genesis 19:28:1 ‫קיטור הארץ‬...‫וישקף‬, smoke, from the fire which had burned the earth.
Radak on Genesis 19:28:2 ‫הכבשן‬, a sort of kiln in which one fires stones and loam into earthenware. Alternately, this kiln is used to wash
earthenware vessels.

Radak on Genesis 19:29:1 ‫ויהי בשחת‬, the reason why the Torah phrases this thus is to remind us that Lot’s having been saved was due
to the merit of Avraham. Even though, by comparison to the people of Sodom he was relatively righteous, he
was not righteous enough to have deserved G’d extending Himself to save him as a result of his own merits.
G’d now wanted to put Avraham’s mind at rest by indicating to him that Lot had indeed been saved from this
conflagration.
Radak on Genesis 19:29:2 ‫וישלח את לוט מתוך ההפכה‬, He had sent away from the midst of this upheaval, i.e. immediately preceding it.
Radak on Genesis 19:29:3 ‫בהפך את הערים‬, when He was about to turn these cities inside out, for the angel had told Lot that he could not
carry out his task until he had brought Lot to safety. (verse 22).

Radak on Genesis 19:30:1 ‫ויעל‬, as soon as he had the opportunity, after all that was to be destroyed had already been destroyed. He left
Tzoar being afraid that Tzoar might face the same fate as Sodom, even though a little later, seeing that he
was well aware that its inhabitants were also wicked people.
Radak on Genesis 19:30:2 ‫וישב בהר‬, this was the mountain which the angel had originally told him to go to. (verse 17)
Radak on Genesis 19:30:3 ‫וישב במערה‬, a cave in the side of the mountain

Radak on Genesis 19:31:1 ‫אבינו זקן‬...‫ותאמר‬, there is no chance that he will marry again and have children from such a woman. If we will
die without having children there will not be a memory of our father at all. If you were to say that we should
take husbands and have children, where would we find such husbands?
Radak on Genesis 19:31:2 ‫איש אין בארץ לבא עלינו‬. Most interpreters assume that these daughters thought that that just as there was no
survivor left from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, so there were none in the rest of the world. It is very
difficult to accept such an interpretation, seeing that they had just left Tzoar which had not been destroyed,
so that they had every reason to believe that other regions of the earth had also not been affected. Not only
that, but their father had told them that the reason why Sodom and Gomorrah had been destroyed was due
to their inhabitants’ wickedness. I therefore prefer an explanation which I have heard in the name of Rabbi
Yoseph Karo (the elder) that the elder sister told her younger sister that none of the remaining men of the
world would want to marry them, seeing they had lived in the wicked city of Sodom. People would not want to
associate with anyone who had only narrowly escaped the fate of the Sodomites.

Radak on Genesis 19:32:1 ‫לכה‬, we have already explained the meaning of this expression on Genesis 11,9 as well as the meaning of
the word ‫לכו‬, the same in the plural mode.
Radak on Genesis 19:32:2 ‫נשקה את אבינו יין‬, enough to make him drunk, so that he will not know what to do when we sleep with him. He
certainly would not agree to sleep with his daughters while in full possession of his faculties. Anyone
subscribing to the cultural mores of an Avraham would not knowingly engage in such a practice. This story is
related in order to teach us that even people not subscribing to the moral standards of the Torah would not
stoop to this kind of sexual licentiousness. The entire story reveals the origin of the peoples of Ammon and
Moav, two nations who will feature prominently in Jewish history from the time even before the Jews entered
the Holy Land until the destruction of the first Temple. G’d prevented the Jewish people under Moses from
attacking these nations seeing that their founder, Lot, had been a nephew of Avraham. Also, the Jewish
people were not given any part of the lands occupied by these nations at the time when Moses and Joshua
were involved in conquering the lands which became their home land.

Radak on Genesis 19:33:1 ‫בלילה הוא‬...‫ותשקין‬, the letter ‫ ה‬at the end of the word which would have served as the definitive article for the
adjective is missing here, as it is also Samuel II 6,2 ‫את העגלה חדשה‬, [which should have been‫ החדשה‬Ed.]
just as it is also missing in Numbers 28,4 ‫את הכבש אחד‬, instead of ‫האחד‬.
Radak on Genesis 19:33:2 ‫ולא ידע‬, even when his daughter broke off the physical contact with her father, Lot remained totally unaware
of this. [this is why we speak of “drunk as Lot,” when referring to someone’s drunken stupor. Ed.] The Torah
mentions this detail to hint that had he noticed any of this Lot would have resisted the sexual union with his
daughter and would have severely remonstrated with her for performing such a despicable act. According to
an allegorical approach, (quoted by Rashi,) the dot over the letter ‫ ו‬in this word suggests that Lot did notice
when his daughter broke the contact, and therefore he can be faulted for not ensuring that the same did not
happen to him on any of the following nights.

Radak on Genesis 19:34:1 ‫אמש‬...‫ויהי‬, the previous night; the same word is used to describe a previous night when Lavan had been
chastised by G’d and warned not to harm Yaakov in Genesis 31,42.
Radak on Genesis 19:35:1 ‫ובקמה‬..‫ותשקן‬, this time with the letter ‫ ו‬in the word ‫ ובקמה‬missing.
Radak on Genesis 19:36:1 ‫ותהרין‬, they each became pregnant as a result of one sexual union with their aging father. As soon as they
became aware of this, they desisted from further such contact with their father.
Radak on Genesis 19:37:1 ‫מואב‬..‫ותלד‬, meaning ‫מאב‬, “from my father I bore this son.”
Radak on Genesis 19:37:2 ‫אבי מואב‬, the founding father of the people called Moabites until this day.

Radak on Genesis 19:38:1 ‫בן עמי‬...‫והצעירה‬, meaning “the father of this child was a member of my family.” This name was somewhat
more chaste than the name given by her older sister, as she did not spell out that Lot was the father of her
child.
Radak on Genesis 20:1:1 ‫ויסע משם‬, from Eloney Mamre, the place where he resided most of the time. The Torah fails to mention what
prompted Avraham to leave his home in this fashion. It could not have been due to the famine, seeing that at
that time no famine is reported as having existed in that region, as opposed to when Yitzchok left his home
and went to the land of the Philistines as reported in 26,1. Seeing that in that connection the Torah referred
to this famine as being additional to the one in the days of Avraham, and we know that at that time Avraham
went to Egypt and did not settle in the region between Kadesh and Shur, we cannot attribute his move to a
famine. Perhaps what motivated Avraham was the need to fulfill the commandment by G’d to dwell in all
parts of the land of Canaan. The Torah would indicate, obliquely, that the land of the Philistines was included
in what G’d had described as “the land of Canaan,” even though the Philistines were distant descendants of
Mitzrayim, a grandson of Cham but not directly descended from Canaan. Eventually, the coastal plain
inhabited by the Philistines became part of the tribal territory of Yehudah. This may be why the Torah refers
to this as ‫ארצה הנגב‬, the southern region, seeing that Yehudah’s territory is described as the southern part of
the country in Joshua chapter15.
Radak on Genesis 20:1:2 ‫וישב בין קדש ובין שור‬, the Torah did not bother to tell us precisely where Avraham settled. Later on, we are told
that he settled in Gerar, the capital of the land of the Philistines. The part of the verse mentioning this fact is
not related to the earlier part of the verse. Besides, the terms ‫ וישב‬and ‫ ויגר‬are totally different from one
another, the former speaking of someone settling down with a view to remaining there for a long period,
whereas the term ‫ ויגר‬always reflects the intention of the person described to remain there only for a
relatively brief period of time, as for instance in Genesis 37,1 where when Yaakov settled down, the Torah
contrasts this with the fact that his father and grandfather could not settle down there permanently but had
only sojourned there,‫מגורי אביו‬. It is customary for Scripture to employ different words when repeating
basically the same message. Perhaps, initially, Avraham had settled in one of the locations in the regions
such as ‫באר לחי רואי‬, subsequently moving to Gerar, seeing that ‫ באר לחי רואי‬was situated between Kadesh
and Shur, as we know from Genesis 16,4.

Radak on Genesis 20:2:1 ‫אל שרה אשתו‬...‫ויאמר‬, concerning his wife Sarah he told anyone inquiring about her ‫אחותי היא‬, he told the same
to Avimelech who inquired, as we know from verse 5 when the latter referred to Avraham having told him that
Sarah was his sister. We find a similar meaning of the word ‫ אל‬in Samuel I 17,49 when the line‫ויך את הפלשתי‬
‫אל מצחו‬, means: “it struck the Philistine on his forehead,” or the line ‫ אל ההרים לא אכל‬in Ezekiel 18,6 where the
word ‫ אל‬does not mean “to” but the line means: “if he has not eaten on the mountains.” Avraham said this as
soon as he arrived in Gerar, as he had heard that the people of that town were wicked people, as he
mentioned to Avimelech in verse 11 where he told him that there was no fear of G’d in that town. A
generation later Yitzchok had a similar experience in Gerar. Neither Avraham nor Yitzchok are on record as
having made similar comments about the local populations of other towns they visited. As to why Avraham
risked going to a town full of wicked people and endangered both himself and his wife, this is something we
discussed in 12,12. What is more surprising is the fact that Sarah, so many years after her experience in
Egypt, was still so physically attractive that she inspired physical passions among the people who saw her.
Clearly, her good looks must have been the result of her regaining her youthful vigour when she became
pregnant at the time the angels visited Avraham, and she herself remarked on that phenomenon. The time
frame in which the events reported in this chapter occurred must have been immediately after the beginning
of her pregnancy, mentioned in 21,1 in the past tense, i.e. ‫וה' פקד את שרה‬, “and the Lord had benevolently
remembered Sarah (allowing her to become pregnant).
Radak on Genesis 20:2:2 ‫וישלח‬, after Avimelech heard about Sarah’s beauty, he sent to have her brought to his palace.

Radak on Genesis 20:3:1 ‫ויבא אלוקים אל אבימלך בחלום הלילה‬, a similar mode of expression has been chosen by the Torah when
reporting G’d as appearing to Lavan and warning him not to harm Yaakov (Genesis 31,24). The wicked who
do not deserve a communication from G’d, sometimes experience such a visitation as a mark of honour for
the righteous people who are the subject of such a visitation. Pharaoh of Egypt at the time when he had
seized Sarah had not been granted even such a dream, but the plagues visited upon him and his servants
had been used to indicate the displeasure of Avraham‘s G’d with Pharaoh’s conduct. The differences in G’d’s
dealing with different people are described by Elihu in Job 33, 14-16, “for G’d speaks time and again- though
man does not perceive it- in a dream at night, a night vision, when deep sleep falls upon men, while they
slumber in their beds. Then He opens men’s understanding and by disciplining them leaves His signature.”
The two methods G’d employs are either dreams or afflictions.
Radak on Genesis 20:3:2 ‫והיא בעלת בעל‬, she is out of bounds to you. Even the first human being had already been commanded not to
commit adultery, as our sages derived from the words ‫ודבק באשתו‬, meaning that he is to have intimate
relations exclusively with his own wife. (Genesis 2,24) From all we read it is clear that the people of that time
considered the sin of adultery so severe that they were prepared to kill the husband in order not to violate the
commandment not to commit adultery. (compare the comment made by Avraham to Sarah in 12,12) They
were aware of the sin of committing murder but considered it as a lesser sin. Our sages paid attention to the
expression ‫ בעלת בעל‬as opposed to ‫אשת איש‬, suggesting that according to Avimelech’s mores, a woman who
had become married but whose marriage had not yet been consummated would not be included in the
prohibition of being someone else’s wife. Girls who were merely betrothed would not be considered as out of
bounds on account of their being betrothed. [a major difference between Jewish law and the Noachide laws.
Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 20:4:1 ‫ואבימלך לא קרב אליה‬, the reason was that G’d had restricted his lust. This is why G’d said to him in his dream
in response to the accusation that He would kill the innocent, that the only reason Avimelech had not touched
her had been that He, G’d, had made him temporarily impotent.
Radak on Genesis 20:4:2 ?‫הגוי גם צדיק תהרוג‬, if You were to kill me just as you would kill my people. I am a leader and practice law and
justice in my country. I am not on the same level as my common people. This explains also verse 9 where
Avimelech distinguishes between himself and his Kingdom (subjects) by saying to Avraham “that you have
brought on me and my kingdom (people) this great sin?” Furthermore, he argued that he considered himself
righteous, having had reason to believe that Sarah was unattached.
Radak on Genesis 20:5:1 ‫הלא הוא אמר לי‬, when I asked him concerning Sarah’s marital status. I had not even relied on what my
servants had been told, but I asked him personally, to be certain.
Radak on Genesis 20:5:2 ‫והיא גם היא‬, when I asked Sarah after I had taken her to my palace she also told me that “Avraham is my
brother.” In view of this, what is my sin?
Radak on Genesis 20:5:3 ‫בתם לבבי‬, in perfect innocence, if I had had any reason to believe that she was a married lady, even my heart
would not have desired her, i.e. I would not even have lusted after her.
Radak on Genesis 20:5:4 ‫ונקיון כפי‬, and my hands were clean! When I took her to my palace I did not demean her but I respected her
dignity in every way.

Radak on Genesis 20:6:1 ‫בתם לבבך‬...‫ויאמר‬significantly, G’d did not add the words ‫ ובנקיון כפיך‬when acknowledging part of Avimelech’s
complaint. The fact that Avimelech had not touched Sarah was evident, could be proved, whereas
Avimelech’s intentions were private, could not be proved. Only G’d Himself would know if he spoke the truth.
Radak on Genesis 20:6:2 ‫מחטו לי‬, the sin would have been directed against G’d only if he had transgressed the laws not to sleep with
someone else’s wife, a command issued to all the descendants of Noach. Even if G’d had not issued a
specific command in this regard, common sense would dictate such a law in a civilised society. The One
Who had provided man with intelligence certainly expects that we use our intelligence to legislate such basic
laws without which life on earth would become intolerable, anarchic. We must view our common sense as a
messenger from G’d, an instrument that acts as a protection against man experiencing all kinds of harm and
problems in his life on earth. When man commits violence against his fellow man this reflects an absence of
common sense, i.e. a failure to use one’s common sense, seeing that the end result will be the termination of
life on earth. If this is the result of violence perpetrated in order to secure land or chattels, how much more so
would such a process of civilisation’s disintegration be accelerated if everyone would go assaulting people
physically and raping his neighbour’s wife?
Radak on Genesis 20:6:3 ‫מחטו‬, the letter ‫ ו‬instead of the letter ‫ א‬in this word substitutes for the letter ‫ ל‬in the requisite mode of the verb.
Radak on Genesis 20:6:4 ‫על כן לא נתתיך‬, as we explained already, this is a reference to G’d having made Avimelech impotent. By doing
this, G’d had done Avimelech a great favour. The reason why G’d extended Himself on his behalf was
because He knew that Avimelech had indeed believed that Sarah was unattached. G’d did not want that
Avimelech would become a sinner in regard to the wife of the prophet Avraham. Even though, granted that in
the final analysis G’d intervened due to Avraham and Sarah being the potential victims, He could have saved
Sarah from Avimelech’s clutches by a variety of other means. Seeing that Pharaoh’s thoughts at the time
when Sarah was under his control were quite different from those of Avimelech, G’d had subjected Pharaoh
and his household to a number of painful physical afflictions instead of appearing to him in a dream. The
inhibitions G’d imposed on the entourage of Avimelech were temporary and left no permanent negative
effect.
Radak on Genesis 20:6:5 ‫לנגע אליה‬, even touching her without engaging in sexual intercourse. G’d had removed any desire from
Avimelech to have physical contact with Sarah.

Radak on Genesis 20:7:1 . ‫כי נביא הוא‬...‫ועתה‬. He is therefore close to Me, and I am close to him, willing to respond favourably to his
prayer. I will not forgive you even when you give back this man’s wife to him, until he manages to pacify me
by means of his prayer. Then I will forgive you, and you will know this when all the afflicted people will have
been cured from their affliction. The fact that Sarah was not married is not the only consideration in this affair.
The fact that you took her against her will is a sin of violence, a very severe sin, all the more so seeing that
she is the sister of such a righteous man as Avraham. Violating the feelings of such a man constitutes a sin
in its own right. You are guilty of punishment, even if not of the death penalty.
Radak on Genesis 20:7:2 ‫וחיה‬, as if the Torah had written ‫“ ותחיה‬and you will live.” The construction is parallel to Genesis 12,3 ‫והיה‬
‫ברכה‬, “you will become a source of blessing. The verb ‫ ותרפא‬is in a “weak” mode as in Joshua 5,8 ‫עד חיותם‬, ”
until they have re- covered.” We find a similar construction in Isaiah 38,21 ‫וימרחו על השחין ויחי‬, “if they will
smear it on the rash he will recover.”
Radak on Genesis 20:7:3 ‫וכל אשר לך‬, the reason why they have all be stricken is that they all approved of what you did and no one
suggested that you give back Sarah to Avraham.
Radak on Genesis 20:8:1 ‫וישכם‬, he did not wait until the hour that kings normally rise from their beds seeing that his heart was
trembling on account of the dream he had just experienced, in which G’d told him that he was in need of
forgiveness and the prayer by the prophet even though he would restore Avraham’s wife to him.
Radak on Genesis 20:8:2 ‫ויראו האנשים מאר‬, all his servants who had agreed with their king appropriating this woman, and who had
praised her beauty in his ears.

Radak on Genesis 20:9:1 ‫ויקרא‬, he wanted to hear Avraham’s arguments and to appease him so that he would forgive him and pray on
his behalf.
Radak on Genesis 20:9:2 ?‫מה עשית לנו‬, by saying that she is your sister, thereby placing traps for me and my servants.
Radak on Genesis 20:9:3 ‫ומה חטאתי לך‬, how did I sin against you that you repaid me with evil making me guilty of death?
Radak on Genesis 20:9:4 ?‫והבאתי עלי ועל ממלכתי חטאה גדולה‬, if I had been killed by G’d my kingdom would have been lost, as he said
“are You going to a righteous nation also?”
Radak on Genesis 20:9:5 ‫אשר לא יעשו‬, it is not fitting for a man of your stature to be the cause of your fellowmen becoming guilty of
mortal sin.
Radak on Genesis 20:10:1 ‫ויאמר‬, Avimelech wanted to know why Avraham had not personally protested the forced abduction of Sarah
instead of allowing the king to become guilty of a greater crime. Surely a man such as he must have had a
good reason for allowing this to happen without protest!?
Radak on Genesis 20:11:1 ‫רק אין יראת אלוקים‬..‫ויאמר‬, Avraham replied that though the land was good there was no feeling of fear of the
Lord in it. This was the only drawback of that country. As a result, if I would have protested they would have
killed me in order not to become guilty of the greater sin of adultery.
Radak on Genesis 20:12:1 ‫וגם אמנה‬, besides she is indeed my sister. The expression ‫ אמנה‬is equivalent to ‫באמת‬, “in truth.” The word
occurs in the same sense in Joshua 7,20 ‫אמנה חטאתי‬, where Achan admits having stolen from the booty of
Jericho. The word ‫ אמנם‬or ‫ אמנה‬both mean basically the same. Avraham in effect told Avimelech: “even
though I did not protest the violence committed against Sarah this does not make me a liar, as she is indeed
my sister, being the daughter of my brother, Legally, nieces are just as children as grandchildren are
considered as legally equivalent to children.” (compare Rashi.
Radak on Genesis 20:12:2 ‫אך לא בת אמי‬, seeing Avraham’s brother Haran had been born to his father Terach by another wife than his
mother. Furthermore, seeing that Avimelech was certainly unaware of this, it would have been quite in order
for Avraham to marry Sarah even if she had been the granddaughter of Terach from the same wife as the
one who had born Avraham. Our sages, taking their cue from what Avraham said here, state that a paternal
sister is not of the same category as a maternal sister, only the latter being considered as full a sister.
(Sanhedrin 58). According to this, Avraham would have been entitled to marry a first generation paternal
sister, not only a second generation paternal sister such as Sarah. He would not have been allowed to marry
a first generation maternal sister, however.

Radak on Genesis 20:13:1 ‫התעו אותי אלוקים‬, the meaning of the word ‫ התעו‬is similar to ‫הגלו‬, “exiled.” When someone is exiled from a
place with which he is familiar, he will tend to lose his way in areas with which he is unfamiliar.
Radak on Genesis 20:13:2 ‫אלוקים‬, this word here is sacred. The reason why the word is used in the plural is because the listeners refer
to their gods in the plural, so the Torah uses a syntax familiar to ordinary people. In spite of this the word is
treated as a sacred name of G’d, one that must not be erased, such as when Job speaks of ‫ה עושי‬-‫אלו‬,
literally: the “G’d Who have made me.” (not: has made me). (Job 35,10). We find a similar construction where
‫ אלוקים‬is sacred and at the same time treated as if totally in the plural mode in Psalms 149,2 ‫ישמח ישראל‬
‫ בעושיו‬instead of ‫בעושו‬. (as opposed to ‫ בראשית ברא אלוקים‬where the verb is in the singular) A somewhat less
perplexing construction is found in Joshua 24,19 ‫אלוקים קדושין הוא‬. [even though the adjective is in the plural,
at least the pronoun ‫ הוא‬is in the singular. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 20:13:3 ‫מבית אבי‬, from the house of my brothers and family, as when G’d instructed him in 12,1 ‫'מארצך ומבית אביך וגו‬.
Radak on Genesis 20:13:4 ‫ואומר לה‬, seeing that we were coming to countries about which we knew nothing or very little, I said to her,
out of my fear of the local inhabitants,
Radak on Genesis 20:13:5 ‫אל כל המקום‬, actually, we find that this stratagem was employed by Avraham only twice. We must therefore
assume that Avraham meant that he had told Sarah that in any location which appeared to warrant such a
white lie, he told her to use it. As soon as we hear from others that the people in the place which we are
approaching are evil people, we need to avail ourselves of this strategy in order to enhance my chances of
survival. This applied to locations in which Avraham would only be a transient. Wherever he settled down,
people knew who he was and respected him, and would not dream of molesting either him or Sarah. We
know that Avner, Eshkol and Mamre were actually allies of Avraham. Even the people of Kiryat Arba referred
to him as a “prince in our midst.” (23,6)
Radak on Genesis 20:13:6 ‫אמרי לי‬, on my account, concerning me; Actually, many people asked Avraham concerning Sarah’s marital
status.
Radak on Genesis 20:14:1 ‫ויקח‬, He appeased him both with words and money, asking him for forgiveness and urging him to pray on his
behalf. He also told him that he was welcome to stay in his country wherever he chose to settle, seeing that
he would issue orders that neither he nor Sarah be molested.
Radak on Genesis 20:16:1 ‫ולשרה אמר הנה נתתי אלף כסף‬, in addition to the livestock, men and women servants he had given Avraham,
mentioned in verse 14. The purpose of the cash was to enable her to buy herself elegant clothing.
Radak on Genesis 20:16:2 ‫וכל אשר אתך‬, all your entourage should also have been outfitted with elegant clothing. Anyone belonging to
your household was meant to look their best thanks to this money I gave to your brother.
Radak on Genesis 20:16:3 ‫לאחיך‬, to the person you had described to me as “your brother.”
Radak on Genesis 20:16:4 ‫כסות עינים‬, something appealing to your eyes and all those who look at you. Your brother was supposed to
use this money to buy such garments for you. What are meant are specifically coloured garments, as the
word ‫ עינים‬frequently describes gay colours. Compare the Torah’s description of the appearance of the
manna in Numbers 11,7 as ‫ועינו כעין הבדולח‬, “and its colour like the colour of crystal.” Or, Ezekiel 1,16 ‫כעין‬
‫תרשיש‬, “as the colour of beryl.” It is possible that the embroidering on the garment consisted of a variety of
colours.
Radak on Genesis 20:16:5 ‫ואת כל ונוכחת‬, the Torah tells its readers that after all that Sarah had experienced at the hands of Pharaoh and
Avimelech, she never again described Avraham as her brother instead of as her husband. If the word ‫ונוכחת‬
were to be understood as part of what Avimelech had said to Sarah, the letter ‫ ת‬at the end of this word would
have required to have a dot, dagesh in it, whereas it is spelled “weak,” i.e. without such a dagesh, to indicate
that it is in a third person feminine mode and not part of direct speech, second person feminine. (compare a
similar construction in Isaiah 23,15)
Radak on Genesis 20:17:1 ‫את אבימלך‬...‫ויתפלל‬, he again possessed an active libido, just as he had before G’d struck him.
Radak on Genesis 20:17:2 ‫ואת אשתו ואמהותיו‬, the ones who had been supposed to give birth but had been unable to due to this affliction.
Even though, generally speaking, we cannot determine precisely when a baby that is due to be born will be
born, the women who had entered labour at the time the affliction struck could not give birth so that it was
clear what the affliction was connected to. After Avimelech had dreamt the dream which the Torah described
in detail, he called together both his servants as well as Avraham early in the morning. If so, when did they
experience the impediment to delivering the babies due? Perhaps they experienced labour pains which were
not relieved for even brief periods in between. Or, perhaps, Avraham took his time before he appealed to G’d
in prayer to relieve the situation. We know that when women are in labour there are a number of ways in
which their husbands can alleviate their pains and bring on the birth. All of these attempts had failed so that it
became clear that some supernatural power had its hand in what was happening.
Radak on Genesis 20:17:3 ‫וילדו‬, this word may refer to Avimelech’s wife and his maidservants; alternately, it may refer to Avimelech’s
ability to ejaculate semen again, something he had not been able to do. Onkelos translates this as ‫ואתרוחו‬,
meaning that their orifices which had been closed opened up again. Why would he not translate the word
‫ וילדו‬as “they gave birth?” Perhaps what he meant was that they did give birth, and he did not really mean
that their orifices had been closed so that they could neither urinate nor defecate, as seems to be the opinion
of our sages (Baba Kama 72).

Radak on Genesis 20:18:1 ‫כי עצר עצר בעד כל רחם‬, among the women, and possibly also among the animals which were meant to give
birth at that time. (as we quoted our sages as saying). In fact the Talmud says that even hens which lay eggs
instead of producing live chicks from their bodies were equally affected.
Radak on Genesis 21:1:1 ‫וה' פקד את שרה‬, she conceived and gave birth in accordance with the times predicted. Seeing the matter was
something so unusual, miraculous, the Torah repeats this fact repeatedly. Normally, when the Torah repeats
certain information it does so by using different words, changing the syntax; Here too, the verse commences
with the verb ‫פקד‬, but then uses the word ‫ ויעש‬to tell us the same thing. At the very end of the verse it
changes the syntax a third time, writing ‫כאשר דבר‬, “as He had said.”
Radak on Genesis 21:2:1 ‫ותהר‬, seeing that the conception had not been mentioned in the previous verse, the Torah now reports
conception and birth as if it had been a consecutive activity. We find a similar construction in Genesis 4,1
‫ותהר ותלד את קין‬, “Chavah conceived and gave birth to Kayin.”
Radak on Genesis 21:2:2 ‫לאברהם‬, as G’d had said “‫אשר תלד לך שרה‬,” “whom Sarah will bear for you.” This is a customary form of
syntax, as for instance in 16,15 ‫ותלד הגר לאברהם בן‬, or Exodus 21,4 ‫וילדה לו בנים ובנות‬, and many similar
examples. A woman is considered similar to the earth in this respect, i.e. just as the earth yields fruit for its
owners, so a woman produces children for her husband after he had planted his seed in her. The child was
named after its father.
Radak on Genesis 21:2:3 ‫לזקוניו‬, the Torah writes this so that we better understand why Sarah had laughed when she had heard the
prophecy in 18,12 and had said that her husband was too old to sire children. Another reason for the
expression ‫ לזקוניו‬is to inform us that whereas Sarah had regained her youth at that time and had ovulated
again after having ceased to do so for many years, Araham did not experience any rejuvenation, but sired a
child in spite of not shedding signs of old age. There are some words in the Hebrew language which always
appear in the plural mode, ‫ זקונים‬is one of them, so are ‫ נעורים‬and ‫בתולים‬.
Radak on Genesis 21:2:4 ‫אשר דבר אותו‬, the word ‫ אותו‬here is the same as if the Torah had written ‫עמו‬, “with him.”

Radak on Genesis 21:3:1 ‫ויקרא‬, he complied with G’d’s instructions issued in 17,19 to call the son that would be born to him by Sarah
Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 21:4:1 ‫כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים‬...‫וימל‬, compare 17,12 that any son should be circumcised when eight days old. Our
sages explain that the word ‫אותו‬, means that only the father is commanded to perform circumcision on his
son, not the mother.

Radak on Genesis 21:5:1 ‫את יצחק בנו‬...‫ואברהם‬, this verse is another example of the word ‫ את‬appearing in conjunction with verbs which
appear in the passive mode. To name just a few such examples: Numbers 26,55 ‫יחלק את הארץ‬, or Deut. 20,5
‫ולא ימס את לבב אחיו‬. What is the reason that the Torah saw fit to write this verse at all? Seeing that the Torah
had told us that Avraham had been 99 years old when he had received the commandment of circumcision,
and G’d had told him that Sarah would bear this son for him in the following year, we knew that he would be
100 years old at that time! (17,21) Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that Avraham had completed 100
years when Yitzchok was born and that the previous prophecy had been revealed to him when he had
completed 99 years. In that event, Sarah’s pregnancy lasted fully 12 months, so that the news revealed in
our verse is that her pregnancy was unnaturally lengthy.
Radak on Genesis 21:6:1 ‫ותאמר שרה צחק‬, she said that she really called the boy ‫ יצחק‬in order to give expression to the joy G’d had
granted her. She was convinced that everyone hearing about her good fortune of having given birth in her old
age would share her joy at this. Any person being surprised by some unexpected happy event laughs for joy.
Radak on Genesis 21:7:1 ‫ותאמר‬, she said something else reflecting her happy surprise,
Radak on Genesis 21:7:2 ‫מי מלל לאברהם‬, who would have dared foretell Avraham that Sarah would nurse babies? If G’d Himself had
not been at work in this, no one would have foretold Avraham that something like this could occur.
Radak on Genesis 21:7:3 ‫לזקוניו‬, we already explained the meaning of this word in verse 2. As to Sarah speaking of ‫בנים‬, children in the
plural mode, although she had given birth to only one child, she assumed that if she had been able to nurse
one child there would be nothing to prevent her from nursing more children if she so desired. There is an
allegorical Midrash on this verse (quoted by Rashi) saying that many women did not believe that Yitzchok
was drinking mother’s milk from Sarah’s breast. In order to silence their doubts or derision, Sarah offered to
nurse also the children of such women.

Radak on Genesis 21:8:1 ‫ ויגדל הילד ויגמל‬, he stopped receiving mother’s milk. This occurred after he was 24 months old. This was the
standard period that babies nursed at the breasts of their mothers.
Radak on Genesis 21:8:2 ‫משתה גדול‬, this too may have been the custom in those days, to mark the baby starting to receive solid food
with a great celebration. Alternately, Avraham gave such a party to mark his personal joy over Yitzchok
having attained that stage. Apparently this development of the baby coincided with his beginning to speak.
He was capable of being taught the letters of the alphabet. Our sages in Tanchuma Kedoshim claim that the
age at which children could learn the letters of the alphabet was when they had reached age 3.
Radak on Genesis 21:9:1 ‫מצחק‬...‫ותרא‬. Ishmael was belittling Yitzchok for having a father who was so much older than he.
Radak on Genesis 21:10:1 ‫גרש האמה‬...‫ותאמר‬, it was inconceivable to expel the son without his mother as she would not remain after he
had gone.
Radak on Genesis 21:10:2 ‫כי לא יירש‬, “he imagines that he will share equally in the inheritance because he is your son. This is the
reason why he is so overbearing, making fun of my son.”
Radak on Genesis 21:10:3 ‫עם יצחק‬, the words suggest that Sarah had told Avraham “didn’t G’d tell you that He would perpetuate His
covenant with Yitzchok who Sarah will bear for you? (17,21)?”

Radak on Genesis 21:11:1 ‫על אודות בנו‬...‫וירע הדבר‬, even though Ishmael was the son of a slave-woman, he was at the same time also
Avraham’s son, and he loved him as a father loves one’s son, especially seeing that he was his firstborn. He
was merciful towards him like a father is merciful to all his children. Moreover, he had taught him to behave
and had taught him the ways of the Lord. In fact, if he, Avraham, had taught all and sundry the ways of the
Lord, he had most certainly not neglected to teach these ways to his own son. Therefore, the request by
Sarah to expel his own son was a source of great chagrin to him. Avraham kept his chagrin to himself and
did not express anger at his wife as he was concerned with preserving ‫שלום בית‬, peaceful marital relations
with his wife. This was the state of affairs until G’d intervened in the matter.
Radak on Genesis 21:12:1 ‫על הנער ועל אמתך‬...‫ויאמר‬, G’d knew that Avraham was not only displeased about Sarah’s request to expel
Ishmael, but he was also chagrined at being asked to expel Hagar, his maid-servant. [described here as his
servant rather than as Sarah’s servant. Ed.] Even though the Torah had only spelled out that Avraham had
felt aggrieved on account of his son (verse 11), the reason why our text had mentioned only his son was that
he was his principal concern. He was prepared to quarrel with Sarah about the future of his son, whereas he
was not prepared to make the continued presence of Hagar an issue between them. G’d, however, knew
how he really felt concerning Hagar.
Radak on Genesis 21:12:2 ‫כל אשר תאמר‬, this was not a carte blanche for Sarah except in the matter of Ishmael and Hagar. The point
was that Ishmael was not to share in Avraham’ s heritage. ‫כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע‬, the promise I had given to
you in 17,8 applies only to Yitzchok as he is the seed specifically yours.
Radak on Genesis 21:13:1 ‫וגם את בן האמה‬, do not worry that he will perish when he leaves your house; on the contrary, I will make him
develop into a great nation because he is your descendant

Radak on Genesis 21:14:1 ‫וישכם‬, to carry out G’d’s instruction.

Radak on Genesis 21:14:2 ‫ויקח לחם וחמת מים‬, he gave her enough food and water to last for a day or two. She was unable to carry more
than that. He also gave her a plentiful supply of water as the distance to Egypt was considerable. On the
other hand, she might have had relatives much closer than in Egypt. He gave her also silver and gold so that
she could replenish her supplies, although the Torah did not make a specific mention of this.
Radak on Genesis 21:14:3 ‫ואת הילד‬, he placed the bread and the water on her shoulder, and arranged for Ishmael to walk ahead of her.
He was approximately 15 and the time, and if he would tire, Hagar would have to carry him for a while either
on her shoulder or in her lap.
Radak on Genesis 21:14:4 ‫וישלחה‬, either from his house, or he accompanied her some distance until outside the town limits.
Radak on Genesis 21:14:5 ‫ותלך ותתע‬, she did not know the route once she had entered the desert.
Radak on Genesis 21:15:1 ‫ויכלו‬, Hagar’s problems became ever more acute. The reason why the Torah writes all this detail, is to teach
that if man is confident that G’d will help him overcome his difficulties in the end, then his troubles do not
multiply in order to teach him to appeal to G’d for help. The detail here has also been written in order to show
how G’d deals with people who love His name. He appeared to Hagar on two separate occasions rescuing
her from acute distress, performing miracles on behalf of her son.
Radak on Genesis 21:15:2 ‫ותשלך את הילד‬, whom she had been carrying, seeing that she had become too tired to carry on. When she
saw that she had been unable to locate any water, she threw him from her lap under a shrub. According to
Onkelos ‫ שיחים‬are small trees. [it was doubly frustrating to know that there must have been a source of water
nearby, how else could these trees exist? Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 21:16:1 ‫ותלך‬, after she had thrown Ishmael under one of the small trees, she went away a distance and sat down.
Radak on Genesis 21:16:2 ‫הרחק‬, the word is in the infinitive instead of in the past tense, the reason being that while she did distance
herself she wanted not to be so far away that she would be totally unaware of what happened to Ishmael.
Radak on Genesis 21:16:3 ‫כמטחוי קשת‬, the root of the word is ‫טחוה‬, the construction being a combination participle and something
especially emphasised, such as by means of a dagesh. The meaning is the distance a bow can be tensed for
the arrow to be shot to the furthest point of its range. Possibly, the word ‫ כמטחוי‬is a noun.

Radak on Genesis 21:17:1 ‫וישמע אלוקים את קול הנער‬, he too had raised his voice and was crying.
Radak on Genesis 21:17:2 ‫מן השמים‬, she heard his voice without seeing the source of the voice as opposed to the first encounter she
had with an angel in 16,13. At the beginning of the verse the Torah uses the proposition ‫את‬, whereas at the
end of the verse it switches to the preposition ‫אל‬. The letters ‫ ת‬and ‫ ל‬are used interchangeably here without
the meaning of the preposition undergoing any change.
Radak on Genesis 21:17:3 ‫באשר הוא שם‬, at the very site where Hagar had thrown the boy. The message to Hagar was that at the very
site where she thought that her so was going to die, there G’d heard his voice, his prayer. Our sages (Rosh
Hashanah 16) derive from this wording that human beings are not judged by the Heavenly Court on the basis
of what they might become guilty of in the future, but their judgment is based on their status at the time
judgment is in progress. If someone is wicked at the time the Heavenly Court is in session, the fact that G’d
foresees that he will (would) become righteous at some point in the future is not taken into consideration.
Equally, if someone at the time when the Court is in session is deemed innocent, the fact that G’d foresees
that he will become a great sinner is not used to influence his judgment at that time. There is an interesting
aggadah, according to which the angels remonstrated with G’d at this time, challenging G’d’s mercy on the
basis of the untold harm Ishmael’s descendants would visit upon G’d’s people, the Jews in the future. The
angels referred specifically to the Ishmaelites denying Jews on the march into exile water to quench their
thirst. (a reference to Isaiah 21,13-14) G’d silenced them by asking whether at this particular point in time
Ishmael deserved to die. They had to admit that he did not. Hence G’d felt free to exercise His mercy and to
let him live.
Radak on Genesis 21:18:1 ‫והחזיקי את ידך‬...‫קומי‬, do not let your hand go of him, (do not abandon him) for he will not die by thirst, for I will
still make him into a great nation.
Radak on Genesis 21:19:1 ‫ויפקח אלוקים את עיניה‬, perhaps the well had been there all the time but its top had been covered with some
material which made no one assume that a well hid underneath such a covering. Alternatively, it was some
distance away.
Radak on Genesis 21:19:2 ‫ותלך ותמלא את החמת‬, G’d expanded her range of vision so that she now saw the contours of a well she had
not previously been able to see. Perhaps that well had not existed and G’d had provided it at this time on a
temporary basis to keep Ishmael alive. The matter may have been similar to an experience Shimshon had in
Judges 15,19 when G’d split the depression in the jawbone and produced sufficient water to quench
Shimshon’s thirst.
Radak on Genesis 21:19:3 ‫ותשק את הנער‬, the sequence sounds misleading, as she had drunk herself when she saw the well, then she
had filled the hose and brought it to her son to drink, after which she had filled the hose again to continue on
her way. The positioning of the letters ‫ ו‬such as ‫ותשק‬.‫ ותמלא‬,‫ ותלך‬is not at all unusual. Examples of such
constructions may be found in Isaiah 64,4; Exodus 14,21; Exodus 15,20, et al. An alternative meaning could
be that she drew water from the well with the hose being used as a pail, and carried it to where Ishmael was
lying, giving him to drink there.

Radak on Genesis 21:20:1 ‫ויהי אלוקים את הנער‬, He ensured Ishmael’s success in his undertakings.
Radak on Genesis 21:20:2 ‫ויגדל‬, he amassed wealth. We encounter a similar meaning of the word ‫ ויגדל‬in Genesis 26,13 describing
Yitzchok’s economic success in the land of the Philistines.
Radak on Genesis 21:20:3 ‫וישב במדבר‬, first he settled in the desert nearby, moving further afield to the desert of Paran later on.
Radak on Genesis 21:20:4 ‫ויהי רובה קשת‬, the word ‫ רבה‬may be understood as ‫נער‬, lad. Onkelos translates it as ‫רביא‬. The word ‫ קשת‬is an
adjective mode of the word keshet, bow. The mode is similar to that of ganav, someone practicing thievery,
or salach, someone apt to forgive. An alternative way of understanding the word ‫ רובה‬is that it means the
same as ‫יורה‬, someone shooting. He developed the technique of shooting arrows by means of a bow. [a far
less dangerous mode of hunting than bodily facing the adversary. At this point Kimchi draws on the points
made already by Rash’bam on our verse. Ed.] He adds that the ability to hit distant targets enables archers to
practice what the Torah called ‫ידו בכל‬, attacking all and sundry, even distant targets. He quotes examples of
ancient peoples who became known for this skill, apparently distant descendants of Ishmael, especially the
‫בני קדר‬. Reference is made to these people, (in that capacity?) in Isaiah 21,17 Our sages suggest that it is
appropriate for the sons to perfect themselves in the trade, vocation or skills in which their father excels.
(Erchin 16) They also base this on Kings I 7,14 where Chirom is described as having mastered the art of
being a coppersmith just like his father. Yaakov’s sons, when presented to Pharaoh in Genesis 47,3, also
were described as continuing the tradition of their father as shepherds.

Radak on Genesis 21:21:1 ‫ותקח לו אמו‬...‫וישב‬, she took a wife for him from her own family, seeing that he had become separated from his
father’s family. It is proper for people to marry into members of their family (not too close) as a stronger bond
of mutual love is liable to be forged between men and women of similar backgrounds, such as both being
members of the same clan
Radak on Genesis 21:22:1 ‫ויהי בעת ההיא‬, at the time Yitzchok was born, or at the time he was weaned. At any rate, Avraham was still in
the land of the Philistines. This is why the Torah now reports Avimelech saying that he was interested in
receiving assurances from Avraham. Had Avraham already left the land of the Philistines prior to this, the
Torah would have had to report that Avimelech traveled to Avraham in order to suggest the treaty he wanted
to conclude. When he had seen that a son had been born to Avraham, in his old age, and they saw that
Sarah was the one who had given birth to him, they began to take seriously the promises made by G’d to
Avraham concerning the future of his descendants. The reason that Phicol the head of Avimelech’s army was
mentioned, was to underline that the words Avimelech addressed to Avraham had been what his army chief
had proposed.
Radak on Genesis 21:23:1 ‫אם תשקור לי‬..‫ועתה‬, perhaps the subject here is the immediate future, i.e. ‫ועתה‬. Avimelech is concerned that
within the next or subsequent generation the friendly relations between Avraham and himself might sour.
Therefore he suggests a treaty reinforced by an oath as he is sure that Avraham would not renege on an
undertaking confirmed by an oath. He is trying to commit the next 3 generations to this undertaking he asks
from Avraham.
Radak on Genesis 21:23:2 The words ‫ לי ולניני ולנכדי‬comprise three generations. The word ‫ נין‬refers to the son, whereas the word ‫נכד‬
refers to the son’s son. The same words appear in the same sense in Isaiah 14,22 ‫והכרתי לבבל שם ושאר נין‬
‫ונכד‬, “I will wipe out from Babylon name and remnant, son and grandson, etc.”
Radak on Genesis 21:23:3 ‫כחסד אשר עשיתי עמך תעשה עמדי‬, I allowed you to settle in any part of my country that you chose to settle in,
and I respected you.
Radak on Genesis 21:23:4 ‫ועם הארץ אשר גרת בה‬, I expect you also to act in a friendly manner with all the inhabitants of this country who
will survive me, both you and your children and grandchildren after you, seeing that you have been treated
well in this country by its people.

Radak on Genesis 21:24:1 ‫ויאמר אברהם אנכי אשבע‬, implying that Avimelech on his part has to swear also. The word ‫ אשבע‬is spelled with
the vowel chirik under the letter ‫א‬, Generally, when a verb in the first person is in the passive mode, it has the
vowel segol so that the combination of aleph-chirik should not be misunderstood as if it had been spelled ‫אי‬.
Radak on Genesis 21:25:1 ‫והוכיח אברהם‬, seeing that they had both agreed to a pact and had confirmed it by a mutual oath, Avraham
now complained about the servants of Avimelech having stolen his wells, especially the well he had dug in
Beer Sheva. Beer Sheva was on the border between the land of Canaan and the land of the Philistines, and
Avimelech’s servants had argued that Avraham had dug the well on land belonging to the Philistines. In
response to Avraham’s complaint both Avimelech and Avraham went from Gerar to Beer Sheva to inspect
the area and find out who had been wronged. Seeing that they saw that Avraham’s shepherds were grazing
their cattle in that region it was natural that they had dug for water there in order to provide water for their
livestock. Even though the Torah did not spell out precisely what occurred, it is reasonable to accept the
scenario which I have described.
Radak on Genesis 21:26:1 ‫וגם אנכי לא שמעתי‬...‫ויאמר‬, seeing that neither you nor anyone else has told me about this I cannot be held
responsible for this.
Radak on Genesis 21:27:1 ‫ויקח‬, apparently Avraham had taken some sheep and cattle and given it to Avimelech to keep the covenant.
These animals were used to confirm the treaty which had been agreed to between Avimelech and Avraham
and their respective children.
Radak on Genesis 21:28:1 ‫ויצב‬, Avraham selected from amongst these animals seven sheep to be placed aside from the others. He took
7 seeing that the number seven, ‫שבעה‬, and the word for oath ‫ שבועה‬are practically identical. The location was
now named Beer Sheva to reflect symbolically both the seven sheep set aside here as visible sign of the
covenant and the fact that this covenant had been confirmed by an oath of either party to the treaty.
Radak on Genesis 21:30:1 ‫תהיה לי לעדה‬...‫ויאמר‬, “this gift that I am giving you shall serve as proof for me.”
Radak on Genesis 21:31:1 ‫כי שם נשבעו‬...‫על כן‬, the word ‫ כי‬lacks the conjunctive letter ‫ ו‬in front. We find similar constructions with the
missing conjunctive letter ‫ ו‬in Chabakuk 2,11 ‫שמש ירח‬, instead of ‫שמש וירח‬. Another such example is found in
Exodus 1,2 ‫ ראובן שמעון‬instead of ‫ראובן ושמעון‬. Had the letter ‫ ו‬not been missing, we would have clearly
understood at first glance that both the oath and the seven sheep are referred to as a “package deal.”
Naming a location was a very important step in laying claim to a region as one’s inalienable property.
Radak on Genesis 21:32:1 ‫ויקם אבימלך‬...‫ויכרתו‬, Avraham remained at Beer Sheva with his flocks for a day or two longer before returning
to the land of the Philistines to his house in Gerar.
Radak on Genesis 21:33:1 ‫ויטע אשל‬, he planted some saplings there to serve as proof that the well nearby was now his undisputed
property. The word ‫ אשל‬describes certain plants (fruit-bearing) as In Samuel I 22,6 ‫תחת האשל ברמה‬, “under
the eshel in Ramah). According to our sages in Beytzah 27 the reference is to tall trees which are difficult to
uproot. Our sages in Midrash Tehillim 106 understand the word ‫ אשל‬as an acronym for ‫ לינה‬,‫ שתיה‬,‫אכילה‬,
“eating, drinking, staying overnight.” In other words, Avraham established a hotel there to serve people
passing that region. He taught the people around Beer Sheva to practice the art (virtue) of hosting strangers.
In order to fulfill that virtue one must provide the three ingredients represented by the three letters in the word
‫אשל‬.
Radak on Genesis 21:33:2 ‫ויקרא שם‬, Avraham used the opportunity of assembling the local people and describing his and Sarah’s
experiences to them in order to give them first-hand evidence of how G’d had looked after him against all
odds. He contrasted this with the local deities being worshipped who could not protect those who sacrificed
to them.<br> ‫ל עולם‬-‫א‬, he pointed out that his G’d was not only powerful locally, but was a G’d Who was
equally powerful allover the globe, seeing the globe is His, He being the One Who had created it.
Radak on Genesis 21:34:1
Radak on Genesis 22:1:1 ‫ויהי אחר הדברים האלה‬, after what happened to Avraham with Avimelech and as a result of his pact he had
resided among the Philistines for many years, so that he had decided to migrate to Beer Sheva. At that point
he received the instruction from G’d concerning his only son (by Sarah). It is very difficult to explain the
matter of G’d’ “testing” someone, seeing that G’d knows in advance what the result of such a test is going to
be. What then is the point of such a test? If the point was to demonstrate to the world at large that Avraham
successfully passed such a test, how could this be accomplished in a setting where only Avraham and
Yitzchok were present? He had even left the lads who had accompanied him behind so that there were no
witnesses whatsoever to his carrying out a command which he had not even told Yitzchok about until the last
possible moment! Even if Avraham had told someone what had transpired on the mountain, who would have
believed him? The truth is that the purpose of the trial was to demonstrate to the world Avraham’s love for G’
d. It was not meant to demonstrate anything to the generation during which Avraham lived, but to prove this
to subsequent generations of people who believed in the Torah which was handed down to us by Moses at
the command of G’d Himself. All that is written in the Torah [including such stories as that of Bileam and
Balak, none of which had been witnessed by any Jew alive at that time, Ed.] is meant to teach the extent to
which we are expected to demonstrate our love for G’d if and when the occasion arises. We know that
Avraham loved Yitzchok more than he loved himself, seeing that he was already old and did not expect
anymore out of life. If Yitzchok were to die at that time before he had married and raised a family, he would
not have enjoyed any true satisfaction in his life on earth. This thought must have been very upsetting for his
father Avraham. If he was nonetheless prepared to carry out G’d’s command without hesitation this was
indeed a feat that all his descendants would marvel at. The fact that Avraham, who had prayed to G’d for
sinners to be given a reprieve, did not even pray to G’d to spare the life of Yitzchok until he had at least
married and started to raise a family, is meant to be an inspiration to all of us. Moreover, G’d Himself had
provided Avraham with arguments which would have entitled him to at least defer sacrificing Yitzchok since
he had told him that he, Avraham, would be known in history through Yitzchok. How could such a promise be
fulfilled if Yitzchok were to die now? This story became the powerful message which Yitzchok transmitted to
his son Yaakov, and which Yaakov transmitted to his sons. After the Torah was committed to writing the story
became famous throughout the world, some people believing it, others not. Nowadays, after primitive
paganism has ceased to exist in most of civilised society, most of mankind believes the story recorded in the
Bible without hesitation. If large sections of mankind express some doubts about what is written in the Torah
this concerns only whether everything written in the Torah as fact needs to be understood as historical, literal
truth, or if many stories are to be understood as allegorical, but conveying the same ethical and moral
messages. Similarly, these doubters believe that many of the practical commandments in the Torah were not
meant to be fulfilled literally, but were examples demonstrating G’d’s attitude to certain problems confronting
man. The very fact that the majority of mankind does believe that Avraham did what the Torah writes he did,
is proof that Avraham had lived the kind of life which inspired man to believe that one can love G’d more than
anything else in the universe.
Radak on Genesis 22:1:2 ‫ויאמר אליו אברהם‬, the vision took place at night, seeing that immediately afterwards the Torah reports
Avraham as rising early in the morning.
Radak on Genesis 22:2:1 ‫את יחידך‬...‫ויאמר‬, even though he is your only one and you love him very much as he has been born to you by
your beloved wife when both of you were already well into your old age, and although My request is a very
difficult one, I am asking you to do this.
Radak on Genesis 22:2:2 ‫ולך לך‬, this phraseology is quite common. We have encountered it in 12,1, in Jeremiah 5,5, in Exodus 18,27
as well as in Numbers 22,34 and again in Genesis 45,19. There are more such examples.
Radak on Genesis 22:2:3 ‫אל ארץ המריה‬, Jerusalem and district are referred to as ‫ארץ המריה‬, and this is why the mountain on which
Yitzchok was bound is also known by that name. Compare Chronicles II 3,1 ‫לבנות בית ה' בירושלים בהר המריה‬,
“to build the House of G’d in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.” Our sages, as quoted by Rashi, say that the name
reflects the fact that G’d’s instructions to man are issued from that mountain. [the seat of the Jewish Supreme
Court which decides when there is any doubt about the authenticity of Torah legislation. Ed.] Onkelos
translates the term as ‫לארעא פלחנא‬, “the land where the priests perform service.”
Radak on Genesis 22:2:4 ‫על אחד ההרים‬, even now G’d did not tell Avraham precisely on which mountain he was to offer up Yitzchok as
a burnt offering. Instead, G’d only said: ‫אשר אמר אליך‬, just as at the time when Avraham had been told to
leave Charan and move to the Land of Canaan in 12,1 he had been told only to move to a country which G’d
would specify later on. At that time Avraham had correctly assumed that he was to set out in the direction of
the Land of Canaan. The absence of this detail in both instances was to show us the readers that instead of
questioning G’d on details, Avraham set out to undertake difficult tasks without looking for any excuse to
delay carrying out G’d’s instructions. It would have been so easy to ask G’d why, if he was to offer Yitzchok
as a sacrifice, he first had to travel a long distance to the site where this was to take place. After all, we are
speaking about a man of 137 years of age. Actually, if we do not err, G’d had two good reasons why He told
Avraham what to do in such an ambivalent fashion. Firstly, to give Avraham additional credit for complying
with a command which was wrapped in a riddle, without questioning G’d about it. If G’d had asked him to do
this at once near his home, Avraham would not have had time to recover from the initial shock after hearing
G’d’s instructions. If, after having had time to digest the implications of what had been asked of him, Avraham
proceeded without hesitating, this is even more to his credit. The second reason why G’d worded the
instructions in the manner in which the Torah records them, is to teach us that the site where this binding
eventually took place is such a holy site; moreover after Avraham named the site, we know that it is one
where the attribute of Justice may be changed to the attribute of Mercy due to the manner in which man
relates to G’d’s commands. Not only that, but man learned that sometimes the intention behind an action is
worth more to G’d than the action itself, so that the binding of Yitzchok rated in G’d’s eyes as if his father had
actually sacrificed him.
Radak on Genesis 22:3:1 ‫וישכם אברהם‬, he rose early to carry out G’d’s bidding without telling Sarah anything about it. He was afraid
that she might do harm to herself out of her love for Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 22:3:2 ‫את שני נעריו‬, the ones who usually accompanied him on any journey.
Radak on Genesis 22:3:3 ‫אל המקום אשר אמר לו‬, to the land known as Moriah, seeing that G’d had not yet revealed to him on which
mountain he was to offer Yitzchok as a burnt offering.

Radak on Genesis 22:4:1 ‫ביום השלישי וישא אברהם‬, the letter ‫ ו‬is something additional, a phenomenon we encounter frequently, such as
in Genesis 36,24 ‫ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה‬. The Torah could also have written ‫ביום השלישי נשא אברהם את עיניו‬,
“on the third day Avraham raised his eyes.” (using the ordinary past tense, instead of the future tense with
the vav hahipuch. It is possible to justify the use of the form with the letter ‫ ו‬by understanding this verse as a
continuation of the previous verse and reading that one as if it had been written: ‫וילך אל המקום ביום השלישי‬, “he
went (arrived) to the place on the third day.” At that time he raised his eyes in the direction of the site in
question, i.e. Jerusalem. In other words, once Avraham had entered the general area known as ‫ארץ המוריה‬,
he raised his eyes to look for the specific site G’d must have had in mind. At any rate, he did not yet know
which mountain G’d had chosen for him to erect the altar on which to sacrifice Yitzchok. According to Pirkey
de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 31 and other Midrashim, the words ‫ וירא את המקום מרחוק‬refer to Avraham actually
seeing the mountain in question. He identified it as he saw a column of fire on that mountain. He asked his
son if he saw anything specific on any of the mountains, to which Yitzchok replied that he saw a column of
fire on one of the mountains. When Avraham repeated the same question to Ishmael and Eliezer previously
described as ‫נעריו‬, his lads, they both answered in the negative. Upon hearing that both of these men did not
notice anything out of the ordinary, he told them to remain near the donkey which could also not see anything
unusual. ‫שבו לכם עם החמור‬, with those who are like donkeys.
Radak on Genesis 22:5:1 ‫ונשתחוה‬...‫ויאמר‬, from these words the lads understood that Avraham would not only prostrate himself there in
prayer but would offer an animal as part of such prayer. They reasoned this way, having observed that
Avraham took kindling and a knife when going up the mountain. Normally, a reference to ‫ השתחויה‬includes
slaughtering a sacrificial animal, as we know from Samuel I 1.3, describing Elkanah’s habits.
Radak on Genesis 22:6:1 ‫ויקח‬, he did not take the donkey along so that the lads should not think that they were going to a distant
location. Also, there would not be anyone guarding the donkey at the time when he would be occupied with
binding and slaughtering Yitzchok. Furthermore, he did not want the donkey to enter such sacred precincts.
Radak on Genesis 22:7:1 ‫הנני בני‬, with a dagesh also in the second letter ‫נ‬.
Radak on Genesis 22:8:1 ‫אלוקים יראה לו השה לעולה בני‬...‫ויאמר‬, Avraham’s reply to his son is capable of two interpretations. One
interpretation would be that the word ‫ בני‬is a response to Yitzchok’s cry or question, meaning “I am here my
son; G’d will select the lamb for the burnt offering.” In other words: “don’t worry G’d already knows who is
going to be the lamb for the offering. He will put it at our disposal.” The second interpretation of Avraham’s
answer would arrange the words as follows: “G’d will select the lamb for the offering; who is the lamb? It is
my son.” Yitzchok understood from this that he had been chosen to be the offering. This is why the Torah
continues, significantly:
Radak on Genesis 22:8:2 ‫וילכו שניהם יחד‬, “they continued walking together,” i.e. of one mind and of one spirit.

Radak on Genesis 22:9:1 ‫ויבאו אל המקום‬, this refers to Mount Moriah.

Radak on Genesis 22:9:2 ‫אשר אמר לו האלוקים‬, when Avraham and Yitzchok had been walking together (after leaving the lads behind) G’
d told Avraham the exact location, showing it to him in a prophetic vision. According to Bereshit Rabbah 56,2
He showed him either a column of fire over that mountain or a localised pillar of cloud, as we mentioned
earlier. According to this aggadic interpretation the words ‫ אשר אמר לו‬refer to the moment when he became
aware of this phenomenon and his awareness was the equivalent of what is described in our verses as an
‫אמירה‬, a verbal communication.
Radak on Genesis 22:9:3 ‫ויערוך את העצים‬, he arranged them above the fire to kindle them.
Radak on Genesis 22:9:4 ‫ויעקד את יצחק‬, he bound both his hands and his feet so he should not involuntarily kick when the knife would
strike him. This was in spite of the fact that Yitzchok was perfectly willing to be the offering. He was afraid
that at the last moment he would rebel; this was why he asked his father to tie him securely. (Bereshit
Rabbah 56,8)

Radak on Genesis 22:10:1 ‫לשחוט את בנו‬...‫וישלח‬, to first slaughter him before the fire would burn up the body. This is the usual procedure
when meat offerings are brought on the altar.
Radak on Genesis 22:11:1 ‫מן השמים‬...‫ויקרא‬, he heard a voice without seeing a visual image.
Radak on Genesis 22:11:2 ‫ אברהם‬,‫אברהם‬, G’d repeated his name to ensure that Avraham would listen immediately.

Radak on Genesis 22:12:1 ‫ואל תעש לו מאומה‬...‫ויאמר‬, again G’d repeated what He had said in different words, in order to lend additional
emphasis to His warning not to touch Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 22:12:2 ‫כי עתה ידעתי‬, if we were to explain this word as derived from the root ‫ ידע‬in the kal conjugation and we follow
the path we outlined in verse 1 that G’d wanted Avraham to translate his potential into an actual, in verse 1 of
this chapter, the problem is that we never find the root ‫ ידע‬in a transitive mode; therefore I suggest that the
meaning of ‫ ידעתי‬is similar to Exodus 33,12 ‫ידעתיך בשם‬, or Exodus 33,17 ‫ואדעך בשם‬. [This means ‫כי שב החלק‬,
“individual attributes form an integrated part of the larger pattern of one’s personality.” This is my
understanding of the somewhat obscure phrase ‫כי שב החלק‬, seeing that we do not have the author’s
commentary on the verses in which he quotes himself as having interpreted the root ‫ ידע‬in such a fashion.
Ed.] This allusion is sufficient for the initiated. (author’s words).
Radak on Genesis 22:12:3 ‫כי ירא אלוקים אתה‬. The word ‫יראה‬, “fear,” mentioned here is none other than a form of ‫אהבה‬, love, seeing that
the fear was not something physical, concern for his body, but concern that he soul should not suffer
irretrievable damage. Avraham was prepared to sacrifice his son to demonstrate that his love for abstract,
invisible G’d was greater than his love for his physical, mortal son. He wanted to ensure that neither of them
would forfeit their lives in the world to come.

Radak on Genesis 22:13:1 ‫וישא‬, he raised his eyes in order to see if there was some pure animal suitable for a sacrifice which he could
offer in lieu of his son.
Radak on Genesis 22:13:2 ‫וירא והנה איל אחר נאחז‬, after it had become enmeshed in the thicket.
Radak on Genesis 22:13:3 ‫בסבך בקרניו‬, this served Avraham as an invitation from G’d that seeing that this ram was caught in a thicket
away from the flock it belonged to, something which its shepherd had not even become aware of. This is why
we have learned in the Mishnah Avot 5,6 (according to some scholars) that among the things which had
been created at dusk on the 6th day of creation was also this ram which would eventually serve as the
sacrifice brought by Avraham instead of his son. If Avraham had been able to locate the shepherd of this
ram, he would have compensated him for the value of the animal. He would not have wanted to offer an
animal as a sacrifice without paying for it.

Radak on Genesis 22:14:1 ‫ה' יראה‬...‫ויקרא‬, a reference to his having said to Yitzchok in verse 8 that G’d would select the animal for the
offering.
Radak on Genesis 22:14:2 ‫אשר יאמר היום‬, a reference to the day on which this story is being related. This occurrence would be
remembered every time G’d would manifest Himself on that mountain. When the Temple would be built, this
event would be commemorated, for instance. Avraham had been told in a prophetic vision why this mountain
had been chosen by G’d for this particular event. It was because also in the future Avraham’s descendants
would make a point of offering their sacrifices on that mountain.<br> ‫בהר ה' יראה‬, G’d would manifest Himself
in the future also on this mountain.
Radak on Genesis 22:15:1 ‫ויקרא‬, He called him a second time to inform him that as compensation for what he had just been prepared to
do, G’d would compensate his children when the occasion would arise to do so.
Radak on Genesis 22:16:1 ‫ויאמר בי נשבעתי‬, G’d added an oath to the blessing He had already bestowed on Avraham. When G’d swears
an “oath” it is as if He were to say “by My life, etc.” Just as He is eternal and therefore will be able to keep His
oath, so He can keep His oath to the children and grandchildren of the ones to whom He promises something
by oath. While it is true that G’d does not need to swear an oath to assure us that He will keep His word, the
new element in G’d swearing an oath is that even if the recipient of the oath did not keep his part of the
bargain, i.e. sinned in the meantime, G’d promises that this will not invalidate His blessing, the one He
confirms by an oath. Furthermore, He added another dimension to the existing blessing,
Radak on Genesis 22:17:1 ‫וירש זרעך את שער אויביו‬, the meaning of the words ‫ שער אויביו‬is ‫ארץ אויביו‬, the land of its enemies. A land
surrounded by oceans and mountains is difficult to conquer. Eretz Yisrael is such a country. When one has
breached the coastal defences, or conquered the mountain ranges, it is as if one had broken through the
gates of the fortified walls around a city. This is why the Torah here describes such a victory as “inheriting the
gates of one’s enemies.” We find a similar expression used in Nachum 3,13 ‫פתח נפתחו שערי ארצך‬, “the gates
of your country will be completely open.” The prophet refers to the country lying at the mercy of an invader.
G’d added further:
Radak on Genesis 22:17:2 ‫ככוכבי השמים וכחול‬, by this simile, and especially the repeated reference to two different hyperboles, He
wanted to reinforce the meaning of this promise. Up until now, the only simile for the multiplying of Avraham’s
seed had been the expression ‫כעפר הארץ‬, “as the dust of the earth.” (13,15) On another occasion (15,5) the
comparison had been to the stars. Now, two comparisons are mentioned, showing that the blessing had
been reinforced.<br> ‫והתברכו בזרעך‬, this too is an additional dimension of the promise made to Avraham
concerning his offspring.
Radak on Genesis 22:17:3 ‫וירש‬, one of the letters ‫ י‬that we would have expected as part of this word is missing. It is the ‫ י‬which is part of
the root of the verb ‫ירש‬. The ‫ י‬which does appear is the one describing the future tense indirect speech
masculine. [this is common for roots beginning with the letter ‫י‬. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 22:17:4 ‫כי ברך‬, we already explained the meaning of the repetition of such formulations.
Radak on Genesis 22:18:1 ‫והתברכו‬, the meaning of this word is not identical with the word‫ ונברכו‬in 12,3 which we explained at the time
as meaning that wherever you would reside the people around you would benefit from you or your children’s
proximity. In this verse the meaning of the word ‫ והתברכו‬is that the gentile nations, thanks to their prayers, will
accumulate merits and therefore blessings for themselves. They will make the kind of blessings Avraham has
experienced the focus of their own prayers. They will acknowledge Avraham’s G’d as the source of all
blessings.
Radak on Genesis 22:18:2 ‫עקב‬, as a reward. It is an apt simile, seeing that he heel, ‫ עקב‬is the lower end of the body, so the reward is
what one acquires at the conclusion of performing G’d’s commandments.
Radak on Genesis 22:18:3 ‫אשר שמעת בקולי‬, both in this instance as well as in all the other instructions I have issued to you
Radak on Genesis 22:19:1 ‫וישב אברהם‬, there was no need to mention that Yitzchok accompanied him. Rather it mentioned
Avraham mentioned, because he was the principal.
Radak on Genesis 22:19:2 ‫וישב אברהם בבאר שבע‬, the Torah did not mention for how many years Avraham lived in Beer Sheva, seeing
Sarah died there, [something which must have greatly dampened his joy at living there. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 22:20:1 ‫ויהי‬, after the binding of Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 22:20:2 ‫גם היא‬, just as Sarah had born a son, so Milkah bore these children to Nachor your brother. It would appear
that Milkah had stopped bearing children for a while already, but she had not been barren as had Sarah.
Therefore Avraham was given the news that more children had been born for Nachor by his wife Milkah. This
whole paragraph describing the children born to Nachor, both by his wife and his concubine Re-umah, has
been written in honour of Avraham and to tell us among other facts that Rivkah had been born.

Radak on Genesis 22:21:1 ‫את עוץ בכורו‬, as we explained already on Genesis 10,15 in connection with the phrase ‫את צידון בכורו‬.
Radak on Genesis 22:21:2 ‫אבי ארם‬, perhaps Aram was the better known of the two, and that is why his father is mentioned as an adjunct
to his more famous son Aram. We have a similar construction in Genesis 10,21 ‫אבי כל בני עבר‬, and numerous
other examples in Chronicles dealing with historical details. Generally, people so described are
complimented, although on occasion such descriptions may mean something derogatory, as in Genesis 9,18
‫אבי כנען‬. We have commented on these matters in connection with Genesis 10,23.
Radak on Genesis 22:22:1 ‫ואת כשד‬, this man became the founding father of the famous nation known as the Kasdim as we mentioned
on 11,28.
Radak on Genesis 22:23:1 ‫ובתואל ילד את רבקה‬, Laban is not mentioned as the focus of the story is Rivkah. The whole paragraph is
recorded only on account of Rivkah.
Radak on Genesis 22:24:1 ‫ותלד גם היא‬...‫ופלגשו‬, the words ‫ ותלד גם היא‬must be understood as ‫ותלד לו גם היא‬, that his concubine also bore
these children for Nachor. The letter ‫ ו‬at the beginning of the word ‫ ופלגשו‬made it unnecessary to add the
word ‫לו‬, “for him,” after the word ‫ותלד‬.
Radak on Genesis 23:1:1 ‫ ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים‬.The Torah repeats the word “year” or “years” three times, even
though this verse could have been written using the word ‫ שנה‬only once. We encounter a similar “waste” of
the word “year” and “years” in Genesis 6,9 in connection with Noach, as well as in connection with ‫בני ישראל‬,
“the Children of Israel” in Numbers 8,19 where that word occurs no fewer than five times We also find such a
repetitive use of the word “year” when we are told about Avraham’s death in Genesis 25,7. Even when
reporting the death of Ishmael in Genesis 25,17 the word ‫ שנה‬is repeated three times. Some commentators
claim that this is a feature of the Holy Tongue, which endeavours to be clear and unambiguous. When a
large number of years (unit) is mentioned the word ‫שנה‬, “year” appears in the singular mode, whereas when
less than ten years are mentioned the years appear in the plural mode, i.e. ‫שנים‬. There is an aggadic
approach to these seemingly superfluous words, especially in our verse here (mentioned by Rashi) which
sees in the wording an allusion to the fact that Sarah at her death was as pure and beautiful as at 7 or at 20
years respectively. Seeing that the word ‫ שנה‬did not occur at the beginning of the verse, the verse concludes
with the summary ‫שני חיי שרה‬.
Radak on Genesis 23:1:2 ‫שני חיי שרה‬. When reporting the death of Avraham and Ishmael, seeing that the verses commenced with the
words ‫ימי שני‬, these words are not again repeated at the end of the respective verses. It is possible that in all
of these instances the word ‫ שני‬at the end is a hint that the persons concerned lived until the completion of
that particular year.
Radak on Genesis 23:2:1 ‫ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע‬, this is where Avraham and Sarah resided after they had left Beer Sheva.
Radak on Genesis 23:2:2 ‫בקרית ארבע‬, Arba was the name of a man whose was known by this “nickname” as he had three sons, and
they, just as he himself were giants, so that there were four giants. Compare Joshua 21,11. His three sons
were called ‫ תלמי‬,‫חימן‬,‫ששי‬.
Radak on Genesis 23:2:3 ‫ויבא אברהם‬, he came from outside the house as he had not been present when Sarah died.. Alternately, he
had been out of town at the time when Sarah died.
Radak on Genesis 23:2:4 ‫לספד‬, to eulogise her with words and elegies.
Radak on Genesis 23:2:5 ‫ולבכותה‬, and to weep for her. These two verbs are used on occasion without the prepositions ‫ אל‬and ‫ על‬as for
instance in Psalms 69,11 ‫ואבכה בצום נפשי‬, “when I wept and fasted;” the meaning of the prefix ‫ ב‬in front of ‫צום‬
is equivalent to the preposition ‫על‬, “I fasted on account of the threat to my soul.” Compare also Genesis
36,35 ‫ויבך אותו אביו‬, “his father wept for him.”
Radak on Genesis 23:3:1 ‫ויקם אברהם מעל פני מתו‬, in order to attend to the funeral arrangements for the body of Sarah. The reason why
the Torah added the word ‫מתו‬, “his dead,” seeing we all know that Sarah had been his wife, i.e. “his dead,” is
that this is an apt description for the body of the deceased person, such as ‫מתי‬, “my dead,” in verse 4, or
‫מתך‬, “your dead,” in verse 6.
Radak on Genesis 23:3:2 ‫וידבר אל בני חת‬, the ‫ בני חת‬were the inhabitants of the town, whereas ‫ חת‬was a son of Canaan. (compare
10,15). Avraham assembled all of them to one location in order to address them.

Radak on Genesis 23:4:1 ‫גר ותושב‬, I describe myself first and foremost as a stranger, seeing that I have come from another country.
Yet I also describe myself as a resident, seeing that I have lived among you for many years and I intend to
continue to remain among you. This is why I am asking you to give me some place within your country as an
inalienable place to be mine and my son’s after me. At the moment I ask for only enough to bury my dead.
Radak on Genesis 23:4:2 ‫ואקברה מתי מלפני‬, so that I can remove my wife’s body and bury it.
Radak on Genesis 23:5:1 ‫ויענו‬, they agreed by telling him so.
Radak on Genesis 23:6:1 ‫שמענו אדני‬, this was said by their spokesman speaking on behalf of all of them. This is why he addressed
Avraham as adoni in the singular mode, whereas the words following are all in the plural mode.
Radak on Genesis 23:6:2 ‫נשיא אלוהים‬, G’d has given you an elevated position, and we consider your status as such among us.
Radak on Genesis 23:6:3 ‫במבחר קברנו‬, they possessed many caves within which to bury the dead, and each family had such a cave
reserved for interring its dead. Every corpse was buried in an individual coffin, the overall description of such
a place being the word ‫קבר‬, tomb. This is why the spokesman spoke of
Radak on Genesis 23:6:4 ‫איש ממנו את קברו‬, he considered not the individual grave but the family’s burial grounds. They intended that
Avraham should ask one of them to share their family plots with him.
Radak on Genesis 23:6:5 The words ‫ לא יכלה‬in verse 6 mean that no one would withhold his burial plots from Avraham if the latter
chose to use it. We come across this verb in a similar usage in Samuel I 25,33 ‫אשר כליתני היום הזה מבא בדמים‬,
”for preventing me from seeking redress in blood.”
Radak on Genesis 23:7:1 ‫ויקם אברהם וישתחו‬, he rose on his legs and folded them in a manner signifying gratitude for the positive
response he had received from the ‫בני חת‬, informing them next of precisely what it was that he was
requesting.

Radak on Genesis 23:8:1 ‫את נפשכם‬...‫וידבר‬, the word ‫ את נפשכם‬means ‫“ ברצונכם‬your pleasure, your goodwill.” We find the word ‫נפש‬
used also in this sense in Psalms 27,12 ‫אל תתנני בנפש צרי‬, “do not deliver me to the pleasure of my
oppressors.”
Radak on Genesis 23:8:2 ‫ופגעו לי‬, “plead on my behalf.”

Radak on Genesis 23:9:1 ‫ויתן לי את מערת‬, he did not ask anything from Efron other than the cave, not the field in which it was situated.
Radak on Genesis 23:9:2 ‫המכפלה‬, the word is a noun describing a subordinate function. If it were an adjective the word ‫ מערת‬should
have had the prefix ‫ה‬. Our sages disagree concerning the meaning of the word ‫מכפלה‬. Some think that it
describes a cave above another cave, (root ‫כפל‬, double) others claim it means a cave within another cave.
Alternately, the word describes this particular location, i.e. that the whole cave was known as the “cave
machpelah” on account of the dual cave contained in that field; this is also why the field itself was considered
as almost subordinate to the cave in question.
Radak on Genesis 23:9:3 ‫כסף מלא‬, each coin would be of full weight, like a brand new coin which had not lost some of its original
weight through being in circulation. The Torah makes this clear by adding the words ‫עובר לסוחר‬, acceptable
by any merchant.

Radak on Genesis 23:10:1 ‫באזני בני חת‬..‫ועפרון‬, in a loud voice, making sure they could all hear him. In this verse the Torah emphasises
the aural aspect of the negotiations, whereas in verse 18, at the conclusion of the transaction the visible
aspect, ‫ לעיני בני חת‬is stressed, as at that point eye-witnesses were more important. We find such a sequence
of aural perception and visual perception also in Job 29,11 ‫כי אזן שמעה ותאשרני ועין ראתה ותעידני‬, “for the ear
that heard acclaimed me, and the eyes that saw were my witness.”
Radak on Genesis 23:10:2 ‫לכל באי שער עירו‬, including all the people of his city, prominent or plain people.
Radak on Genesis 23:10:3 ‫באי שער‬, people who enter or leave through the gate. In other words, everybody. Sometimes the Torah refers
to ‫באי שער‬, people entering through the gate, other times ‫יןצאי עירו‬, people leaving via the gate. (compare
Genesis 34,24) It all amounts to the same thing. For the sake of brevity the Torah mentions only either ‫ באי‬or
‫יוצאי‬. Sometimes it mentions both, as in Jeremiah 17,19.

Radak on Genesis 23:11:1 ‫לא אדוני שמעני‬, not like you say that you want to pay the full value of the property. Take it for free, as a gift,
and not only the cave, but I am also donating the field to you.
Radak on Genesis 23:11:2 ‫נתתי‬, I have already given it to you as a gift,
Radak on Genesis 23:11:3 ‫לעיני בני עמי‬, in front of the members of my people who are all witnesses to this transaction between me and
you.
Radak on Genesis 23:12:1 ‫וישתחו‬, Avraham bowed to Efron in everybody’s presence.
Radak on Genesis 23:13:1 ‫אך אם אתה לו שמעני‬...‫וידבר‬, I wish you would have listened to what I said that
Radak on Genesis 23:13:2 ‫נתתי כסף השדה‬, I have already prepared the money for the field, if you’ll accept it you will be doing me a
favour,
Radak on Genesis 23:13:3 ‫ואקברה‬, and I will proceed to bury, as the matter does not permit further delay.

Radak on Genesis 23:15:1 ‫ביני ובינך מה היא‬...‫?אדוני‬, what difference does such a paltry sum make, whether you want to pay it or do not
want to pay it, go ahead and bury your dead.
Radak on Genesis 23:16:1 ‫עובר לסוחר‬...‫וישמע‬. Silver coins acceptable by the most discriminating merchants who weighed each coin to
assure themselves that they were not being short-changed.
Radak on Genesis 23:17:1 ‫ויקם‬, it “arose” for Avraham as a purchase, and acquisition. The unusual sounding word ‫ קם‬here also occurs
in this sense in Leviticus 27,19 ‫וקם לו‬, where it describes the legal procedure of redeeming property from the
Temple treasurer by paying a premium. The term is chosen to describe a transaction of a permanent,
enduring nature.
Radak on Genesis 23:17:2 ‫ השדה והמערה‬,‫אשר לפני ממרא‬, both were outside the actual town limits of Kiryat Arba, the present day
Chevron then having been known as Mamre. (compare also verse 19). [The Torah makes certain that all the
names by which this location had ever been known is mentioned so that no one in the future could challenge
this cave as belonging to the Jewish people. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 23:18:1 ‫לעיני בני חת‬. He weighed the money for Efron in the presence of all the assembled people, so that Efron sold
the cave and the field to Avraham also in the presence of all his townspeople. He also handed Avraham a
document confirming the sale.
Radak on Genesis 23:18:2 ‫בכל באי שער עירו‬. While all the people of his town were present. The expressions ‫ לכל‬,‫( בכל‬compare verse 10)
mean basically the same. We find similar formulations in Exodus 27,19 where the two expressions occur in
the same verse, i.e. ‫לכל כלי המשכן בכל עבודתו‬.

Radak on Genesis 23:19:1 Compare .‫ במערת שדה המכפלה‬.i.e ,‫ ב‬means the same as the prefix ‫ אל‬the preposition ,‫אל מערת‬...‫ואחרי כן‬
.‫ בארון‬instead of ‫ ואל הארון תתן את העדות‬Exodus 25,21
Radak on Genesis 23:20:1 ‫מאת בני חת‬...‫ויקם‬, All the townspeople had agreed to the sale of Efron’s fields to Avraham. They were quite
keen for Avraham to own an ancestral plot in their midst.
Radak on Genesis 24:1:1 ‫ואברהם זקן‬, this is either past tense of the verb, or an adjective;
Radak on Genesis 24:1:2 ‫בא בימים‬, the years when man thinks about his departure from this earth and is concerned to make sure that
his son or children are safely married while he is still around.
Radak on Genesis 24:1:3 ‫וה' ברך את אברהם בכל‬, he lacked nothing, and did not need anything in this life except to see his son well
married.

Radak on Genesis 24:2:1 ‫זקן ביתו‬...‫ויאמר‬, the word zekan is a genitive (adjective) of the word zaken just as the word kevod is a genitive
of the word kavod. Its meaning here is that this servant had grown up in Avraham’s household until he
himself had become elderly. Or, its meaning could be that this servant was older (in the sense of senior) to all
Avraham’s other servants.
Radak on Genesis 24:2:2 ‫מושל בכל אשר לו‬, he deserved to be entrusted with this task.
Radak on Genesis 24:2:3 ‫שים נא ידך תחת ירכי‬, it was customary to make a person reinforce the promise that he would carry out an
assignment by his placing his hand within the control of his master. This was a symbolic gesture meaning
that just as his hand was under the control of his master so his personality would be under the control of his
master to carry out his assignment. This was such a firmly established custom that the gesture itself was
equivalent to swearing an oath. We find that in Genesis 47,29 when Yaakov wants an assurance from his
son Joseph that he would not bury him in Egypt but in the land of Canaan, that he requests the same
symbolic gesture from Joseph. There are commentators who understand this verse as Avraham requesting
an oath from Eliezer. If that were correct, the Torah should have used the familiar formula of ‫ואשביעך בה' אלוקי‬
‫השמים‬, “I want you to swear in the name of the Lord of the Heavens to carry out this specific task.” [we must
understand the author to mean that the oath and the symbol should have been part of the same verse if
indeed placing his hand within the control of his master had been part of the oath. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 24:3:1 ‫ואלוקי הארץ‬..‫ואשביעך‬, meaning that the same G’d Who is ruler in the heavens also exercises His control down
here on earth. Do not think that if you do not honour an oath made to the G’d in heaven that failure to honour
it would not have negative consequences for you here on earth. When Avraham speaks of his own self, as
opposed to the need to make someone else take an oath, he only needs to refer to the “G’d of the heavens”
(compare verse 7) Avraham was well aware of G’d being also the G’d on earth. In Bereshit Rabbah 59,8
Rabbi Pinchas is quoted as saying that until He revealed Himself to His creatures G’d was known only as the
“G’d of the heavens,” whereas after He revealed Himself to His creatures [or to an individual creature by
performing a miracle for such a person Ed.] He also became known as the ”G’d of the earth.”
Radak on Genesis 24:3:2 ‫מבנות הכנעני‬, for the entire Canaanite tribe is cursed since the days of Noach, and Avraham’s seed is not to
be merged with that of a cursed tribe.
Radak on Genesis 24:3:3 ‫יושב בקרבו‬, compare the verses 36 in our chapter as well as Genesis 48,16 where one or the other of these
words is used to describe the environment in which our patriarchs lived.
Radak on Genesis 24:4:1 .he referred to Aram Naharyim ,‫כי אם אל ארצי‬
Radak on Genesis 24:4:2 ‫ואל מולדתי‬, the town in which I was born, i.e. Ur Kasdim. Avraham meant to say that there Eliezer would find
his family; he hinted at Rivkah, seeing that he had been informed of her birth. According to Rabbi Yitzchok in
Bereshit Rabbah 59,8 the words “to my land” reflect a well known proverb according to which people prefer
to plant seed originating in their own backyard even though the strain is known to be inferior to those
available elsewhere.

Radak on Genesis 24:5:1 ?‫ההשב אשיב‬...‫ויאמר‬, supposing that by the time I return from my mission you will no longer be alive, tell me if I
should bring your son back there in the event that the girl I select refuses to move here? Even though
Yitzchok was not present during this discussion, Eliezer calls his potential migration to Aram Naharayim a
‫השבה‬, “return,” as he refers to Avraham who had left that region, not to Yitzchok who had never been there in
the first place.
Radak on Genesis 24:6:1 ‫השמר לך‬...‫ויאמר‬, for Avraham did not want the claim on the land of Israel which G’d had promised him and
which had been established through his physical presence in that land, to become subject to doubt through
an even temporary migration of Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 24:6:2 ‫פן תשיב‬, so that you do not bring back. We find a similar formulation in Genesis 3,3 ‫פן תמותון‬, “so that you will
not die,” and in Genesis 31,24 ‫פן תדבר עם יעקב‬, “so that you will not speak with Yaakov, etc.”

Radak on Genesis 24:7:1 ‫אשר לקחני‬, since He took me out from there to give this land to my offspring, He would surely not want me to
bring my son back there.
Radak on Genesis 24:7:2 ‫הוא ישלח מלאכו‬, to ensure the success of your errand to take a wife for my son from there.
Radak on Genesis 24:7:3 ‫ואשר דבר לי‬, both before I left that country and afterwards.
Radak on Genesis 24:7:4 ‫ואשר נשבע לי‬, at the time when I had bound Yitzchok.

Radak on Genesis 24:8:1 ‫ואם לא‬, the meaning is clear.

Radak on Genesis 24:9:1 ‫וישם‬, the meaning is clear. (verse 2)
Radak on Genesis 24:10:1 ‫וכל טוב‬...‫ויקח‬, not literally “all the good,” but most of the good things. The exaggeration here is similar to when
the Torah describes ‫כל הארץ‬, “the whole earth” as going to Egypt to buy grain. (Genesis 41,57) What is
meant is: “most people from all over.” There are many such “exaggerations.” What the Torah meant was that
Eliezer took with him samples of most of the precious possessions in Avraham’s household in order to show
the family of the potential bride that she would be marrying into a wealthy family. Our sages (quoted by
Rashi) explain the term ‫ וכל טוב‬as referring to a document in which Avraham had appointed Yitzchok as his
sole heir. Eliezer brought this document with him, i.e. ‫בידו‬, “in his hand.”
Radak on Genesis 24:10:2 ‫אל ארם נהרים‬, so called because it was the confluence of two rivers.
Radak on Genesis 24:10:3 ‫עיר נחור‬, this refers to Ur Kasdim where Nachor had remained behind after his father Terach had moved to
Charan together with his other son Avraham.

Radak on Genesis 24:11:1 ‫ויברך הגמלים‬, he made them go down on their knees in order that the jugs of water could be presented to
them for them to drink. While all this was happening he prayed to G’d to arrange for the right kind of girl to
put in an appearance.
Radak on Genesis 24:11:2 .near the well ,‫אל באר המים‬

Radak on Genesis 24:12:1 ‫הקרה נא לפני‬...‫ויאמר‬, “arrange for me,” as had been predicted by Avraham. This is what he meant when he
added ‫ועשית חסד עם אדני אברהם‬, “perform an act of loving kindness for my master Avraham.”
Radak on Genesis 24:14:1 ‫והיה הנערה‬, seeing that the subject matter had already been introduced, the definitive article ‫ ה‬is in place, as
opposed to Deuteronomy 22,23 ‫כי יהיה נערה‬, where the subject had not been referred to previously.
Radak on Genesis 24:14:2 ‫אשר אמר אליה‬, by this qualification Eliezer freed himself from the obligation to address a blind or lame girl.
However, he still did not free himself from the obligation of speaking to a slave-girl. or someone born from an
incestuous relationship, etc., seeing that such girls have no exterior marks by which one can immediately
identify their status. Seeing that this was so, he prayed that G’d would do a kindness to his master and
arrange that the girl whom he would approach to offer water would be a girl suitable as a potential wife for
Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 24:14:3 ‫אותה הוכחת‬, after passing this test, I will know that she is the one which You, G’d, have selected for Yitzchok,
and I will take her as a wife for him.
Radak on Genesis 24:14:4 ‫ובה אדע‬, if she will be good, and the daughter of good people I will know that You have indeed performed a
kindness for my master.

Radak on Genesis 24:15:1 ‫ויהי הוא‬, and here indeed he was gratified that the first girl whom he addressed met all the qualifications he
had stipulated. Not only was she a member of Avraham’s family, but she was also physically attractive,
revealed a number of character virtues immediately on acquaintance, and she was a virgin.
Radak on Genesis 24:15:2 ‫טרם כלה לדבר‬, while he was still formulating his prayer, G’d was already setting in motion the answer to his
prayer as soon or even before he had articulated all of it. (compare Isaiah 65,24).

Radak on Genesis 24:16:1 ‫ואיש לא ידעה‬...‫והנערה‬, not even in an unconventional sexual embrace. [these words were added as additional
to the statement that she was a virgin. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 24:16:2 ‫ותמלא כדה‬, which she had drawn from the well, and which was filled with water. Seeing that the water from
this well was only marginally below the surface of the earth the” well” is referred to as ‫עין‬, “fountain,” although
one did have to go down some steps to get at the water. Some scholars derive from allusions in the text that
the water actually rose toward Rivkah, seeing that the text speaks only of ‫ותמלא כדה‬, “she filled her jug,”
instead of saying “she went down and drew water and filled her jug.” A similar formulation, without using the
word “she drew water,” is used in 21,19 where Hagar was filling the hose with the newly discovered well.
[one would have to say that when giving water to camels Rivkah did not enjoy this heavenly assist as in
verse 20 she did have to “draw water.” Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 24:17:1 ‫וירץ‬, seeing that he saw her beauty, plus the fact that his request seemed to have been answered so
promptly, he ran towards her, relying on the fact that he had enjoyed a heavenly assist.
Radak on Genesis 24:17:2 ‫הגמיאני נא‬, the word has a similar meaning to ‫השקיני‬, “give me to drink!”

Radak on Genesis 24:18:1 ‫ותאמר שתה אדוני‬, the Torah records this detail in order to tell us of Rivkah’s good manners; although she did
not know of the stranger’s social status she addressed him as “my lord.” She was very prompt and actually
let him drink directly from her hand.
Radak on Genesis 24:19:1 ‫עד אם כלו לשתות‬...‫ותכל‬, she meant that she would continue drawing water for the camels until she could
ascertain that they would stop drinking. Alternately, the word ‫ אם‬is a substitute for the word ‫אשר‬.
Radak on Genesis 24:20:1 ‫ותמהר ותער כדה‬, she poured the water in the jug into a trough from which the beasts were in the habit of
drinking.
Radak on Genesis 24:21:1 ‫והאיש משתאה לה‬, he was amazed at her, i.e. at the speed with which she went about her work. However, he
still kept silent, not wanting to ask her who she was until she would have completed providing the camels
with water.
Radak on Genesis 24:21:2 ‫ההצליח‬, if she were also a member of a good family, and one related to Avraham.

Radak on Genesis 24:22:1 ‫ויקח‬...‫ויהי‬, “he took out the jewelry planning to give it to her after he had asked her the relevant questions.
This is also how he describes the sequence of what occurred at the well when he relates the nature of his
mission in Betuel’s home before eating the first course of the meal served (verse 46)
Radak on Genesis 24:22:2 ‫בקע‬, a half shekel. He placed it on her nose as mentioned in verse 46. Similarly, in sequence, he placed the
other pieces of jewelry on her hands, bracelets
Radak on Genesis 24:22:3 weighing ten pieces of gold (ten ‫ סלעים‬in weight according to Onkelos).
Radak on Genesis 24:23:1 ‫ויאמר‬, he now asked about her family, and whether in the home of such a family there was room to
accommodate him and his entourage.
Radak on Genesis 24:23:2 ?‫היש בית אביך מקום ללין‬, The meaning of the word ‫ ללין‬is a verbal mode meaning the same as ‫להלין‬, “to provide
lodging.” The letter ‫ י‬indicates the transitive conjugation hiphil. The word ‫ ללון‬by comparison which is in the
simple conjugation (intransitive) kal, describes what the person enjoying the lodging does, i.e. spend the
night. Both the enquiry and the response are the same, i.e. Rivkah answered the question asked, she did not
answer obliquely, seeing that she used the verb “to lodge” in a different conjugation. After all, Eliezer had
asked her both about lodging for the camels and lodging for himself and his men. It is possible to understand
the exchange between Eliezer and Rivkah as meaning: “is there room in your father’s house to provide
lodging,” a reference to the camels only, whereas Rivkah responds “not only is there room for the camels but
there is also room for the men.” The author quotes Job 24,7 to show that the verb ‫ לון‬when used in the
transitive mode ‫ערום ילינו מבלי לבוש‬, “they will have to spend the night without clothing” also means the same
as the intransitive conjugation ‫ילונו‬.
Radak on Genesis 24:24:1 ‫ ותאמר‬, she answered him on his first question; seeing that Milkah and Betuel were well known she told him
all this.
Radak on Genesis 24:25:1 ‫ותאמר‬, she answered his second question, volunteering more information than Eliezer had requested. She
wanted to portray the generous nature of her family by mentioning that they would also provide straw and
fodder. She volunteered all this before Eliezer had given her anything. (until after she had answered his
questions.)
Radak on Genesis 24:25:2 ‫ומספוא‬, a general term describing any fodder other than straw. It is some kind of barley and oats.
Radak on Genesis 24:25:3 ‫גם גם‬, the reason why Rivkah used the word ‫גם‬, “also,” twice is that it was a customary way of speaking, just
as we are in the habit of repeating the word ‫אנחנו‬. An example of this repetition elsewhere is found in 43,8 ‫גם‬
‫ גם טפינו‬,‫ אם אתה‬,‫אנחנו‬. Each word ‫ גם‬is intended to reinforce the one mentioned previously.
Radak on Genesis 24:26:1 ‫ויקוד‬, a bow somewhat more perfunctory than the one known as ‫השתחויה‬. According to our sages the former
means touching one’s face to the ground, whereas the latter involves prostrating one’s body and stretching
out with the arms and legs. At any rate, the procedure was to symbolise his gratitude to G’d for having heard
his prayer.

Radak on Genesis 24:27:1 ‫חסדו ואמתו‬, if someone constantly endeavours to do what is good and pleasing in the eyes of the Lord, and
he succeeds in his personal endeavours, this is no more than just, he deserves to do so. We describe this as
G’d’s ‫אמת‬, “truth.”
Radak on Genesis 24:27:2 ‫ חסד‬on the other hand, is the recognition that G’d has granted one loving kindness over and beyond what
one could have expected based on one’s general conduct. In this instance G’d’s ‫ חסד‬was that not only did He
make Eliezer meet a girl who was suitable for marriage to Yitzchok on the basis of her personal virtues, but
beyond that she was also qualified through being a member of Avraham’s family. Eliezer attributed these
favourable developments to the merits of his master, not to his own.
Radak on Genesis 24:27:3 ‫אנכי בדרך‬, and I had no idea where to spend the night and G’d guided me to ‫בית אחי אדוני‬, for Nachor was
Avraham’s brother and Milkah was his brother’s daughter. This is why he used the plural formulation saying:
achey adoni instead of the singular mode as he did when he recounted these events in verse 48 when he
said bat achi adoni. Both formulations were accurate with a slight shift of emphasis. The author quotes
Genesis 46,21 echi varosh (names of Binyamin’s sons) as a tool to help one remember these two
constructions of the words achi and achey. After Eliezer had thanked the Lord for making his mission
successful, he produced the jewelry and gave them to Rivkah.
Radak on Genesis 24:28:1 ‫ותרץ‬, she ran home full of joy and told what happened in her mother’s house. She did not tell anything in her
father’s house for a daughter shares her experiences with her mother and not with her father.
Radak on Genesis 24:28:2 ‫כדברים האלה‬, the general outline of what had transpired without going into each detail.

Radak on Genesis 24:29:1 ‫ולרבקה אח‬, it is mentioned here seeing that in the report of Nachor’s family he has not been mentioned.
Radak on Genesis 24:30:1 ‫ויהי כראות‬, this is reported in order to inform us that Lavan was envious of anyone getting something he did
not have, even including his sister. He was the opposite of his sister who had displayed such generous traits.
Lavan ran in order to bring these precious items into his own house.
Radak on Genesis 24:30:2 ‫וכשמעו‬, when he heard that the stranger had spoken to his sister concerning selecting a wife for the son of his
master. This is what is meant by
Radak on Genesis 24:30:3 ‫ עמד על הגמלים‬.‫כה דבר אלי האיש‬. The words ‫ על הגמלים‬mean the same as ‫עם הגמלים‬, next to the camels. We
have a parallel construction in Exodus 35,22 ‫ויבאו האנשים על הנשים‬, “the men came in addition to the women.”
The meaning here is that Eliezer was seen by Lavan as standing as if waiting for Rivkah to return
accompanied by a senior member of the family to invite him and escort him to their home.

Radak on Genesis 24:31:1 ‫ויאמר בא ברוך ה‬, he meant that he could see that G’d had blessed Eliezer with wealth and therefore
Radak on Genesis 24:31:2 ‫פניתי הבית‬, for you and your men, ‫מקום לגמלים‬, and I have also cleared space to accommodate the camels.
Radak on Genesis 24:32:1 ‫ויפתח‬....‫ויבא‬, Laban released the various straps, etc., of Eliezer’s camels, something that is done when beasts
of burden arrive at their destination. According to an aggadic interpretation quoted by Rashi the expression
‫ ויפתח‬applies to the muzzles which Eliezer had placed around the camels’ mouths to prevent them from
eating grass or stalks belonging to private individuals along the route they had been traveling. According to
our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 60,8) on
Radak on Genesis 24:32:2 ‫ויתן תבן ומספוא‬, Rabbi Acha concludes that mundane conversation of men such as Avraham’s servant Eliezer
is esteemed more highly by G’d (the Torah) than the learned discussion of Torah by the children of the
patriarchs; he derives this from the inordinate amount of detail provided by the Torah to the minutiae of the
story of Eliezer at the well. On the other hand, basic legislation in the Torah concerning ritual impurity is often
only hinted at by a letter here or an extra word elsewhere in the text. The same scholar continues: the
washing of the feet of the servants of our patriarchs ranks as more worth reporting than details of the
impurities of certain creepers and if the blood of such creepers confers ritual impurity similar to their bodies.
This goes so far that the greatest scholars were not able to resolve their understanding of these rules by
reference to what is actually written in the text of the Torah.

Radak on Genesis 24:33:1 ‫ויושם‬, the word is spelled ‫ויישם‬, “he placed,” although it is read as vayussam, “it was placed.” We find a
similar anomaly in Genesis 50,26 when placing Joseph’s remains in a coffin is reported. The root of the verb
is ‫ישם‬.
Radak on Genesis 24:33:2 ‫ויאמר דבר‬, either Lavan or Betuel is the subject

Radak on Genesis 24:34:1 ‫ויאמר עבד אברהם אנכי‬, our sages (Baba Kama 92) consider this as an example of a popular proverb that one
should mention any personal deficiency before commencing to carry out whatever mission has been
assigned to him. [according to this interpretation Eliezer, instead of considering it a privilege to be the servant
of a man like Avraham, considered it a stigma that he was a slave. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 24:35:1 ‫וה' ברך את אדוני‬, to such an extent that I, his slave, am received with such honour.
Radak on Genesis 24:36:1 ‫ותלד‬, even though he had a son from another woman. Seeing that he loved Sarah so much, and she was
such an intimate soul-mate of his, and seeing that he loved Yitzchok the son of his old age,
Radak on Genesis 24:36:2 ‫ונתן לו את כל אשר לו‬, so that Yitzchok is wealthy and greatly honoured in his own right.

Radak on Genesis 24:37:1 ‫וישביעני‬, if you were to ask that if all this is true, why is that I come all this way to find a wife for this man, the
reason is that my master made me swear to find a suitable wife for his son from among members of his own
family.
Radak on Genesis 24:39:1 ‫ אלי‬...‫ואמר‬, the word veulai is spelled with the letter ‫ ו‬missing, something which gave rise to an interesting
aggadic interpretation mentioned already by Rashi. Accordingly, Eliezer himself had hoped to have his
daughter marry Yitzchok in the event that the woman he found in Aram Naharyim would be unwilling to
relocate in the land of Canaan. This is why he had referred to this possibility with the words ‫ לא תלך האשה‬,‫אלי‬
‫אחרי‬, “to me (if) the woman will not follow me (to the land of Canaan).” The truth is that Eliezer related all the
events exactly as they had occurred. We are not able to provide conclusive reasons why the Torah
sometimes chose to write certain words defectively, (with a letter missing) or by adding a letter which could
have been omitted. There are too many such instances for us to find satisfactory explanations for all of them.
Eliezer related the events that had occurred to him in his conversation with his master as well as how G’d
had arranged things after he had set out on his mission. His sole purpose was to demonstrate from the
course of events that G’d loved Avraham so much that He had made his mission so spectacularly successful
up to this point. G’d had responded even to his own prayer in exactly the manner in which he had hoped he
would. As a result, the very idea of denying his request would appear out of the question, seeing that it was
so clear that the entire sequence of events must have been engineered by G’d, personally. If we find some
different nuances here and there in the events as reported by the Torah and as related by Eliezer, this is
meaningless, just as different nuances in the wording of the Ten Commandments in the Book of Exodus and
the Book of Deuteronomy are not meant to raise concerns as to their authenticity of either version.
Everything until the word ‫ ועתה‬in verse 49 is quite clear.

Radak on Genesis 24:49:1 ‫חסד ואמת‬...‫ועתה‬, emet is the honour and respect that you owe members of your family. You owe even more
respect to Araham the most illustrious member of your family. If he requested the hand of your daughter in
marriage for his son, you are duty-bound to honour his wish. If you agree to this even though it entails her
leaving her homeland and moving far away, this may be considered an act of loving kindness, ‫חסד‬, on your
part.
Radak on Genesis 24:49:2 ‫ואפנה על ימין או על שמאל‬, either more prominent and important members of his family than you, or less
prominent family members than you. At any rate, I will take a wife for Avraham’s son for Yitzchok from this
country since he does not want a daughter-in-law who grew up in the land of the Canaanites.

Radak on Genesis 24:50:1 ‫ויען לבן ובתואל‬, Lavan spoke before his father seeing that Betuel was an old man and the affairs of the family
were already being conducted by his son Lavan.
Radak on Genesis 24:50:2 ‫מה' יצא הדבר‬, seeing that matters occurred in the way you have told us, we have no say in the matter. If we
were to deny your request the result for us would be ‫רע‬, bad. If we agree without protest it will turn out to be
of benefit to us, seeing it is all in the hands of G’d Who has made your mission so successful thus far.

Radak on Genesis 24:51:1 ‫ כאשר דבר‬..‫הנה‬, for He has arranged everything in accordance with your request.
Radak on Genesis 24:52:1 ‫וישתחו ארצה‬..‫ויהי‬, prostrating himself on the ground with arms and feet extended.
Radak on Genesis 24:53:1 ‫ויוצא‬, seeing that Rivkah had been given to him, he produced more silver, gold, and clothing.
Radak on Genesis 24:53:2 ‫ומגדנות‬, this word includes anything of value, including exotic fruit and fancy garments. The word appears
also in Chronicles II 32,23 in a similar sense.
Radak on Genesis 24:53:3 ‫לאחיה ולאמה‬, for they were the mainstay of the household, Betuel being old and frail. According to an aggadic
interpretation (Bereshit Rabbah 60,12) based on Lavan speaking instead of his father, he had died suddenly
as he intended to raise obstacles to the marriage.

Radak on Genesis 24:54:1 ‫ויאכלו‬, this has been explained, i.e. now that Eliezer had explained his mission he felt free to eat the meal
which had been placed before him.
Radak on Genesis 24:55:1 ‫ ויאמר אחיה ואמה‬, when there are both major and minor characters in a story, the Torah attributes what is
happening primarily to the major character. Although Rivkah’s mother was senior to Lavan, he, in his
capacity as the manager of this household was mentioned first. We find something similar in Numbers 12,1
where Miriam, who was junior to Aaron is mentioned first since she did the talking and Aaron only listened.
This is also why Esther is mentioned first in Esther 9,29, although the position as prime minister occupied by
Mordechai was senior to that of the queen. The initiative of what is reported in the verse was Esther’s, hence
her name is mentioned first.
Radak on Genesis 24:55:2 ‫ימים או עשור‬. a year or at least 10 months. The word ‫ ימים‬meaning “a year” also occurs in Leviticus 25,29. Our
sages arrived at the conclusion that this verse is the source for giving a bride a period of 12 months during
which she may provide for herself economically before moving in with her husband.
Radak on Genesis 24:55:3 ‫ועשור‬, a general, as opposed to a specific adjective, including any number. This does not apply to such
verses where the number is an ordinal number such as ‫“ בעשור לחודש‬on the tenth of the month” in Leviticus
23,27 and other places in the Torah. In those verses the word ‫ עשור‬is an adjective describing the tenth day of
the month.

Radak on Genesis 24:56:1 ‫ויאמר אליהם‬, seeing that it is clear that G’d has made my mission successful, do not cause me any delay of
even a single day.
Radak on Genesis 24:56:2 ‫אל תאחרו אותי‬, By delaying her departure you would be delaying my return home.
Radak on Genesis 24:56:3 ‫שלחוני‬, let me depart with the girl,
Radak on Genesis 24:56:4 ‫ואלכה לאדוני‬, and I will go to my master as he has commanded me in order to bring him a wife for his son.
How could I possibly return empty-handed?

Radak on Genesis 24:57:1 ‫ויאמרו נקרא לנערה‬, they suggested to ask Rivkah in Eliezer’s presence, for if they would speak to her only
privately Eliezer might interpret a negative response by Rivkah as being the result of family pressure on her
to remain for a while.
Radak on Genesis 24:57:2 ‫ונשאלה את פיה‬, they would ask her if she wanted to go with Eliezer at this time. From verse 51 it is clear that
basically it had been settled that Rivkah would marry Yitzchok, and the family would not have said “here
Rivkah is before you take her and go,” unless they had first secured Rivkah’s willingness to marry Yitzchok. It
is forbidden to force marriage on anyone. According to Kidushin 41, a father may not make use of the right to
marry off his daughter, the minor, unless she is old enough to understand the implication of giving her own
consent, by saying: “I want to marry so and so.”
Radak on Genesis 24:57:3 ‫את פיה‬, a reference to her wishes just as in Joshua 9,14 ‫ואת פי ה' לא שאלו‬, “they had not asked G’d about His
wishes in the matter.”

Radak on Genesis 24:59:1 ‫וישלחו‬, Lavan and his family, this is the meaning of the word ‫אחותם‬, which, if taken literally would mean “their
sister.”
Radak on Genesis 24:59:2 ‫ואת מינקתה‬, the Torah does not mention the other attendants sent with Rivkah, seeing that the ‫מינקת‬,
nursemaid, is the highest ranking of them all. Eliezer and his men were worth mentioning in their own right as
part of the entourage, although regarding who was riding, the women were mentioned. In that context the
nursemaid is not accorded any special recognition, seeing that she too was subservient to Rivkah.

Radak on Genesis 24:60:1 ‫ויברכו‬, when they came to the end of the distance they accompanied her away from Aram Naharayim and
wanted to take final leave they blessed her as was customary.
Radak on Genesis 24:60:2 ‫היי‬, the letter ‫ ה‬has both the vowel patach and the semi-vowel sheva.
Radak on Genesis 24:60:3 ‫לאלפי רבבה‬, thousands which in due course would increase to become tens of thousands. Seeing that the
largest individual number in the Holy Tongue is ‫רבבה‬, i.e. 10,000, and they did not know a word for “million,”
they had to express it in those terms.
Radak on Genesis 24:60:4 ‫וירש זרעך‬, it so happened that the wording of their blessing coincided with the wording used by the angel at
the time of the binding of Yitzchok (22,17)
Radak on Genesis 24:60:5 ‫את שער שונאיו‬, we already explained this term in Genesis 22,16.

Radak on Genesis 24:61:1 ‫ותקם‬, after they had departed from accompanying her on foot, Rivkah mounted the camel and rode. It is not
good manners for the departing person to ride while those accompanying her are walking on foot. This part of
the story teaches us this basic point of good manners, something that Rivkah was aware of.
Radak on Genesis 24:61:2 ‫אחרי האיש‬, for he knew the way so that he had to be in the lead and Rivkah and her entourage behind him.
Radak on Genesis 24:61:3 ‫ויקח העבד את רבקה‬, he took her to be by his side so that she would not be apart from him, a sign of his high
regard for her.

Radak on Genesis 24:62:1 ‫ויצחק‬, now the Torah tells us that Yitzchok encountered them as if by coincidence. The fact is, of course, that
G’d arranges matters for the benefit of those whom He loves without their even being aware of it at the time.
Radak on Genesis 24:62:2 ‫בא מבוא‬, Yitzchok “happened” to come from that direction on that very day.
Radak on Genesis 24:62:3 ‫באר לחי רואי‬, he did not reside there, for he resided in Chevron with his father. This is the part known as ‫ארץ‬
‫הנגב‬, the southern part of the land. Yitzchok had either some herds or some other business which required
him to travel to this place known as ‫באר לחי רואי‬, from time to time. On the day that Eliezer was about to
return to Chevron, he too was on the way there. The meaning of the word ‫ מבוא‬is “a place which one travels
to from time to time.” Upon leaving ‫ באר לחי רואי‬on the way to Chevron, he would spend the night in one of
the inns on the way from there to Chevron.

Radak on Genesis 24:63:1 ‫ויצא יצחק‬, he left the town where he had spent the night. He went without knowing it, on the same route that
Rivkah his wife to be was traveling on the way to meet him. He had gone out
Radak on Genesis 24:63:2 ‫לשוח בשדה‬, to walk among the bushes,
Radak on Genesis 24:63:3 ‫לפנות ערב‬, at the time when the sun turns down towards the horizon. This is the time of day when many
people go for a walk among the shrubs and bushes. While he was thus walking, he raised his eyes looking
further along the route he was walking on and he saw ‫גמלים באים‬, and he veered off his path to walk toward
them to check if this was Avraham’s servant Eliezer who was walking at the head. This is what Rivkah meant
when she referred to the man who was walking ‫לקראתנו‬, (verse 65). ‫ותשא‬, she thought that possibly the man
approaching might be Yitzchok; this is why she asked the servant, to find out if her assumption was correct.

Radak on Genesis 24:64:1 ‫ותפול מעל הגמל‬, when she saw him and Eliezer told her that this was Yitzchok, she lowered herself from the
camel, fell on the ground, covered her face with her veil and remounted and rode on. This story teaches us
that when a woman has achieved the status of being betrothed it befits her to cover her face until such time
as she is a properly married woman.
Radak on Genesis 24:65:1 ‫ותאמר‬, she had asked Eliezer who the man was before she alighted from the camel. She did so only after
having been informed that the man was her husband to be, Yitzchok. She had not enquired about every
person that they met on the journey, but in the case of Yitzchok, the fact that he approached sideways had
made her wonder if, by chance, this was Yitzchok or someone from his household. This is why she added the
words: ‫ההולך בשדה לקראתנו‬, she had observed that this man was busy in the field and only after he had seen
them did he come walking in their direction.

Radak on Genesis 24:66:1 ‫ויספר‬, Eliezer told Yitzchok all that happened to him since he had commenced his mission. He did so during
the time it took to reach Avraham’s house after Yitzchok had met them. It is possible that they arrived in
Chevron on that same day, or the day following.
Radak on Genesis 24:67:1 ‫ויביאה‬, when they arrived in Chevron he brought her to the tent of his mother Sarah. It was customary in
those times for the man and his wife to have totally separate living quarters. When they would sleep together
the man would go to his wife’s tent, as for instance when Leah said to Yaakov ‫אלי תבא‬, “come to me,” i.e.
“come to my tent” (Genesis 30,16) We also find that when Lavan searched for his teraphim that he is
reported as conducting separate searches in Yaakov’s, tent as well as in Rachel’s tent and in Leah’s tent.
(Genesis 31,33).
Radak on Genesis 24:67:2 .‫ הארון הברית‬or in Joshua 3,14 ,‫ הארץ כנען‬a construction similar to Numbers 34,2 ,‫האהלה שרה‬
Radak on Genesis 24:67:3 ‫ויקח את רבקה‬, he took her to complete the marriage ceremonies as people do, i.e. they get married under a
wedding canopy, a ceremony followed by a banquet.
Radak on Genesis 24:67:4 ‫ותהי לו לאשה ויאהבה‬, he discovered her many virtuous qualities including her chastity, qualities he had
admired in his mother Sarah. Seeing that most husbands love their wives, the statement “he loved her,” here,
must have an additional significance. The Torah writes this to tell us that Yitzchok loved the outstanding
qualities of Rivkah. This is why the statement is followed by the line
Radak on Genesis 24:67:5 ‫וינחם יצחק אחרי אמו‬, after having mourned his mother for a suitable period. He was still mourning his mother
after 3 years had elapsed since her death. Now that he recognised his mother’s qualities personified in his
wife he was able to console himself over his mother’s death.

Radak on Genesis 25:1:1 ‫ויסף אברהם‬, he took another wife although he already had had two wives. He meant to continue siring
children in his old age in order to comply with the blessing/command to increase the world’s population.
Seeing that the continuity of his own seed [the Jewish people having originated in seed from both a Jewish
father and a Jewish other, Ed.] had been assured, he was not concerned with the antecedents of Keturah.
We can be certain, however, that he selected a woman who personally possessed all the good qualities he
would have desired also for a wife for his son. The only thing he did not insist on was such a woman’s
national background. He was certainly not looking for experiencing disappointments with any children from
Keturah, having experienced enough disappointment with Ishmael. We may safely assume that Keturah was
not of Canaanitic descent, seeing that even Hagar the Egyptian had not been of such descent. (compare
17,3) Keturah was not a concubine, This is why the Torah writes ‫ויקח אשה‬, as apposed to the mention of
‫פלגשים‬, concubines, (verse 5). The sons of the concubines are not mentioned by name whereas the sons of
Keturah are all mentioned by their names. This fact alone clearly shows that their status was superior to the
sons of Avraham’s concubines. The essential difference between a wife and a concubine is that though both
are exclusive partners of the men with whom they live, the former, when becoming wives, underwent the
ceremony known as chuppah, and the union was celebrated with a wedding party, whereas a concubine was
not accorded all this pomp and ceremony. [after the Torah was given, the essential; difference in status was
that no financial settlement, ketuvah, was made when a concubine was taken by a man as his companion.
Radak on Genesis 25:3:1 ‫ויקשן‬, The Torah mentions only some of the children of Keturah’s sons. In the case of Yokshon even a
grandson of Keturah is mentioned. Altogether the Torah mentions by name 16 such sons and grandsons. We
are hard-pressed to know the reason for the Torah’s selectivity in mentioning only part of the many
grandsons, etc. Perhaps those whom Avraham or at least Keturah still knew before they died, are mentioned
by name, whereas those who were born by his/her sons after he had died were not mentioned. Considering
that Avraham had married Keturah when he was 140 years old or older, he lived for only another 35 years, it
would have been unlikely that he saw grandchildren from Keturah, considering that we have no record of
anyone marrying below the age of 29 in those days.
Radak on Genesis 25:3:2 ‫אשורים ולטושים ולאמים‬, we do not know why the names of these three sons appear with the plural ending ‫ ים‬at
the end. Possibly, these sons knew why they had been named thus. It is interesting that ‫מצרים‬, a son of
Cham, also gave his sons names ending with the ‫ ים‬plural ending. According to Onkelos, the names
mentioned here were not their real names, as he translates their names as ‫ ולנגון‬,‫ ולשכונין‬,‫למשריין‬.

Radak on Genesis 25:4:1 ‫ויתן‬, he distributed his wealth during his lifetime in order to forestall quarrels about his inheritance after his
death. ‫כל אשר לו ליצחק‬, he had appointed Yitzchok as his heir as he had been commanded to do by G’d when
Ishmael had been expelled. (21,12) Anything the other sons received was in the nature of “gifts,” not
“inheritance.”
Radak on Genesis 25:6:1 ‫ ולבני הפילגשים‬he had no concubines from whom he had fathered children, but the concubines in his
household were concubines of male servants in his household. Their children were, of course, members of
Avraham’s household who had been of service to Avraham and who had adopted his lifestyle. He gave them
gifts consisting of silver and gold and livestock according to his own evaluation of who deserved how much.
He most certainly gave even more valuable gifts to Ishmael and to the sons of Keturah even though the
Torah does not specifically mentions this. If he gave gifts to people towards whom he had no legal obligation
at all, it is obvious that people towards whom he did have such an obligation would receive their due.
Radak on Genesis 25:6:2 ‫מעל יצחק בנו‬, in order that they should not interfere with him after his death and could not quarrel with him
about the inheritance.
Radak on Genesis 25:6:3 ‫קדמה אל ארץ קדם‬, he sent them off in an easterly direction. According to another interpretation, the words
refer to a specific country among the countries of the East. It could well refer to Charan or Ur Casdim or both,
regions which were generally loosely known as ‫ארץ קדם‬, [just as we speak about the regions of the Middle
East, or the Far East in our time. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 25:7:1 ‫חי‬...‫ואלה‬, a verbal construction in the past tense. The root of the verb is either ‫ חיי‬or ‫חיה‬.
Radak on Genesis 25:8:1 ‫ויגוע וימות‬, whenever the Torah speaks of ‫ גויעה‬this refers to an easy, painless kind of death not preceded by
lengthy illness.
Radak on Genesis 25:8:2 ‫בשיבה טובה‬, having seen children and grandchildren and having been treated with respect and dignity all his
life. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, it means that he lived to see his son Ishmael return to the fold
as a baal teshuvah.
Radak on Genesis 25:8:3 ‫זקן ושבע‬, satisfied with the number of his years he had been granted to live on earth.
Radak on Genesis 25:8:4 ‫ויאסף אל עמיו‬, to join the members of his family who had preceded him in death. The Torah applies this
expression to one’s family regardless of whether they were righteous people or sinners.

Radak on Genesis 25:9:1 ‫ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו‬, seeing they were more honoured than his other sons and had been more
beloved by him. This is why they took upon them themselves the procedures connected with their father’s
burial even though the sons of Keturah were also in this region. Alternately, Avraham had already sent those
sons away during his lifetime so that only Yitzchok and Ishmael remained in the region.
Radak on Genesis 25:9:2 ‫אל מרת המכפלה אל שדה וגו‬, the expression ‫ אל מערת‬is equivalent to the word ‫“ במערת‬in the cave of.” We find a
similar expression in Exodus 25,21 concerning the Holy Ark. There are many more examples of this
formulation.
Radak on Genesis 25:9:3 ‫על פני ממרא‬, we have explained this term already on 23,17.
Radak on Genesis 25:10:1 ‫השדה‬, every time the burial in this cave is mentioned in the Torah the fact that Avraham had purchased the
cave and the field is mentioned also. It is to pay tribute to the love for G’d by Avraham, who in spite of G’d’s
promises of owning the entire land, had been unable to bury even his own wife in that land until had had
purchased a burial plot for her. Avraham never for a moment queried G’d about this problem he had been
forced to cope with.
Radak on Genesis 25:10:2 ‫מאת בני חת‬, we have explained this on 23,20.
Radak on Genesis 25:10:3 .compare what we wrote on 24,55 ,‫קבר אברהם ושרה אשתו‬

Radak on Genesis 25:11:1 ‫ויברך‬...‫ויהי‬, he made Yitzchok as successful in his undertakings as He made his father Avraham.
Radak on Genesis 25:11:2 ‫עם באר לחי ראי‬, as if the Torah had written ‫בבאר‬, “at the well.” We have a similar construction in Deuteronomy
8,5 ‫וידעת עם לבבך‬, “you shall know in your heart.” Or, compare Genesis 35,4 ‫תחת האלה אשר עם שכם‬, “under
the terebinth in Shechem.” Or, compare Samuel II 19,38 ‫“ עם קבר אבו ואמי‬by the graves of my father and
mother.”

Radak on Genesis 25:12:1 ‫ואלה תלדות ישמעאל‬, the Torah mentions Ishmael’s descendants as a tribute to his father Avraham, seeing he
had been Avraham’s firstborn son. The Torah also wanted to inform us that Ishmael produced 12 princes in
accordance with the promise made to Avraham by G’d.
Radak on Genesis 25:12:2 The repetition of the fact that ‫אשר ילדה הגר‬, was to emphasise that although Ishmael had been the son of a
slave-woman, he rose to such eminence. Avraham loved him because he was his firstborn son, and G’d
blessed him on account of Avraham, and this was why He made him so successful. (compare 21,20)

Radak on Genesis 25:13:1 ‫לתולדותם‬...‫ואלה‬, in the chronological order of their birth. The firstborn of them all was Nevayot.
Radak on Genesis 25:16:1 ‫אלה‬, the general rule follows the individual components of the general rule. This is a method employed by the
Torah on many occasions.
Radak on Genesis 25:16:2 ‫ואלה שמותם‬, the Torah reminds us that whenever a person or a people mentioned in Scripture bears any of
these names of the princes of Ishmael, he or they are descendants of Ishmael even if many generations
previous.
Radak on Genesis 25:16:3 ‫בחצריהם ובטירותם‬, wherever they had claimed their ancestral inheritance they existed in splendour and
numerical prominence. The word ‫ חצר‬refers to an open, unwalled city, whereas the word ‫ טירות‬refers to cities
which were surrounded by walls.
Radak on Genesis 25:16:4 ‫שנים עשר נשיאים לאומתם‬, twelve princes corresponding to the number of their families (tribes). Each one of the
ones named by the Torah was a tribal chief, member of a family which grew into a mighty tribe bearing the
name of their first founder. We find further detailed examples of these tribes in Chronicles I 5,19. A number of
these tribes have been mentioned in different contexts in the Books of the Prophets.

Radak on Genesis 25:17:1 ‫ואלה‬, The Torah mentions Ishmael’s age at death also as a form of tribute to his father Avraham as we have
already mentioned (verse 12). According to our sages in Megillah 17 this information also serves us to
calculate how old Yaakov was during certain episodes which occurred during his life.
Radak on Genesis 25:18:1 ‫וישכבו‬, the descendants of Ishmael mentioned by name in this paragraph resided in different regions
extending from Chavilah as far as Shur, as these were the regions which became their ancestral holdings.
Radak on Genesis 25:18:2 ‫על פני כל אחיו נפל‬, in accordance with the prediction of the angel in 16,12 foretold to his mother even before he
had been born. We explained the meaning of the phrase there. The word ‫ ונפל‬is to be understood as similar
in meaning to the same word in Judges 7,12, (‫ )נופלים‬where it means “falling in battle.”

Radak on Genesis 25:19:1 ‫ואלה תולדת אברהם יצחק בן אברהם אברהם‬. Whereas the Torah when listing Ishmael’s descendants had
restricted itself to a brief summary, now when reporting about Yitzchok, the Torah elaborates a great deal
more both about Yaakov and about his brother Esau.
Radak on Genesis 25:19:2 ‫אברהם הוליד את יצחק‬, we are told in Baba Metzia 86 that Yitzchok’s facial features were so similar to those of
his father that anyone ever encountering Yitzchok immediately knew that he must be the son of Avraham.
The reason that this had been arranged so by G’d was that when someone claims to have become a father
in his old age, some people tend to doubt the “father’s” claim, assuming that the woman who had born that
child must have been unfaithful to her husband, or that at least the baby now presented as this father’s was
in fact a foundling. Yitzchok’s amazing similarity to his father precluded anyone from making such spurious
accusations. Another reason that the Torah repeated something which we all knew, i.e. that Avraham had
sired Yitzchok, was that Yitzchok possessed the same virtues and wonderful qualities which Avraham
excelled in, so that it was clear who must have been his father not only physically, but that the same father
also transmitted a spiritual legacy to his son.

Radak on Genesis 25:20:1 ‫ויהי יצחק‬, the verse tells us that G’d intervened benevolently in Yitzchok‘s life just as He had done in the life of
his father; Rivkah too was barren, unable to conceive children unless through a miracle. The fact is proven
when we consider that Yitzchok married her at 40 and until he was sixty he could not father a child. G’d had
deliberately intervened in the bodies of our matriarchs in order to demonstrate to the nations of the world that
He loved Avraham and Yitzchok and therefore He performed miracles to enable their wives to bear children
for them. Our sages in Yevamot 64 conclude from the above that G’d so looked forward to the prayers of the
patriarchs that He quasi provoked them into praying for the gift of children.
Radak on Genesis 25:20:2 ‫מפדן ארם‬, from the fields of Aram. Padan Aram is referred to as the field of Aram in Hoseah 12,13. Also in
Arabic, the place is known as “the field of Padan.” Alternatively, according to Bab Kama 96, it is possible that
the word ‫ פדן‬describes a pair of something, such as a pair of oxen being referred to in the Talmud as ‫פדנא‬
‫דתורי‬. There were two countries [according to our author. Ed.] both of which straddle the river Euphrates, one
being Aram Tzova, the other Aram Naharayim. This is why each is described as if it were a pair. We know of
other “Arams” that are “pairs,” such as ‫ ארם דמשק‬and ‫ארם בית רחב‬, (Samuel II 10,6). Seeing these localities
were each very close to the other they are referred to as if they were twin cities, pairs. It appears that ‫פדן ארם‬
was part of the land known as ‫אור כשדים‬, whereas ‫ ארם נהרים‬was part of the region known as ‫חרן‬.
Radak on Genesis 25:20:3 ‫אחות לבן הארמי‬, because the family was known through him and he conducted the affairs of that house, as we
have explained at the time.

Radak on Genesis 25:21:1 ‫ויעתר‬, he prayed long and hard asking that his wife should bear a child, seeing that he loved her very dearly
[and would not consider marrying anyone in addition to her. Ed.] He would not even consider taking any of
Rivkah’s handmaids as a partner, as had his father Avraham who had married Hagar. As a result of all this
prayer, Rivkah did finally become pregnant.
Radak on Genesis 25:21:2 ‫לנכח אשתו‬, on behalf of his wife, explaining that the reason for his intense prayer was that he did not want to
marry anyone else. His prayer did not so much concern his becoming a father as his becoming a father of a
child born by his wife Rivkah. He prayed in the presence of his wife so that he would be better able to
concentrate on her problem. [whereas the Torah had written that both Avraham and Sarah had been barren,
nothing about Yitzchok being sterile had been written anywhere. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 25:22:1 ‫ויתרוצצו‬, as soon as the fetuses had developed to the point where they were able to move, they moved far
more violently than is the custom, so that Rivkah had the impression that quarrelling was going on inside her.
Radak on Genesis 25:22:2 ‫ותאמר אם כן‬, after she felt these strange movements she consulted with other women who were pregnant or
who had born children if they too had experienced such a phenomenon. After they all denied ever having
experienced such feelings, she burst out asking: ‫אם כן למה זה אנכי‬, why should such a thing be reserved for
me?
Radak on Genesis 25:22:3 ‫ותלך לדרוש את ה‬, some of our sages (quoted by Rashi) say that she went to the academy of Shem in order to
inquire from him about the meaning of such strange goings on inside her. The truth is that Shem was still
alive at that time for he survived Avraham by 31 years. If Shem was identical with Malki Tzedek he would
have resided in Jerusalem at that time. Why are we told all this? To draw our attention to the fact that she
bypassed her father-in-law Avraham, who we would think, was better qualified than Shem to answer her
question. Avraham remained alive until Esau and Yaakov were 15 years of age.
Radak on Genesis 25:22:4 ‫ותלך‬, perhaps Avraham and Keturah lived in the same house together with Keturah’s children.
Radak on Genesis 25:23:1 ‫ויאמר ה' לה‬, by means of the prophet who was either Shem or Avraham.
Radak on Genesis 25:23:2 ‫שני גויים‬, the word is written with two letters ‫ י‬and a letter ‫ ו‬which is read but does not appear in the text,
something which has been explained in the Talmud Avodah Zarah 11 as affording us the opportunity to read
it as ‫גיים‬, or ‫גאים‬, a reference to both the Roman Emperor Antoninus as well as Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, who
both occupied lofty positions and were so wealthy that vegetables which have a limited season were never
absent from their table all year round. The reading of the text (as opposed to the spelling) would represent
the plain meaning then, i.e. peoples.
Radak on Genesis 25:23:3 ‫ושני לאומים‬, in view of this word here, i.e. a second word referring to nations, it is possible that the spelling of
the word ‫ גיים‬is parallel to a plural ending as found in the word ‫איים‬, from ‫אי‬, “wild beasts.” The problem is that
we do not find ‫ לאומיים‬spelled with two letters ‫ י‬anywhere so that we cannot use it as describing the nature of
Esau and the Romans descended from him. Our sages in Yevamot 76 view the spelling as teaching that
marriage, i.e. weddings in the accepted sense are not legally possible when only one party to such a union is
Jewish, i.e. has already converted. The word ‫ גיות‬is also understood in the sense of widowhood during the
lifetime of their husbands. (Samuel II 20,3) The prophet told Rivkah that the strange phenomenon she was
experiencing in her womb was a sign that two totally different nations would develop from the twins she was
about to give birth to. Most children born by the same father and mother will grow up as part of one and the
same nation. Not so in the case of Rivkah’s children. The proof that this interpretation was correct was the
very fact that they were already quarrelling with one another even before having been born into this world.
Radak on Genesis 25:23:4 ‫ושני לאומים‬, we have already mentioned several times (21,1) that it is the practice of the Torah when
repeating something to use different words to say basically the same thing.
Radak on Genesis 25:23:5 ‫ממעיך יפרדו‬, as soon as they come out of your womb they will each develop in a different way, even
physically. One would be hairy, his skin reddish looking, whereas the other would have smooth skin like
normal babies. They would be different in their deeds and choice of occupations as soon as they would be
old enough to make such choices. The Torah testifies to this by describing Esau as ‫כי ציד בפיו‬, being a hunter,
whereas Yaakov is described as ‫יושב אהלים‬, a dweller of tents, i.e. studious bookish type. They would also
hate one another as a matter of course.
Radak on Genesis 25:23:6 ‫ולאם מלאם יאמץ‬, they will never be evenly matched in strength, one of them always being stronger or weaker
than the other. (Megillah 6) The letter ‫ ל‬in the word ‫ לאם‬is “weak,” spelled without the dagesh it ought to
have. There are numerous such anomalies in Scripture, as for instance Judges 8,2 ‫מבציר אביעזר‬, where the
letter ‫ ב‬in the word mivtzir is unaccountably written without the dagesh. A similar anomaly exists in Ezekiel
32,30 ‫מגבורים בושים‬, where the letter ‫ ג‬in the word ‫ מגבורים‬should have had a dagesh in it. There are other
examples of this phenomenon.
Radak on Genesis 25:23:7 ‫ורב יעבוד צעיר‬, the word ‫ את‬which we would have expected before the word ‫ צעיר‬is missing. It is not clear who
will serve whom, i.e. the predicate in such a construction as is before us. The only clue we have to determine
who is meant as serving whom, is the fact that normally the active subject is written first in any verse. In other
words, there is a hint that the senior brother (Esau) will eventually be subservient to the junior one (Yaakov).
In some verses similarly constructed there is no doubt as to who is the active party. For instance in Job 14,19
‫אבנים שחקו מים‬, “water wears away stone,” there is no question that the stone does not wear away water, i.e.
that the first subject mentioned is the active one. Similarly, in Isaiah 64,1 ‫מים תבעה אש‬, “water drowned fire,”
there can also be no doubt as to which subject is the active one. The reason we face the problem of meaning
in our verse is that the future of the two peoples is not spelled out clearly, in the prophecy, seeing that history
teaches that the Jewish people enjoyed distinct periods in which it was in the ascendancy, whereas over the
last 1000 years plus the opposite is the case. The only part of the prophecy which is clear is that during most
of history Esau was indeed subservient to Israel, hence Esau is mentioned first in this part of the verse,
seeing that it is the principally active subject. Not only this, but after the arrival of the Messiah this situation
will be restored with Edom/Esau serving his junior brother Israel. The word ‫ רב‬being applied to the older of
the twins refers to his seniority at the time of birth, seeing he emerged first from Rivkah’s womb. It follows
that the one who emerged last must be referred to as the ‫צעיר‬, the younger one. We find another examples of
the word ‫ רב‬or at least its plural ‫ רבים‬referring to chronological seniority in Job 32,9 ‫לא רבים יחכמו‬, “it is not the
seniors who are wise.”
Radak on Genesis 25:24:1 ‫וימלאו ימיה‬, the days of her pregnancy.
Radak on Genesis 25:24:2 ‫והנה תומים בבטנה‬, the twins in her womb emerged. The word ‫ תומים‬is spelled defective with the letter ‫ א‬of the
root, i.e. the middle letter missing. According to an aggadic interpretation the missing letter hints at the fact
that only one of these twins would become a righteous Individual (quoted by Rashi).

Radak on Genesis 25:25:1 ‫ויצא הראשון אדמוני‬, even though most newborn babies are reddish in colour, this was one was exceptionally
so.
Radak on Genesis 25:25:2 ‫כלו כאדרת שער‬, as hairy as a fur coat. He had tufts of hair all over him. In both of these regards he was
different from other newly born babies.
Radak on Genesis 25:25:3 ‫ויקראו שמו עשו‬, those who saw him spontaneously called him ‫עשו‬, giving expression to something that was
strange, unusual about this baby. [the name would somehow reflect the word ‫מעשה זר‬. Ed.] It is also possible
that Yitzchok and Rivkah are the ones naming this baby as Esau.

Radak on Genesis 25:26:1 ‫וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו‬...‫ואחרי כן‬, this too, was an allusion that at the end of time he would dominate Esau, as a
human being dominates something matters which he grabs with his hand. The heel is the lower end of the
body. It was clearly a hint from G’d concerning the future, as a normal baby does not manage to extend his
hand outside the placenta and make contact with its twin.
Radak on Genesis 25:26:2 .Yitzchok named him thus ,‫ויקרא שמו יעקב‬
Radak on Genesis 25:26:3 ‫ויצחק בן ששים שנה‬, this is mentioned to let us know that Rivkah had been unable to bear a child during 20
years.
Radak on Genesis 25:27:1 ‫ויגדלו הנערים‬, as soon as they grew up their activities diverged completely from one another, one
concentrating on mundane activities, activities which showed immediate profitable results, the other
concentrating on the acquisition of knowledge, wisdom, i.e. abstract matters. One was an extrovert, at home
in the fields, mountains, etc, whereas the other was an introvert as reflected in the term ‫יושב אהלים‬.
Radak on Genesis 25:27:2 ‫אהלים‬, the reason why the Torah wrote this word in the plural mode is because Yaakov studied with any wise
man he came across. He was indiscriminating in this regard, being totally devoid of deceit or evil, wanting
only to amass knowledge.

Radak on Genesis 25:28:1 ‫ויאהב‬, there was no need to mention that Yitzchok loved Yaakov; clearly his love for Yaakov was constantly
on the increase seeing that Yaakov was righteous, etc. Esau’s claim to his father’s love was due only to the
venison he brought his father from his hunting expeditions.
Radak on Genesis 25:28:2 ‫בפיו‬. This meat was especially tasty. Moreover Yitzchok was already aged, being more than seventy years
old, Clearly, unless Esau had been at least 12 years old at the time he would not have known how to hunt
with bow and arrow.
Radak on Genesis 25:28:3 ‫ורבקה אוהבת את יעקב‬, exclusively; the reason was that Yaakov pursued a lifestyle that would lead to eternal
life, whereas Esau did the opposite. Not only did he not lead a life leading to eternal life after death, but he
actively forfeited even life on earth, exposing himself to needless dangers. Seeing that Yitzchok was aging
and sitting at home most of the time, he was not aware of Esau’s doings and was easily led to believe that
Esau led a virtuous life, basing his belief on the daily supply of venison his son provided for him. The story
unfolds at a time when Yitzchok was already incapable of seeing well with his physical eyes. The story of the
sale of the birthright is told primarily to illustrate the disdain with which Esau looked upon spiritual values as a
valuable acquisition, something guaranteeing a person life beyond death.
Radak on Genesis 25:29:1 ‫ויזד‬, the formulation of vayazed which normally should have been vayizad with a dagesh in the letter ‫ז‬, the
middle letter of the root, is not as unusual as it appears, [the author discussing this in detail in his grammar
known as shoroshim. Ed] The meaning of the expression is that “he cooked a dish ‫ ”;ויבשל נזיד‬the Torah
reports that on a certain day when Yaakov had cooked a dish Esau returned from the hunt tired and found
the dish Yaakov had cooked ready for eating. He requested to be given some of it so that he could eat it. The
purpose of this story being recorded in the Torah is in order to contrast Yaakov’s virtues with Esau’s
irresponsible way of looking at life. Not only that, but Esau considered the gobbling up of food as an end in
itself, he was what our sages call a ‫גרגרן‬, glutton. Yaakov, on the other hand, was so little concerned with the
physical gratifications available on earth that when cooking for himself, he cooked a dish of lentils, the
simplest undistinguished vegetable. If, in spite of his general outlook, Yaakov refused to share this dish with
Esau unless the latter sold him his birthright, even though Essau was his brother, this demonstrates Yaakov’s
intelligence and his moral principles which made it difficult for him to give something for which he had toiled
to someone who was self-centered and who did not make any contribution to civilisation at all, assuming that
whenever he felt ravenous he could demand to be gratified by what belonged to others. It is concerning
people like Esau that Solomon said in Proverbs 22,16:‫נותן לעשיר אך למחסור‬, “(He who oppresses the poor) is
like giving gifts to the rich. The end result is loss.”

Radak on Genesis 25:30:1 ‫הלעיטני נא‬...‫ויאמר‬, the word ‫ הלעיטני‬is equivalent to ‫האכילני‬, “feed me!” Our sages in Shabbat 155 in dealing
with methods permissible to feed one’s livestock on the Sabbath, say ‫אין ממארים את העגלים אבל מלעיטים אותן‬,
“whereas it is forbidden to use mechanical devices to feed one’s animals one may do so by hand.” In other
words, ‫ הלעטה‬describes the crudest form of introducing food into one’s mouth.
Radak on Genesis 25:30:2 ‫מן האדם האדם הזה‬, a reference to the lentils, which when peeled, look reddish. The reason why he repeated
the word ‫ האדם‬unnecessarily was that it reflects his intense desire for them. This is why he called his name
Edom, to reflect the fact that he was always attracted, nay, fascinated by anything red.
Radak on Genesis 25:31:1 ‫ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום‬, the letter ‫ כ‬in the word ‫ כיום‬is known as the ‫כ האמתי‬, a formulation we also encounter in
Samuel I 9,13 ‫כי אותו כהיום תמצאון אותו‬, “for truly today you will find him.” Other examples of this prefix‫ כ‬being
used to emphasise the truth of something are found in Numbers 11,1 and Proverbs 10,20, as well as in
Hoseah 5,10. In our verse the letter ‫ כ‬means that Yaakov did not want Esau to sell him the birthright
symbolically, but that he meant for a fully fledged legal transaction to be completed, his making a proper
kinyan acquisition. [I believe this supports the view of our sages that what was at stake was not Esau’s share
as a firstborn in an extra third of his father’s estate, something that at this point was only a potential claim as
opposed to an actual claim, and therefore could not have been transferred legally in a binding manner. What
was at stake were obligations a firstborn is duty bound to fulfill from the time he is physically and mentally
capable of doing so. Yaakov felt that Esau was spiritually not equipped to perform such duties, hence he
wanted to relieve him of them. Yaakov could not acquire the spiritual aspects of the birthright merely by
pointing out to Esau that it was a burden for him anyway, as the position of the firstborn was something firmly
entrenched in the culture of his time. Seeing that the world at that time was concerned with material wealth
primarily, Yaakov had to compensate Esau according to the terms other people would understand as being
appropriate. Ed.] In spite of Yaakov compensating his brother Esau in “real” terms for something to which his
claim was thus far only potential, he was punished for initiating such a sale because he had upset the norms
of civilised society by doing so. The fact that Esau rose to great prominence and distinction and hardly seems
to have suffered any disadvantage for the deal Yaakov offered him, did not exonerate Yaakov from trying to
upset the norms of society. [this view, i.e. that Yaakov paid Esau with money, not with a dish of lentils, is
supported at least in part by Ibn Ezra. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 25:32:1 ‫ויאמר עשו‬, it is not clear whether the Torah records Esau’s reflections on Yaakov’s demand, something Esau
did not articulate, or whether Esau told Yaakov in so many words that the birthright was of no value to him as
he did not expect to live long enough to benefit from it
Radak on Genesis 25:33:1 ‫ויאמר השבעה לי‬, he was afraid that Esau would have second thoughts after having eaten.
Radak on Genesis 25:34:1 ‫ויעקב נתן לעשו‬, as the price for the birthright. He is not reported as having given Esau wine, as the wine he
drank was that belonging to the household of his father. However, fresh bread, which Yaakov had baked for
himself, he did give him together with the dish of lentils. My father, of blessed memory, wrote that Yaakov
positively compensated Esau with money, and that the dish of lentils and the bread he gave him and which
they both ate together was only to seal the bargain between them, a custom to which we have already
referred. [It is difficult to know whether our author adopted this interpretation, or whether he did not consider it
as the plain meaning of the text as written. Personally, seeing that the author generally distinguishes
between a past tense constructed with a letter ‫ ו‬when appearing as a prefix to a future mode, and the
ordinary past tense, the word ‫ נתן‬instead of ‫ ויתן‬should have made him adopt his father’s interpretation as the
plain meaning. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 25:34:2 ‫וילך‬, he returned to the field to continue hunting.
Radak on Genesis 25:34:3 ‫ויבז‬, even after he had eaten and drunk he did not feel that Yaakov had tricked him and taken advantage of
him when he had felt hungry.

Radak on Genesis 26:1:1 ‫ויהי רעב בארץ‬, in the land of Canaan.

Radak on Genesis 26:1:2 ‫מלבד‬, meaning that since the last mentioned famine in Genesis chapter 12, there had not been another
famine in the land of Canaan. The only reason Avraham had left the land of Canaan at that time had been
the famine, and his desire to save the vast herds of cattle and sheep owned by him at that time.
Radak on Genesis 26:1:3 ‫וילך יצחק‬, Yitzchok, relying on the treaty between his father and Avimelech the King of the Land of the
Philistines, considered it the natural thing to do to move to the region ruled over by Avimelech in order to
sojourn there until the famine would pass. Avimelech at that time had stipulated that the treaty between them
would remain in force for grandchildren and great grandchildren of the signatories. (21,23)

Radak on Genesis 26:2:1 ‫וירא‬, perhaps it had been part of Yitzchok’s plan to move all the way to Egypt as had done his father in similar
circumstances, knowing that the food supply in Egypt was more abundant than that in any other country in
the civilised world at the time. G’d appeared to him, meaning to dissuade him from carrying out such a plan,
seeing that in the Land of the Philistines there was no famine at the time. In view of this, G’d said it would be
better for him to reside there on a temporary basis than to move all the way south to Egypt. The Land of the
Philistines is historically considered as part of the Land of Canaan as we have written in connection with
15,21 in reference to 15,18. G’d repeats this in verse 3 so that there could be no doubt about it [as some of
us might have thought after considering that Avraham might have signed it away when he concluded his
treaty with Avimelech at Beer Sheva. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 26:2:2 ‫שכון בארץ אשר אמר אליך‬, in this verse the instruction is ‫שכון‬, “make a permanent residence,” whereas in verse
3 the same instruction speaks of ‫גור בארץ‬, “establish a temporary residence.” The commandment is
reinforced that Yitzchok should not leave the Land of Canaan at that time or at any time in the future, the
reason being
Radak on Genesis 26:2:3 ‫אשר אומר אליך‬, what I have said to your father is equally valid for you.
Radak on Genesis 26:3:1 ‫לך ולזרעך‬...‫גור‬, I have already explained this in connection with the previous verse.
Radak on Genesis 26:4:1 ‫ונתתי לך לזרעך‬...‫והרבתי‬, for them it will be an outright gift as they will not only dwell there but will expel the
gentiles from this land. The word ‫ זרעך‬is intended to apply to the descendants of Yaakov, seeing that this is
the only seed common to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. ‫והתברכו‬, I have explained this on 23,18.

Radak on Genesis 26:5:1 ‫עקב אשר שמע אברהם‬, the reason why I have given him the land is because he heeded my voice even to the
extent of offering his only son as a burnt-offering.
Radak on Genesis 26:5:2 ‫ ותורותי‬,‫ חוקותי‬,‫ מצותי‬,‫משמרתי‬, G’d included all the commandments, hinting that all the commandments, i.e.
chukotai, contain elements of which the rationale has been revealed and some which have not. Even the
seven Noachide laws, applicable universally, contain elements the reason for which has not ever been
revealed to the people but whose rationale is familiar only to the wisest scholars. Examples of such
commandments are: the prohibition of grafting or crossbreeding, eating (amputated) limbs of a living animal
‫אבר מן החי‬. To describe such laws, the Torah here mentions the word ‫חוקותי‬, “My statutes,” whereas the
description ‫ מצותי‬refers to commandments which the human mind understands or even applauds. It matters
not that these commandments be performed by different parts of the body, i.e. the mouth, the hands, or
merely the heart. Similarly, it matters not whether they are positive commandments, requiring action, or
negative commandments requiring self-restraint. Some commentators (compare Torah Shleymah 25) claim
that Avraham was only 3 years old when he recognised the existence of G’d and began to worship him, so
that the numerical value of the letters in the word 172=‫ עקב‬would comprise the number of years which
Avraham carried out G’d’s commandments. Other commentators place the time when Avraham became
convinced of monotheism as the only religion as being when he had completed his fortieth year. (Bereshit
Rabbah 30,8) This appears to be more probable. Our sages claim that Avraham observed all the
commandments spelled out in the written and the oral Torah including such rabbinic ordinances as Eyruv
Tavshilim (Yuma 28). They base this on the word ‫משמרתי‬, seeing this word refers generally to the type of
“security fence” ‫סיג‬, introduced by the Rabbis to safeguard us against violating Biblical injunctions. What the
rabbis meant therefore was that Avraham invented such safeguards for himself in order not to violate the
basic prohibitions.

Radak on Genesis 26:6:1 ‫וישב‬, he accepted G’d’s instruction to remain within the boundaries of the land promised to his father
Avraham.
Radak on Genesis 26:7:1 ‫לאשתו‬...‫וישאלו‬, an inquiry regarding his marital status, especially the woman in whose company he had been
seen. We find a parallel construction in 20,13. There are numerous such constructions, and I have dealt wit
them in my commentary on 12,12.
Radak on Genesis 26:8:1 ‫וישקף‬...‫ויהי‬, compare our commentary on 18,16 on the word ‫וישקיפו‬.
Radak on Genesis 26:9:1 ‫אך הנה אשתך‬...‫ויקרא‬, the word ‫ אך‬in this verse means the same as the word ‫אבל‬, “but, however.” It also
appears in this sense in Exodus 31,13 ‫אך את שבתותי תשמורו‬, “but you must observe My Sabbath days,” (even
when engaged in building the Tabernacle) In Exodus 21,22, when speaking about someone dying as a result
of an injury deliberately inflicted upon him, the Torah writes ‫אך אם יום או יומים יעמוד‬, “but if the victim can stand
on his feet for a day or two days, etc.” (his death is not directly attributable to the injury described). In our
verse, Avimelech challenges Yitzchok who had presented his wife as being his sister by saying: “but I have
seen with my own eyes that she is your wife!” He used the fact that he had observed Yitzchok being intimate
with Rivkah as proof that therefore she must be his wife, as no one sleeps with a woman who is not his wife.
Radak on Genesis 26:9:2 ‫ואיך אמרת‬, the Avimelech mentioned in our chapter here was not the same one that lived in the days of
Avraham. Had he been the same it is inconceivable that he could have asked Yitzchok such a question. He
had, after all, had experience with Sarah and Avraham concerning the same subject. The Kings of the
Philistines generally assumed the title “Avimelech,” just as the Kings of Egypt generally assumed the title
“Pharaoh.”
Radak on Genesis 26:10:1 ‫ כמעט שכב‬..‫ויאמר‬, he meant that it had been very likely that someone among his people would have slept with
Rivkah seeing that Yitzchok had represented her as being his sister. They would not have considered such a
sexual encounter as something sinful and therefore Yitzchok would have been to blame for any guilt arising
from such an encounter.
Radak on Genesis 26:11:1 ‫ויצו‬, after Avimelech had found out that Rivkah was Yitzchok’s wife, he had to inform the people of this fact to
ensure that no one would touch her. Also, he had to warn the people not to harm Yitzchok, so that he would
not be killed on account of his wife.
Radak on Genesis 26:12:1 100 ,‫מאה שערים‬...‫ ויזרע‬times as much as they had expected to harvest from this planting.
Radak on Genesis 26:12:2 ‫ויברכהו ה‬, He made him successful in all his undertakings.
Radak on Genesis 26:13:1 ‫ויגדל‬, in material wealth and all types of possessions.
Radak on Genesis 26:13:2 ‫ הלוך וגדל‬the word ‫ הלוך‬is an infinitive mode of the verb, whereas the word ‫ גדל‬is an adjective or also an
infinitive.. We encounter a parallel construction in Exodus 12,9 ‫ובשל מבושל‬. The meaning of the phrase is that
Yitzchok’s wealth kept on increasing and he kept on becoming a man of great substance until he had
reached a point where he could be described as ‫גדול מאד‬, “very great.”

Radak on Genesis 26:14:1 ‫ויהי לו מקנה צאן ומקנה בקר‬, he had acquired both flocks of sheep and herds of cattle. Both words ‫ מקנה‬have the
vowel tzeyreh indicating that they are in a construct mode.
Radak on Genesis 26:14:2 ‫ועבודה רבה‬, he also engaged extensively in agriculture. Compare Proverbs 12,11, ‫עובד אדמתו‬, “tilling his own
land.” Compare also Genesis 4,11 ‫כי תעבוד את האדמה‬, “when you till the soil.”
Radak on Genesis 26:14:3 ‫ויקנאו אתו‬, they were jealous of him on account of his astounding success. The absence of the dagesh in the
letter ‫ נ‬indicates that this is an intransitive mode of the verb ‫קנא‬.

Radak on Genesis 26:15:1 ‫וכל הבארות‬, after Avraham had died the local populace was no longer afraid of Yitzchok. Also, the Avimelech
with whom Avraham had made the pact and who had restored the wells to Avraham had died in the interval.
Why then did the Philistines stop up the wells instead of using them for their own flocks? They were afraid
that in the event that when Yitzchok would grow up he would be as powerful a figure as his father he would
appropriate these wells. Therefore, they reasoned the only way to deny him these wells is by also denying
them to themselves. Therefore they closed them up so that no one supposedly would be able to locate them.
Radak on Genesis 26:16:1 ‫כי עצמת‬.. ‫ויאמר‬, you have become wealthier and able to dispense more good than we. He used the plural
ending nu instead of nee, i.e. ‫ממני‬, meaning that Yitzchok had become not only more powerful than any
individual in his country, but even more powerful than a whole group of Philistines collectively. He suggested
that Yitzchok exposed himself to acts of violence due to the jealousy of him of so many Philistines so that
even Avimelech’s warning to his people not to molest him might be ignored. My father of blessed memory
understood the word ‫ ממנו‬as applying to all the Philistines collectively.

Radak on Genesis 26:17:1 ‫בנחל גרר‬..‫וילך‬. The word ‫ נחל‬describes a valley even though there was no river in that valley. We have
another example of this in Deuteronomy 2,36 ‫העיר אשר בנחל‬, “the city which was located in the valley,” or
Samuel II 24,5 ‫ימין העיר אשר בנחל‬, “to the right of the city in the valley.” The most potent proof for our
statement is Genesis 26,19 ‫ויחפרו עבדי יצחק בנחל‬, “the servants of Yitzchok dug in the valley.” If there had
been water, a rivulet, or something in the valley, what did they have to dig for? Gerar was the name of the
town in that valley, the place where Yitzchok settled. He dug many wells in that region as he owned much
livestock and had to provide water for his beasts.
Radak on Genesis 26:18:1 ‫אשר חפרו‬...‫וישב יצחק‬, the servants of his father.
Radak on Genesis 26:18:2 ‫כשמות‬, with the same names in order to maintain unbroken continuity of ownership.

Radak on Genesis 26:19:1 ‫ויחפרו‬, they dug even deeper than initially in order to supply sufficient water for the livestock.
Radak on Genesis 26:19:2 ‫וימצאו שם באר מים חיים‬, after they kept digging, they found this additional well beneath the old well. This is why
the Torah did not write that they found ‫מים‬, i.e. simply water, but ‫באר‬, that they found a new source of water.

Radak on Genesis 26:20:1 ‫ויריבו לנו המים‬, as we explained in connection with Avraham and Avimelech (21,25), the quarrel was if the
source of the water was part of the region of Gerar or part of the region of Beer Sheva. The old quarrel
resurfaced now between the shepherds of Yitzchok and those of Gerar.
Radak on Genesis 26:20:2 ‫ויקרא שם הבאר עשק‬, He gave it a name so that in the future when he would become more powerful than they,
the shepherds of Gerar would not be able to claim the well as theirs without protest. The very name already
foreshadowed that the claim to this well would be disputed. The meaning of the name ‫ עשק‬as describing
dispute is known to us from our sages in Baba Kama 9 ‫המוכר את השדה ויצאו עליה עשיקין‬, “if someone sells a
field and a quarrel ensues concerning it.”

Radak on Genesis 26:21:1 ‫שטנה‬...‫ויחפרו‬, from the word “Satan.” The name reflected the fact that every time they dug with success they
would be subjected to this hatred.
Radak on Genesis 26:22:1 ‫ויעתק‬, he removed his digging tools from the immediate neighbourhood so that the shepherds of Gerar
should not be able to claim future discoveries of water as belonging to them. It was clear beyond doubt that
the area where Yitzchok’s servants dug now belonged to the region of Beer Sheva. This is why he called this
well ‫רחובות‬, to inform subsequent generations that the ownership of this well had never been disputed.
Radak on Genesis 26:22:2 ‫ופרינו בארץ‬, seeing that this is not subject to dispute we can now become fruitful and multiply in this land.

Radak on Genesis 26:23:1 ‫ויעל משם באר שבע‬. This was not far away from Gerar as we already explained. As to the reason for the
expression ‫ויעל‬, “he went up,” the reason for this is that the part of the Land of Israel which is known as the
traditional Land of Israel was on a spiritually higher level than the part occupied by the Philistines. This is also
why we find the expression ‫ ויעלו פלשתים‬in Judges 15,9 (against Shimshon) as well as the phrase uttered by
King Sha-ul in Samuel I 14,36 ‫נרדה אחרי פלשתים‬, “Let us pursue the Philistines by descending.” This
expression occurs again and again. [this seems unnecessary as any student of the topography of Eretz
Yisrael knows that the Philistines lived in the coastal strip, i.e. the topographically lowest region of the
country, so that considerations distinguishing between areas of higher sanctity and lesser sanctity are hardly
needed to help us understand the wording of the Torah here. Ed.] All these stories about the digging of the
wells and the names they were called by were intended to inform us that in the part of Eretz Yisrael
traditionally promised to Avraham, his son Yitzchok was digging according to his undisputed right. In those
areas he also did not encounter opposition when naming these wells. All of this was an indication to them of
which parts of Eretz Yisrael G’d had meant for them to plant seed in, i.e. the part of the land that G’d would
give to the Israelites in the first instance. (under Joshua).The regions in which the Philistines dwelled did not
really come under full control of the Israelites until many hundreds of years later. This accounts for the
ongoing wars at intervals between the Israelites and the Philistines. These skirmishes were basically border-
wars, neither side planning to conquer the territory of the other permanently. [according to the author the
problem would be permanently settled only in Messianic times. Ed.] It is an outstanding issue similar to the
territory of three Canaanite tribes, the Kenite, Knizite and Kadmoni, which formed part of G’d’s promise to
Avraham in chapter 15 at the covenant between the pieces but has never yet been under Jewish
sovereignty.

Radak on Genesis 26:24:1 ‫וירא‬, this vision was meant to encourage Yitzchok not to be afraid on account of these territorial disputes over
the sources of water for his flocks. He reassured him that those hating him now would not only give up their
opposition but would come pleading for a peace-treaty with him; this is why He added that Yitzchok’s
success would be linked to that of G’d’s servant Avraham. We see this promise fulfilled already in verse 26
when the King himself travels to see Yitzchok and is forced to acknowledge that the combination of Yitzchok’
s G’d and Yitzchok is too powerful for him to oppose.
Radak on Genesis 26:24:2 ‫בעבור אברהם עבדי‬, seeing that Avraham had complied with all of G’d’s instructions just like a slave carrying
out the dictates of his master.

Radak on Genesis 26:25:1 ‫ויקרא בשם ה‬...‫ויבן‬. Just as Avraham had been in the habit of doing.
Radak on Genesis 26:25:2 ‫ויט שם אהלו‬, he fixed his abode in Beer Sheva.
Radak on Genesis 26:25:3 ‫ויכרו שם עבדי יצחק‬, just as Avraham had dug for water there, Yitzchok now ordered his servants to dig a well
there. While they were engaged in digging this well and Avimelech came up from Gerar, Yitzchok’s servants
came to tell him that they had met with success and had brought in a new well. All of this is reported here to
show G’d’s timing was intended to demonstrate to Avimelech that Yitzchok was successful everywhere and
that he better be in awe of him.
Radak on Genesis 26:26:1 ‫ואחוזת מרעהו‬...‫ואבימלך‬, Avimelech had a powerful minister whose name was Achuzat (Bereshit Rabbah 64,9)
The Massoretes claim that the word is not the name of a human being. Accordingly, the word ‫ מרעהו‬would
have to be understood as similar to Kings I 4,5 ‫רעה המלך‬, “a companion of the king, a close friend.” The
leading minister, comparable to a prime minister in a constitutional monarchy, always had the title ‫רע המלך‬,
“the King’s closest associate.” The letter ‫ מ‬in the word ‫ מרעהו‬belongs to the groups of letters known as ‫אותיות‬
‫ן‬-‫י‬-‫ת‬-‫מ‬-‫ א‬which often are used as additional letters. For instance, we find this extraneous letter ‫ מ‬in
connection with ‫ רע‬also in Judges 14,20 ‫ותהי אשת שמשון למרעהו אשר רעה לו‬, “Shimshon’s wife then married
one of those who had been his wedding companion.” Onkelos translates the words ‫ אחוזת מרעהו‬as “a group
of his supporters.” Accordingly, the verse means that Avimelech took with him a number of his close
advisers, friends. According to Onkelos the meaning of the letter ‫ מ‬in the word ‫ מרעהו‬is a mem hashimush, a
formative letter varying pronoun endings, etc., so that the word ‫ רעהו‬would be the same as ‫רעיו‬, His
companions, and the unusual plural ending, the same as in Nachum 2,4 ‫מגן גבוריהו‬, “his warriors’ shields.”
The word ‫ גבוריהו‬is an alternate for ‫גבוריו‬.
Radak on Genesis 26:26:2 ‫ופיכל שר צבאו‬, this was the same general who had held this position in Avraham’s time with the former
Avimelech.
Radak on Genesis 26:27:1 ‫ותשלחוני‬...‫ויאמר‬, the plural mode here indicates that at the time when Avimelech had expelled Yitzchok he had
done so by following the advice of his ministers and notables. He had also said at that time “‫לך מעמנו‬,” Go
from us!”
Radak on Genesis 26:28:1 ‫ראו‬, the letter ‫ ו‬at the end instead of the customary letter ‫ ה‬as the last letter of the root is not unique, we
encounter it also in Isaiah 6,9 or as ‫בכו לא תבכה‬, in Isaiah 30,19. There are other parallel verses in Scripture.
Radak on Genesis 26:28:2 ‫תהי נא אלה בינותינו‬, a reference to all the people of his country having sworn to keep this agreement with
Yitzchok, to be confirmed by an oath between the two representatives of the parties concerned, i.e.
Avimelech and Yitzchok.

Radak on Genesis 26:29:1 ‫אם תעשה‬, they knew that if Yitzchok so intended he was able to harm them, seeing that the people of Beer
Sheva would assist him in all that he would ask them to. [Avimelech’s trip to Yitzchok who had labeled him
and his cohorts as hating him had been akin to going to the lion’s den. Ed.] For the people around Beer
Sheva Yitzchok was a prince of G’d who could do no wrong. He was the personification of his father whom
they had greatly admired. This is why Avimelech prefaced with words with the remark: ‫אם תעשה עמנו רעה‬
‫כאשר לא נגענוך‬, as if to say: “surely you are not going to repay our kindness with an act of hostility merely
because you are now in a position to do so!” The phrase is to be understood as if the word (‫ אשר )כאשר‬is to
mean the same as ‫בעבור‬, “on account of, in return for.” The word ‫ אשר‬appears in that sense in Kings I 15,13
‫אשר עשתה מפלצת לאשרה‬, “on account of the abominable thing she had done.” Another such usage of the
word ‫ אשר‬occurs in Deuteronomy 4,40 ‫אשר ייטב לך ולבניך אחריך‬, “in order that He will do good for you and
your children.”
Radak on Genesis 26:29:2 ‫וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב‬, the word ‫ וכאשר‬at the beginning of Avimelech’s words must be imagined as having
been repeated after the word ‫טוב‬, as if he had said ‫ובעבור שלא עשינו עמך רק טוב‬, “and on account of the fact
that we have only treated you kindly.” We find a similar construction in Psalms 9,19 ‫ותקות ענוים תאבד לעד‬,”the
hope of the afflicted will not be lost forever;” in that phrase the word “not” appears in the first half of the verse,
i.e. ‫כי לא לנצח ישכח אביון‬, “for the hope of the destitute will not be ignored (forgotten) forever. There are many
such constructions throughout Scripture where a word at the beginning of the verse is doing double-duty, i.e.
must be assumed to have been written also in the second half of the same verse in order to make it
intelligible.
Radak on Genesis 26:29:3 ‫אתה עתה ברוך ה‬, seeing that G’d has made you so successful you are now in a position to do us harm if you
so desire. This would not be appropriate seeing that we have throughout treated you in a friendly manner
while we had been in a position to inflict harm upon you. Even when we expelled you we did so in a manner
that did not make you suffer an indignity. When we told you to leave, this was only on account of the envy
your success had aroused among the Philistine man in the street. We wanted to insure that they would not
allow their envy of you to provoke them into harming you.
Radak on Genesis 26:30:1 ‫ויעש להם משתה‬, in order to preserve the friendly atmosphere he prepared a feast for them and they ate and
drank together.
Radak on Genesis 26:31:1 ‫וישלחם‬..‫וישכימו‬, they rose early and he sent them off after accompanying them for the appropriate distance.
Radak on Genesis 26:32:1 ‫ויהי ביום ההוא‬, before Avimelech and his entourage had departed. This was deliberately timed by G’d to
demonstrate to Avimelech the extent of Yitzchok’s success so that they would remain in awe of him.
Radak on Genesis 26:33:1 ‫ויקרא אותה שבעה‬, on account of the oath that Yitzchok and Avimelech had sworn there. Avraham had done
the same. (21,31) Even though he had not named the well itself ‫שבעה‬, he named the entire region Beer
Sheva, both on account of the oath and on account of the seven sheep which had been the physical symbol
of that oath. Both Avraham and Yitzchok named the event in the presence of Avimelech.
Radak on Genesis 26:33:2 As to the Torah writing: ‫על כן שם העיר באר שבע‬, and we know that the place had been known by that name
already since the days of Avraham, the Torah informs us that the name Avraham gave it might not have
endured, but that this event now ensured that the name would be permanent. When a certain location
commemorates two historic events both in the life of the father and that of the son, this will be remembered
for far longer as everyone recognises that more than coincidence was the reason why the historic event
which produced the name occurred precisely there.

Radak on Genesis 26:34:1 ‫ויהי עשו‬, the reason why he did not marry until he was 40 years of age was that he wanted to emulate his
father who had married at the age of 40. He wanted to create the impression that he was walking in the
footsteps of his father. However, he did not observe his father’s ways who had not been allowed to marry a
woman of Canaanite descent. In that respect he followed his eyes, judging by external appearances, not
ancestry, and personal virtues. He had not bothered to consult with his father. He was guided by the
influence the family of his wives wielded in the land of Canaan, for after mentioning the names of the wives it
becomes clear that the father of each was a well known personality. Seeing Esau appeared a great man to
the fathers of these girls, they consented to let him marry them.
Radak on Genesis 26:35:1 ‫ותהיין מורת רוח‬, they angered their in-laws and opposed them in every way. They even reversed the customs
practiced by Rivkah in her household.
Radak on Genesis 26:35:2 ‫מרת‬, a noun, just as ‫ מרת נפש‬in Proverbs 14,10. The root of the word is ‫מרר‬, embitter, the only difference
between the word here and that in Proverbs being the vowel under the letter ‫מ‬. Here we have the vowel
cholem, whereas in Proverbs it is written with a kametz chataf, abbreviated vowel kametz. It is also possible
that the root of the word here is ‫מרה‬, in the sense of Isaiah 63,10 ‫מרו ועצבו את רוח קדשו‬, “they rebelled, and
grieved His Holy Spirit.” This too is a variation of the theme of bitterness. If we accept this word as the root of
the word ‫ מרת‬in our verse, the meaning would be that these women actively engaged in causing anger,
frustration to Yitzchok and Rivkah. The whole story would then have as its purpose to show how disdainful
Esau was of the sensitivities of his parents. He did not even protest his wives’ behaviour or move them out of
the patriarchal home.

Radak on Genesis 27:1:1 ‫ויהי כי זקן‬, the word ‫ זקן‬is a verb in the past tense. The Torah relates that Yitzchok kept on aging until his
eyesight was badly impaired. Yaakov experienced a similar problem; (48,10) In fact most people experience
the problem of failing eyesight in their old age. In some instances this is a sudden phenomenon, in others it is
a phenomenon experienced gradually. In the case of Yitzchok he was struck with this affliction more than 20
years before he died. He misinterpreted the onset of this phenomenon considering it as foreshadowing that
his death would occur soon. In the event he was proven wrong. However, this is what prompted him to call in
Esau at this time to bestow his blessing upon him before his death. Perhaps this failure of his eyesight at a
premature time was one of the afflictions with which the righteous are sometimes afflicted. It may be that the
reason why the Torah bothers with telling us this detail is to inform us that G’d subjects some of the righteous
to some afflictions in this life in accordance with His wisdom. Some commentators attribute Yitzchok’s
premature blindness to the smoke of the incense burned by his daughters-in-law to their respective deities.
(quoted by Rashi).

Radak on Genesis 27:2:1 ‫לא ידעתי יום מותי‬...‫ויאמר‬. Perhaps I will die suddenly so that I will not have a chance to bless you close before
my death.
Radak on Genesis 27:3:1 ‫כליך‬...‫ועתה‬, the tools you use to hunt with.
Radak on Genesis 27:3:2 ‫תליך וקשתך‬, now he spelled out the tools in detail. Possibly, there were other hunting instruments in addition
to these. ‫תליך‬, is the quiver in which one keeps the arrows. Onkelos translates it as ‫סיפך‬, “your sword,” (the
ending ‫ ך‬in the word as a personal pronoun.). A sword would also be a tool which is hung in a scabbard, or
suspended from one’s belt, so. that the root ‫ תלה‬implied in the word ‫ תליך‬is part of his translation.
Radak on Genesis 27:3:3 ‫וצא השדה‬, Yitzchok issued this instruction as Esau did not go out hunting on a daily basis.
Radak on Genesis 27:3:4 ‫צידה‬, spelled with the letter ‫ה‬, but read as ‫ציד‬. According to a well known aggadic interpretation the letter ‫ ה‬is
an allusion to 5 major halachic requirements in killing an animal to make it fit for consumption by Jews.
(compare Torah Shleymah 23)

Radak on Genesis 27:4:1 ‫ועשה‬, he did not ask for venison because there was shortage of food in his home, for he was exceedingly
wealthy. We observe that aged people progressively get tired of the food they are used to, and they crave
something new to give them an incentive to eat and enjoy their food. Venison is a different kind of meat, not
comparable in taste to the meat of sheep or goats or beef. Therefore Yitzchok asked Esau to bring him
something which would put him in a pleasant frame of mind, the kind of good feeling which is a necessary
prelude to bestowing a blessing with one’s entire heart. He was well aware that he needed something to put
him into the right frame of mind as Esau’s general conduct was not one that commended itself to his father
so that he would gladly volunteer such a blessing as he felt he was obligated to dispense. There would be no
need to send Yaakov on such an errand prior to blessing him, as his righteousness made blessing him
something natural.
Radak on Genesis 27:5:1 ‫ורבקה היתה שומעת בדבר יצחק‬, she saw that Esau had gone to carry out his father’s instructions and she told
Yaakov about it as she was jealous that Esau should obtain this blessing. She did not realise that Yaakov
would be blessed even if he did not receive a blessing from his father, and that was also what his father had
assumed. Yitzchok was a righteous man, and he would never have become guilty of depriving Yaakov of a
blessing which he deserved by giving it to Esau instead. Rivkah was so consumed with her love for Yaakov
that she advised him to engage in cheating in order to secure the blessing for himself. She did not feel that
there was something sinful in doing that.
Radak on Genesis 27:6:1 ‫לאמר‬..‫ורבקה‬, she had a conversation with her son Yaakov, at the end of which she told him that his father had
sent out Esau to bring him venison as a prelude to receiving the blessing.
Radak on Genesis 27:7:1 ‫הביאה‬, she gratuitously added the words '‫לפני ה‬, as if they had been Yitzchok’s words (which they were not).
She intended thereby to convince her son Yaakov that the blessing about to be given to Esau was of an
unusual, critical importance, one that would reflect a prophetic utterance by Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 27:8:1 .to their flocks ,‫לך נא אל הצאן‬...‫ועתה‬
Radak on Genesis 27:8:2 ‫טובים‬, fat ones. We find that Avraham (18,7) also offered the angels calves which were ‫רך וטוב‬, “tender and
fat.” When we read about the seven good cows Pharaoh saw in his dream (41,26), the word for “fat” is also
‫טובות‬.
Radak on Genesis 27:11:1 ‫שעיר‬...‫ויאמר‬. seeing that his skin was covered with hair all over, even his hands and throat.
Radak on Genesis 27:12:1 ‫כמתעתע‬...‫אולי‬, seeing that he can hardly see I would deceive him saying that I am Esau, and if he will feel me
and find that my skin is smooth, he will become angry and demand to know how I dared to deceive him and
instead of blessing me he will curse me.
Radak on Genesis 27:12:2 ‫ימושני‬, the root of the word is ‫משש‬, the letter shin has a dagesh.
Radak on Genesis 27:12:3 ‫כמתעתע‬, the root of the word is ‫תעה‬, even though both the first and second root letters appear twice in the
word. We have a parallel expression ‫ מעשה תעתועים‬in Jeremiah 10,15, as well as in Chronicles II 36,16
‫ומתעתועים בנביאיו‬, a reference to false prophets and religious dignitaries who deceive their followers.
Radak on Genesis 27:12:4 ‫והבאתי‬, I will be the cause of bringing a curse upon myself.

Radak on Genesis 27:13:1

Radak on Genesis 27:15:1 ‫החמודות‬...‫ותקח‬..‫וילך‬, costly garments which he would wear on special occasions, especially when taking his
places among the leading personalities of his time. He would keep these clothes wrapped in fragrant flowers
from the field so that they would exude such a fragrance when worn. This is why Yitzchok reacted to Yaakov’
s appearing before him dressed in these garments by saying: “the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of
the field.” Rivkah also covered Yaakov’s throat and arms with the skins from the goats so that Yitzchok would
think that Esau was indeed standing before him.
Radak on Genesis 27:17:1 ‫ותתן את המטעמים‬, no mention is made of the meat as it was included in what is described here as ‫מטעמים‬,
The latter are considered as the major ingredient of the meal as this is what Yitzchok had asked his son Esau
for (verse 4). He wanted the meal to be well spiced so that he would find it tasty, to his liking.
Radak on Genesis 27:17:2 ‫ואת הלחם‬, for she prepared fresh bread for him.

Radak on Genesis 27:18:1 ‫ויבא אל אביו‬, into the room where he was lying down. He called to him: ‫אבי‬, seeing he (Yitzchok) could not see
him.
Radak on Genesis 27:18:2 ‫הנני‬, with a dagesh in both letters ‫נ‬.
Radak on Genesis 27:18:3 ?‫מי אתה‬, seeing that he had addressed him simply with the word ‫אבי‬, he had doubts about whose voice he
had heard he had to ask: “who are you?”
Radak on Genesis 27:19:1 ‫אנכי עשו בכרך‬...‫ויאמר‬, some people wonder how Yaakov, a righteous person, could say something like this, an
outright lie in their opinion. Actually, the matter is not so strange seeing that Yaakov knew that he was
entitled to the blessing more than his brother, and that the spirit of prophecy would come to rest on Yitzchok
so that he would bless him instead. If, in a situation such as this, the tzaddik changes words so that they
sound like a lie, this is in order and does not reflect on him negatively. Our example is Samuel I 16,2 where
G’d tells the prophet Samuel to go and crown one of Yishai’s sons as the future king of Israel. In order to
escape suspicion in case Sha-ul would challenge his trip to Chevron where Yishai lived, G’d told him to take
with him a calf and to claim that he was taking it to Chevron to offer as a sacrifice. Besides, Yaakov was well
aware that both his father and his grandfather had on occasion told lies about the marital status of their
wives. No one ever accused either as having told lies, seeing there was an adequate reason for telling such
a lie. Yaakov therefore was entitled to tell such a lie under the circumstances, and by representing himself as
the one who was to get this blessing this did not turn him into a liar. Furthermore, in doing what he did he
carried out his mother’s instructions. The Torah specifically orders ‫“ איש אמו ואביו תיראו‬you shall be in awe of
your mother and father.” (Leviticus 19,3) Also, his mother was known to be a prophetess, so that her
instructions could be trusted without reservations. Onkelos translates verse 13 ‫עלי קללתך בני‬, to mean that
what Rivkah said was “I have received a prophetic vision telling me that you will not be cursed.”
Radak on Genesis 27:19:2 ‫קום נא שבה‬, he told his father to get up and sit up as he had found him lying down.
Radak on Genesis 27:19:3 ‫ואכלה‬, an imperative mode with an added letter ‫ה‬, the letter ‫ א‬having a chataf kametz, an abbreviated vowel
kametz.
Radak on Genesis 27:20:1 ‫ויאמר יצחק‬, because of the sound of Yaakov’s voice his mind had been alerted so that he began to examine
the person standing before him more closely. The fact that so little time had elapsed since he instructed Esau
to go hunting made him suspicious that it might not be Esau standing there.
Radak on Genesis 27:20:2 ‫כי הקרה ה' אלוקיך‬, “your merit has assisted me to accomplish my mission so quickly, seeing that what I did
was for your sake.”
Radak on Genesis 27:21:1 ‫ואמשך בני‬...‫ויאמר‬, the letter ‫ ש‬in the word ‫ ואמשך‬lacks the dagesh we would expect if it were in the transitive
mode. It should have had this dagesh just as it is written with the dagesh in the word ‫ ימושני‬in verse 12 and in
verse 22.
Radak on Genesis 27:22:1 ‫והידים‬...‫ויגש‬, he did not examine the skin on the (supposed) smooth part of his throat. He relied solely on
checking his arms.
Radak on Genesis 27:24:1 ‫ויאמר אתה זה‬...‫ולא‬, this is a form of a question, even though it is not accompanied by the letter ‫ ה‬in front of
the word ‫ אתה‬which we would have expected to introduce such a question. We find a similar construction in
Kings I 1,24 ‫“ ?אתה ומרת אדניה ימלוך אחרי‬did you (King David) say that “Adoniah will rule after me?” There are
numerous similar constructions in Scripture. The reason why Yaakov phrased this as a question was that he
was still not convinced that it was Esau because the voice [as well as the mode of speech. Ed.] was so
similar to that of Yaakov. He was afraid of appearing as swindling Esau to whom he had promised the
blessing, if he we were to bless Yaakov instead, although he loved Yaakov dearly. This is why he still
continued with the examination.
Radak on Genesis 27:25:1 ‫ואכלה מציד בני‬...‫ויאמר‬, as if he had said: “from your venison.” However, he used a formulation which was
customary at the time.
Radak on Genesis 27:25:2 ‫ויבא לו יין‬, in order to gladden his heart. In those days people generally did not drink wine with their meals
unless the expression ‫משתה‬, is employed by Scripture to indicate that wine was served.

Radak on Genesis 27:26:1 ‫ושקה לי‬...‫ויאמר‬, he did not say: “I will kiss you,” but asked Yaakov (thinking it was Esau) to kiss him. It is a rule
that kissing has to be initiated by the senior of two people who kisses the one who is in a socially inferior
position (as a sign of his fondness for him) If two people are of the same social status they kiss each other as
we find in Samuel I 20,41 ‫וישקו איש את רעהו‬, “they kissed one another” (David and Yonathan) Why then did
Yitzchok suggest that they reverse their roles regarding kissing? Seeing that Yitzchok could not see Yaakov
and would have had to use his hands to find the part of his face he wanted to kiss, he considered it easier to
reverse the procedure.
Radak on Genesis 27:27:1 ‫וירח את ריח בגדיו‬...‫ויגש‬, while he was still engaged in kissing him the fragrance of Yaakov’s clothes inspired
Yitzchok. We had described the fact that one kept good clothing in scented bags or wooden boxes until they
would be worn again.
Radak on Genesis 27:27:2 ‫ויברכהו‬, after having inhaled the pleasant fragrance of his clothes and having said: '‫ראה ריח בני כריח שדה אשר‬
‫ברכו ה‬, that he enjoyed the odour of his clothes. Why, if he blessed him after inhaling the fragrance, does the
Torah write the word ‫ ויברכהו‬before describing the odour of the clothing in detail? This was to tell us that
Yitzchok’s heart was already gladdened by both the food and the wine so that the Holy Spirit came to rest
upon him and to inspire the blessing.
Radak on Genesis 27:27:3 ‫ראה‬, an imperative mode; who was this addressed to? This was not addressed to a specific person, but it is a
mode of speech addressed to anyone who considers what follows as pertinent to himself. We have a similar
usage of the imperative not being addressed to someone specific in Jeremiah 13,18 ‫אמר למלך ולגבירה‬, as well
as in Isaiah 60,6 ‫!קול אומר קרא‬, “a voice says: call out!” No specific person is addressed by this proclamation.
Similarly, in Isaiah 35,3 ‫חזקו ידים רפות‬. Also in verse 4 of that chapter we encounter a similar construction.
Radak on Genesis 27:27:4 ‫אשר ברכו ה‬, He blessed the field, i.e. the grass growing there was of good quality. “The fragrance of my son is
comparable to the growth of the vegetation on the field which G’d has blessed.” The meaning of the letter ‫ ו‬at
the beginning of the next verse which commences with the actual blessing, is not that it adds to what
preceded it, but that it introduces something new. It is similar to the letter ‫ ו‬in ‫ וישא אברהם את עיניו‬in 22,13
where it also is not a continuation of what preceded it but the beginning of a new paragraph, a new detail of
the story being discussed. There are many examples of the letter ‫ ו‬performing such a function. It is, however,
also possible to explain the letter ‫ ו‬at the end of the word ‫ברכו‬, as referring to Yitzchok’s son, so that Yitzchok
would be saying: “behold the fragrance of my son which is like a field which G’d has blessed, so that his
blessing would be that Yaakov should continue to enjoy such fragrance also in the future. The blessing would
then continue in the next verse with the words ‫ ויתן לך‬spelling out specific elements of that blessing. The letter
‫ ו‬in ‫ ויתן‬would then be the standard connective letter ‫ו‬.
Radak on Genesis 27:28:1 ‫מטל השמים‬...‫ויתן לך‬, something that you will require. Yitzchok did not mention rain, seeing that dew is always
beneficial whereas rain can prove very destructive on occasion, as we know from the deluge or when it falls
at the wrong time. These blessings were said not only to Yaakov (Esau) personally, but were meant to
remain effective also for his offspring. Similarly, the blessing Yitzchok gave to Esau afterwards was also
meant not only for himself but for his descendants afterwards.
Radak on Genesis 27:28:2 ‫ומשמני‬, the letter ‫ מ‬in the word ‫ מטל‬is to be understood as if it were written twice as if the Torah had written
‫( וממטל‬the ‫ מ‬in front of the letter ‫ ש‬not having been a formative letter in the word ‫ )ומשמני‬Alternatively, the
meaning of the word assuming the letter ‫ מ‬was a formative letter, it would be the same as the word ‫ משמני‬in
the blessing Esau received in verse 39.

Radak on Genesis 27:29:1 ‫הוה גביר לאחיך‬....‫יעבדוך‬, a reference to Esau’s sons (descendants); the same is meant when Yitzchok speaks
about ‫בני אמך‬, “your mother’s sons,” i.e. her descendants. These blessings came true in the time when David
defeated the Edomites, and they will come true again in the days of the Messiah.
Radak on Genesis 27:29:2 ‫אררך ארור‬, in the singular mode, meaning each person cursing you will be cursed individually.

Radak on Genesis 27:30:1 ‫מצידו‬...‫ויהי‬, as if the Torah had written ‫מצודו‬, “from his hunting expedition.” The Torah chose a noun instead of
a verb in its infinitive form. We find a similar construction in Numbers 10,2 ‫ולמסע את המחנות‬, which means the
same as ‫ולהסיע את המחנות‬, “and to set the camps (army groups) in motion.” We also find such a construction
in Ezekiel 17,9 ‫למשאות אותה משרשיה‬, “and to remove it from its roots.” A third example which comes to mind
is Numbers 23,10 ‫ומספר את רבע ישראל‬, “or number the animals born to the livestock of Israel?” The word
‫ מספר‬is used there as if the Torah (Bileam) had said ‫לספר‬, “to count.” [I assume that when the Torah quotes a
human being, such as here, G’d dictated Bileam’s words to Moses, seeing that neither Moses nor any other
Jew had heard a single one of Bileam’s blessings. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 27:31:1 ‫ויאמר‬...‫ויעש‬, this is quite clear.
Radak on Genesis 27:33:1 ‫ ;ויחרד‬he displayed his emotional upset in front of Esau in order that Esau should not think he had
deliberately fooled Esau by blessing Yaakov. He said:
Radak on Genesis 27:33:2 ‫מי איפוא‬, the words mean: “who is he, and where is he now?”
Radak on Genesis 27:33:3 ‫ואכל מכול‬, of all the tasty dishes which he served me.
Radak on Genesis 27:33:4 ‫בטרם תבא‬, “before you could come. If I had not eaten of all the type of food he had prepared for me, and you
would have arrived while I was in the middle of eating, I would have stopped eating from his food and have
helped myself to yours and have blessed you. However, since I have eaten my fill before you came I cannot
do this now since I have blessed him already.”
Radak on Genesis 27:33:5 ‫גם ברוך יהיה‬, since I have already blessed him I confirm my blessing for I knew that he was my son (not an
outsider).
Radak on Genesis 27:34:1 ‫גם אני‬...‫כשמוע‬, “I am also your son, no less than he is.” The letter ‫ א‬in the word ‫ אני‬has the vowel kametz,
although it does not signify a comma or something similar, as it is intended to stress the word “I.” We find a
similar construction in 31,52 ‫אם אני לא אעבור אליך‬, where we also would not have expected the kametz instead
of the vowel patach. There too, the kametz is used to provide emphasis on the word “I.” Another example of
the use of the kametz in the word ‫ אני‬as a means of emphasizing the speaker is Psalms 89,28 ‫אני בכור‬-‫אף‬
‫אתנהו‬, “I will appoint him firstborn.”
Radak on Genesis 27:35:1 ‫במרמה‬...‫ויאמר‬, by making his hands appear hairy.
Radak on Genesis 27:36:1 ‫ויאמר‬, when Esau heard that his brother had used subterfuge to obtain the blessing by making his hands
appear as if they were hairy, he said: ‫הכי קרא שמו יעקב‬, “he was called the crooked one for good reason!” The
letter ‫ ה‬at the beginning of the word ‫ הכי‬serves as confirmation of something, as if to say: “truly!” We find it
used in a similar sense in Kings I 21,19 ‫!הרצחת וגם ירשת‬, “ You not only murdered but meant to inherit!” Or,
Numbers 20,10: ‫“ !המן הסלע הזה‬from this very rock!” Esau said that Yaakov had truly deserved the name they
had given him at birth. Actually, the word ‫ יעקב‬has two connotations; one is connected to deviousness,
deceit, as in Jeremiah 17,10 ‫ עקוב הלב‬, “the heart is full of deceit;” or, also from Jeremiah 9,3 ‫כי כל אח עקוב‬
‫יעקב‬, “every brother takes advantage.” On the other hand, the word also is derived from ‫עקב‬, heel, not a
negative connotation at all, but possibly a positive one, suggesting humility, modesty, the opposite of
pushiness. Yaakov combined both qualities.
Radak on Genesis 27:36:2 ‫ויעקבני‬, he tricked me twice.
Radak on Genesis 27:36:3 ‫את בכורתי לקח‬, there is no greater type of craftiness than to exploit one’s brother’s hunger and fatigue and to
buy his birthright for a dish of lentils. Now he has also taken my blessing by deceit.
Radak on Genesis 27:36:4 ‫הלא אצלת לי ברכה‬, “you have not even reserved a minor blessing for me!” You have given everything to him.
How could that be?

Radak on Genesis 27:37:1 ‫ויען‬, concerning the exclamation that Yitzchok had not even reserved a small blessing for Esau, he answered:
‫ ואת כל אחיו נתתי לו‬,‫הן גביר שמתיו לך‬, seeing that I have appointed him as senior to you and to all his brothers,
(compare verse 29) i.e. to Esau’s brothers (kin)
Radak on Genesis 27:37:2 ‫סמכתיו‬, I have appointed him as central, i.e. have decreed that all his family be close to him for all times
(compare the word ‫ תסמכני‬in Psalms 51,14 ‫ורוח נדיבה תסמכני‬, “let a vigorous spirit sustain me.” This can only
be effective if all the relatives are close by. It is also possible that the meaning of the word ‫ סמכתיו‬is ‫ משען‬,‫סעד‬
support of a financial and psychological type. If so, the prefix ‫ ב‬in the word ‫ סמכתיו‬would be missing, as if
Yitzchok had said: ‫ובדגן ותירוש‬, “and with corn and wine,” instead of ‫ודגן ותירוש‬.
Radak on Genesis 27:37:3 ‫ולכה איפוא‬, as for you, now ‫מה אעשה‬, what can I do? What kind of a blessing remains for you after all this?
The formulation is similar to Isaiah 22,16 ‫מה לך איפוא‬, “what have you here?”

Radak on Genesis 27:38:1 ‫אחת‬...‫ויאמר‬, can you not even grant me a blessing concerning any aspect of life which you have not given
him?
Radak on Genesis 27:39:1 ‫הנה משמני הארץ‬...‫ויען‬, the earth which you will inherit and on which you will dwell will belong to the most
productive areas of the earth, i.e. the Mountain of Seir.
Radak on Genesis 27:39:2 ‫ומטל השמים‬, your land will be rich and from above it will enjoy the dew from heaven so that this will be a
blessing adequate to sustain you and will be also a blessing for him, seeing that his land will also be fruitful,
productive.

Radak on Genesis 27:40:1 ‫ועל חרבך תחיה‬. This is the one blessing which will be exclusively yours, your ability to survive by means of
your sword and the fear you will inspire in your enemies. They will fear your prowess in war.
Radak on Genesis 27:40:2 ‫ואת אחיך תעבוד‬, this too is a blessing as it is of benefit to you to serve your brother rather than to have to
serve others.
Radak on Genesis 27:40:3 ‫והיה כאשר תריד‬, when the time comes when it is your turn to rule over him,
Radak on Genesis 27:40:4 ‫ופרקת עלו‬, and then you will not serve him as this (your shaking off his yoke) is his punishment for his sin

Radak on Genesis 27:41:1 ‫יקרבו ימי אבל אבי‬...‫וישטום‬, he wished fervently for the day of his father’s death which was expected soon as
else why did he already bless his sons? He planned to kill Yaakov after the mourning period after his father
would have passed. He did not ant to kill Yaakov while their father was still alive, so as not to be responsible
for Yitzchok dying as a result of grief over having lost his son.
Radak on Genesis 27:42:1 ‫ויגד לרבקה‬, how did she get to know about Esau’s intentions which he had not articulated? It is possible that
she experienced a prophetic revelation, seeing that she was a prophetess. (compare Rashi) It is also
possible that what Esau had thought about doing, he inadvertently mentioned to someone so that the one
who had heard him reported it to Rivkah.
Radak on Genesis 27:42:2 ‫מתנחם לך להרגך‬, he acts as if he is already consoling himself over the death of Yaakov. Or, the meaning of
this phrase could be that Esau has made peace with his own death because he knows that at least he had
first killed you. Once he has accomplished
Radak on Genesis 27:43:1 ‫חרנה‬..‫ועתה‬, she had heard that her brother had migrated from Ur Casdim to Charan.
Radak on Genesis 27:44:1 ‫אחדים‬...‫וישבת‬, a few; since the number ‫ אחד‬is the lowest of the numbers it is no more than natural to describe
a small number in terms of a multiple of “one.”
Radak on Genesis 27:45:1 ‫גם שניכם‬...‫עד שוב‬, one to include the other. We find a similar construction of lumping two people together
when they share a single common denominator [such as death in this verse. Ed.] in Genesis 43,8 ‫גם אנחנו גם‬
‫אתה‬, “both we and you,” where the word‫ גם‬introduces two entities instead of merely adding one to another,
and Yehudah tells his father that sending Binyamin with him will result in both his father and the brothers and
their families being spared death from famine. The rationale of ‫אשכול שניכם יום אחד‬, is simply that the death of
one of the brothers will inevitably be followed immediately by the death of the other.

Radak on Genesis 27:46:1 ‫מפני בנות חת‬...‫ותאמר‬, the ones referred to were only those whom Esau had married. Rivkah says that if
Yaakov were to marry someone similar, it would be better that she would die now. She considered Yaakov
as already single for too many years so that she asked Yitzchok to order him to go to her brother Lavan,
thereby saving him both from the avenging sword of his brother and from the daughters of the Canaanites
one of whom might want to marry him Once in the house of Lavan, Yaakov would either marry one of Lavan’
s daughters or some other woman related to Rivkah.
Radak on Genesis 28:1:1 .(verse 3) ‫ל שדי יברך אותך‬-‫ וא‬:the text of the blessing commences with the words ,‫ויברך אתו‬.. ‫ויקרא‬
Radak on Genesis 28:2:1 ‫קום לך‬, the word ‫ קום‬is not to be understood literally as “rise!,” but as an instruction to go about the task to be
fulfilled with speed, without delay.<br> ‫פדנה ארם‬, we explained this as meaning “to Charan.”

Radak on Genesis 28:4:1 ‫ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם‬...‫ל שדי‬-‫וא‬, which G’d pronounced concerning you and your descendants, for just as I
was a special seed to my father, though he had other children beside me, you are my special seed and will
be the bearer of this promise/prophecy.
Radak on Genesis 28:5:1 ‫וישלח‬, he sent him off to proceed in the direction he had instructed him. Yaakov complied with his father’s
instruction, as the Torah continues ‫וילך פדנה ארם‬, he took with him sufficient supplies of money and food to
last him until he would arrive there. His parents knew that once he would be at his uncle Lavan he would not
be short of any of his needs.
Radak on Genesis 28:5:2 ‫אחי רבקה‬, Rivkah’s brother. He had ample reason to go there if he had to flee some place, seeing his uncle
was a brother of his mother. In this phrase Yaakov is mentioned ahead of Esau, although he was the
younger, because his relationship to Rivkah who was also his mother was much closer than that of Rivkah to
Esau her older son. Everyone of her family in Padan Aram was aware of their sister Rivkah’s special
fondness for Yaakov.

Radak on Genesis 28:6:1 ‫וירא‬, seeing that the sense of sight is a more reliable sense of perception than any of the other 4 senses, the
Torah describes Esau’s realisation of what had transpired as being visual.
Radak on Genesis 28:6:2 ‫לקחת לו משם אשה‬, the fact that Yaakov was fleeing from Esau’s wrath had not become known, everyone
thinking he had left to select a bride for himself.

Radak on Genesis 28:8:1 ‫וישמע‬, Esau also heard that Yaakov had obediently followed his father’s instructions to get himself a wife from
that far away He “saw” now that ‫רעות בנות כנען‬, that the daughters of the Canaanite whom he had married
were considered as evil in the eyes of his father Yitzchok. Even though he had been fully aware of this
already previously, seeing that his father had already protested his marrying these girls at the time, he had
not made it a major issue to forbid him to marry them as he knew that his major seed would not be Esau.
Now Esau realised how deeply his father resented these daughters-in-law seeing he had sent Yaakov such
a long way to get himself a wife from Charan. This is why he went to Ishmael.

Radak on Genesis 28:9:1 ‫אחות נביות‬...‫וילך‬. This Nevayot was an extremely well known personality, and so was his sister. (25,20)
Compare also the formulation in Genesis 10,21 which shows that Yaphet was a well known personality.
Radak on Genesis 28:9:2 ‫על נשיו‬, he married Machalat in addition not instead of his other wives. She was to represent a higher level of
spirituality in Esau’s household. His other wives now occupied a socially inferior status.

Radak on Genesis 28:10:1 ‫ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה‬, it is the custom of Scriptures to first tell us the beginning and the end of
something before elaborating on what occurred in the interval. Other examples of this literary style of the
Scriptures are found in Genesis 24,10 ‫ויקם וילך אל ארם נהרים‬, something that did not all occur on the same
day. Similarly, we find the phrase ‫צמח בלי יעשה קמח‬, “it grew without developing into flour,” without mentioning
all the intermediary stages before relating the outcome. (Hoseah 8,7) The reason we have such formulations
is because the author hastens to get to the point of the story.
Radak on Genesis 28:11:1 ‫יפגע במקום‬, while on his way Yaakov encountered one evening a site less than a day’s walk from Beer Sheva.
Since it was already evening, the sun having set, he decided to spend the night there as he was too tired to
walk any further. The reason why the letter ‫ ב‬in ‫ במקום‬is spelled with the vowel kametz, suggesting that the
place was known, is that the location was known as a site where travelers from Beer Sheva would often
spend the night.
Radak on Genesis 28:11:2 ‫ויקח מאבני המקום‬, one of the stones of the place, for he had not entered the town to spend the night there but
preferred to spend the night in the open field.. To that end he placed the stone under his head to serve him
as a pillow and lay down there.
Radak on Genesis 28:12:1 ‫ והנה סלם‬,‫ויחלום‬, there are many different opinions among our sages how best to explain this dream, as well
as among other readers of the Bible. Some say that this was a preview of the revelation at Mount Sinai and
that the numerical value of the letters in the word ‫ סלם‬equals that of the word (130) ‫סיני‬
Radak on Genesis 28:12:2 ‫מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה‬, at the revelation of Mount Sinai the angels and the Jewish people were of the
same spiritual level, even though Moses and Aaron are described as ascending towards heaven, whereas
the angels were descending towards earth. [the thought that Aaron too was ascending toward heaven is
quoted in Shemot Rabbah 19,3. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 28:13:1 ‫והנה ה' נצב עליו‬, this would be a reference to Exodus 19,20 where we read ‫וירד ה' על הר סיני‬, “the Lord
descended on Mount Sinai.” Others say that G’d showed Yaakov details of the sacrificial service in the
Temple, the ladder serving as a model of the function of the altar.
Radak on Genesis 28:13:2 ‫וראשו מגיע השמימה‬, an allusion to the smoke from the sacrifices rising from the altar in the Temple, especially
that of the daily incense offering. These would be received with goodwill by the Lord.
Radak on Genesis 28:13:3 ‫והנה מלאכי אלוקים עולים ויורדים בו‬, a reference to the priests who offer the animal offerings and the incense.
We also find among the explanations given by our sages for this dream (compare Rashi on verse 11 and 17)
that Yaakov viewed himself during this dream as standing on Mount Moriah as he was familiar with the
appearance of the location from both the description he had heard from his father and from his grandfather
Avraham. This is why he said that this place would become the House of G’d in the future and the gateway to
heaven (verses 22 and 17). The reason was that this place on earth is directly opposite the throne of G’d in
the celestial regions. As to the reason he named the site ‫ל‬-‫בית א‬, this was because he saw in a prophetic
vision [seeing that he had been granted the vision there, Ed.] that the site itself was holy, not only the Temple
that would be erected on it. This is why he immediately built an altar there. I have also found among the
sayings of the sages on these verses that the ladder had 4 rungs. According to that Midrash the width of the
ladder was such that 4 angels could simultaneously ascend and descend on it. When they would pass each
other on their respective ascent and descent they would occupy the full width of the rung. Each angel
symbolised one “governor” of the world as we know from Daniel 10,6 ‫וגויתו כתרשיש‬. “its body” the size of
Tarshish (another term for the “governor.”) These Rabbis have a tradition that Tarshish is one of three such
“governors” of the universe. We have to understand what is so important in this interpretation. According to
the superficial meaning the width of the ladder would have been wide enough to accommodate 4 such
governors, something that seems hard to understand. Maimonides has shown us a window through which to
understand what was meant by this statement of Daniel. [the author does not necessarily adopt the views
expressed by Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim section 2, chapters 9 and 10, but employs a similar concept,
explaining what occurred on the ladder during Yaakov’s dream. Ed.] He explained that the universe consists
basically of three phenomena, the third one being the angels (abstract disembodied intelligent creatures.
Moreh Nevuchim 2,10) The four ”rungs” of the ladder would be understood as 4 ‫ כדורים‬described in Moreh
Nevuchim second part chapter 9 as a condensation of the nine planets to merely four, some being absorbed
to become part of the domain of others. In that scheme of things G’d assigned specific functions to specific
planets such as the sun (in charge of fire, heat) and the moon (in charge of water, to wit its influence on the
tides), various orbiting planets creating the motion resulting in rain or wind respectively. At any rate, the
concept of G’d having assigned 4 distinct such “angels,” i.e. agents of His to run the physical “lower” universe
would be what G’d showed Yaakov in the dream of “angels” ascending and descending. Whereas these
forces are portrayed in constant motion, such motion by definition cannot be constantly in a single direction.
They are therefore portrayed as “ascending” or “descending.” This naturally involves their passing each other
at a certain point. Symbolically speaking, the “ladder” the framework within which they operate, must be wide
enough to allow this. This is possibly what the Midrash quoted in Maimonides has in mind. [Our editions of
the Midrash do not have this paragraph. Ed.] [Another way of looking at the ascending and descending
“angels” is that they represent the quest of man for wisdom regarding G’d and His universe, i.e. ascending,
and the agents of G’d meeting man halfway in providing him with such knowledge, i.e. “descending.”
Alternatively, after man has ascended to receive divinely inspired insights he returns to earth “descends,” to
incorporate the newly gained insights in his world view. Akeydat Yitzchok. Ed.] G’d being portrayed as
“standing” on top of the ladder is a reminder that the knowledge obtained by man is not from independently
powerful phenomena but that these apparently powerful forces are only carrying out His instructions.
Radak on Genesis 28:13:4 ‫והנה ה' נצב עליו‬, the meaning of the word ‫ עליו‬is not clear. It could refer to G’d on top of the ladder, but it could
also refer to Yaakov, meaning G’d was providing Yaakov with new insights originating from the wisdom
available in the celestial regions, i.e. the top of the ladder. If so, the reason this is described sequentially as
an ascent followed by a descent is that the ascent describes man’s learning process, something
concentrated in the head, the mind. Once he has absorbed the new knowledge he has to use it, transmit it to
the lower parts of his body, which carries out the lessons learned. The reason why the words ‫ עולים‬and ‫יורדים‬
appear in the plural mode is that both the ‫ שכל‬and the ‫פועל‬, [theoretical pure reason and the practical reason
have to absorb these lessons. My wording. Ed.] The descending “angels” describe the two basic elements in
G’d’s supervisory scheme of guiding the history of the universe, the direct and indirect supervision and
intervention by G’d known as hashgachah peratit, and the general supervision by G’d’s agents the ‫ כדורים‬or
‫ גלגלים‬known in everyday language as mazzalot. Since Yaakov was fleeing from his home, and no doubt his
mental and spiritual equilibrium had been traumatised somewhat by recent events, G’d showed him these
insights to not only repair the damage, but to provide him with knowledge he had not yet possessed
previously. He promised to give him the land that he was presently running away from, and reassured him
that it was well within the Supreme Power, the Lord, to accomplish all this when the time would be ripe. He
reassured him that he, Yaakov, indeed was Yitzchok’s real descendant and that all the promises made to
Avraham would bear fruition through him and his descendants.
Radak on Genesis 28:13:5 ‫אביך‬, although Avraham was not your biological father he was like your father to you and not to the other
grandchildren he had from other sons. Avraham’s inheritance would devolve only on Yaakov.
Radak on Genesis 28:13:6 ‫אשר אתה שוכב עליה‬...‫והנה‬, the meaning is not that Yaakov would be given only the tiny piece of earth he was
lying on at that time, but G’d referred to the tiny sample of the land of Israel Yaakov was lying on at that type
as being a symbol of the land of Israel of the future. We have a similar construction in Genesis 13,15 where
G’d speaks of “all the land Avraham can see.” If He had meant that Avraham’s descendants would inherit
only what was within Avraham’s range of vision at that moment, the promise would have been meaningless.
G’d used the piece of land he stood on as a symbol of what He would give to his descendants in the future.
Concerning the Midrash (mentioned by Rashi) that G’d had “folded” the whole of the land of Israel beneath
the tiny piece of earth occupied by Yaakov at the time when He made this promise, surely the meaning of the
Midrash is that G’d’s promise is to be understood “as if he had folded, etc.”

Radak on Genesis 28:14:1 ‫ופרצת‬...‫והיה‬, you and your descendants.

Radak on Genesis 28:14:2 ‫ונברכו בך‬, on your account and on account of your descendants all the families of the earth will experience
Divine blessings. The reason for this is that He who performs G’d’s commandments and thereby
acknowledges His existence and power, deserves that the world exist on his account. Everyone else who is
alive and well on earth therefore owes his well being to the Jews keeping the Torah.

Radak on Genesis 28:15:1 ‫והנה‬, even though you are presently fleeing, do not be afraid for ‫אנכי‬, I will be with you, ‫ושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך‬,
both on your way out and eventually, on your way home.
Radak on Genesis 28:15:2 ‫כי לא אעזבך עד אשר אם עשיתי‬, so that in effect I will never abandon you. This promise was to stand by him and
his descendants during his entire life, as well as during that of his children.
Radak on Genesis 28:15:3 ‫אשר אם‬, this apparently superfluous repetition is meant to reinforce the promise.

Radak on Genesis 28:16:1 ‫אכן יש ה‬..‫וייקץ‬, he concluded that this site was a site chosen for revelations, seeing that he had become the
recipient of such great and wonderful visions in his dream with the ladder.
Radak on Genesis 28:16:2 ‫ואנכי לא ידעתי‬, if I had known that this was a holy site I would not have chosen this site to sleep on. It is
possible that this dream represented the beginning of Yaakov’s prophetic visions. This is why he had not
been aware of the sanctity of the site until after his dream, seeing that this was the first time G’d had revealed
Himself to him in any manner.
Radak on Genesis 28:17:1 ‫ויירא ויאמר‬, he was concerned for himself fearing that he might have done something which one is not allowed
to do in a holy place. Perhaps while he had been asleep and unable to control his movements, he had
behaved in a manner unbefitting such a sacred location.
Radak on Genesis 28:17:2 ‫ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה‬, since he had seen an awe-inspiring vision here he concluded that the whole place
may have been an awesome place, not to be approached except in a state of ritual purity.
Radak on Genesis 28:17:3 ‫אין זה כי אם בית אלוקים‬, this place is suitable only for becoming a House of G’d, a temple of sorts. a place
wherein to pray and to offer sacrifices to G’d. Another explanation of Yaakov’s exclamation could be that he
concluded that the only reason he had been shown the vision was to stimulate him to erect a House of G’d
there.
Radak on Genesis 28:17:4 ‫וזה שער השמים‬, an expression analogous to Chronicles II 30,27 ‫ותבא תפלתם למעון קדשו לשמים‬, “their prayer
reached the residence of His Holiness, to heaven.”

Radak on Genesis 28:18:1 ‫וישם מצבה‬....‫וישכם יעקב‬, he erected the stone to its full height.
Radak on Genesis 28:18:2 ‫ויצק שמן על ראשה‬, so that he would recognise this stone on his return from Charan. Oil stains on a stone
remain for many years and do not disappear. He planned to erect an altar at this site when he would return
from Charan. It is also possible that the pouring of oil on that stone was equivalent to pouring a libation of
wine on the altar. In fact, when he did return to this site he is reported as doing exactly this (Genesis 35,14)
All of this was to be a visible reminder that the Jewish people would take possession, inherit the land
promised to them by G’d. Just as Avraham and Yitzchok during their time had treated the land as if it already
belonged to them, Yaakov now did the same, albeit it in a miniscule, symbolical way. Once Yaakov had
made a monument out of this stone no one had the right to use this stone for his private needs. The fact that
some 34 years later he built an altar there using this stone as its foundation, shows that no one in the interval
had disputed what this stone had represented. The Torah would not bother to mention that Yaakov had
called this site Bet El unless the local people had been informed of this and had not objected to the name
change. Clearly, just as the local population had to go along with the wells dug by Avraham and Yitzchok and
the names given to these wells because G’d made them respect these patriarchs, so now G’d inspired the
local residents to go along with what Yaakov had done there. The attitude G’d inspired in the local population
is best described by David in Psalms 105 15 ‫אל תגעו במשיחי ולנביאי אל תרעו‬, “do not dare touch My anointed,
nor do harm to My prophets.”
Radak on Genesis 28:20:1 ‫וידר‬, the vow Yaakov made at this point was a conditional one. The conditional nature did not mean that
Yaakov doubted the promise G’d had made to him and G’d’s ability to fulfill it; rather he was afraid that just as
all of G’d’s promises presume that the recipient remains worthy of them, so Yaakov was also afraid that
some errors he might commit in the future, sinful conduct, would invalidate G’d promises. This is the only
reason that he prefaced the vow with the words: “if G’d will be with me, etc.” He was afraid that if he would
commit a sin or sins he might never see his father’s house again so that he would be unable to fulfill the vow
he was about to make.
Radak on Genesis 28:20:2 ‫לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש‬, he did not ask G’d for anything but the bare necessities of life. He did not need to ask
for water as people find enough water to drink all over on earth.

Radak on Genesis 28:21:1 ‫ושבתי בשלום‬, with his wife and children, for without them neither he, his father, or his mother would consider
themselves at peace, seeing that he was forbidden to marry one of the Canaanite girls.
Radak on Genesis 28:21:2 ‫והיה ה' לי לאלוקים‬, this was the gist of the vow, meaning that he would concentrate on the service of the Lord
and minimise any mundane activities. Furthermore, he vowed that he would build an altar on the place where
he had slept on the stone which he had just anointed.<br> ‫יהיה בית אלוקים‬, he would build a Temple and altar
there so that anyone worshipping the Lord could come there and pray and offer his sacrifices on that altar. It
would be a Temple for the G’d in heaven only. Another way of understanding these words could be that he
would instruct his children to build a Temple there in the future when they would take possession of the land
of Israel. <br>A further vow Yaakov made at this time was: ‫וכל אשר תתן לי עשר אעשרנו לך‬, I will give a tithe of
all the acquisitions including the cattle which You will give me. I will distribute this tithe to needy people in
order to encourage them to switch to monotheism. According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,7 the vow included
tithing one of his future children to G’d, i.e. appointing him as a servant of the Lord representing the other
sons. [As an interesting aside, the Midrash there claims that assigning only one of 12, respectively 14 sons, if
we add Ephrayim and Menashe, Yaakov did not “tithe” i.e. give 10% of his children to the Lord, he is reported
as having replied that seeing that each of his four wives had one firstborn, someone whose duty it was as a
firstborn to devote himself to spiritual matters without his father “donating” him to G’d for such a task, he
Yaakov had done well to additionally assign Levi as a “tithe” for the remaining 10 “children.” Ed.] As to the
formulation:
Radak on Genesis 28:21:3 ‫עשר אעשרנו לך‬, as a grammatically unusual formulation, this is an accepted formulation as we find it also
confirmed in Deuteronomy 11,13 with the same verb, or in Deuteronomy 14,22 ‫ שמור תשמרון‬with a different
verb. There are many similar examples of this kind of repetition for emphasis. Our sages in Ketuvot 50 use
the formulation used in this verse as teaching that even if one wants to be generous in his donations to
charity and holy causes, one should not give away more than 20% of one’s wealth in order not to become an
object of charity himself because of carelessly squandering wealth given to one by G’d. The words‫עשר‬
‫ אעשרנו‬are understood by the Talmud there as applying to two such tithes of 10% each.
Radak on Genesis 29:1:1 ‫וישא יעקב רגליו‬, seeing that G’d had given him promises and found him worthy of such a far-reaching
prophetic insight, he rejoiced and continued on his way with ease. Up until that night Yaakov had proceeded
hesitantly, beset by doubts and anxieties. Although fleeing from the wrath of his brother, seeing that his
danger had not been imminent while his father was still alive, he had not been traveling with speed,
something typical of people fleeing for their lives.
Radak on Genesis 29:1:2 ‫וילך ארצה בני קדם‬, that land lies to the east of the land of Israel, Charan being the first town after one crosses
the border into that country. (compare what we have written on 25,6) The Torah does not mention the
political name of the country but describes it as “the land of the people of Kedem,” in more general terms.
Yaakov left the land of Canaan and crossed into this land, and while being close to Charan, he saw a well in
the field.

Radak on Genesis 29:2:1 ‫ רבצים עליה‬..‫וירא והנה באר‬, the word ‫ עליה‬means “near it,” just as in Numbers 2,20 when the positions of the
various army groups of the Israelites are described and the Torah writes ‫ועליו מטה מנשה‬. The meaning clearly
cannot be that the tribe of Menashe was positioned on top of the tribe of the tribe of Ephrayim, but that the
tribe of Menashe was positioned close to the tribe of Ephrayim. The term ‫ על‬in the sense of “near, close by,”
occurs numerous times in Scripture.
Radak on Genesis 29:2:2 ‫והאבן גדולה‬, seeing that there was no other source of water nearby to water the flocks of the people of
Charan, the local people had placed an extremely large and heavy rock on top of it so that only in the
presence of all the shepherds would the flocks be watered so as to ensure a fair distribution of the available
water. This would also help to avoid wasting water remaining in the troughs when no other flock had already
lined up at the troughs. Placing such a large stone on the well then was a device designed to help everyone
entitled to this water to receive his fair share in the presence of all the shepherds.

Radak on Genesis 29:3:1 ‫וגללו‬...‫ונאספו שמה‬, the subject of the verse are the various shepherds who have as yet not been mentioned.
Radak on Genesis 29:4:1 ‫ויאמר להם‬, to the shepherds of the flocks which were laying around in the vicinity of the well.
Radak on Genesis 29:4:2 ‫אחי‬, an exclamation incorporating a kind of warning, such as ‫ אל נא אחי‬in Genesis 19,8 “please my brothers,
do not, etc.!” It is not unusual for people to refer to people close to them or presumed to be close to them as
“brothers,” although no biological family ties exist between them at all. Yaakov employed this preamble in
order to at once establish a friendly bond between himself and the shepherds.

Radak on Genesis 29:5:1 ‫בן נחור‬...‫ויאמר להם‬. He mentioned Lavan’s grandfather rather than his father seeing Nachor had been a well
known personality whereas Betuel had not. This is also why we find in Genesis 31,53 the expression‫אלוקי‬
‫אברהם ואלוקי נחור‬, seeing that Nachor had been well known.
Radak on Genesis 29:6:1 ‫באה‬, with the stress on the last syllable seeing the word is in the present tense.
Radak on Genesis 29:7:1 ‫ ויאמרו‬,‫ויאמר‬, it is clear who the subjects are without their names or vocations having to be restated.
Radak on Genesis 29:9:1 ‫באה‬...‫עטדנו‬. the word ‫ באה‬this time is in the past tense so that this time its stress is on the first (last but one)
syllable.
Radak on Genesis 29:10:1 ‫ויגל את האבן‬...‫ויהי‬, either together with the other three shepherds on hand, or all by himself. In the event that
he did it all by himself, G’d blessed him with extraordinary physical strength at that time.
Radak on Genesis 29:11:1 ‫וישק‬, since she had realised that Yaakov had done all this on her account, she accepted his kiss.
Furthermore, he had told them ‫כי אחי אביה הוא‬, i.e. a son of her father’s sister, a son of Rivkah, who was
known to all the people of Charan to have become married to Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 29:11:2 ‫ויבך‬, he wept for joy. When close relatives meet after not having seen each other for a while, their emotional
cup runs over so that they find it hard to control their feelings and they give way to them by crying for joy.
Radak on Genesis 29:12:1 ‫כי אחי אביה הוא‬, i.e. a son of her father’s sister, a son of Rivkah, who was known to all the people of Charan to
have become married to Yitzchok.
Radak on Genesis 29:13:1 ‫ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה‬...‫ויהי כשמוע‬, he revealed the reason why he had left his father’s home and that
he had done so at the command of both his father and his mother.
Radak on Genesis 29:14:1 ‫אך עצמי‬...‫ויאמר‬, the word ‫ אך‬in this instance means “truly!” It appears in this meaning in several other
passages in the Scriptures, as for instance, Psalms 73,1 ‫”אך טוב לישראל‬G’d is truly good to Israel.” Or, Isaiah
63,8 ‫אך עמי המה‬, “truly, they are My people!” Essentially, what Lavan said to Yaakov was that he should not
worry about having left home seeing that all he needed would be provided for him by Lavan.
Radak on Genesis 29:15:1 ‫הכי אחי אתה‬...‫ויאמר‬, the meaning is: “seeing that you are my brother it is not good that you should work for me
as if for nothing, in exchange only for food clothing and lodging. I want you to feel comfortable with me and to
have a chance to grow economically also.
Radak on Genesis 29:16:1 ‫וללבן שתי בנות‬, the fact that Lavan had two daughters, etc., is mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph in
order for us to understand what is reported later about Yaakov having fallen in love with Rachel and offering
to serve Lavan for 7 years for her hand in marriage. The Torah wants us to understand that Yaakov would
never have agreed to work for Leah’s hand in marriage for even a fraction of such a long period.
Radak on Genesis 29:17:1 ‫ועיני לאה רכות‬, although her eyes were beautiful, they had a habit of breaking out in tears constantly. She was
given to weeping excessively.
Radak on Genesis 29:17:2 ‫יפת תאר ויפת מראה‬, but Rachel suffered from no physical blemish at all, but was perfect both in shape and in
facial features. The word ‫ מראה‬describes the appearance of one’s skin, healthy or otherwise, as well as the
colour of her hair, i.e. black. In other words, the part of one’s body normally visible to all is described as
‫מראה‬.

Radak on Genesis 29:18:1 ‫אעבדך‬...‫ויאהב‬, in response to the question: “what shall be your wages?,” he answered Lavan that his wages
would be in addition to food lodging and clothes that Lavan would give him his daughter Rachel as a wife.
Even though Yaakov had spelled out which daughter, namely Rachel, he added the word ‫הקטנה‬, “the
younger one,” so that Lavan could not deceive him by giving him a different girl called Rachel. Some people
question that seeing that the righteous marry with a view to producing children, why would Rachel’s exterior
appearance have been of interest to Yaakov at all? After all they did not want their wives to be women who
would excite their libidos, and it is clear from the fact that Yaakov was willing to delay marriage by seven
years was due to his choosing a beautiful bride. He appears to have been angry at Lavan for having given
him Leah instead, seeing that Leah was not as attractive as her sister. We have to answer this by saying that
in choosing a beautiful woman as their brides, the righteous people had good intentions. They wanted their
libidos to be aroused by them in order to produce many children together. Furthermore, they also wanted
their children to be handsome like their mothers. Looking at beautiful people helps a person to remain in a
joyous frame of mind, something which is a requirement for man for we know that people who are not in a
joyful frame of mind cannot serve G’d in the best possible fashion. Even prophets cannot function as such
unless they are in a state of joy, and on occasion they require stimulants such as music in order to put them
in a more joyful frame of mind (Kohelet 5,19,--compare also Kings II 3,14-15)

Radak on Genesis 29:19:1 ‫טוב תתי‬...‫ויאמר‬, Lavan admitted that marrying members of one’s family was a good thing.
Radak on Genesis 29:19:2 ‫שבה עמדי‬, on the basis of the conditions which you yourself have suggested. After you have fulfilled these
conditions I will give her to you.

Radak on Genesis 29:20:1

Radak on Genesis 29:22:1
Radak on Genesis 29:23:1 ‫ויהי בערב‬, the Torah uses this opportunity to teach us that sexual intercourse even with artificial light, i.e.
during the night is not appropriate, how much more so is it inappropriate during daylight hours. If it were
appropriate to indulge in intercourse using artificial light Lavan could not have passed off Leah as Rachel
without Yaakov becoming aware of this. It is clear from the text that Yaakov did not realise Leah as having
been his partner in bed until the following morning. [the word ‫ הנה‬in verse 25 which we explained as always
adding a new, up until then unknown, element is proof for this. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 29:24:1 ‫ויתן לבן לה את זלפה שפחתו‬, when she was led under the wedding canopy Lavan gave her this handmaid to be
her personal maid.
Radak on Genesis 29:25:1 ‫ויהי בבוקר והנה היא לאה‬, for he had not recognised her until morning as we explained. The aggadic explanation
mentioned by Rashi that Rachel had given her sister Leah the codeword which she and Yaakov had agreed
should serve to preclude such a swap is well known.
Radak on Genesis 29:26:1 ‫לא יעשה כן במקומנו‬...‫ויאמר‬, even though you asked for the hand of my younger daughter in marriage, seeing
that apparently where you come from it does not matter if the younger sister gets married before the older
one, in our place that is not a permissible procedure. I will therefore give you both of them with the proviso
that the nuptials of the older one must precede those of the younger one.
Radak on Genesis 29:27:1 ‫מלא שבוע זאת‬, conclude the days of the wedding celebration with this one as your exclusive wife,
Radak on Genesis 29:27:2 ‫ונתנה לך‬, it is possible to understand the word ‫ ונתנה‬as a passive construction in the feminine mode, or it
could be understood as an active mode of the kal conjugation first person plural, meaning “we will give to
you,” i.e. with the consent of the local inhabitants. Or, the letter ‫ נ‬represents what we know as the pluralis
majestatis, the arrogant, pompous “we” employed by kings etc., people who consider their individual opinions
as equivalent or superior to the collective wisdom of their subjects. In Scripture we find an example of this
mode of speech in Song of Songs 1,4 ‫ נגילה ונשמחה בך‬,‫משכני אחריך נרוצה‬, “draw me after you! Let us run! Let
us delight in your love.” There are a number of parallel examples in Scripture. After you will complete
enjoying Leah for one week I will also give you Rachel and you may immediately celebrate another seven
days of your nuptials with her. It is not proper to allow one celebration to interfere with another celebration at
the same time.

Radak on Genesis 29:28:1 ‫ויתן‬...‫ויעש‬, Lavan, in accordance with what he had said.
Radak on Genesis 29:30:1 ‫ויבא גם אל רחל‬...‫ויתן‬, just as he had slept with Leah previously, he now slept with Rachel.
Radak on Genesis 29:30:2 ‫ויאהב גם את רחל‬, the Torah had to write this in order to inform us that Yaakov loved Leah also, even though
originally he had not chosen her to become his wife. In the event, now that she had become his wife, he
loved her just as most husbands love their wives. However, he loved Rachel better.

Radak on Genesis 29:31:1 ‫וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה‬, Yaakov did not hate her; in fact he loved her. However, seeing that he loved Rachel
better it appeared as if he hated Leah. We find a similar situation in Deuteronomy 21,15 where the Torah
speaks about a husband “hating” one of his two wives. The meaning there is also relative to the wife he
prefers. G’d, Who knew the true state of affairs, i.e. what Leah’s perception of her husband’s feelings toward
were,
Radak on Genesis 29:31:2 ‫ויפתח את רחמה‬, seeing that the Torah describes her womb as needing to be “opened,” it is clear that she had
been barren before.
Radak on Genesis 29:31:3 ‫ורחל עקרה‬, but Rachel remained barren, as she had been. We already explained on 25,20 why the matriarchs
were basically all barren until G’d intervened visibly.

Radak on Genesis 29:32:1 ‫יאהבני‬..‫ותהר‬, just as much as he loves my sister. The vowel patach under the letter ‫ ב‬substitutes for the vowel
tzeyreh.
Radak on Genesis 29:33:1 .He heard my prayer and my plea ,‫ותהר עוד כי שמע ה‬
Radak on Genesis 29:34:1 ‫ילוה אישי אלי‬...‫ותהר‬, he will be more inclined to respond to my love than to that of my sister.<br> ‫כי ילדתי שלשה‬
‫בנים‬, seeing that what the righteous expect from their wives is that they bear sons for them.
Radak on Genesis 29:34:2 ‫על כן קרא שמו‬, Yaakov gave the boy this name because, as Leah had predicted, that he was so overjoyed at
Levi’s birth. It is also possible that Yaakov had seen with a prophetic eye that the sons of Levi would be
outstanding servants of the Lord and teachers of His Torah, and that they would constantly keep company
with G’d, i.e. strive to fulfill His will. He therefore named this son both because of what his wife had
proclaimed when he had been born, and because of the prophetic insight he had received regarding the
descendants of this son. If we needed proof for this approach it is the fact that he was the only one of
Yaakov’s sons who had been named by his father. The naming of Binyamin, respectively, renaming him, was
due to a different consideration altogether. We will discuss this in due course.
Radak on Genesis 29:35:1 ‫ אודה את ה‬...‫ותהר‬, I can only continue to thank the Lord and to praise Him, Who has granted me more than I
have requested from Him.
Radak on Genesis 29:35:2 ‫ותעמוד מלדת‬, at this time she stopped conceiving. This was also due to intervention by G’d, Who wanted the
servant maids to also have children for Yaakov.
Radak on Genesis 30:1:1 ‫ותקנא רחל באחותה‬..‫ותרא‬, she saw that during the period that Leah bore 4 sons for Yaakov she had not even
born him a single one.
Radak on Genesis 30:2:1 ‫אשר מנע ממך‬...‫ויחר‬, G’d denied you children, not I. You have to pray to Him, not to berate me. As far as I am
concerned, I have made my contribution already having slept with you far more often than with Leah. If you
are genetically barren then you have to ask G’d to open your womb. Your sister did the same and her prayer
has been answered. The word ‫מנע‬, prevented, which Yaakov used meant that the sperm did not enter the
area of the womb where fertilisation takes place. Yaakov’s anger was due to Rachel attributing her problem
to Yaakov and something Yaakov had failed to do, and not to G’d, Who decrees who is barren and who is
fertile. The demand to her husband ‫הבה לי בנים‬, “get me children,” was entirely out of place. Had she asked
Yaakov to plead with G’d to have mercy on her, she would have been perfectly in order. He would not then
have become angry at her.

Radak on Genesis 30:3:1 ‫ותאמר‬, she said that after Yaakov had explained to her that her failure to have children was G’d’s doing, she
suggested what Sarah had suggested to Avraham, that she was willing to become a vicarious mother
through her servant maid having a child by him. She therefore asked Yaakov to sleep with Bilhah.
Radak on Genesis 30:3:2 ‫ותלד על ברכי‬, whomsoever she will give birth to shall be considered as having been born on my knees, my
becoming his foster mother seeing he will be part of my family.
Radak on Genesis 30:3:3 ‫ואבנה גם אנכי‬, so that I too will be built through her (Bilhah). The word ‫ גם‬here refers to Leah, Rachel saying
that she too, as a foster mother, would consider herself as “built,” i.e. as leaving something of herself to
posterity. We have explained the meaning of the word ‫ ואבנה‬in Genesis 16,2.

Radak on Genesis 30:4:1 ‫לאשה‬...‫ותתן לו‬. she provided Yaakov to be Bilhah’s exclusive sexual partner.
Radak on Genesis 30:5:1 ‫ותהר‬, we find with each of the four sons born to Yaakov by the servant maids that the Torah adds the word
‫ליעקב‬, that these were born for Yaakov, although this word is missing when Leah gave birth to her first 4
sons. The reason is to underline that these sons by servant maids had the same status in Yaakov’s eyes as
the sons born by Leah and Rachel. When it came to the Israelites being divided into 12 tribes, twelve army
groups, supplying a specific number of judges, they were all treated equally.
Radak on Genesis 30:6:1 ‫דנני אלוקים‬...‫ותאמר‬, He compared my legal status with that of my sister and found me also as deserving to
have children, just as she is deserving. Seeing she spoke about the legal aspect of G’d’s judgment, as
opposed to the favours granted by G’d’s attribute of Mercy, i.e. ‫'ה‬, she used His attribute of Justice when
referring to Him, i.e. ‫אלוקים‬.
Radak on Genesis 30:6:2 ‫וגם שמע בקולי‬, to the prayer I offered to Him concerning this child. Even if I had not been worthy, He accepted
my prayer.
Radak on Genesis 30:6:3 ‫ויתן לי בן‬, seeing that I intend to relate to him as if he were the fruit of my own womb. He is part of my family.
[according to tradition both Zilpah and Bilhah were sisters to Rachel and Leah paternally, though they did not
have the same mother. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 30:8:1 ‫ותאמר נפתולי אלוקים‬...‫ותהר‬, “I have engaged in a difficult contest with my sister;” the root ‫ פתל‬means to twist or
be twisted as in ‫פתיל תכלת‬, a string made of blue wool, i.e. two strands of yarn combined to make a cord,
twisted. By pulling the two strands together the whole string becomes stronger. ‫ותאמר נפתולי אלוקים‬...‫ותהר‬, “I
have engaged in a difficult contest with my sister;” the root ‫ פתל‬means to twist or be twisted as in ‫פתיל תכלת‬,
a string made of blue wool, i.e. two strands of yarn combined to make a cord, twisted. By pulling the two
strands together the whole string becomes stronger.
Radak on Genesis 30:8:2 ‫אלוהים‬. The use of the word ‫ אלוהים‬is symbolic of the fierceness of the sisters’ competition, When we want to
emphasise something as being extraordinary, we sometimes use the word “elohim” to do this, as for instance
in the description of the size of the city of Nineveh in Jonah 3,3 where it is described as ‫עיר גדולה לאלוהים‬. A
similar expression in Psalms 36,7 ‫ל‬-‫ כהררי א‬describes towering mountains by using the word elohim as the
appropriate adjective to describe this. Psalms 80,11 Jeremiah 2,31, and Song of Songs 8,6 are some more
examples of the use of the word el or elohim as such an adjective.
Radak on Genesis 30:9:1 ‫ותרא לאה‬, she thought that she was not going to have any more children herself, and gave her handmaid to
Yaakov seeing that the matriarchs’ main concern was to increase the number of children that would be born
for Yaakov.
Radak on Genesis 30:11:1 ‫בגד‬...‫ותאמר‬...‫ותלד‬, the 2 words ‫ בא גד‬have been condensed into a single word, the letter ‫ א‬having been
omitted. The meaning of the expression is “this one came or brought with him with good fortune.” It is read as
if it had been written as two separate words, i.e. “good fortune has arrived.” The phrase ‫העורכים לגד שלחן‬, in
Isaiah 65,11 is also to be understood as “who set a table for luck?” Rabbi Moshe hacohen Gigatilia says that
the word ‫ גד‬refers to a star so named in the language of Kedar. This is a star presumed to forecast good
fortune. If we wanted to explain the word ‫ גד‬in terms of ‫גדוד‬, we could still explain it as having a similar
meaning, i.e. ‫בא גודד הגדוד‬, “with the arrival of this one there is a full troop of sons.”

Radak on Genesis 30:13:1 ‫באשרי‬..‫ותאמר‬..‫ותלד‬, the root of the word is in the kal conjugation. She said that others will give me credit for
building Yaakov’s future seeing that between her sons and her handmaids sons they had contributed 8 out of
12.
Radak on Genesis 30:14:1 ‫וילך ראובן‬, Reuven was about 6 or 7 years old at the time. He went out into the wheat fields, found these
dudaim and brought them to his mother Leah. Dudaim are a kind of herb whose roots have a natural reddish
appearance. Perhaps Reuven had heard some place that this herb is supposed to help women get pregnant,
and that seeing his mother had not had any babies lately, he meant to help her in this regard. The popular
belief in the efficacy of the dudaim in this respect is not based on fact. If it had been true, why did Rachel not
get pregnant after eating them? Also Leah did not get pregnant as a result of eating dudaim, for the Torah
says: ‫וישמע אלוקים אל לאה‬, that G’d listened to Leah’s prayer. (verse 17)
Radak on Genesis 30:14:2 ‫ותאמר רחל‬, she was under the impression that the popularly held belief about dudaim was correct.

Radak on Genesis 30:15:1 ‫המעט קחתך את אישי‬, seeing that Rachel still did not have any children Yaakov slept with her far more often
than he did with Leah in order to soothe her mind.
Radak on Genesis 30:15:2 ‫את אישי‬, she meant that Yaakov was her husband no less than he was Rachel’s husband.
Radak on Genesis 30:15:3 ‫ולקחת גם את דודאי בני‬, the word ‫ ולקחת‬is in an infinitive mode, as if she had said ‫ותרצי לקחת‬, “you want to
take.” If the meaning of the word would be as the translater (Onkelos) renders it as ‫ותסבין‬, the letter ‫ ת‬in
‫ ולקחת‬should have had a dagesh as is customary, for instance in Kings I 14,3 ‫ולקחת בידך‬.
Radak on Genesis 30:15:4 ‫לכן‬, in exchange for this.
Radak on Genesis 30:16:1 ‫ויבא יעקב‬, the reason why this whole paragraph has been preserved in the Torah for all times is to
demonstrate that what motivated our matriarchs in their relations with their husbands was exclusively their
task to produce as many children for them as possible. They were not concerned with indulging their libido.
When Rachel, during those years, made a point of sleeping with Yaakov at every opportunity, it was because
she hoped that on one of those occasions her prayers would be answered and that she would conceive. We
find that in verse 22 this did indeed happen. It stands to reason then that when Leah requested that Yaakov
sleep with her on a certain occasion, she too prayed that she would conceive as an answer to her prayers.
She had resumed praying for additional children as soon as she had noticed that she no longer seemed to
become pregnant easily. G’d did indeed listen to her prayer as we know from verse 17. As to Leah going out
towards Yaakov while the latter was on his way home from work, she did this fully in accordance with
accepted moral ethical rules, seeing that Yaakov had been unaware of the bargain Leah had made with
Rachel. Had she not headed him off, Yaakov would have proceeded to Rachel’s tent, as was his custom. It
would have been most inappropriate for Leah to ask Yaakov to leave Rachel’s tent after he had already
arrived there.
Radak on Genesis 30:16:2 ‫אלי תבא‬, to my tent, seeing that each of the matriarchs had her own tent.
Radak on Genesis 30:16:3 ‫ בלילה הוא‬the noun has the definitive article, i.e. the patach under the letter ‫ ב‬in the word ‫בלילה‬, whereas the
adjective, the word ‫הוא‬, does not have the prefix ‫ ה‬which would signal such a definitive article, i.e. referring to
a specific night we already know about. There are many such constructions in the Torah, one of the best
known ones being in Numbers 28,4 ‫את הכבש אחד‬, where we would have expected the word ‫ האחד‬instead of
merely ‫אחד‬. Samuel II 6,3 is another such example where we would have expected the word ‫ החדשה‬instead
of ‫חדשה‬.

Radak on Genesis 30:17:1 ‫וישמע‬, when the Torah speaks of “the fifth son,” “the sixth son,” this is to remind us that this woman was
deemed worthy to bear half of the 12 founding fathers of the Jewish nation.
Radak on Genesis 30:18:1 ‫ותאמר‬, seeing that she had stopped bearing children and had given her maidservant to Yaakov in her stead,
she thought that she had been rewarded for this by G’d (for two reasons; 1) for helping her husband to father
more children so that his indulging in sexual intercourse with a woman who could not provide him with
children would not be accounted as mere physical gratification. 2) for having done her maidservant a great
favour to become able to mother the children of such a righteous man as Yaakov. For both of these reasons
she expressed the hope that G’d would reward her. When she subsequently indeed bore children for Yaakov
again herself, she considered this as her reward from G’d and thanked Him for it. She made certain that her
son’s name reflected her feeling of gratitude by naming him ‫יששכר‬.
Radak on Genesis 30:20:1 ‫ותאמר זבדני אלוקים אותי זבד טוב‬...‫ותהר‬, the meaning of the name corresponds to the circumstances
surrounding the child’s birth. As to the apparent repetition, i.e. saying ‫אותי‬, something already mentioned by
the suffix ‫ ני‬in the word ‫זבדני‬, this may have been to make her intention in naming the boy even more
unmistakable. It is also possible that the letters ‫ את‬in this word mean “from,” as in Genesis 44,3 ‫הם יצאו את‬
‫העיר‬, “they had departed from the city,” so that the suffix ‫ י‬would make the word mean “from me.” She would
then have emphasised that not only had she been built up through raising the children of her handmaid, but
that G’d had even granted her additional children from her own womb. She was grateful that her husband’s
semen when sleeping with her did not go to waste. She was grateful that the gift of this baby originated in her
womb.
Radak on Genesis 30:20:2 ‫הפעם יזבלני‬, my house will now become his permanent residence seeing that I have born six sons for him.
She perpetuated this feeling of Yaakov making his home predominantly in her tent by naming the child
Zevulun.

Radak on Genesis 30:21:1 ‫ואחר ילדה בת‬, it would appear that originally Dinah was meant to become Zevulun’s twin (brother). This is why
the Torah wrote ‫ואחר ילדה בת‬, without making any mention of Leah again becoming pregnant. The Torah did
not even write ‫ותלד עוד‬. No mention is made of why she named the girl Dinah. There is a well known aggadic
explanation that Leah did not want her sister to be shamed in having fewer sons than even the handmaids;
her prayer to that effect was answered by this fetus becoming a girl.

Radak on Genesis 30:22:1 ‫ויזכר‬, after she had appeared to have been forgotten, seeing all of the other three women had already each
had children for Yaakov, G’d saw her shame and decided to “remember” her.
Radak on Genesis 30:22:2 ‫וישמע‬, now He heard all her prayers, i.e. the time had come for her prayers to be answered.

Radak on Genesis 30:23:1 ‫אסף אלוקים את חרפתי‬..‫ותהר‬, the word ‫ אסף‬is to be understood like the same word in Joel 4,15 ‫אספו נגהם‬, ”they
have withdrawn their brightness.” Rachel’s shame, embarrassment was removed. Alternatively, the word
could mean the destruction, termination of something as in Judges 18,25 ‫ואספת נפשך‬, “you would lose your
lives.” Rachel now lost her shame. The root ‫ אסף‬in the transitive sense also occurs in Samuel I 15,6 as ‫פן‬
‫אוסיפך עמו‬, “lest I destroy you with them.” Accordingly, the meaning of ‫ אסף‬here would be that it had
terminated, ceased to exist.
Radak on Genesis 30:24:1 ‫בן אחר‬...‫ותקרא‬. Rachel meant that she hoped for at least one more son.
Radak on Genesis 30:25:1 ‫ויהי כאשר ילדה‬, Yaakov told Lavan that now that all his wives and handmaids had born children including
Rachel who had been barren, there was no further reason for him to detain Yaakov. There is an aggadic
commentary quoted by Rashi according to which now that Joseph had been born Yaakov was reassured
about his fear of Esau being able to harm him. He considered Joseph the antidote to such a danger. He had
been told in a prophetic vision that the descendants of Esau would fall victim to the descendants of Joseph,
and this is why he was prepared to go back now to his father’s house
Radak on Genesis 30:25:2 ‫שלחני‬, a polite form of asking permission, though in fact none was needed.
Radak on Genesis 30:26:1 ‫תנה‬, seeing that all my belongings are still in your house.
Radak on Genesis 30:26:2 ‫אשר עבדתי אותך‬, for whom I have served you. Yaakov meant that Lavan had no legal right to detain them
seeing Yaakov had served for them, i.e. had paid for them in full. He wanted to take them home with him.
Radak on Genesis 30:26:3 ‫בהן‬, the word refers to the word ‫ נשי‬earlier in the verse.

Radak on Genesis 30:27:1 ‫נחשתי‬, I have divined, i.e. I have gone to magicians, mediums, etc., to find confirmation that your stay with
me was the cause of my good fortune during the last 14 years. As a result, I want that you stay with me some
more time.
Radak on Genesis 30:28:1 ‫נקבה‬, as rendered by Onkelos, “spell out, determine!” We find this word in a similar sense in Isaiah 62,2 ‫אשר‬
‫פי ה' יקבנו‬, “which the Lord Himself will determine.” Lavan meant that he was amenable to any terms Yaakov
would demand in order to retain his presence and his services.
Radak on Genesis 30:29:1 ‫ואת אשר היה‬..‫ויאמר‬, the meaning of the word ‫ מעט‬in verse 30 is that Lavan was well aware that when Yaakov
had come to him he had possessed very little, and that his wealth now was due to Yaakov’s faithful labour on
his behalf, and that G’d had increased the amount of livestock he owned now on account of Yaakov.
Radak on Genesis 30:30:1 ‫לרגלי‬...‫כי מעט‬, from the time I walked into your house to work for you, you became blessed, along the lines of
the proverb ‫רגל טובה לפלוני‬, “this person has a blessed foot,” [as in English we speak about someone having
“green fingers,” i.e. that plants grow successfully under his care. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 30:30:2 ?‫גם אנכי לביתי‬. When will I start providing for the needs of my own family as I have been doing for your family
for 14 years?Rabbeinu Shlomoh (Rashi) explains “thus far only my children have worked for me. When will I
finally help them?” (This explains the word ‫ גם‬in the verse).
Radak on Genesis 30:31:1 ‫ויאמר‬, Lavan said that he wanted him, Yaakov, to stay with him, asking: ?‫מה אתן לך‬, as your wages?
Radak on Genesis 30:31:2 ‫לא תתן לי מאומה‬, do not give me anything as fixed salary as my reward; my wages shall be in the nature of
something that accrues to me coincidentally as an act of kindness by G’d, not as a sign of goodwill from you,
diminishing what was yours. If you agree to these terms, ‫אשובה ארעה צאנך שמור‬, I will once again tend your
flocks as I used to do.
Radak on Genesis 30:32:1 ‫אעבור‬, I will check in passing together with you.
Radak on Genesis 30:32:2 ‫הסר‬, the word is either in the infinitive, or an instruction by Yaakov to Lavan to remove these animals so that
he would not be able to say at a later stage that they had been part of his flock which had been overlooked in
their joint count of them, and that it was these mother sheep which had given birth to the lambs with the skin
patterns Yaakov had chosen to be his wages.
Radak on Genesis 30:32:3 ‫ כל שה נקוד וטלוא‬, of the ‫תישים‬, i.e. the males, whereas of the goats the female are meant. As the Torah says
‫וטלוד ונקוד בעזים‬. The reason why the ‫ תישים‬have not been spelled out by name is that both had understood
that they were meant without their having to spell this out. In the story narrative (verse 35) they have been
mentioned specifically. The reason Yaakov used the term ‫ שה‬was that this term includes both the males and
the females of the species. (compare Ezekiel 34,20 ‫ )בין שה בריה ובין שה רזה‬Another verse referring to the
word ‫ שה‬as clearly both male and female is found in Leviticus 22,27 ‫ושור או שה אותו ואת בנו‬.
Radak on Genesis 30:32:4 ‫נקד‬, displaying white spots among the black or yellowish ones.
Radak on Genesis 30:32:5 ‫וטלוא‬, a reference to larger patches, as per Joshua 9,5. We encounter this expression in this sense also in
Shabbat 114, i.e. ‫טלאי על גבי טלאי‬.
Radak on Genesis 30:32:6 ‫חום‬, black The word has this meaning in Arabic when one refers to the colour of the head and throat of the
sheep.
Radak on Genesis 30:32:7 ‫והיה שכרי‬, any animals born in the flock henceforth displaying these skin patterns will be my wages.

Radak on Genesis 30:33:1 ‫וענתה בי צדקתי‬, this will prove that I dealt fairly with you, and will continue to deal fairly with you. My
righteousness will be proved by the fact that animals with such skin patterns will be born though their mother
animals or their fathers did not possess these skin patterns, so that I did not benefit by genetic factors
contributed by your animals. Not only had Lavan removed all animals with traces of such skin patterns from
the flocks entrusted to Yaakov for tending, but even animals which had displayed such skin patterns only on
their legs had been removed by him, not to speak of animals which had displayed such spots on other parts
of their bodies.
Radak on Genesis 30:34:1
Radak on Genesis 30:35:1
Radak on Genesis 30:35:2
Radak on Genesis 30:35:3
Radak on Genesis 30:36:1 ‫וישם‬, Lavan instructed his sons to make the spotted and speckled sheep in his flocks graze 3 days away from
the animals Yaakov was tending. Yaakov let the remainder of the flock graze in the areas he had been used
to. Lavan was so concerned that some of the striped and spotted animals under his sons’ care might wander
back to the meadows in which they had grazed previously, and become mixed with the animals Yaakov was
now tending. Yaakov might then claim that these animals were his.
Radak on Genesis 30:37:1 ‫ויקח‬, Yaakov did not do this in the first year, but only from the second year on. He did not place the sticks in
front of the animals belonging to Lavan, but only in front of those animals which were now his as a result of
the young ones born with the agreed upon skin patterns during that year. When he placed the sticks in front
of those animals which were his, he did not intend for them to have young ones of a different skin pattern
from the one they already had, but only to ensure that all his animals would give birth to young ones bearing
the same skin patterns as did their mothers. In other words, he did not deprive Lavan of anything, either
directly or indirectly. He acted in a manner which would not allow Lavan even to suspect him of stealing from
him. This is the way my father of blessed memory explained these verses in light of the fact that numerous
people, reading the story superficially, had expressed surprise that our patriarch Yaakov had been as
devious as a superficial reading of the text makes it appear.
Radak on Genesis 30:37:2 ‫לבנה‬, a tree (poplar) with a white trunk. (before peeling off its bark) He used such a tree in order to produce
the desired colour contrasts after peeling the bark partially into the respective shapes to resemble ‫עקוד ונקוד‬.
This could be done only while the saplings were still moist. He also took branches, or sticks that were moist,
fresh, as when peeled they would look more whitish. The trees called here ‫ לוז‬and ‫ ערמון‬respectively, are both
well known, (plane-tree ad almond tree.)

Radak on Genesis 30:38:1 ‫ויצג את המקלות‬, he positioned them at the water troughs. This is the meaning of the words
Radak on Genesis 30:38:2 ‫אשר תבאן‬, meaning: “as they would come there.” In Exodus 14,13 the word ‫ אשר‬in the line ‫אשר ראיתם את‬
‫ מצרים היום‬also means “when, as,” i.e. “as you have seen Egypt to day.” The word ‫ אשר‬in the line ‫תאכל מצות‬
‫ אשר צויתיך‬in Exodus 34,18 also means “as,” i.e. “you shall eat unleavened bread as I commanded you.”
Radak on Genesis 30:38:3 ‫לנכח הצאן‬, he had made them face the sheep.
Radak on Genesis 30:38:4 ‫ויחמנה‬, it is in the nature of the sheep to become heated, excited, and to mount the females when they are
about to drink from the troughs.
Radak on Genesis 30:38:5 ‫ברהטים‬, Onkelos translates the word ‫ ותרץ‬in 29,12 as “she ran.” The word here means that this was a place
where the water ran into pools which had been dug in the ground in order to facilitate the watering of the
sheep. The word ‫ ויחמנה‬contains both masculine and feminine components, perhaps to hint at the mating of
the two sexes. A similar construction occurs in Samuel I 6,12.

Radak on Genesis 30:39:1 ‫ויחמו‬, a reference to the males. However, as we learned earlier, the females would be in heat simultaneously.
Radak on Genesis 30:39:2 ‫אל המקלות‬, toward the sticks.
Radak on Genesis 30:39:3 ‫ותלדן הצאן‬, the sheep would give birth to young with the skin patterns Yaakov desired, as their imagination
had been fired at a time when they were more than usually impressionable.

Radak on Genesis 30:40:1 ‫והכבשים הפריד יעקב‬, he separated the females from the goats whether male or female, not watering the two
species at the same time, in order to prevent goats with undesirable skin patterns being born. None of the
goats that were not black belonged to Yaakov [according to Joseph Kimichi’s commentary, there was nothing
wrong in what Yaakov did or failed to do, since these goats never had displayed such skin patterns, so why
should Yaakov encourage their being born with new skin patterns. Ed.] Yaakov watered the goats elsewhere
where they did not observe any sticks or branches that could arouse their imagination. Yaakov did not have
any black paint which would have enabled him to paint sticks black. Even if he had possessed such paint, his
stratagem would have become public knowledge as naturally black sticks or branches did not exist in that
region. He therefore had to content himself with increasing his share of the births of the sheep, foregoing any
artificial measures to make the goats throw young ones that were black-skinned. [the interested reader will
find that different commentators arrive at different conclusions regarding exactly what was agreed between
Yaakov and Lavan, and they each explain his procedures according to their understanding of the agreement.
Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 30:40:2 ‫וישת לו עדרים לבדו‬, from the lambs that were born as his share, year after year, Yaakov formed separate
flocks which he kept apart seeing that they amounted to a formidable number of animals. He did not let them
graze anywhere near where Lavan’s flocks were grazing. Lavan had displayed envy of Yaakov, and therefore
Yaakov did not want to inflame his envy by letting him see his flocks all the time, knowing that Yaakov’s
share of the newly born sheep had outnumbered those born as his own share
Radak on Genesis 30:40:3 ‫על צאן‬, as if the Torah had written ‫עם צאן‬, “with the sheep.” A similar construction is found in Exodus 35,22
‫ויבאו האנשים על הנשים‬, “the men came together with the women.”

Radak on Genesis 30:41:1 ‫והיה בכל יחם‬, during all the periods when the animals were in heat, i.e. at the time when they mated; this is in
accordance with Onkelos’ rendering of these words. This is the standard translation every time the word
occurs.
Radak on Genesis 30:41:2 ‫ויחם‬, the reason the infinitive mode is used for the word is in order for it to be connected to the preceding
word ‫בכל‬, which is used in lieu of the word ‫שם‬, “there, wherever.” When the word does not signify any
specific time, i.e. either past, present of future, which would limit its application, then the word ‫ בכל‬is
appropriate as it also is a totally inclusive word, not allowing for exceptions. The infinitive is therefore
absolutely in place. The sheep give birth twice a year, and the Torah now tells us before which of the cycle of
births Yaakov positioned the sticks by the troughs. Yaakov positioned the sticks before the first cycle of births
which was numerically much smaller, because Lavan did not bother to check on what was going on during
that period. Before the second birthing during that year Yaakov did not position the sticks in order to arouse
the imagination of the animals because at that time Lavan would come to inspect his sheep and if he had
discovered that Yaakov was using these sticks this would have resulted in a quarrel between them, and
Lavan would have stolen from him whatever he thought should be his. Even though Yaakov had never
positioned the sticks in front of any animals that were Lavan’s, as I explained on verse 37, in the name of my
late father, Lavan would have argued that just as Yaakov placed this sticks before his own animals so he
would presumably do also when watering Lavan’s flocks.
Radak on Genesis 30:41:3 The meaning of the words ‫ הקשורים‬,‫ המקושרות‬and ‫העטופים‬, as well as the word ‫ובהעטיף‬, is in accordance with
the way Onkelos translates them, descriptions of the time cycle during which certain animals would give birth.
My late father of blessed memory, explained that the agreement for the first year called for the result of the
first birthing to be Yaakov’s, whereas the result of the second birthing would be Lavan’s.
Radak on Genesis 30:41:4 ‫ליחמנה במקלות‬, to bring them to heat through their viewing the sticks, as I already explained. The letter ‫ ה‬at
the end of the word ‫ ליחמנה‬is appended just as we find this letter appended in such words as ‫( אותנה‬Exodus
35,26), where we do not know any reason for this addition. The word really should have been ‫ ליחמן‬without
the letter ‫ ה‬at the end but with a dagesh in the final ‫ן‬. Still we do have a similar construction to ours here in
Micah 7,7 ‫ עיני תיראנה בה‬as well as in Ezekiel 4,12 ‫ תעגנה לעיניהם‬where the letter ‫ נ‬in ‫ תעגנה‬is “weak,” i.e.
without the dagesh we would have expected. Even though, as we explained, the places where these
constructions occur are not quite analogous to one another, the fact remains that the entire story is told by
the Torah in such detail in order to show the reader to what extent G’d’s providence intervened in order to
make sure that Yaakov did not lose out to the crooked Lavan. This once again confirms what we read in
Psalms 37,12 and 33 that ‫ה' לא יעזבנו בידו‬....‫זומם רשע לצדיק‬, “when the wicked tries to set a trap the righteous
G’d will not abandon the righteous to the devices of the wicked.”

Radak on Genesis 30:43:1 ‫ויפרץ‬, this refers to financial success, not to the number of offspring. This is also what G’d had promised
Yaakov in 28,14 when He said: ‫'ופרצת ימה וקדמה וגו‬. Yaakov’s wealth is symbolically described as bursting
through its fences. There is not enough space to accommodate it. Clearly, this is one of the instances in
which the Torah deliberately indulges in exaggeration in order to illustrate its point.
Radak on Genesis 30:43:2 ‫מאד מאד‬, to emphasise further the quantitative element the Torah speaks of.
Radak on Genesis 30:43:3 ‫ויהי לו צאן רבות‬, the feminine ending in ‫ רבות‬refers to the females of the sheep, the ones producing the lambs.
One single ram would service many ewes. Cattle are not mentioned here at all as Yaakov’s work was
restricted to raising sheep and goats. He did possess cattle, however.

Radak on Genesis 31:1:1 ‫לאמור‬...‫וישמע‬. Lavan’s sons were saying all this to one another as well as to their father. This was the reason
why Lavan’s attitude toward Yaakov had changed.
Radak on Genesis 31:2:1 ‫וירא את פני לבן‬, he could see it in his face, for he was not hiding his feelings While Yaakov was still debating
with himself about what he kept hearing and seeing, G’d addressed him in a dream.
Radak on Genesis 31:3:1 ‫ויאמר ה‬, the angel is called by the name of his Master, i.e. G’d. The reason is that he delivers his message in
the name of his Sender, i.e. in the name of G’d.
Radak on Genesis 31:4:1 ‫וישלח יעקב וגו‬, he requested that his wives join him in the field where he was busy tending the flocks.
Radak on Genesis 31:5:1 ‫ואלוקי אבי היה עמדי‬, he, Lavan, hates me on account of my having become wealthier than he is. This is not
because I aimed to be so wealthy but because the G’d of my father was with me and made me so successful
in my endeavours.
Radak on Genesis 31:6:1 ‫ואתנה‬..., I have served him faithfully whereas he related to me with deceit.
Radak on Genesis 31:6:2 ‫בכל כחי‬, as Yaakov tells Lavan to his face in verse 40 when he relates the harshness of the conditions he
worked under.

Radak on Genesis 31:7:1 ‫ואביכן התל בי‬, this is a variation of the root with the same letters but with the dagesh in the letter ‫ת‬, as we find
in Kings 1 18,27 where it describes the prophet Elijah ridiculing the god of the priests of the Baal. Here the
root is not used transitively but intransitively in the conjugation kal, hence there is not dagesh.
Radak on Genesis 31:7:2 ‫עשרת מונים‬, ten times. The reason the word ‫ עשרת‬is in the construct mode when we would have expected to
read ‫עשרה מונים‬, is because it is the final contact with the single digit numbers. It actually belongs to them,
though in our language it is written as a 2 digit number. The fact is that the first 10 numbers are all part of one
group, the number “ten” being the last one of that group. Hence it is treated here as if in the construct mode.
To prove that this is correct, note that whenever the number ten appears, such as in ‫ואפו עשר נשים‬, “ten
women will bake” (Leviticus 26,26), where the number of women involved bears no relationship to the ninth
or eighth woman preceding her, such a number is not in the construct mode. My late father of blessed
memory explained the word ‫ עשרת‬as not being meant literally. It is not a figure of speech meaning “numerous
times,” Yaakov had spent 6 years working for Lavan’ in order to amass his own flocks. The sheep give birth
twice a year, i.e. 12 times in 6 years. Lavan therefore had opportunity to change Yaakov’s wages 8 times in
the intermediate 6 years, and once each in the first year and last year respectively.
Radak on Genesis 31:8:1 ‫ כל הצאן‬...‫אם כה‬, the word ‫ כל‬need not be understood literally as “all.” It means simply: “most.” We have many
examples in Scripture when the word ‫ כל‬does not mean “all,” but “most.” A well known example is Genesis
41,55 ‫וכל הארץ באו מצרימה‬, which cannot mean that everybody came to Egypt, but must mean that most
people from the neighbouring countries sent representatives to Egypt to buy food there during the famine in
their own land. Although in our verse only‫ נקודים‬and ‫ עקודים‬are mentioned specifically, the same applies to
‫טלאים‬.

Radak on Genesis 31:9:1 ‫ויצל‬, a form of removing something (in order to save it). ‫מקנה אביכם‬, seeing that he was robbing me, G’d
arranged it so that most of the sheep gave birth to young ones whose skin bore the markings which we had
agreed should be mine. Not only this, but G’d showed me in a dream that my good fortune was due to His
intervention on my behalf and was not due to a fortuitous natural event. G’d takes a personal interest in what
happens to those who revere Him, and He saves them from those who unjustly oppress them.
Radak on Genesis 31:10:1 ‫העתודים‬...‫ויהי‬, another word for he-goats, ‫תישים‬.
Radak on Genesis 31:10:2 ‫וברודים‬, a variant of the word ‫ ;טלואים‬the reason why the Torah switched to this term is to tell us that the
whiteness of the spots in questions is similar to that of hail stones, ‫ברד‬.

Radak on Genesis 31:13:1 ‫ל‬-‫ל בית א‬-‫אנכי הא‬, the noun to which the word ‫ל‬-‫ בית א‬is attached is absent, i.e. the line should have been:‫אנכי‬
‫ל‬-‫ל בית א‬-‫ל א‬-‫הא‬. We have a similar construction in Joshua 3,14 ‫הארון הברית‬, where the word ‫ ארון‬in the
middle in the construct mode is also missing. In our verse the meaning of the whole line is: “I am the Lord
that has revealed Himself to you as G’d at Beyt El.”
Radak on Genesis 31:13:2 ‫אשר נדרת לי‬, we already explained that when the angel speaks as messenger of G’d he describes himself by
the name applicable to his Master, i.e. to G’d.

Radak on Genesis 31:14:1 ‫ותען רחל ולאה‬, here too the younger sister speaks first, just as in Exodus 10,3 ‫ויאמר משב ואהרן‬, although
Moses was the younger. Seeing that Rachel loved Yaakov as intensely as he loved her, she responded first.
Radak on Genesis 31:15:1 ‫גם אכול את כספנו‬, the money he had been supposed to give us to get married. As to the word ‫ גם‬in this verse,
the sisters referred to more than one “eating.” Not only did he consume what he had been supposed to give
us, but he even consumed the proceeds of your hard work which was intended for the benefit of our family.
Radak on Genesis 31:17:1 ‫ויקם יעקב וישא‬, he lifted his wives on to the camels so that they could ride.
Radak on Genesis 31:18:1 ‫מקנה קנינו‬...‫וינהג‬, the first time the word ‫ מקנהו‬appears in our verse it refers to cattle Yaakov had acquired as a
result of his activities as shepherd. The expression ‫ מקנה קנינו‬on the other hand, refers to livestock he had
purchased. Whenever the word ‫ מקנה‬is spelled with the vowel tzeyreh under the letter ‫ נ‬this indicates that it is
in the construct mode.
Radak on Genesis 31:19:1 ‫ולבן‬, the place where Lavan sheared his flocks was a distance of three days from where Yaakov tended his
flocks as we know from 30,36. This is why Lavan did not hear about Yaakov’s having left until this third day
after he had gone. Neither Lavan nor his sons had been home at the at time when Yaakov departed The
sons of Lavan had been busy tending their father’s flocks. This is why Rachel took the Teraphim. There was
no one at home to stop her from doing this.
Radak on Genesis 31:19:2 ‫והתרפים‬, they are instruments made of copper used to tell time. It was also to consult them to divine future
events, although the information forthcoming often proved false. Zecharyah 10,2 already remarks on the
unreliability of Teraphim in this regard. The reason the word is in the plural mode, seeing that we speak
about a single object, is because it consisted of multiple layers of tablets. According to Ibn Ezra each tablet
had the face of a human being and was presumed to get inspiration from celestial regions. Rachel’s objective
in stealing the Teraphim was to deny Lavan knowledge about the route Yaakov had taken when he left.
Yaakov had no idea that Rachel had stolen the Teraphim as we have been told explicitly in verse 32. Had he
known about it he would have prevented Rachel from carrying out such a theft. He would not even have
allowed her to remove anything from her father’s house unless he had given his approval, much less the
Teraphim.

Radak on Genesis 31:20:1 ‫ויגנב יעקב את לב לבן‬, he misled him seeing that Lavan thought that Yaakov was in the city, whereas in fact he
had left the city.
Radak on Genesis 31:20:2 ‫על בלי הגיד לו‬, in that he had not told him his route. Not having told Lavan what route he was going to travel
turned his leaving Lavan into a flight. Obviously, Yaakov was not expected by Lavan to announce: “I am
fleeing;” the word ‫ בורח‬has to be linked to the word ‫ויגנב‬. Deceiving Lavan as a sin of omission, i.e. not giving
Lavan false information, but failing to give him relevant information, turned Yaakov’s sudden departure into
what Lavan perceived to be a flight.

Radak on Genesis 31:21:1 ‫את הנהר‬...‫ויברח‬, the river Euphrates.

Radak on Genesis 31:22:1 ‫ביום השלישי‬...‫ויגד‬, we explained this construction vayugad in 27,42.
Radak on Genesis 31:23:1 .his relatives ,‫ויקח את אחיו‬
Radak on Genesis 31:24:1 ‫ויבא‬, just as G’d had communicated with Avimelech in honour of Yitzchok, so He now communicated with
Lavan in honour of Yaakov.
Radak on Genesis 31:24:2 ‫פן תדבר‬, that you dare not speak. Do not start a quarrel with him planning to do harm to him as a result. Not
only must you not harm him physically, but you must not even inflict verbal abuse on him. The correct
meaning of the words ‫ פן תדבר‬is: “not to speak harshly.” Constructions with the prefix ‫ פן‬also occur in
Genesis 3,3 as a warning, on pain of death, not to eat from the tree of knowledge, or in Genesis 24,6 ‫פן תשיב‬
‫ את בני שמה‬not to bring Yitzchok back to Padan Aram.
Radak on Genesis 31:24:3 ‫מטוב עד רע‬, though you may think that if you deprive Yaakov only of a small fraction of his wealth that from
your vantage point you are doing him a favour by allowing him to retain most of it, or that you plan to rob him
of most of it, something which even you realise as an evil thing to do, seeing you want to punish him for
leaving you without having taken his leave from you.

Radak on Genesis 31:25:1 ‫בהר‬...‫וישג‬, at the very mountain where Lavan was going to accuse Yaakov of having fled from him, ‫תקע את‬
‫אחיו‬, he encamped with his kinsmen. As a result, they were both encamped at the same mountain facing
each other. Alternatively, the meaning may be (Onkelos)‫אשרי ית אחוהי‬, “erected his tent there with his
brothers.

Radak on Genesis 31:26:1 ‫כשבויות‬...‫ויאמר‬, like women taken captives by creditors that are kidnapped without their husbands being
informed. This is how you treated my daughters.
Radak on Genesis 31:27:1 ‫למה נחבאת‬, why did you hide it from me, and,
Radak on Genesis 31:27:2 ‫ותגנוב אותי‬, and you misled me,
Radak on Genesis 31:27:3 ‫ואשלחך‬, had you informed me I would have let you go in joy.

Radak on Genesis 31:28:1 ‫ולא נטשתני לנשק לבני‬, children and grandchildren are usually referred to as ‫בנים‬.
Radak on Genesis 31:28:2 ‫עשו‬. Spelled here with the letter ‫ו‬, but meaning the same as if it had been written with the letter ‫ה‬. The word is
in the infinitive mode. The word ‫( עתה‬at this juncture) means that “although, generally speaking you are very
clever, now you acted foolishly.”

Radak on Genesis 31:29:1 ‫יש לאל ידי‬, as per Onkelos, i.e. “I possess the power.”
Radak on Genesis 31:29:2 ‫אמש‬, last night.
Radak on Genesis 31:29:3 ‫ואלוקי אביכם‬, a reference to the G’d of Avraham whose name Avraham had popularised throughout the
region. The reason Lavan speaks of ‫“ אביכם‬your father,” is that he uses the term as a pronoun including
Yaakov and his children.

Radak on Genesis 31:30:1 ‫נכסף נכספתה‬... ‫ועתה‬, as per Onkelos, i.e. “even if you felt an overwhelming urge.” The word ‫ נכסוף‬with the
vowel cholem is an infinitive mode in the passive conjugation, similar to Samuel I 20,21 ‫נשאול נשאל‬.
Radak on Genesis 31:30:2 ‫אלוהי‬, he called his Teraphim “my gods,” as he and his kind of people relied on them just as we rely on the
true G’d.

Radak on Genesis 31:31:1 ‫כי יראתי‬...‫ויען‬, concerning your question “what did you do by misleading me,” I did not inform you of my
impending departure because I was afraid; I said to myself if I tell you, you would rob me of “your daughters,”
i.e. my wives and children.
Radak on Genesis 31:32:1
Radak on Genesis 31:33:1
Radak on Genesis 31:33:2
Radak on Genesis 31:34:1 ‫בכר הגמל‬...‫ורחל‬, in the saddle of the camel.
Radak on Genesis 31:35:1 ‫כי דרך נשים לי‬...‫ותאמר‬, she referred to menstruation. The Torah elsewhere described this as ‫אורח הנשים‬, when
describing Sarah as no longer experiencing these cycles (Genesis 18,11).
Radak on Genesis 31:36:1 ‫ויחר ליעקב‬, Yaakov was angry at the fact that Lavan did not believe him and personally searched all his
belongings, even though he himself had challenged him to do so by saying ‫הכר נא‬, “please try and find!” If
Lavan had possessed the slightest bit of common courtesy that should have been enough for him to desist
from an insulting and degrading search.
Radak on Genesis 31:37:1 !‫שים כה‬...‫כי מששת‬, “please list all your complaints against me in front of all my family and your family. The
people whom Yaakov referred to as ‫אחי‬, “my brothers,” in this verse were the shepherds in his employ who
were his brothers vocationally speaking, being members of the same guild.
Radak on Genesis 31:38:1 ‫לא שכלת‬...‫זה עשרים שנה‬, because of G’d’s blessing for me.
Radak on Genesis 31:38:2 ‫ואילי צאנך לא אכלתי‬. I did not eat from a single one of the male sheep. The letter ‫ מ‬in front of the word ‫ אילי‬is
missing, just as it is missing in Samuel II 23,24 in the line ‫ אלחנן בן דודו בית לחם‬where we would have
expected ‫מבית לחם‬. Another example of such a missing prefix ‫ מ‬is found In Joshua 10,13 ‫עד יקום גוי אויביו‬,
where we would have expected ‫עד יקום גוי מאויביו‬, “until a nation arises from its enemies.” There are more
such examples throughout Scripture. The reason Yaakov made a point of saying that he had not eaten of
any of the male sheep was that it was widely accepted that the shepherds who were far from home would eat
the meat of such animals. Yaakov made the point that far from following accepted practice, he had only
eaten things that had belonged to him outright. Male sheep are worth less in the marketplace than their
female counterparts. Their meat is also less tasty.
Radak on Genesis 31:39:1 ‫טרפה לא‬, even if an animal had been attacked by wild beasts in a manner which could not have been the fault
of the shepherd, I did not bring you the evidence to prove my innocence in such an accident but replaced it
out of my own pocket. I did not want you to claim that I could have protected the animal against its attacker. I
knew that it would have been futile to claim that I was not to blame as you would have illegally debited me
with its worth.
Radak on Genesis 31:39:2 ‫אנכי אחטנה‬, I would have been blamed even if I had not been at fault
Radak on Genesis 31:39:3 ‫גנבתי יום‬, if an animal had been stolen from the flock either by day or by night I was always blamed for it and
held responsible. I paid you for it regardless of the circumstances.
Radak on Genesis 31:39:4 ‫גנבתי‬, the letter ‫ י‬at the end has been added for reasons which are not clear. It is similar to another
superfluous ‫ י‬which is found in Isaiah 1,21. If the function of the letter ‫ י‬had been that of a pronoun, i.e.
“mine,” the letter ‫ ב‬would have had to be written with the vowel kametz.

Radak on Genesis 31:40:1 ‫הייתי‬, seeing that I did not want to entrust the flock to another shepherd, I was forced to endure the sun’s heat
by day and the extreme cold at night. I denied myself sleep at night for fear something could happen to any
of the animals.
Radak on Genesis 31:41:1 ‫בשתי בנותיך‬...‫זה לי‬, I served you not only for one woman but for two, although it is not accepted practice for a
man to serve for a woman. My wives testified to this when they described their father as “selling us.” (31,15)
Radak on Genesis 31:42:1 ‫לולי אלוקי אבי‬, after having used this term, Yaakov amplifies whom he meant by it, i.e. ‫אלוקי אברהם ופחד יצחק‬
‫היה לי‬, as explained by Onkelos ‫ פחד יצחק‬is the G’d Yitzchok was in awe of. Yitzchok had subjected himself
to slaughter by his father as he had been in awe of his father’s G’d. One can explain the words ‫ פחד יצחק‬as
referring to Yaakov who was afraid that if he did not go home now he would never see his father again while
he was alive.
Radak on Genesis 31:42:2 ‫היה לי‬, Yaakov explains his surviving of Lavan’s machinations as being due to two separate causes. 1) if the
G’d of Avraham had not been on my side ‫ריקם שלחתני‬, you would have sent me home as empty-handed as
when I arrived at your home. 2) had it not been for my urgent longing to see my father Yitzchok before he
died. I doubt that I would have still have found him alive on my return if I had stayed with you any longer. Out
of these considerations I could not remain with you. When I left my father he was already worried about his
death approaching. If I want to see him once more alive, I decided that I must return home before it is too
late. I could not tell you of my intention as you might have prevented me from being present at his death and
my burying him.
Radak on Genesis 31:42:3 ‫ויוכח אמש‬. He rebuked (you) last night, when He told you not to dare to display a hostile attitude towards me.
(verse 29)
Radak on Genesis 31:43:1 ‫לי הוא‬...‫ויען לבן‬, for all of this originated from my possessions.
Radak on Genesis 31:43:2 ?‫ ;מה אעשה לאלה‬he said “to these,” after having previously said: “and to my daughters.” He meant that to
daughters such as these what am I able to do? How can I allow myself to be separated from them?
Radak on Genesis 31:44:1 ‫ועתה לכה‬, we already explained the meaning of this expression on 19,32.
Radak on Genesis 31:44:2 ‫והיה‬, the words of this covenant shall testify between me and you. The actual terms of the covenant are
spelled out beginning with the words in verse 50 ‫'אם תענה וגו‬.

Radak on Genesis 31:45:1 ‫וירימה מצבה‬...‫ויקח‬. He tilted the stone to be upright and placed it on an elevation in the neighbourhood so that
it would be visible from a distance. This is the meaning of the word ‫וירימה‬, as distinct from simply ‫וישם‬, as for
instance in Genesis 28,18. This is also why he called it ‫מצפה‬, “a lookout point.”
Radak on Genesis 31:46:1 ‫ לאחיו‬...‫ויאמר‬, to his companions. Although Yaakov used the expression “to his brothers,” in telling them to
collect stones for the monument, Lavan and his men did likewise and between them they built them into a
pile before sharing a meal together. Yaakov ate a meal with his men, Lavan with his, both near the heap of
stones they had erected. It is also possible that the meaning of the word ‫ לאחיו‬includes also the men
traveling with Lavan, as they were all included in that term now that their war had been settled peacefully.
The meal then would be similar to placing a seal on the newly concluded covenant between them.

Radak on Genesis 31:47:1 ‫ויקרא‬, each party named the monument using their own language.
Radak on Genesis 31:47:2 ‫יגר שהדותא‬, the Hebrew approximation is found in Jeremiah 51,37 ‫והיתה בבל לגלים‬, “Babylon will then become
a heap of stones.”

Radak on Genesis 31:48:1 ‫ויאמר‬, he made the statement following in his own language. Alternatively, he said all this in Hebrew as it is
quite possible that Lavan knew Hebrew and when speaking with Yaakov used to speak to him in Hebrew.
Radak on Genesis 31:48:2 ‫על כן קרא שמו‬, Yaakov named the monument Galed, meaning that the heap of stones should be a witness
between himself [and the Torah mentions that this had been his intention already before the thought was
articulated. Paraphrased by me. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 31:49:1 ‫והמצפה‬, this was the monument he had previously called ‫מצפה‬, as he had erected it on an elevated spot to
serve as a lookout point. Another reason why Yaakov had chosen this name was ‫יצף ה' ביני וביניך‬, that he had
invoked G’d’s benevolent intervention based on their truce. Lavan called it something corresponding in the
Aramaic language.
Radak on Genesis 31:49:2 ‫כי נסתר‬, when they would live apart and not see each other so that neither would be aware of the other
keeping to the terms of the agreement, G’d would be the witness between the two.

Radak on Genesis 31:50:1 ‫אם תענה את בנותי‬, if you will deprive them of any of their needs, the ones stipulated as the obligation of a
husband towards his wives, or even if you do not treat them with the respect due to them. According to our
sages in Yuma 77 the words ‫ אם תענה‬refer to denial of marital relations, whereas the words ‫אם תקח‬, refer to
Yaaov marrying additional wives, competitors to the existing ones.
Radak on Genesis 31:50:2 ‫אין איש עמנו‬, a peculiar statement seeing there were plenty of people present at the time. What Lavan meant
was that there would be a time when none of the people who now witnessed the covenant would be available
to testify if a dispute concerning whether its terms had been kept erupted. Now that Yaakov returned home
there was no one to remind him or even to report on observance or non-observance of the terms of the
covenant. This is why Lavan invoked G’d as being the witness if the terms of the covenant were broken. He
was to be the guarantor. [It is interesting to observe that in spite of Lavan being an idolater he always
accepted that the G’d of Avraham was the One to Whom Yaakov owed allegiance, and according to Whose
rules Yaakov had to conduct himself. This was not hypocrisy on his part. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 31:51:1 ‫אשר יריתי ביני וביניך‬...‫ויאמר‬, the words ‫להיותם עד‬, “to serve as witness” are presumed to be part of this verse. It
is also possible that the line as it is written means “shall be between me and you,” as a warning not to
trespass, i.e. violate any of the conditions agreed to. Crossing the boundary established for aggressive
purposes was outlawed by mutual agreement. Lavan added the words ‫אשר יריתי‬, “which I have set up,” to
emphasise that although Yaakov had in fact erected this pile of stones, this was a joint undertaking and
obligated both of them to keep the peace. After all, he, Lavan had first broached the subject of entering into a
covenant. This meant that when Yaakov had erected the pile and the monument he had done so at the
initiative and suggestion of Lavan, making it a joint enterprise. We have already explained on verse 46 that in
fact Lavan’s sons and brothers had collected the rocks which later formed the ‫גל‬, the heap. [I believe that
seeing they had no mortar the monument was called a ‫גל‬, suggesting that it was not as permanent as a wall
with its stones held in place by mortar. Ed.] The meaning of the words ‫ אשר יריתי‬could be: “at my instruction.”
We have such a meaning of the root in Job 27,11 ‫ל‬-‫אורה אתכם ביד א‬,”I will teach you what is in G’d’s power.”
Radak on Genesis 31:52:1 ‫אם אני‬...‫עד‬, the expression ‫ אם אני‬and ‫ אם אתה‬in this verse must be understood as if the Torah had written
‫ שאני‬and ‫שאתה‬, “that I,“ “that you.” We find the word ‫ אם‬used in that sense in Genesis 24,19 ‫עד אם כלו לשתות‬,
“until they have finished drinking,” as we pointed out there.
Radak on Genesis 31:52:2 ‫אני‬, the word is spelled with the vowel kametz although it does not signify a comma or other interruption of
the subject matter under discussion. It is to be understood as in Psalms 89,28 in ‫בכור אתנהו‬-‫אף אני‬, “I will
even consider him as a firstborn.” The long vowel kametz lends emphasis to the word. So it does in our
verse, and so it does in Genesis 27,34 ‫ברכני גן אני אבי‬, “bless me also father!” Esau pleaded: “I too need a
blessing.”
Radak on Genesis 31:52:3 ‫ואת המצבה הזאת‬, which you have erected as a witness and sign of the covenant between you and me.
Yaakov had erected the monument, whereas both had he and Lavan had combined to set up the pile of
stones described as ‫גל‬. This is why he mentioned the ‫ מצבה‬when saying to Yaakov ‫ואם אתה‬, we must wonder
altogether that Lavan was now prepared to make his peace with Yaakov, having obtained nothing in return
for his pursuit. The fact is that although he had boasted that he possessed the power to harm Yaakov, he
had realised that Yaakov’s G’d not only had assisted him in the past, but had given him, Lavan personally,
notice not even to harass Yaakov. This is why now he begged for a peace agreement, as had Avimelech
when be asked for such an agreement from Yitzchok after first having expelled him from Gerar. Avimelech
had also acknowledged in front of his general that they had convinced themselves that G’d was on the side
of Yitzchok (26,28)
Radak on Genesis 31:53:1 ‫אלוקי אברהם ואלהי נחור‬, the first word “elo-hey” is sacred, the second is profane and may therefore be erased,
seeing that Nachor had been an idolater. Lavan himself also believed in the gods of his grandfather Nachor.
Neither Yitzchok nor Betuel have been mentioned here, seeing they were well known, famous even.
Radak on Genesis 31:53:2 ‫אלוהי אביהם‬, here too the word “elohey” is profane and may be erased from a Torah scroll if the occasion
demands it. Whenever an expression denoting G’d includes idols, even if as something minor, the word is
treated as profane. What was meant here are the respective gods of Yaakov’s father and Lavan’s father,
each one in accordance with his religious convictions. Yaakov, when rendering his oath, swore by ‫פחד יצחק‬,
the G’d that Yitzchok had been in awe of when he was prepared to be slaughtered by his father. (as we
explained on verse 42)

Radak on Genesis 31:54:1 ‫ויזבח‬, he prepared a festive meal so that they would eat together before taking leave of each other. This was
in honour of the covenant just concluded.
Radak on Genesis 31:54:2 ‫לאחיו‬, Lavan and the men with him. Now that they had concluded a peace treaty they considered themselves
all as brothers.

Radak on Genesis 32:1:1 ‫וישכם‬, the word has been explained elsewhere.
Radak on Genesis 32:2:1 ‫מלאכי אלוקים‬...‫ויעקב‬. G’d sent His angels to him to keep him safe while he was journeying.
Radak on Genesis 32:3:1 ‫כאשר ראם‬...‫ויאמר‬, Yaakov’s reaction to these angels (inhuman garb) was similar to that of Avraham, his
grandfather, in Genesis 18,20, when the latter is described as running to welcome them as soon as he saw
them.
Radak on Genesis 32:3:2 ‫מחנים‬, two camps. One camp consisted of angels, the other of Yaakov and his entourage. This is why he
named this location ‫מחנים‬. The name stuck, as we find it mentioned at that location in Samuel II 2,8. We also
find again in Joshua 13,30. The local people agreed to the name change by Yaakov. The same applies to all
locations of which the Torah tells us that one of the patriarchs had name, as we pointed out in or commentary
at the beginning of this portion. (28,18)

Radak on Genesis 32:4:1 ‫וישלח יעקב מלאכים‬, even though G’d had assured him of His support twice, he was still afraid of his brother.
The reason was that at the time Yaakov had left home Esau had been very angry at him. He was now afraid
that due to some sin he might have committed and that he had remained unaware of, he might forfeit G’d’s
support. We elaborated on this concept already. In order to find out how Esau felt about him now, he sent
some of his mean as emissaries. They were supposed to soften him up if that was necessary.
Radak on Genesis 32:4:2 ‫ארצה שעיר‬, he had heard that Esau was there at the time although he had not settled there with his family. At
this time he still lived in the land of Canaan. We know from 36,6-9 that Esau migrated to the land of Seir only
at that time, after the meeting with Yaakov.
Radak on Genesis 32:4:3 ‫שדה אדום‬, a synonym for “the land of Edom.” We have the same synonym also being used for the land of
Moav in Ruth 1,1 when Elimelech left the land of Israel to settle in ‫שדה מואב‬, meaning in ‫ארץ מואב‬.

Radak on Genesis 32:5:1 ‫ויצו אותם לאמור‬. He commanded them to use precisely the words Yaakov instructed them to use in the
following verse, i.e. ‫“ כה תאמרו‬you shall say precisely these words!” This is clear from the fact that Yaakov
charged his messengers to say to Esau: “thus say to my lord Esau. He should have said only: “thus say to
Esau when you meet him, etc.”
Radak on Genesis 32:6:1 ‫ויהי לי שור וחמור‬. All the types of possessions Yaakov mentioned are not to be understood as single items but
as categories of possessions. We find similar constructions in Kings II 7,10 ‫כי אם הסוס אסור‬, which does not
mean that a single horse had been tethered, but that the horses belonging to the army of the Aramites were
tethered, the soldiers having fled. Similarly, Samuel I 14,24 where the words ‫ ואיש ישראל נגש‬do not mean that
a single Israelite was distressed, but that a contingent of Israelites was in a depressed state of mind.
Radak on Genesis 32:7:1 ‫אל אחיך אל עשו‬...‫וישובו‬, they mentioned the name Esau after having referred to him as ‫אחיך‬, “your brother.”
They meant that “Esau still holds the old grudge against you.”
Radak on Genesis 32:7:2 ‫וגם הולך לקראתך‬, he also reveals his hatred of you by marching with 400 men against you now that he knows
you are in the vicinity.
Radak on Genesis 32:7:3 ‫וארבע מאות איש עמו‬, he does not walk toward you with peaceful intentions but he is on his way in order to fight
you.

Radak on Genesis 32:8:1 ‫ויירא ויצר‬, the reason why the Torah repeated the emotions Yaakov experienced twice but in different words
was to underline how strongly he felt this fear. In Bereshit Rabbah 76,2 these two expressions are described
as basically meaning the same thing, the only difference being that the former is intransitive, Yaakov being
afraid of being killed, whereas the latter describes a similar fear, but that of having to kill one’s adversary.
Radak on Genesis 32:8:2 ‫ויחץ‬, Rabbah Chiyah said that in this part of the verse the Torah teaches us prudence. A man must not place
all his eggs in one basket.

Radak on Genesis 32:9:1 ‫ויאמר‬, the meaning is clear, i.e. he said this to himself.
Radak on Genesis 32:9:2 ‫המחנה‬, the word is both masculine and feminine, the adjective ‫ האחת‬being feminine, whereas the adjective
‫ הנשאר‬is in the masculine mode.
Radak on Genesis 32:10:1 ‫ויאמר יעקב אלוקי אבי אברהם ואלוקי אבי יצחק‬, “You are the One Who has assured me when I left my father’s
house that due to the merit of my fathers You would assist and protect me. (28,13). Now I turn to You in
prayer relying on their merit in hoping that You will keep Your promise. Secondly, it was You Who has told
me while I was in Charan to go back to the land of my fathers since their country was my country.
Radak on Genesis 32:10:2 ‫ואטיבה עמך‬, You also added that You would be good to me and would remain on my side. We have already
explained that when the Torah repeats something we must relate to the message and not to the minor
changes in the words chosen to express the same thought a second time. (compare our comments on 21,2
and 24,39).

Radak on Genesis 32:11:1 ‫קטנתי‬, I am not asking You G’d to help me in a manner commensurate with my merits, as I am perfectly
aware that these are utterly inadequate.<br> ‫כל החסדים וכל האמת אשר עשית את עבדך‬, Yaakov described as
‫ חסד‬the acts of unearned love G’d had performed for him, whereas he described as ‫אמת‬, “truth,” i.e.
deserved compensation, that G’d would keep His promise to him. (“Here, I am going to be with you, etc.”
28,15) He feels entitled to expect G’d to keep His promises when these are of a positive nature. When G’d
had said to him that He would protect him wherever he would go, this had not been a conditional promise,
dependent on Yaakov being worthy of such protection. He is aware that he may have sinned, but expects the
promise to be kept for the sake of his father and grandfather both of whom G’d Himself had invoked in
association with this promise. He feels that he deserves such protection, having heard that Esau is an
unreformed sinner, still relating to him with hostility.

Radak on Genesis 32:12:1 ‫אם על בנים‬...‫הצילני‬. The word ‫ על‬in this line substitutes for the word ‫עם‬, “with.” It is used in a similar sense in
Hoseah 10,14 ‫אם על בנים רטשה‬, “mothers and children were dashed to pieces.”
Radak on Genesis 32:13:1 ‫ואתה אמרת‬, Yaakov’s formulation is reminiscent of that of David in Psalms 119,49 “remember Your word to
Your servant through which You have given me hope.”
Radak on Genesis 32:13:2 ‫היטב אטיב עמך‬, it is the custom for Scripture to write the verb in the infinitive mode together with the
appropriate mode of the verb in order to reinforce what the verb expresses. According to Bereshit Rabbah
76,7 the word ‫ היטב‬refers to G’d’s support for Yaakov based on his merits, whereas the word ‫ איטיב‬refers to
G’d’s support for him based on the merit of his father and grandfather.
Radak on Genesis 32:13:3 ‫כחול הים‬, an inaccuracy, as in the verse Yaakov referred to G’d had promised that his descendents would be
as numerous as the “dust of the earth,” not like the sand on the beaches of the sea. (28,14) The change in
syntax is irrelevant, as we explained repeatedly that when the Torah repeats the same theme with different
words, the reason is not to alert the reader to an additional dimension of the message, but only to stress the
message, to draw attention to its importance.

Radak on Genesis 32:14:1 ‫וילן‬, he remained standing all night waiting for a response to his prayer. While waiting he prepared the gift he
was going to send to Esau in the morning. The Torah describes this gift in detail a little later on in its
narrative, commencing with the words ‫עזים מאתים‬.
Radak on Genesis 32:14:2 ‫בידו‬, which were his. The word occurs in this sense also in 39,4 where Potiphar transfers all his belongings to
the care of Joseph. The angel with whom Yaakov wrestled, and who represented the answer to his prayer,
did not arrive until after Yaakov had completed preparing his gift for Esau. The reason for this delay was in
order to teach us that we must not entrust our affairs to the intervention of G’d on our behalf until after we
have exhausted natural means of achieving our purpose (legally, of course). Even the greatest tzaddik must
not entrust his needs to G’d while attending to matters such as Torah study, for instance, instead of his duties
to insure his own and his family’s needs. These include prayer, appeasement of adversaries by gifts or lip-
service, and in the final analysis physical resistance, war. In all one’s endeavours one must, of course, put
one’s trust in G’d, hoping that He will approve of one’s efforts and grant one success.

Radak on Genesis 32:15:1 ‫עזים מאתים‬, Yaakov the shepherd knew precisely how many male animals were required to service a flock of
female animals to achieve the best results. Sheep and goats have similar requirements in this respect.
Radak on Genesis 32:16:1 ‫גמלים מיניקות‬, we did not know why Yaakov sent along young camels that were so tender that they still
depended on mothers’ milk. (according to the words of the author Yaakov also sent such young male calves
and male donkeys with their mother animals.) ‫ ובניהם‬together with their young there were a total of 30
camels. The number of animals in each herd was proportionate to the respective size of Yaakov’s total herds
of that category of animal. Seeing that he owned relatively few camels, his gift of camels represented a
certain percentage of the total number of camels he owned. The reason why the Torah bothered to give us
the details of the gift Yaakov sent to his brother was to show us that he sent a substantial gift, and to teach
us that if we ever need to atone for having deeply hurt someone and to hope that he will forgive us, it is
appropriate to demonstrate our contriteness not so much with words as with a gift of substantial proportions.
Yaakov enhanced the impression his gift made upon Esau by leaving a good amount of space between each
of the flocks, making Esau feel repeatedly that he had already seen the whole gift, only to find that more was
to follow. Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 also addresses the question of the space between the herds which Yaakov
insisted the messengers must allow for. According to the Midrash he wanted Esau to feast his eyes on the
size of the gift. When one part of the gift had been received and he thought that he had seen it all, another
messenger with another herd would appear and request that Esau accept his herd as a gift from Yaakov.

Radak on Genesis 32:17:1 ‫ויתן‬, he set

Radak on Genesis 32:17:2 ‫ורוח‬, according to Bereshit Rabbah the ‫ רוח‬mentioned here was Yaakov’s prayer to G’d that if and when his
descendants would be punished by G’d for collective wrongdoing, such punishments would be meted out at
intervals and not all at once, to give the people a chance to recover from the previous disaster’s impact.

Radak on Genesis 32:18:1 ‫ויצו‬, for each species of animal formed a herd by itself supervised by a separate servant. Yaakov instructed
the one walking with the first herd to reply to Esau’s enquiry in the manner a servant answers his master.
Radak on Genesis 32:18:2 ‫יפגשך‬, the letter ‫ ג‬with the vowel kametz is a long drawn out vowel and is weak, does not have a dagesh.
Radak on Genesis 32:18:3 ‫אלה לפניך‬, as if it said ‫אלה אשר לפניך‬, “these which preceded you?”

Radak on Genesis 32:20:1 ‫במצאכם‬...‫ויצו‬, the letter ‫ מ‬has the vowel cholem, and the letter ‫ צ‬has the vowel patach in order to lengthen the
letter ‫א‬. If not for this consideration the letter ‫ מ‬would have required the vowel chataf kametz (short) and the
letter ‫ צ‬would have required a semi vowel sheva, as in Joshua 8,8 ‫בתפשכם את העיר‬, “when you seize the
city.”
Radak on Genesis 32:21:1 ‫ואמרתם‬, even though this instruction had already been given both collectively and individually, he repeated it
again until they would remember to add “your servant Yaakov is following behind us.” Esau was to have the
impression that Yaakov followed these shepherds, his servants, on his way to Seir in order to present himself
to him.
Radak on Genesis 32:21:2 ‫אכפרה פניו‬, I want to remove his anger. Every time the word ‫ כפרה‬appears it means the removal of something.
For instance, in Isaiah 28,18 ‫וכפר בריתכם את מות‬, “your covenant with death will be removed, cancelled.” The
expression ‫ כפרת עון‬means “the removal of sin.” Compare also Isaiah 46,11.
Radak on Genesis 32:21:3 ‫פניו‬, a reference to anger, seeing that anger is visible in one’s face. The idea of ‫ אכפרה פניו‬is to accomplish
that his face no longer reflect his feeling of anger. We find this expression with Chanah, Samuel’s mother,
after she had poured out her angry heart to G’d, having been deliberately goaded by Peninah, Elkanah’s
other wife. (Samuel I 1,18) We also find this usage in Job 9,26.

Radak on Genesis 32:22:1 ‫ותעבור המנחה על פניו‬, the words ‫ על פניו‬are equivalent to ‫לפניו‬, “ahead of him, past him.” We encounter this
expression in Samuel II 15,18 ‫עוברים על פני המלך‬, “marching past the king.” According to Bereshit Rabbah
76,8 the words ‫ על פניו‬mean “under pressure.” In other words, the entire stratagem reflected Yaakov’s dire
straits at the time.
Radak on Genesis 32:22:2 ‫והא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה‬. He spent the night with the people of his encampment as he was not walking behind
the herds he had sent ahead.
Radak on Genesis 32:23:1 ‫ויקם בלילה הוא‬, the letter ‫ ה‬before the word ‫הוא‬, indicating which night the verse speaks about, is missing
here. The reason is that it was not a different night, but that Yaakov got up during the night already
mentioned after having slept only briefly.
Radak on Genesis 32:23:2 ‫ויקח‬, he made them ready at the banks of the river to cross, while he himself crossed to test the depth of the
water. This is the meaning of the words: ‫ויעבר את מעבר יבוק‬, he brought them across the fording in the river
Yabbok. Most rivers have points at which they are shallow, allowing people and animals to cross on foot.
These locations are generally well known.
Radak on Genesis 32:23:3 ‫ואת אחד עשר ילדיו‬, Dinah was included in the words “and his two wives,” as she was always close to Leah, her
mother. Bereshit Rabbah 76,9 raises the question of where Dinah was in all this, and answers that Yaakov
had put her into a box that he had locked. His concern had been that if Esau would see her he would take
her by force. Rabbi Hunna, quoting Rabbi Abba Cohen son of Bar Delah, said that G’d reacted to this by
quoting Job 6,14 ‫למס מרעהו חסר‬, that he had thereby withheld an opportunity from Esau to become a penitent
sinner. Moreover, if Esau had indeed married Dinah she would not have been raped by Shechem. Because
Yaakov did not want her to become married to a circumcised person she wound up sleeping with an
uncircumcised one. (compare 34,1)

Radak on Genesis 32:24:1 ‫ויקחם ויעברם‬, after he had first crossed by himself to test the depth of the water he returned to the original
bank and led his people and flocks across. Those who needed to be carried on his shoulders he carried, the
ones old enough to cross by themselves he took by the hand and led them across. According to Bereshit
Rabbah 76,9 quoting Rav Hunna, Yaakov made himself into a bridge taking hold of the children on one side
and depositing them on the other side of the river.
Radak on Genesis 32:24:2 ‫ויעבר את אשר לו‬, after having transferred the children, wives, etc, he transferred his property, inert objects, the
animals having swum across. After he had safely seen to it that everything had crossed he remained solitary
on the far bank to check if anything had been left behind inadvertently. Our sages in Chulin 91 explain that
the righteous who are so concerned with not laying claim to anything which is not absolutely theirs, are also
careful not to waste any hard earned acquisitions, even if small. This is not a sign of being miserly.

Radak on Genesis 32:25:1 ‫ויאבק איש עמו‬, he wrestled with him so intensely that a cloud of dust enveloped them while they were
struggling.
Radak on Genesis 32:25:2 ‫איש‬, the same type of ‫ איש‬as in Joshua 5,13, i.e. an angel. This was the angel Gavriel, described as ‫ איש‬par
excellence in Daniel 9,21. The reason why these angels are called ‫ איש‬is because they appear to the people
with whom they converse in human guise. The types of angels who speak with man are referred to as ‫איש‬, as
they appear either in a vision or while the person to whom they appear is fully awake. G’d had sent this angel
to Yaakov to strengthen his courage, not to fear Esau. If Yaakov could prevail over an angel, surely he had
no reason to be afraid of an encounter with someone like Esau! The fact that the struggle lasted until
daybreak was an allusion to Yaakov that after a period of night, i.e. problems, adversity, there would come a
period of light, peace and prosperity coupled with security..

Radak on Genesis 32:26:1 ‫וירא כי לא יוכל לו‬, that he could not force him to the ground.
Radak on Genesis 32:26:2 ‫ויגע בכף ירכו‬, he hinted to him that whereas Esau would not be able to overpower him, danger lurked for him
from another source, that someone of his own children would cause him grief. He referred to his daughter
who would be raped by an uncircumcised gentile. This is why he injured his ‫כף ירכו‬, the word ‫ כף‬being
feminine. Yaakov understood all this from what the angel had done, but he may not have understood how
this hint applied to his daughter until it happened. He may have thought that she would either take sick or die.
The entire episode must be viewed as a dream he had, even though on the morrow he found himself limping.
This was a sign from G’d, a reprisal of a kind, for the doubts he had expressed about the various promises G’
d had made him. G’d now punished him by making him unable to rely on parts of his body that he was in the
habit of relying on. True, Yaakov trusted G’d with all his heart, but he was in a constant state of worry that the
promises he had received would not come true due to some sin he had committed. Considering that G’d’s
promise had been repeated on different occasions, proving that in the interval Yaakov had not forfeited his
claim to them, he should no longer have doubted that G’d would not keep His promise for whatever reason.
His servile behaviour towards Esau, including the many times he called him adoni, “my lord,” implied a lack of
trust in the validity of G’d’s promises to him. Neither should he have sent him such an elaborate gift, nor
should he have prostrated himself before him repeatedly. By doing so he committed a sin and G’d punished
him in this life by afflicting his body, retribution already for planning to do this. If you prefer, you may
understand this story as something taking place while Yaakov was awake but that he day dreamed the event
and that the man appeared to him in this dream but that was a figment of his imagination. Similar events
occurred in Joshua 5,13 although the conversation between Joshua and the angel sounds very real. In
Judges 6,11 a similar wakeful encounter with someone perceived as an angel in human guise happened to
Gideon, and there are more such instances in the Scriptures. In fact, we could also understand the encounter
between angels and Avraham, and between Lot and the angels in such terms. However, the difficulty with
such an interpretation in our example is the physical contact not only described in the narrative, but the
evidence of an injury sustained by Yaakov which could hardly have resulted from some hallucinatory
encounter. It is difficult to reconcile the Torah’s historical note that in commemoration of Yaakov’s injury the
Jewish people do not eat the organ of an animal that corresponds to the one which was injured in Yaakov’s
body during that encounter.
Radak on Genesis 32:26:3 ‫ותקע‬, we find the word used in a similar meaning in Jeremiah 6,8 ‫פן תקע נפשי ממך‬, “lest My essence be
removed from you.”

Radak on Genesis 32:27:1 ‫ויאמר שלחני‬, he meant that he had been sent by G’d to Yaakov to demonstrate to him by a factual illustration
that he would not overcome him, and that a mere human being such as Esau would certainly not be able to
harm him. Now that I have accomplished my mission, please let me go. In other words, “unless you have any
other request from me, I am leaving.” Yaakov said that indeed he did want something else of him, and until
that was granted he would not let him depart. He wanted to receive the angel’s blessing. The reason that the
angel added the words
Radak on Genesis 32:27:2 ‫כי עלה השחר‬, that it is already becoming morning, was that Yaakov had no reason to be afraid, as the night,
the time for fear, had already passed. Being alone, without escort during daylight is no reason for concern.
Radak on Genesis 32:28:1 ?‫מה שמך‬.. ‫?ויאמר‬, this question is only an opener for the dialogue that follows. We have several such
examples, as in Genesis 3,9 where G’d asks Adam ‫?איכה‬, “where are you?,” though He was perfectly aware
of Adam’s whereabouts. Similarly, in Exodus 4,2 G’d asks Moses “what is this in your hand?,” knowing full
well that Moses was holding a staff in his hand. Here too, Yaakov was well aware who the angel was seeing
he had been sent to him specifically.
Radak on Genesis 32:29:1 ‫ויאמר‬, an angel is allowed to expand the parameters of his mission, as we know already from when Lot asked
the angel to allow him not to climb the mountain but to spend the night in Tzoar (Genesis 19,21). The angel
there describes himself as granting permission, although it is possible that he checked with G’d first and the
Torah did not bother to mention this.
Radak on Genesis 32:29:2 ‫לא יעקב יאמר‬, the meaning is “not only Yaakov will your name be in future.” We have examples of parallel
meanings in Joshua 22,20 ‫לא גוע בעונו‬, “he did not die due to his sin,” where the meaning is that “not only
Achan died for his sin, but due to his sin many others died.“ [The Israelites who fell in the first battle of Ai.
Ed.] Also in Kings II 6,10, the words ‫לא אחת ולא שתים‬, “not one and not two,” is such a construction. The
expression means: “not once but many times.” Knowing that the meaning of our verse is that Yaakov will
henceforth not only be known as Yaakov, helps explain the many occasions later when this original name is
applied to him, as distinct from the name change of Avram to Avraham.
Radak on Genesis 32:29:3 ‫כי אם ישראל‬, the name Yisrael denotes the nation founded by “Yaakov.” Our sages are of two minds if the
former name of the additional name is the principal name. Rabbi Zecharyah is of the opinion that the name
Yaakov remained the principal name, whereas the majority opinion is that from this point on the name Yisrael
became the principal name of Yaakov. (Bereshit Rabbah 78,3) The point of the angel telling him that he
would henceforth not be called Yaakov but Yisrael was to tell him that G’d would change his name. This
occurred when Yaakov came to Bet El. This is why we read in 35,10 ‫ויקרא את שמו ישראל‬. The reason for the
name change was revealed to Yaakov by the angel.
Radak on Genesis 32:29:4 ‫כי שרית עם אלוקים‬, with the angel. He wrestled with you and could not overpower you to the extent of felling
you.
Radak on Genesis 32:29:5 ‫ועם אנשים‬. With Lavan and Esau who intended to harm you and were unable to do so. He meant that exactly
what had happened to Yaakov in his encounter with Lavan who had pursued him with hostile intent, would
happen in his forthcoming encounter with Esau and his soldiers.

Radak on Genesis 32:30:1 ‫הגידה נא שמך‬...‫וישאל‬, for each angel has a name appropriate to his mission. This is what Isaiah meant when
he said (Isaiah 40,26) ‫לכולם בשם יקרא‬, “Who calls them each by name. ”We find names of angels spelled out
in Daniel 9,21 ‫והאיש גבריאל‬, as well as chapter 10,12 in Daniel ‫כי אם מיכאל שרכם‬. Seeing that the angel had
changed his name, Yaakov wanted to know the angel’s name in order to find out what this angel’s primary
task was.
Radak on Genesis 32:30:2 ?‫ ;למה זה תשאל לשמי‬a polite way of saying: “you do not need to know my name.” The same happened to
Manoach in Judges 13,18 when he wanted to know the name of the angel who had announced that his wife
would give birth to Shimshon. However, the difference there was that at the time Manoach asked he was still
unaware that he was addressing an angel, thinking that he was dealing with a prophet, a human being. We
do not really know why the angels keep their names secret. According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,4 the angel’s
question meant that seeing each angel has a name assigned to him for each specific assignment he carries
out on earth, there was no point in knowing his name as it would change before he would be given a new
assignment. Rabbi Ami, quoting Abba Yossi, draws attention to two verses, one in Psalms 147,4 saying ‫לכולם‬
‫שמות יקרא‬, “He will call all of them by names,” and Isaiah 2,26 ‫לכולם בשם קרא‬, “He calls all of them by name.”
This appears to state that whereas the stars do not undergo name changes, angels names do. He uses the
angel’s question to Manoach as proof that this is so. The angel answered Manoach that he did not know
what his name would be on his next mission.
Radak on Genesis 32:30:3 ‫ויברך אותו שם‬, apart from the fact that he had told him about his impending name change to Yisrael,
explaining the reason for this, he gave him an additional blessing. The reason the verse ends with the word
‫ שם‬is that it is a reference to Bet El where G’d would confirm the name change.
Radak on Genesis 32:31:1 ‫פנים אל פנים‬...‫פניאל‬....‫ויקרא יעקב‬. According to one of the commentaries which we quoted (verse 26) that the
angel had assumed human form, this experience was something new for Yaakov. For the first time he had
seen a divine being face to face while being awake. Adding to this the fact that this angel had twisted his hip
joint out of shape and he had survived this he was amazed that he had survived such an encounter. This is
why he used the expression ‫פנים אל פנים‬. He added the words
Radak on Genesis 32:31:2 ‫ותנצל נפשי‬, this is a statement Yaakov never made on other occasions when he had other visions. Seeing that
we explained that the entire episode with the angel was a prophetic vision, the reason why he used the
expression “face to face,” must be that the vision was so real to him that in his vision he reacted physically to
the angel that appeared to him. If you were to consider this interpretation as unlikely, consider that we have
been told that Moses spoke to G’d “face to face.” (Exodus 33,11 and again in Deuteronomy 5,4) the
description “face to face” merely tells us about the realism involved in such prophetic encounters Moses
experienced, as well as what the entire people experienced at the revelation at Mount Sinai when the
mountain quaked, there was lightning and thunder, etc. Having experienced such an intense vision Yaakov
understandably marvels at having survived such an experience, one in which he was totally involved, body
and soul. The recollection of such intense experiences though having occurred in the form of visions, was
strong enough to carry over into the affected people’s waking hours.
Radak on Genesis 32:31:3 ‫שם המקום פניאל‬, this name was retained for future generations. There is no difference between ‫ פניאל‬and
‫פנואל‬. They are variations in the name of the same location. The letters ‫ י‬and ‫ ו‬are well known as
interchangeable letters.
Radak on Genesis 32:32:1 ‫ויזרח לו השמש‬, an expression similar in principle to Samuel II 2,39 ‫ויאור להם בחברון‬, “it became light for them in
Chevron,” when Yaakov passed Penuel the sun had just risen. An aggadic explanation (Bereshit Rabbah
78,8) of the wording, based on the word ‫לו‬, “for him,” is that the sun had a therapeutic effect on Yaakov’s
limp. Rabbi Berechyah explains the wording to mean that whereas everyone in Yaakov’s retinue appreciated
the sun for its light, Yaakov appreciated it for its therapeutic effect on his injury. Rabbi Hunna says whereas
the heat of the sun’s rays had a therapeutic effect on Yaakov, it had a debilitating effect on Esau and his
hordes. He quotes Maleachi 3 10-20 “For lo! The day is at hand, burning like an oven. The arrogant and all
the doers of evil shall be straw, and the day that is coming-said the Lord of Hosts- shall burn them to ashes
and leave of them neither stock nor boughs. But for you who revere My name a sun of victory shall rise, a
healing” You shall go forth and stamp like stall-fed calves and you shall trample the wicked to a pulp for they
shall be dust beneath your feet on the day I am preparing, said the Lord of Hosts.
Radak on Genesis 32:32:2 ‫והוא צולע על ירכו‬. When he passed Peniel he felt the injury as more painful and found himself forced to limp.

Radak on Genesis 32:33:1 ‫על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל‬, the children of Yaakov adopted this prohibition for themselves in commemoration of
their father whose thigh muscle had been injured. They in turn commanded their children to abstain from
eating this part of any animal. This continued until the Torah was given and it became law. It reminds us of
the descendants of Yonadav ben Rechev who faithfully adhered to the clan’s founding father’s injunction not
to drink wine (Jeremiah 35,6) in honour of the oath they swore to their forefather. They are described as
loyalists par excellence in the Book of Chronicles. Moses recorded the custom of the Israelites not to eat this
organ as one of the 613 commandments. Although the Torah does not generally consider it necessary to
justify G’d’s legislation with a reason, in this case, since this law had been observed as a Jewish tribal
custom for so many hundreds of years prior to the giving of the Torah, we are told how the custom which
became enshrined in Torah law originated.
Radak on Genesis 32:33:2 ‫את גיד הנשה‬, our sages in Chulin 91 explain the name of this muscle or ligament (sciatic nerve) as due to the
fact that it is apt to move from its original location, from the spoon shaped joint to which it is attached.
Radak on Genesis 32:33:3 ‫אשר על כף הירך‬, the only part of the sinew prohibited by Biblical injunction is the part directly attached to the
hip joint.. What is above and below is forbidden by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, the exterior sinew is also only
forbidden by Rabbinic decree (Chulin 91) The prohibition applies equally to domesticated beasts, free
roaming beasts, as well as to the ‫שליל‬, the as yet unborn embryo. The prohibition applies to both the right
and the left hind leg of the animal, even though the sages are agreed that only one of Yaakov’s sciatic
nerves was injured as seems clear from the words (singular) “he dislocated the sinew of the thigh-vein.” The
halachic ruling follows the view of Rabbi Yossi that although only one sinew was injured they are both
forbidden to be eaten. The fatty tissue on top of these sinews is also forbidden as a Rabbinic injunction.
Radak on Genesis 33:1:1 ‫ויחץ‬...‫וישא יעקב‬, he divided them between their respective mothers. Each mother would naturally have
stronger concern for her own children and if it came to interceding for her own children would do so with
more heart-rending pleas than she would for the children of someone else.
Radak on Genesis 33:2:1 ‫וישם‬, the most beloved he placed last, hoping that Esau’s anger had been blunted by the time he met them.
Radak on Genesis 33:3:1 ‫והוא עבר לפניהם‬, as a father who has compassion on his children. He offered himself as the butt of Esau’s
anger hoping thereby to save the lives of his children. Either Esau would agree not to harm the children or he
would engage Esau in battle to try and save his children if Esau refused his offer of reconciliation.
Radak on Genesis 33:3:2 ‫שבע פעמים‬. According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,8 the reason why he prostrated himself 7 times before Esau is
based on Proverbs 24,16 ‫שבע יפול צדיק‬, that the righteous fall down seven times before remaining upright
after getting up.

Radak on Genesis 33:4:1 ‫וירץ‬, when Esau saw that Yaakov had humbled himself so much before him, he forgave what he had done to
him and his sense of compassion was stirred.
Radak on Genesis 33:4:2 ‫וישקהו‬, the word has a dot on each of the letters. In Bereshit Rabbah 78,9 Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that
everywhere where you find the dots do not cover each letter of the word underneath we give preference to
the meaning of the text as is, without the dots. When there are more dots than letters, we give emphasis in
our interpretation to the dots. In this instance, there are as many dots as there are letters in the word ‫וישקהו‬,
so that we understand that Esau kissed Esau sincerely with all his heart. To this Rabbi Yannai countered by
asking that if this is indeed so, why bother to put any dots on the word if they do not affect the meaning? We
therefore must interpret that originally Esau had intended to bite Yaakov’s neck feigning an embrace. G’d
made his teeth as soft as wax and Yaakov’s neck as hard as ivory. ‫ויבכו‬, one on account of his neck, the
other on account of his teeth.
Radak on Genesis 33:5:1 ‫מי אלה לך‬...‫וישא‬, these women and children whom I see, as well as all the numerous servants, who are they?
Yaakov answered him concerning the children, and Esau deduced that the women next to them were their
mothers.
Radak on Genesis 33:7:1 ‫נגש יוסף ורחל‬. He made Joseph approach Esau before Rachel, seeing that Rachel was so protective of him
(her only child) that she made him walk in front of her where she could constantly keep her eye on him,
literally keeping him between her hands. There is an aggadic explanation (quoted by Rashi) that Joseph
walked in front of his mother on his own initiative because she was so attractive that he wanted to shield her
from inquisitive eyes using his tall physique to shield her from such glances. The source of the Midrash cites
the word‫בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין‬, “Joseph is a noble and prominent son, a noble and prominent son already
at the source (well) (Genesis 49,22)

Radak on Genesis 33:8:1 ?‫ויאמר מי לך‬, “to whom belong?” In other words, “to whom did you send this whole camp which is at your
disposal, and to who did you send all these sheep and cattle?”
Radak on Genesis 33:8:2 ‫ למצוא חן בעיניך אדוני‬I have sent it to you my lord in the hope that by accepting it you would do me a favour.
Radak on Genesis 33:9:1 ‫ויאמר עשו‬, “I do not need your gift for ‫יש לי רב‬, I possess a great deal.” In Bereshit Rabbah 78,11 the words ‫יש‬
‫ לי רב‬are understood as meaning: “keep what is yours.” Rabbi Eleazar paraphrased that the validity of a
decree of divorce can be attested to only by the people who have signed it. You should not say that if our
patriarch Yaakov had not fooled his father he would not have received the blessings. [Yaakov wanted to
show Esau that none of these blessings had been fulfilled for him, and that his wealth was totally
independent of what his father had assured him of instead of Esau. Ed.] After all these years, Esau finally
acknowledged that he had not suffered as a result of Yaakov’s being blessed, so that he said “keep what is
yours!”

Radak on Genesis 33:10:1 ‫כי על כן ראיתי‬...‫ויאמר יעקב‬, this is precisely why it is appropriate that you accept my gift for I give it to you
wholeheartedly. When I looked at your face I recognised that it bears the same features as the angel whom I
have encountered and who has blessed me. Yaakov alluded to that nocturnal encounter in order to make
Esau afraid to harm him. Yaakov had learned from the effect an encounter with angel- albeit it in a nocturnal
vision- had had upon Lavan, who had not dared to attack him (29.31) Esau was well aware that Yaakov was
a righteous man ever since his youth and he did not hesitate to believe him when told that Yaakov had
encounters with angels. When Yaakov flattered Esau that the latter’s features reminded him of the features of
the angel he had had a dialogue with, this was an exaggeration, of course. We find a similar exaggeration in
Samuel II 14,20 where the woman from Tekoah says to King David that “my lord is wise as an angel of G’d
and he knows all that goes on in the land.”
Radak on Genesis 33:10:2 ‫ותרצני‬, it was a source of satisfaction for me. Alternatively, the word could mean: “after you have displayed
your goodwill towards me.”

Radak on Genesis 33:11:1 ‫קח נא את ברכתי‬, the word ‫ ברכתי‬here means: “my gift.” It occurs in this sense in Kings II 5,15 ‫קח נא ברכה מאת‬
‫עבדך‬, “please accept a gift from your servant.”
Radak on Genesis 33:11:2 ‫אשר הובאת לך‬, by the servants who have been walking ahead of me behind those herds. Besides, I have all
the wealth and honour I could wish for.
Radak on Genesis 33:11:3 ‫ויפצר בו‬, he pleaded with him insistently until he agreed to accept it.

Radak on Genesis 33:12:1 ‫ויאמר נסעה‬, it is possible that Esau’s “suggestion” was in the nature of a command. He was conscious that
Yaakov’s progress would be slow due to the animals as well as the children some of whom were of tender
age.
Radak on Genesis 33:12:2 ‫ואלכה לנגדך‬, I will go faster but will remain close by, ‫נגדך‬,. Alternately, the word ‫ נסעה‬is suggestion in the
plural mode, Esau suggesting that they proceed side by side.

Radak on Genesis 33:13:1 ‫עלות עלי‬...‫ויאמר‬, the word ‫ עלות‬is a term denoting mother animals that are still suckling their young. It is
important for their well being that they not be hurried.
Radak on Genesis 33:13:2 ‫עלי‬, it us to me to take care of them by leading them at a leisurely pace.
Radak on Genesis 33:13:3 ‫ודפקום‬, if they were to be pushed (rushed), Yaakov explained that if his shepherds were to rush these
animals even for a single day the sheep would all die from exhaustion. [the author understands Yaakov as
telling Esau that “too much can be too little, sometimes.” This is why he quotes Isaiah 30,20. Ed.] In that
verse the prophet explains that when G’d provides ‫לחם צר ומים לחץ‬, “meager bread and scant water,” this is a
promise and not a punishment. Too much of a good thing would be counterproductive, would ruin the health
of recipient. Hence it is better for the sheep not to travel too fast.
Radak on Genesis 33:13:4 ‫ומתו‬, the prefix ‫ ו‬in this word is analogous to similar prefixes in the words ‫ ורכב וסוס‬in Psalms76,7, and other
similar examples. [the point is that the Torah did not write umeytu, but vameytu. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 33:14:1 ‫לרגל המלאכה‬... ‫יעבר נא‬, the cattle is referred to as ‫מלאכה‬, because cattle are the instruments by means of
which most basic agricultural work is performed. We find a similar usage of the word ‫ מלאכה‬in Samuel I 15,9
‫וכל המלאכה נמבזה ונמס‬, “and all the inferior cattle (those they killed).”
Radak on Genesis 33:15:1 ‫ויאמר למה זה אמצא חן בעיני אדוני‬, this is Yaakov speaking, saying to Esau that he need not bother to honour
him so excessively. We find a similar verse in Ruth 2,10 ‫מדוע מצאתי חן בעיניך להכירני‬, where Ruth expresses
her disbelief about the kindly interest taken in her the alien, the widowed stranger, by Boaz.
Radak on Genesis 33:17:1 ‫ויבן לו בית‬...‫ויעקב‬, this teaches that it was during the rainy season. In Bereshit Rabbah 78,16 it is concluded
from this detail that Yaakov stayed at Sukkot for several years. [other versions say that it was in Bet El where
he stayed 18 months or longer. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 33:18:1 ‫ויבא יעקב שלם‬, meaning that he had not incurred any damage or loss as a result of his encounter with Esau.
He had not suffered any deterioration during his entire journey from Aram Naharayim. The matter is
underlined to show that now that he had returned to the land of Canaan, his homeland, he suffered the
indignity of his daughter Dinah being raped. Seeing that this happened at Shechem, the Torah mentions that
town instead of telling us that he was 100% o.k. until he came to Sukkot and built himself a house. The
Midrash understands the word ‫ שלם‬as a state of being, i.e. similar to when he had said ‫יש לי כל‬,“I am blessed
with everything,” in response to Esau having said ‫יש לי רוב‬. “I have lots.”
Radak on Genesis 33:18:2 ‫ ;את פני העיר‬in front of the town. The expression is parallel to Proverbs 17,24 ‫את פני מבין חכמה‬, “wisdom is in
front of (available) any discerning person.” Perhaps the town was small so that there was not enough room to
accommodate Yaakov whose entourage consisted of two camps. His presence inside the town might have
cramped their quarters. He therefore erected his tent outside the borders of the town on the piece of land he
had bought. According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 79,6 the words ‫ ויחן את פני העיר‬mean that seeing he
arrived on Friday evening shortly before the onset of the Sabbath, he made an Eiruv Techumim, delineating
the area he could walk within freely on the Sabbath. We would learn from here that Yaakov observed the
Sabbath legislation down to Rabbinic decrees before such a legislation was given to his descendants at
Mount Sinai.
Radak on Genesis 33:19:1 ‫מיד בני חמור‬... ‫ויקן‬, the Torah does not write “from Chamor,” but from “the sons of Chamor” who was the father
of Shechem, as perhaps the land had belonged to the sons and not to him.
Radak on Genesis 33:19:2 ‫אבי שכם‬, seeing that the son was so distinguished the father is identified by reference to his son.
Radak on Genesis 33:19:3 ‫במאה קשיטה‬, silver coins. According to our sages in Rosh Hashanah 26 Rabbi Akiva once reported that while
he walked in a place called Arabia he heard that the local people called a certain coin equivalent to a ‫ מעה‬in
the land of Israel a ‫קשיטה‬. According to Onkelos the meaning of ‫ קשיטה‬may be ‫חורפן‬, “young lambs.” He
translated it as such also in 21,28

Radak on Genesis 33:20:1 ‫ויצב שם‬, considering that the Torah used the word ‫ ויצב‬instead of ‫ויבן‬, he built, it is probable that this altar
consisted of only one large lab of stone. He placed this stone in the appropriate position to serve as an altar
upon which to offer his sacrifice.
Radak on Genesis 33:20:2 ‫הי ישראל‬-‫ל אלו‬-‫ויקרא לו א‬, he named the altar thus in commemoration of the fact that G’d had saved him while
he was en route, and had sent an angel to accomplish that, and had also changed his name to Yisrael. It is
possible that he placed the stone at the site where he had the nocturnal encounter with the angel. We find a
parallel to this in Exodus 17,15 where Moses called the altar he had built ‫ה' נסי‬, “G’d is my miracle,” in
commemoration of the miracle G’d had performed for the Israelites enabling them to defeat the Amalekites.
Another similar example of the name of G’d being linked to the salvation He brings to the Jewish people,
albeit in the future, is found in Jeremiah 23,6, ‫זה שמו אשר יקראו ה' צדקנו‬. A similar verse occurs in Jeremiah
33,17, whereas in Ezekiel 48,35 we found a city (the new Jerusalem) being named after an event (the
redemption), the new name meaning: “the Lord is there.”

Radak on Genesis 34:1:1 ‫ותצא דינה בת לאה‬, she went forth from her mother’s tent, her father also not being at home, and she came into
the town to get acquainted with other girls in the town. The reason why the Torah underscored that she was
the daughter of Leah, a fact we are all familiar with, was to remind us “like mother like daughter.” Her mother
had been described in 30,16 by the words ‫ותצא לאה לקראתו‬, “Leah went forth to meet her husband,”
suggesting that she took an initiative which was not common for her. The reason the Torah added another
fact that we knew already, i.e. ‫אשר ילדה ליעקב‬, “whom she had born for Yaakov,” is to alert us to the fact that
what happened to her was a punishment for her father (as we explained in 32,23).

Radak on Genesis 34:2:1 ‫וירא‬, the reason why the Torah uses the word ‫ ויעניה‬when what Shechem had done was more in the nature of
a seduction that a violent rape, is that this term is used in connection with a virgin having intercourse,
something usually very painful for her. The term is also used on account of this reason in Deuteronomy
22,29.
Radak on Genesis 34:3:1 ‫ותדבק נפשו בדינה בת יעקב‬, his soul felt a strong attachment to her on account of her beauty as well as on
account of the fact that she was the daughter of an outstanding personality, Yaakov.
Radak on Genesis 34:3:2 ‫וידבר על לב הנערה‬, seeing that he had caused her pain, he now did his best to soothe her feelings as he was
intent of marrying her and needed her consent. He hoped that his being the crown prince would help sway
her opinion in his favour.

Radak on Genesis 34:5:1 ‫ויעקב שמע כי טמא‬, Shechem, who had already been mentioned (hence his name does not need to be
repeated here and a pronoun will do) and that as a result of what he did, Dinah had been defiled by an
uncircumcised person who had been intimate with her.
Radak on Genesis 34:5:2 ‫והחריש יעקב‬, he did not raise a fuss in the town but waited until his sons would come home from the field.
Similarly, when Chamor came to speak to him, Yaakov waited with answering him by telling him that he
preferred to wait until his sons were present.

Radak on Genesis 34:7:1 ‫בישראל‬...‫ובני יעקב‬, the rape of Dinah was considered as a stain of the spiritual wholeness of all the family of
Yisrael.
Radak on Genesis 34:7:2 ‫וכן לא יעשה‬, it was totally unforgivable for something of this nature to be done. This is why they were so angry
that it had been done to them (of all people).

Radak on Genesis 34:8:1 ‫וידבר חמור אתם‬, with Yaakov and his sons.
Radak on Genesis 34:8:2 ‫בבתכם‬, not “your sister,” although she was the sister to 11 brothers, but “your daughter,” seeing her status as
the daughter of Yaakov was the foremost consideration. Besides, each of Dinah’s brothers was concerned
for her well being as if she had been his daughter, not just his sister.

Radak on Genesis 34:9:1 ‫והתחתנו אותנו‬, the word ‫ אותנו‬here means the same as if the Torah had written either ‫ עמנו‬or ‫בנו‬, “with us.”
Radak on Genesis 34:10:1 ‫ וסחרוה‬...‫ואתנו‬, and trade within it.
Radak on Genesis 34:10:2 ‫והאחזו בה‬, and buy yourselves freehold property there until you will be equal to the prominent people of the
town.

Radak on Genesis 34:13:1 ‫ויענו בני יעקב‬, Yaakov himself did not utter a single word of falsehood or deceit, even though seeing that he
had been the injured party he could have excused such conduct. He left the matter in his sons’ care and if
they used subterfuge he did not interfere. The brothers did not consider their conduct as reprehensible for
people who had defiled their sister and were still holding her captive.
Radak on Genesis 34:14:1 ‫כי חרפה היא לנו‬... ‫ויאמרו‬, to be intermarried with the uncircumcised, seeing that our males are all circumcised.
Radak on Genesis 34:15:1 ‫נאות‬...‫אך‬, we would be willing.
Radak on Genesis 34:17:1 ‫בתנו‬...‫ואם לא‬, as we explained on 34,9
Radak on Genesis 34:19:1 ‫לעשות הדבר‬...‫ולא‬, to gather together the men of his town and to speak with them.
Radak on Genesis 34:19:2 ‫והוא נכבד‬, seeing that he was highly esteemed. he was able to persuade the citizens of his town to circumcise
themselves for his and their sake.
Radak on Genesis 34:20:1 ‫אל שער עירם‬...‫ויבא‬, this is where they would hold an assembly of the elders of the town together with the other
influential citizens as was the custom pertaining to all matters of common concern. We find examples of such
conduct both in Deuteronomy 25,7 and in Ruth 4,1. where the word ‫ השערה‬means that this is the place
where assembles were held.
Radak on Genesis 34:21:1 ‫האנשים האלה שלמים הם אתנו‬, they are quite peaceful towards us even though I raped their sister; the reason is
that they are anxious to live side by side with us and to become one people. They are asking for a very minor
concession on our part, that all out males must circumcise themselves as they are all circumcised
themselves. He argued that acceptance of such a demand would not deprive his townsfolk of anything of
value. In return for complying with their demand his countrymen would become co-owners of the extensive
property of Yaakov’s family ‫רחבת ידים לפניהם‬. Even though they do possess extensive herds and flocks, the
land is more than adequate to support these animals without our having to limit the grazing land allocated to
our livestock.

Radak on Genesis 34:23:1 ‫מקניהם‬, this is one of 3 instances where the letter ‫ י‬after the ‫ נ‬is missing in this word. As spelled, the word
means “they are cattle.” [Ibn Ezra sees in this a hint that the people of Shechem saw in Yaakov’s family and
belongings prospective property of theirs, placing man and beast on the same footing. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 34:25:1 ‫ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים‬, this was because the pains are strongest on the third day after the
circumcision. In view of this the sages permitted bathing the child with hot water on the Sabbath after the
circumcision, if it coincided with being the third day after the operation.(Shabbat 134). Even hot water boiled
on the Sabbath itself is permissible to be used for this when there is no other, as the potential danger to the
life of the infant overrides the Sabbath legislation not to boil anything on that day.
Radak on Genesis 34:25:2 ‫ויקחו שני בני יעקב‬, in this instance, Shimon and Levi, although all the brothers were in complete agreement of
what was being planned. We know this from verse 13 ‫ויענו בני יעקב במרמה‬, “the sons of Yaakov responded,
deceitfully.” When it came to carrying out their plan, the other brothers were afraid and did not risk their lives
in that undertaking. Only Shimon and Levi considered the fate of their sister as paramount. ‫ ;אחי דינה‬the
Torah accords them full points for considering themselves as the brothers of Dinah par excellence, although
at least four more of the brothers were Dinah’s brothers both from the father and from the mother.
Radak on Genesis 34:25:3 ‫בטח‬, they were feeling as secure as if they were numerous and not 2 against a whole town.

Radak on Genesis 34:26:1 ‫ ;ויקחו את דינה‬there is an aggadic commentary (Bereshit Rabbah 80,11) according to which Dinah felt so
ashamed that she did not want to leave the house of Shechem until Shimon swore to her that he would marry
her, and that this is the meaning of 46,10 where among the issue of Shimon one is described as being
named “Sha-ul son of the Canaanite (woman). “Supposedly, the father of that child was Shechem, i.e. Dinah
had conceived him at the time of the rape.
Radak on Genesis 34:27:1 ‫בני יעקב באו על החללים‬, to undress them and to take all their possessions
Radak on Genesis 34:27:2 ‫אשר טמאו אחותם‬, to demonstrate by means of this that the men of this city had defiled their sister. This
became public knowledge in the region after the sons of Yaakov killed the people who had tolerated this
crime, the townspeople had watched the violent rape and had not lifted a finger to stop it. The sons of
Yaakov also took all the movable possessions of the city of Shechem both in the city and the fields belonging
to that town.

Radak on Genesis 34:29:1 ‫ואת כל חילם‬, silver, gold , and precious stones.
Radak on Genesis 34:29:2 ‫ואת כל אשר בבית‬, chattels. The word ‫ בבית‬is a general term, a place where most chattels are kept.

Radak on Genesis 34:30:1 ‫עכרתם‬...‫ויאמר‬, an expression meaning “destruction.” The word is used in this sense in Samuel I 14,29 ‫עכר אבי‬
‫את הארץ‬, “my father has destroyed the land.” [I do not see this meaning in the root ‫ עכר‬either here or in
Samuel. I would translate it more appropriately as “confused, caused confusion. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 34:30:2 ‫להבאשני‬, to cause me shame. The Canaanites in the region will despise me and try to remove me from the
district as one removes a person who exudes a putrid stench. Yaakov reacted in the time-honoured fashion
of being afraid, almost a trademark of his, whereas his sons were stout-hearted men willing to avenge the
shame inflicted upon their very personalities.

Radak on Genesis 34:31:1 ?‫ויאמרו הכזונה‬, is Shechem to be allowed to treat our sister as if she were a harlot, and we should not avenge
the shame she was subjected to?
Radak on Genesis 35:1:1 ‫ויאמר אלוקים‬, an angel appeared to him while he was at Shechem and told him to proceed to Bet El, and to
redeem his vow there. Regarding the words of the angel: ‫ושב שם‬, “and settle down there!,” this did not mean
that Yaakov was to settle there permanently, but that he was to remain there long enough to build the house
of G’d which he had undertaken to do as part of his original vow. The angel on this occasion hinted that
Yaakov’s “dream” with the ladder had in fact been more than a dream, it had been the first vision of the
Divine he had experienced. The incident with Dinah’s rape and the subsequent upheaval had delayed
Yaakov’s progress in the direction of his father’s home. Yaakov’s having built himself a house in Sukkot and
his purchase of real estate had given the impression that he intended to settle in that vicinity permanently.
His duty at that time had been to proceed to Bet El and to pay his vow of 34 years ago. He was supposed to
proceed directly in the direction of his father’s home without allowing himself to be distracted on the way.
Having failed to do this, G’d punished him with the incident involving Dinah. Even though we explained that
Yaakov’s punishment was due to his having experienced fear in spite of repeated assurances by G’d that He
would be with him, this delay he had allowed himself was an additional reason for his being punished.
Radak on Genesis 35:1:2 ‫ל הנראה אליך‬-‫לא‬, a reference to what he saw in his dream when G’d appeared to him to be standing on top of
the ladder (28,13). At this juncture, the angel addressing him told him to build there an altar to the attribute of
G’d Who had appeared to him at that location. The reason for the angel adding: ‫בברחך‬, “when you were
fleeing, etc.,” was a reminder to him that at that time he had been all alone and that G’d had given him His
assurance that He would look after him and would bring him back to the land of Canaan. Seeing that G’d had
kept His promise, it was now Yaakov’s turn to keep his vow.

Radak on Genesis 35:2:1 ‫אל ביתו‬, to his children.

Radak on Genesis 35:2:2 .to his men and maidservants ,‫ואל כל אשר לו‬
Radak on Genesis 35:2:3 ‫הסירו את אלוהי הנכר‬, the silver and gold the sons of Yaakov had looted from Shechem had idolatrous images
engraved upon them, as had the various pieces of jewelry they had taken with them from there. Even though
Yaakov’s sons had not taken these items in order to worship them but in order to melt them down and to put
them to other uses, i.e. to use the melted down gold and silver, [something halachically acceptable as the
idolatrous nature of these artifacts had been nullified through the melt down, Ed.] Yaakov did not want his
children or household to benefit from anything which had once served idolatrous purposes although it was no
longer recognisable as something that had once served such a purpose. Moses is on record as expressing
similar sentiments when he said (Deuteronomy 7,25) “do not covet the silver or gold which was upon them.”
(after the idols themselves had already been destroyed) He repeated this sentiment even more strongly in
Deuteronomy 13,18 when he said “no part of the banned property may adhere to your hand, etc.” [these
injunctions were especially called for after the Israelites had not only been allowed to loot the property of the
former owners, but other Torah legislation such as even the eating of pig had been temporarily suspended
during the years when the conquered the land of Canaan and had not yet settled there and received their
tribal heritage. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 35:2:4 ‫ ;והטהרו‬they needed to purify themselves as contact with idolatrous objects confers ritual impurity on the
person who had been in touch with it.
Radak on Genesis 35:2:5 ‫והחליפו שמלותיכם‬, your garments too have become contaminated by the same ritual impurity so that you have
to put on others. Alternatively, what is meant are the garments of the people of Shechem which were part of
the loot.

Radak on Genesis 35:4:1 ‫ויטמן‬, he did not leave them above ground so as not to become the indirect cause of someone retrieving the
items and using them in an idolatrous fashion.
Radak on Genesis 35:4:2 ‫אשר עם שכם‬, near Shechem; we have a similar construction involving the preposition ‫ עם‬in 25,11 ‫וישב יצחק עם‬
‫באר לחי רואי‬, “Yitzchok settled near the place named Beer Lachay Ro-i.

Radak on Genesis 35:6:1 ‫לוזה אשר בארץ כנען‬, this teaches that there was a second place or town called “Luz.”
Radak on Genesis 35:6:2 ‫הוא וכל העם‬, the Torah wants to inform us that Yaakov had not suffered a single casualty among his servants,
even, as a negative fallout of the killing of all the males in Shechem, not even on the way. This was all due to
the intense fear of retribution by the G’d of Yaakov which had gripped the Canaanites of the region. They did
not even dare pursue the family, [which might have been perceived as retreating, seeing that they had not
made an attempt to take over the city, Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 35:7:1 ‫ויבן שם מזבח‬, this means that he built the altar in the house he had built there at the site of the original
monument of which he had said in 28,22 “this will become a house of G’d.” We explained this on that verse.
It does not matter that the house itself was not mentioned here separately.
Radak on Genesis 35:7:2 ‫ל‬-‫ל בית א‬-‫ויקרא למקום א‬. He had already called it Bet El on a previous occasion, Now he only expanded the
name. Compare our commentary on 33,20.
Radak on Genesis 35:7:3 ‫כי שם נגלו אליו האלוקים‬, a reference to the angels ascending and descending the ladder whom he had seen in
his dream. Alternatively, the meaning of the word ‫אלוקים‬-‫ ה‬is a reference to G’d, Himself, not an intermediary.
The reason why he used the plural mode ‫ נגלו‬instead of ‫ נגלה‬when the subject is only G’d Himself, is that this
is a form of great respect and honour for the subject [known as pluralis majestatis when a king refers to
himself in the plural. Ed.] compare Psalms 149,2 ‫ישמח ישראל בעושיו‬, “Let Israel rejoice in its Maker.” A similar
construction is found in Job 35,10 ‫ה עושי‬-‫?איה אלו‬, “Where is the Lord, My Maker?” There are more such
examples in Scripture.

Radak on Genesis 35:8:1 ‫ותמת דבורה‬, according to Rashi, Rivkah had sent word to Yaakov by means of Devorah in accordance with
her promise at the time that as soon as Esau’s anger would subside she would recall him from his exile.
(27,45) When Devorah delivered the message at Bet El she died forthwith.
Radak on Genesis 35:8:2 ‫תחת האלון‬, beneath the oak. This category of tree also appears in Hoseah 4,13 and in Ezekiel 27,6.
According to Onkelos the word is the same as ‫ ר\אלוני ממרא‬with the vowel tzeyreh, i.e. it describes a certain
valley or a grove of trees. In Bereshit Rabbah 81,5 Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachman understands the meaning
of the word alon as derived from the Greek, where it means “double, additional,” The Torah hints that before
the mourning fro Deborah was over, news reached Yaakov that his mother Rivkah had died.

Radak on Genesis 35:9:1 ‫וירא אלוקים‬, G’d appeared to Yaakov again; after the mourning. ‫אל יעקב עוד‬, the reason why the Torah writes
‫עוד‬, again, is so that we know that this was not an angel, but G’d Himself, Who had already previously
appeared to Yaakov as such in 28,13. Just as He had appeared to him on his way to Padan Aram, He now
appeared to him when Yaakov was returning from Padan Aram. [I wonder if the fact that on the two
occasions when our author emphasises the appearance of G’d without intermediary, were chosen because
both took place on the holy soil of the land of Israel, whereas in the Diaspora G’d at best reveals Himself
through an intermediary. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 35:9:2 ‫וברך אותו‬, the blessing consisted of the verses 10-13. ‫כי אם ישראל‬...‫ויאמר‬, the new name is to be used
additionally, as we explained already.
Radak on Genesis 35:11:1 ‫ל שדי‬-‫אני א‬...‫ ;ויאמר‬strong and self-sufficient, able to guide all of history, in charge of all developments. We
explained this on 17,1. The three matriarchs had all been genetically barren, and G’d overcame their genetic
handicaps so that each bore children. This was a display of the attribute ‫ל שדי‬-‫ א‬at work.
Radak on Genesis 35:11:2 ‫פרה ורבה‬, (a promise) you will be fruitful and you will multiply. We explained this in connection with Genesis
1,22. G’d gave a similar promise to Avraham in 17,7 where the promise applied to Avraham’s offspring.
Seeing that Yaakov did not have another child after this blessing was pronounced, it is clear that in his case
just as in Avraham’s case the promise applied to the next generation, i.e. all of Yaakov’s children were
included in this blessing.
Radak on Genesis 35:11:3 ‫גוי וקהל גוים‬, they will all belong to one distinctive nation. This is stated in Chronicles I 17,21 ‫ומי כעמך ישראל גוי‬
‫אחד בארץ‬, “and who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth?” This nation will develop into a
community of nations i.e. 12 tribes including the son that is about to be born to you now. ‫ומלכים‬, as per its
plain meaning, i.e. “kings.” Basically G’d blessed Yaakov with the same blessing as the one He had
bestowed on Avraham, seeing Yaakov was Avraham’s special seed. [of Avraham’s 8 sons, only Yaakov
carried on the tradition. Ed.] In Bereshit Rabbah 82,4 our verse is understood as referring specifically to
Rachel’s sons. The word ‫ גוי‬is understood as referring to Binyamin, whereas the words ‫ קהל גוים‬are
understood as referring to Menashe and Ephrayin, whereas the word ‫ מלכים‬is understood as referring to the
two kings from the tribe of Binyamin, Sha-ul and Ish Boshet. Is it possible that Avner who was a righteous
man should have rejected the Kingdom of David and appointed Ish Boshet instead? We must answer that he
found this Midrash and based himself on that, appointing a king who was a descendant of Binyaim. [and who
would be putty in his hands. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 35:12:1 ‫לך אתננה‬...‫ואת‬, as of now.
Radak on Genesis 35:12:2 ‫ולזרעך אחריך אתן את הארץ‬, for they will inherit it and settle it.
Radak on Genesis 35:13:1 ‫ויעל מעליו‬, just as we have been told in 17,22 when G’d departed from Avraham. The manifestation of His
Presence revealed to the patriarchs in a vision came to an end. Yaakov had a visual impression of G’d as He
was withdrawing His presence from him. In Bereshit Rabbah 82,6 Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish points out the
appropriate nature of this expression for G’d “rising, as it confirms that the patriarchs were the “carriers” of G’
d’s Presence on earth (merkavah).
Radak on Genesis 35:13:2 ‫במקום אשר דבר אתו‬, to inform us that the site in question was especially suitable for receiving prophetic
insights. G’d spoke to Yaakov at this site already for a second time, as pointed out to him by the angel. He
would speak to prophets at that location also in the future as we know from Hoseah 12,5. The site under
discussion here is the one where Yaakov at the time when he had the dream with the ladder had anointed
the stone which had served as his pillow. The words ‫ויעל מעליו‬, are a hint that the day would come-after the
sin of the golden calf- when the Presence of G’d will withdraw from the Jewish people.

Radak on Genesis 35:14:1 ‫ויצב‬, the reason why the Torah repeats once more “in the place where He had spoken to him,” is to tell us
that Yaakov had come to realise that that place was singularly suitable for deserving people to receive
prophetic insights. Even though Yaakov had already said on the original occasion that this place must be
designated as a house of G’d, now that G’d’s promises to him had materialised, seeing that G’d had spoken
to him in that very place this was even plainer.
Radak on Genesis 35:14:2 ‫מצבת אבן‬, a different stone, not the one he had anointed at the time, 34 years ago. He added one more stone
to the monument he had erected then.
Radak on Genesis 35:14:3 ‫ויסך עליה נסך‬, a libation consisting of wine.
Radak on Genesis 35:14:4 ‫ויצוק עליה שמן‬, also intended as a gift offering.

Radak on Genesis 35:15:1 ‫ויקרא יעקב‬, this has now been mentioned already a third time, all in order to make sure that we understand
that the site at which Yaakov had built the house of G’d, the monument, and the altar he called Bet El, in
addition to the fact that originally the name of the whole city had been Bet El. Now the name of the town
reflected what had occurred nearby repeatedly.
Radak on Genesis 35:16:1 ‫כברת‬...‫ויסעו‬, the meaning of the word ‫ כברת הארץ‬is equivalent to approximately 1200 meters. I believe that the
letter ‫ כ‬here is a preposition, the name of the word describing the distance being ‫ברת‬. We find a similar
construction in Samuel II 12,17 ‫“ ולא ברה אתם לחם‬he did not even eat a little amount with them. [I do not
understand the relevance of this verse to the word ‫ כברת‬in our verse. Ed.] The letter ‫ כ‬may be a ‫ כף הדמיון‬a
letter introducing an estimate, such as ‫כעשרים איש‬, about 20 men, or ‫כאלפים אמה‬, approximately 2000 cubits.
Radak on Genesis 35:16:2 ‫ותקש בלדתה‬, she endured great pain during her birthing. The word ‫ ותקש‬may be an intransitive mode of the
verb in spite of the dagesh in the letter ‫ת‬, or it may be in the transitive mode meaning that the pains caused
her body to become rigid, interfering with the birthing process. At any rate, she suffered extreme pain.

Radak on Genesis 35:17:1 ‫כי גם זה לך בן‬, “as you had said when you gave birth to Joseph, when you asked G’d to grant you another
son. (30,24.) Now get hold of yourself.”
Radak on Genesis 35:18:1 ‫ויהי בצאת נפשה‬, while her soul was about to depart from her body,
Radak on Genesis 35:18:2 ‫כי מתה‬, ,for she was dying and there was no hope for her, she called him
Radak on Genesis 35:18:3 ‫בן אוני‬, for I gave birth to him in great pain;
Radak on Genesis 35:18:4 ‫ואביו קרא לו בנימין‬, meaning “the son of my right hand.” The name suggested that the child is especially
beloved seeing that he was born when his father was already advanced in years. We find the word ‫ ימין‬used
in the sense of being especially beloved in Psalms 80,18 ‫וכן תהי ידך על איש ימינך‬, “grant Your help to the man
at Your right hand, etc.” The end of the verse ‫על בן אדם אמצת לך‬, “the one You have adopted as Your own,”
spells out this meaning beyond any doubt.

Radak on Genesis 35:21:1 ‫ויסע‬, on his way to his father’s house.

Radak on Genesis 35:22:1 ‫ויהי בשכון‬, Yaakov did not reside anywhere until he came to his father; however, seeing that he had so many
animals and possessions that he moved extremely slowly, it appeared as if he was actually settling down.
Radak on Genesis 35:22:2 ‫וילך ראובן‬, he went to Bilhah’s tent and slept with her.
Radak on Genesis 35:22:3 ‫פלגש אביו‬, his father’s concubine. Actually, she was his father’s wife, but in Reuven’s view she was no better
than a concubine. Reuven did not consider her as out of bounds to him as she had been a slave woman
originally, and his father had subsequently taken her to be his concubine. The Torah clearly states that she
had become Yaakov’s proper wife in all matters legal. (30,4) As such Bilhah was totally out of bounds to him.
Even before the giving of the Torah, the laws of incest governing all of mankind (Noachide laws) included the
prohibition of sleeping with one’s father’s wife. (compare our commentary on 20,24) If such legislation applied
to all of mankind, how much more so did it apply to the sons of Yaakov. As a result of this trespass Reuven’s
status as Yaakov’s legal firstborn was revoked on Yaakov’s deathbed when he publicly announced his
unfitness for the title as we also know from Chronicles I 5,1, and his position was given to Joseph instead.
Radak on Genesis 35:22:4 ‫וישמע ישראל‬, he stopped living with Bilhah as a result of this. The meaning of the line ‫ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר‬, is
that from that time on Yisrael had no further children. He no longer slept with any woman for the remainder of
his life. In fact, he basically became a recluse, not attending to mundane activities but concentrating on
serving G’d directly. This is what he had meant when he said in his vow, that once he would return safely to
his father’s house, ‫והיה ה' לי לאלוקים‬, “the Lord will be my G’d.” According to the Talmud Shabbat 55 Reuven
had not actually slept with Bilhah at all, but had only made her bed look slept in, disturbed, to give the
impression that intimacy had taken place there. This was a protest against his father not only having spent
most of his married life with Rachel, but even now after her death spending his time with Rachel’s
maidservant instead of with his mother, with Leah.

Radak on Genesis 35:23:1 ‫בני לאה‬, seeing that Binyamin had by now been born, the Torah enumerates all the sons.
Radak on Genesis 35:23:2 ‫בכור יעקב ראובן‬, even though he had sinned and Yaakov had deprived him of the birthright on account of his
sin, the Torah still refers to him as “the firstborn.” We are told in Bereshit Rabbah 82,11 that Rabbi Shimon
said that it is legally difficult for G’d to tamper with the chronological chain of ancestry. How do we know this?
Because we find the following verse in Chronicles I 5,1 ‫ובני ראובן בכור ישראל כי הוא הבכור ובחללו יצועי אביו נתנה‬
‫בכורתו לבני יוסף‬, “and the sons of Reuven, Yisrael’s firstborn, for he (Reuven) was the firstborn even though
because he had mounted the bedstead of his father his birthright had been given to the sons of Joseph.” This
appears to mean that Reuven forfeited the material advantages associated with the birthright, i.e. double
portion of an inheritance; but he was not deprived of his status as the biological firstborn, in fact he could not
be deprived of it. Rabbi Yitzchok, on the same folio of the Midrash, adds that even in his hour of disgrace, the
Bible refers to Reuven with the attribute “the firstborn.”

Radak on Genesis 35:26:1 ‫אשר ילד לו בפדן ארם‬, the word yulad (instead of yuldu) occurs generally in the singular mode though applying
to a number of births. The Torah speaks of all of these children having been born in Padan Aram although
we know that Binyamin was born in the land of Israel, quite close to Bethlehem. The reason is that the Torah
was concerned with where most of the children had been born.
Radak on Genesis 35:27:1 ‫קרית הארבע‬..‫ויבא‬, we explained the meaning of this on 23,2. The reason for the definitive article in front of the
word ‫ארבע‬, i.e. ‫הארבע‬, something strange seeing that it refers to the name of a human being, is justified as
the name itself is symbolic, i.e. is in reality an attribute, describing the “foursome,” the father and his three
sons, all of whom giants.
Radak on Genesis 35:27:2 ‫אשר גר שם אברהם ויצחק‬, this is mentioned seeing that now Yaakov also sojourned there. It teaches that it is
appropriate for a person to be buried in the town where his ancestors had lived as it is a sign of honour for
his ancestors who were also buried there. Nechemyah speaks repeatedly of “the city where my fathers have
been buried;” he attributed the significance to the fact that several generations of his ancestors had been
buried in the same place. (Nechemyah 2,3 and 2,5)
Radak on Genesis 35:29:1 ‫עשו ויעקב‬...‫ויגוע‬, Esau is mentioned first, seeing that he was the firstborn although he had sold his birthright to
Yaakov. Moreover, Yaakov had been in the habit of according the honour due to a firstborn to Esau, ever
since the two had made peace between themselves. On the other hand, when describing the funreal of
Avraham, the Torah names Yitzchok first, seeing that Yitzchok had been the son by the major wife of
Avraham, Sarah, whereas Yishmael had only been the son of the servant maid (25,9)

Radak on Genesis 36:1:1 ‫הוא אדום‬...‫ואלה‬. Similar to ‫על כן קרא שמו אדום‬, “this is why he called his name Edom in 25,30. This reference to
Esau as Edom also occurs again in verse 8 of this chapter, i.e. ‫עשו הוא אדום‬, “Esau is identical with Edom,”
because the nation called after its founding father Esau is known as ‫מלכות אדום‬, Kingdom of Edom. What the
Torah means here is to alert us that the nation known today (whenever this portion is read) as Edom, was in
reality descended from Esau. The Torah lists separately Esau’s descendants that were born to him while he
still made his home in the land of Canaan, and those that were born after he had migrated to the land of Seir.
The latter is the land G’d assigned to Esau as his inheritance.
Radak on Genesis 36:2:1 ‫עשו‬, these wives are not now described as having the names which had introduced them to the reader in
26,34 where they were called Yehudit and Bosmat. Each of these women was known by two names. This is
a common occurrence throughout Scripture. Similarly, Tzivon had been introduced earlier as Beeri (26,34)
and Bosmat in verse 3 of our chapter had previously been introduces as Machalat. (28,9)
Radak on Genesis 36:6:1 ‫ואת כל בהמתו‬, a generic term including all of his livestock.
Radak on Genesis 36:6:2 ‫וילך אל ארץ‬, to a land where previously he had been living on an ad hoc basis before Yaakov had returned
from Lavan. Now, after Yaakov’s return, he decided to move there permanently. ‫כי היה רכושם רב‬, the reason
that Esau moved now was 1) because the combined herds of Yaakov and Esau were extensive, and Esau
feared he would ultimately be forced to leave the land of Canaan as G’d had promised it to Yaakov’s children
as their inheritance. After all, his father Yitzchok had said to him in 27,39 that whereas his inheritance would
be ‫משמני הארץ‬, “of the fat places of the earth,” nothing had been said to him indicating that he would own part
of the land of Canaan. Perhaps his father had even told him that Mount Seir would be his. The Torah refers
to this land as being Esau’s by right in Deuteronomy 2,5 as well as in Joshua 24,4. His claim to this region
was therefore not only that of a conqueror, but one which had Divine approval.
Radak on Genesis 36:9:1 ‫ואלה תולדות‬, now the Torah lists the descendants that were born to him while he lived in Mount Seir.
Radak on Genesis 36:10:1 ‫אלה שמות‬, first the Torah lists the names of his sons, followed by the names of his grandsons. No
grandchildren of Oholvamah are mentioned. This need not mean that she did not have grandchildren, but,
since the Torah was concerned with listing the Alufim, men of positions of authority, it is likely that none of
Oholivamah’s grandchildren rose to such positions whereas her sons did.
Radak on Genesis 36:12:1 ‫ותמנע‬, it is possible that the Timna mentioned here was not a sister of Lotan as opined in the Midrash
(Bereshit Rabbah 82,14) where we were told that this woman’s name and husband is mentioned in order to
further illustrate the tremendous esteem in which Avraham had been held internationally at the time. This
woman, who was the sister of an Aluf, i.e. a well known dignitary, a man of great prominence, said that
seeing she did not have the good fortune to marry a direct descendant of Avraha, she was willing to settle for
the lower rank of being a concubine to a son of Esau in order somehow to become a member of this
outstanding family.
Radak on Genesis 36:16:1 ‫אלוף קרח‬. Korach had not been mentioned earlier as a son of Eliphaz, but merely as a son of Oholovimah.
Perhaps this Korach was another son of Eliphaz who had become an Aluf, and has now been mentioned
with the other Aluphim who were sons of Eliphaz.
Radak on Genesis 36:16:2 ‫בארץ אדום‬, who had been born in the land of Edom and who had risen to the positions of Aluphim there.
Radak on Genesis 36:16:3 ‫אלה בני עדה‬, the sons of the son of Adah. Amalek was not a son of Adah, seeing he was the son of a
concubine. The only reason why he is mentioned in this verse is because he too had risen to the position of
an Aluph. The Torah, concentrating on the majority, simply lumps them all together as “sons of Adah.”

Radak on Genesis 36:19:1 ‫אלה בני עשו ואלה אלופיהם‬, the sons of Esau are the “patriarchs” all of whom have been mentioned as being
Aluphim, heads of families, clans. Our sages in Sanhedrin 99 have said that every person named here as
‫ אלוף‬was in fact a king, except that he had not formally been “crowned.” The reason why the Torah bothered
to list all these descendants of Esau was as a sign of respect for Yitzchok, just as the descendants of
Yishmael had been listed at the end of Parshat Toldot as a sign of respect for Avraham. An additional reason
for mentioning all these names is to teach us that it is important for any human being to know his
antecedents, and after whom he himself has been named. In the case of Israelites this will help ensure that
their legitimacy will not be challenged, that no one can call them mamzer, bastard, and get away with it. The
Torah considers this so important that when referring to the Israelites entering lands which once belonged to
the sons of Esau, it writes: “you are now crossing into territory of your brothers the sons of Esau.” (Deut. 2,4.)
Radak on Genesis 36:20:1 ‫אלה בני שעיר החרי ישבי הארץ‬, who used to dwell in that land before the sons of Esau and their offspring came
to live there. This story has as its objective that the whole earth and all that is in it belongs to the one and
only G’d Who has created it, and Who therefore may allocate it to whoever He wishes. He may deprive one
nation of its homeland and give it to another. In this situation G’d expelled the nation which had lived in the
region known as Mont Seir and allowed Esau and his clan to displace them. According to Bereshit Rabbah,
or to Shabbat 85 and quoted by Rashi, the word ‫ חרי‬is derived from ‫ריח‬, smell, fragrance. The people
described as having lived in that land were such expert farmers that they could determine merely by their
sense of small which piece of land was best suited to grow different crops.
Radak on Genesis 36:24:1 ‫ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה‬, the letter ‫ ו‬in the word ‫ואיה‬, is not part of the name of the person described. It is the
kind of ‫ ו‬used in Scripture sometimes to introduce a new sequence, such as in 22,4 ‫ויהי ביום השלישי וישא‬
‫אברהם את עיניו‬, “on the third day Avraham raised his eyes.” For the previous 2 days he had been proceeding
in the direction of the land of Moriah; now, on the third day, he thought it was time to look for a definitive
place in that region. A similar use of the letter ‫ ו‬occurs in Psalms 67,7 ‫נרדם ורכב וסוס‬, where the letter ‫ ו‬at the
beginning of ‫ורכב‬, introduces a new subject (of sorts). Other examples of a similar nature are Samuel II
13,20, etc. My grandfather of blessed memory wrote that none of these letters ‫ ו‬are additional, i.e. meant for
considerations involving syntax, but they are an alert to the reader that a word prior to the word starting with
the letter ‫ ו‬is missing in the sentence and has to be found in the text preceding it. Accordingly, the meaning of
the words ‫ ואיה וענה‬is that Tzivon had other sons beside those listed here, senior to the ones listed here, but
that the Torah had not considered it necessary to mention their names. Perhaps the reason is that those
sons had not produced progeny. The ‫ ענה‬mentioned here is not the same as has been mentioned in verse
20. The one mentioned in verse 20 was a descendent of the ‫ בני שעיר‬and was not a son of Tzivon who was a
brother of Tzivon. Our sages in Pessachim 54 believe that the two men called ‫ ענה‬are one and the same. To
the possible question whether we are dealing with two men of the same name, the Torah answers: “this is
the Anah who was well known previously for having located the Yeymim, etc.” Our sages concluded further
that Tzivon had slept with his mother having begotten Anah from that intercourse. Not only had Anah himself
been a bastard, but he had produced more bastards himself. According to the plain meaning of the text, the
words ‫הוא ענה‬, simply mean: “he is the well known Anah.”
Radak on Genesis 36:24:2 ‫אשר מצא את הימים‬, our sages explain the word as meaning “mules,” i.e. just as he had been a bastard he now
bread bastards, i.e. animals which resulted from crossbreeding horses and donkeys. This is the meaning of
the words that follow ‫“ ברעותו את החמורים‬while he was engaged in tending the donkeys.” It occurred to him
that it might be a good idea to see what would happen if he allowed or persuaded a horse to mount an ass.
He found to his astonishment that the ass gave birth to a mule as well as a female mule. Our sages have
said in Bereshit Rabbah 82,14 that any mule, i.e. an animal resembling it traces its ancestry by means of the
size of its ears. If the ears are short it has been sired by a donkey and born by a horse, whereas if it has long
ears it has been sired by a horse having been born by an ass. Tzivon had violated G’d’s law according to
which the species are not to be crossbred, whether humans or animals or plants. As a reminder of this
legislation the Torah subsequently forbade products of crossbreeding, a prohibition which extends to our
having any beneficial use of the result of such crossbreeding. According to Bereshit Rabbah in the section
just quoted, neither fire nor kilayim, i.e. the product of crossbreeding different species of animals, were
created during the 6 days of creation. Mules, i.e. the result of crossbreeding was not created until the days of
Anah (whose father had made the experiment). There is a discussion as to when fire was created. According
to Levi the original light created on the first day served man for 36 hours, i.e. during the 12 hours before the
onset of the first Sabbath, i.e. the first 12 hours after his creation, and the 24 hours of the Sabbath. When the
world sank into darkness as a result of G’d withdrawing the original light, as part of Adam’s punishment for
having violated His commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge, Adam was disconsolate and
exclaimed (Psalms 139,11) “is darkness to conceal me permanently?” G’d responded to his cry of anguish by
replacing the original light with fire, sparks, by teaching him how to produce fire by striking two flints against
each other. Having been successful in this, Adam blessed the fire. This corresponds to the view of Shemuel
who taught us that the reason we pronounce a benediction over fire on the evening following the Sabbath is
that this was the time that fire was created. Rabbi Avuhu added in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that we also
bless fire on the evening after Yom Kippur because the fire had to observe “Sabbath” during that whole day,
i.e. handling it was out of bounds to us. [Of course, fire is also prohibited for use (handling) on the Sabbath,
but Yom Kippur is also called Sabbath even when it does not occur on the day we would normally observe
the Sabbath. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 36:24:3 Concerning the words in our verse here ‫ברעותו את החמורים‬, he was also tending horses, but most of the
animals he was looking after were donkeys. This is why the Torah mentioned only the donkeys. We do not
know what Onkelos meant when he translated the word ‫ הימים‬as ‫גבריא‬. The reason why the Torah mentioned
all these Alufim of Seir is because of G’d’s love for Yitzchok. Had G’d not loved Yitzchok He would not have
gone out of his way for Esau and his sons and have allowed his sons to become such “bigshots” in the land
of Seir.
Radak on Genesis 36:31:1 ‫ואלה המלכים‬, the kings of the nation Edom are mentioned at length in the Torah before any kings of the
Jewish nation. According to what we read here eight kings and eleven Alufim ruled in Edom before the first
Jewish king was crowned. The kings that ruled over Edom were not hereditary dynasties, i.e. father
bequeathing his throne to his son, but the Edomites appointed outsiders as their kings. This was the basic
difference between the power structure in Edom and that in the Jewish state afterwards. Even though the
Edomites were politically organised, had experience in being ruled centrally by a king, this did not help them
once the Jewish people began to be organised under the rule of kings. Already the very first of the Jewish
kings, Sha-ul, fought a war against the Edomites, and the Edomites could not defeat him. King David, a few
years later, totally subdued the Edomites, resulting in that nation being enslaved to Israel. This situation
continued until the reign of Yehoram son of Yehoshaphat, (about 150 years later ) According to Bereshit
Rabbah 83,1 this is the meaning of Proverbs 20,21 ‫נחלה מבוהלת בראשונה ואחריתה לא תבורך‬, “an inheritance
gained hastily at the outset, will not be blessed in the end.” The Midrash there also states that both the
Edomites and the Israelites appointed eight Kings. The eight Edomite Kings were: Bela, Yovav, Chusham,
Haddad, Simla, Sha-ul, Baal Chanan, and Hadar. The Jewish Kings were Sha-ul, Ish Boshet, David,
Solomon, Rechavam, Aviah, Assa, Yehoshaphat, and during the reign of his son Yehoram the Edomites
rebelled.

Radak on Genesis 36:39:1 ‫ושם אשתו וגו‬...‫'וימלוך תחתיו הדר‬, we do not know why both his wife’s name and that of her father have been
mentioned.
Radak on Genesis 36:40:1 ‫ואלה‬, now the Torah mentions eight Alufim who were in positions of leadership after the kingdom of Edom
had ceased to exist as such. There were eleven such Alufim.
Radak on Genesis 36:41:1 ‫אלוף אהליבמה‬. This Oholivamah was a male. This is so in spite of the fact that his name ends with the letter ‫ה‬
suggesting that the person mentioned was a female. The same name occurs elsewhere for females in this
very chapter (verse 5). Other males whose names conclude with the letter ‫ ה‬are ‫ מסרקה‬,‫ שמלה‬in verse 36.
Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, although the name of one of the Alufim of Esau was also Timna. (verse
40)
Radak on Genesis 37:1:1 .We have already commented on the meaning of this on 35,27 .‫וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען‬
Radak on Genesis 37:2:1 ‫אלה תולדות יעקב‬, the meaning of the word ‫ תולדות‬in our context here is “happenings, developments.” It
includes all kinds of traumas Yaakov would experience. Genesis 6,9 similarly introduced what happened to
Noach with these words. The philological bridge to the word ‫ תולדות‬when it refers to biological progeny is
Proverbs 27,1 ‫כי לא תדע מה ילד היום‬, “for you do not know what the day will give birth to.”
Radak on Genesis 37:2:2 .when he was still only 17 years old ,‫יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה‬
Radak on Genesis 37:2:3 ‫רועה את אחיו בצאן‬, mark the fact that the Torah wrote ‫“ בצאן‬with the flocks,” instead of ‫הצאן‬, “the flocks,” for
being relatively young he was only allowed to work together with his brothers instead of being allowed to
tends flocks all by himself. He was still a trainee.
Radak on Genesis 37:2:4 ‫והוא נער‬, he was always going with them when they were engaged in tending the flocks.
Radak on Genesis 37:2:5 ‫נשי אביו‬, the term “wives of,“ emphasises that they were full fledged wives, as had been stated when each of
these women became married to Yaakov, i.e. “‫לאשה‬.” (compare 30,9; 30,4) Joseph’s keeping company with
the sons of these women was in no way something disparaging for him, as he was not only their half brother
just as he was a half brother to the sons of Leah, but they were his social equals.
Radak on Genesis 37:2:6 ‫ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה‬, he told his father that his brothers hated him, i.e. both the sons of the former servant
maids with whom he was being raised, as well as the sons of Leah to whom he felt superior because he
enjoyed preferential treatment by his father. As a result, the brothers sought pretexts to treat him meanly.
Yaakov was angry at the brothers on behalf of Joseph, interpreting the brothers’ hatred of Joseph as jealousy
due to his loving Joseph excessively. (verses 3 and 4). In Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 we are told that according to
Rabbi Meir Joseph told his fathers that the brothers were suspect of violating the commandment not to eat
flesh from a still living animal, whereas Rabbi Yehudah is supposed to have said that Joseph accused them
of treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain, referring to them as “slaves.” Rabbi Shimon is reported
as saying that Joseph accused the brothers of casting lustful glances at the local Canaanite girls. Rabbi
Yehudah bar Seymon claims that G’d repaid Joseph for all three accusations as we derive from Proverbs
16,11 ‫'פלס ומאזני משפט לה‬, “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s.” G’d said to him: “you accused your
brothers of violating the law of ‫אבר מן החי‬, you will be a witness that even when they were engaged in a sinful
enterprise such as dipping your cloak in blood before presenting it to your father, they first slaughtered the
male goat ritually, as is required when they would eat it. You accused them of calling the sons of Zilpah and
Bilhah slaves, that is why you yourself were sold into slavery (Psalms 105, 17) You accused your brothers of
looking lecherously at the local girls, I will cause you to be tempted by this very phenomenon.” This is why
the Torah described the wife of Potiphar attempting to seduce Joseph (39,7)

Radak on Genesis 37:3:1 ‫כי בן זקונים‬, what was so special about Joseph’s age, seeing all the eleven brothers had been born in the
space of 7 years? How much older was Yaakov at the time Joseph was born than, say, at the time Yehudah
was born? We conclude therefore, that the meaning of the word ‫ זקונים‬has nothing to do with physical age,
but that Joseph appeared to him as especially intelligent, wise, wise well beyond his years. The words of
wisdom spoken by Joseph would normally be expected only from the mouth of men who had acquired such
wisdom through having lived for many years. This is also the way Onkelos understood the term when he
translates it as ‫בר חכים‬, “a wise son.” Seeing that he considered him so wise he dressed him in especially
attractive garments. In this way he gave tangible expression to his special love for him.
Radak on Genesis 37:3:2 ‫ועשה לו כתונת פסים‬, the word ‫ פס‬is related to the same word in Daniel 5,5 ‫פס ידא‬, palm of a hand. The cloth
was made of differently coloured surfaces similar to garments made of soft wool which are made in a number
of differently coloured stripes or sections. The garment looked very impressive, arousing the hatred of the
brothers in addition to the fact that they hated him for spreading tales about them to their father. Our sages in
Shabbat 10 seize upon this detail to teach us that a father must ever be careful not to arouse inter-fraternal
jealousies, seeing that the fortunes of the Jewish people have been so negatively affected on account of five
silver coins worth of angora wool which Yaakov spent more on Joseph’s attire than he did on the garments
worn by his other sons. The enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt was brought about as a direct
consequence of this jealousy.

Radak on Genesis 37:4:1 ‫ולא יכלו דברו לשלום‬, any conversation with Joseph did not revolve around peacefully discussed matters of
common interest, but concerned only matters of dispute between them.
Radak on Genesis 37:5:1 ‫ויאמר‬....‫ויחלום‬, he dreamed, and wanted to make them feel bad seeing that they had displayed jealousy of his
father’s love for him, and had allowed that jealousy to deteriorate into hatred of him. Seeing that eventually,
Joseph’s rise to power was due to his handling of the harvest in Egypt, the details of the dream were: ‫והנה‬
‫קמה אלומתי‬, the symbol of my success, i.e. my sheaf of grain remained erect, whereas your sheaves bowed
down to me. It was a fact that in due course the grain harvest was the cause of the brothers prostrating
themselves before Joseph.

Radak on Genesis 37:8:1 ‫ויאמרו לו אחיו‬, are you planning to lord it over us? If you have dreams of this kind, this only reflects dreams of
power you entertain during the day.
Radak on Genesis 37:8:2 ‫על חלומותיו‬, the plural “dreams,” seeing that only one dream had been reported in detail, suggests there had
been at least one more dream of which the Torah did not tell us its content. The other dream may not have
directly aroused an intensification of the brothers’ hatred, or, the plural includes already the dream to come
that has not been spelled out as yet. The Torah spelled out only two dreams as they were the ones fuelling
the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph.
Radak on Genesis 37:8:3 ‫ועל דבריו‬, and on account of his overbearing manner, and the fact that he spread slanderous remarks about
them.

Radak on Genesis 37:9:1 ‫ויחלום‬, in this dream the meaning is crystal clear. Sun and moon refer to Joseph’s parents, whereas the stars
refer to his brothers, seeing there were 11 stars in the dream and Joseph had eleven brothers. All the
dreams the content of which the Torah described are to be understood as posing a riddle, a challenge to
translate the symbols described in the respective dreams into the matching reality in the “real” world. This is
true not only of Joseph’s dreams, but equally of the dreams of the cup-bearer and of the Chief of the bakers
whom Joseph met in jail. Also Pharaoh’s dream as related in the Torah, and the dream of Nevuchadnezzar
as described in the Book of Daniel follow the same pattern. All of them became reality in accordance with the
manner in which they had been interpreted.
Radak on Genesis 37:10:1 ‫ויספר אל אביו‬, the reason why he told only this dream to his father was because his father appeared in that
dream, whereas neither his father nor his mother had been featured in his other dreams.
Radak on Genesis 37:10:2 ‫אני ואמך‬, I and your mother? Just as the dream could not possibly relate to your mother who has died already,
so it cannot very well relate to me either. Therefore, you would do well to dismiss this dream entirely. Our
sages, on the other hand, learn from this dream that every dream no matter how accurately it foreshadows
an event in the future, contains some element which is not going to come true. (Berachot 55)

Radak on Genesis 37:11:1 ‫הדבר‬, even though Yaakov had been angry at Joseph he was worried about what the dream might forecast
and he remembered it.
Radak on Genesis 37:12:1 ‫וילכו אחיו לרעות צאן‬, there are dots above the letters of the word ‫את‬. The sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13
suggest that the Torah meant that the brothers were tending themselves, i.e. they distanced themselves from
their father in order to escape supervision and to follow their personal inclinations in matters of food and drink
and to do in Shechem whatever they felt like doing. They were not afraid at all of the inhabitants of that city
whose male population they had killed only a year or two earlier. They had complete confidence in G’d‘s
protection. The Canaanite population in the region lived in awe of the sons of Yaakov. They had been afraid
of them already at the time when they executed the male population of Schechem for being accessories to
the rape of Dinah.
Radak on Genesis 37:13:1 ‫הלא אחיך‬...‫ויאמר‬, don’t you know that your brothers are in Shechem, tending flocks?
Radak on Genesis 37:13:2 ‫ ;הנני‬he was not afraid of his brothers even though they hated him, for he thought that their awe of their father
was greater than their desire to harm him. His father also did not think that the brothers posed a threat to his
favourite son. Surely, if he had even entertained the slightest concern about the brothers harming Joseph, he
would never have sent him on this mission. This entire matter was engineered by G’d Who knows the evil
machinations of man in order that this would become the external cause of the patriarchs, i.e. their
descendants to descend to Egypt and to fulfill the prophecy G’d had already told Avraham about in chapter
15.

Radak on Genesis 37:14:1 ‫ואת שלום הצאן‬...‫ויאמר‬, in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 the instruction by Yaakov to Joseph that he was to enquire
not only about their personal well being, but also about the well being of their property, their flocks, teaches
us that one must always display concern not only for the health, etc., of people one meets but also about
their economic well being.
Radak on Genesis 37:14:2 ‫מעמק חברון‬, since when is Chevron in a valley? We always associate it with being located on a mountain! The
Torah alludes to a profound understanding between G’d and Avraham who had been interred in Chevron.
The Torah now alludes to the prediction by G’d to Avraham, that his descendants would for a long time be
strangers in a land not theirs (Genesis 15,13)

Radak on Genesis 37:15:1 ‫ וימצאהו איש‬, after arriving in Shechem and not finding any trace of his brothers, Joseph went in all directions
to see if he could find them, and in the process he lost his way.

Radak on Genesis 37:16:1 ‫הגידה נא לי‬, if you know where they are tending their flocks.
Radak on Genesis 37:17:1 ‫מזה‬, from this area. We find the expression used in a similar meaning in 38,21 ‫לא היתה בזה‬, “there was no
(prostitute) in this location.”
Radak on Genesis 37:17:2 ‫כי שמעתי אומרים‬, “that they were saying, etc.”

Radak on Genesis 37:18:1 ‫ויתנכלו אותו‬, the word ‫ אותו‬here means the same as the preposition ‫בו‬, “against him.” We find other instances
where this preposition is used in connection with this root, as in Psalms 105,25 ‫להתנכל בעבדיו‬, “to plot against
His servants.” The root also occurs in connection with the preposition ‫ל‬, as in Numbers 25,18 ‫אשר נכלו לכם‬,
“which they conspired against you.” The word basically refers to scheming against someone in one’s heart.
Radak on Genesis 37:20:1 ‫ועתה לכו‬, the word ‫ לכו‬in this context is an exhortation to act without delay, as we explained on 28,2. [there it
referred to the word ‫קום‬, Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 37:21:1 .killing ,‫לא נכנו נפש‬...‫וישמע‬
Radak on Genesis 37:22:1 ‫אל תשפכו דם‬, his blood is innocent, i.e. he is not guilty of a capital crime. But throw him into this pit if you are
so angry about his dreams and the way he presents them. You may repay him by making him feel pain such
as yours, but do not touch him in a way that will lead to his death. When Reuven said: “throw him into this
pit,” he did so in order to know where to find him later and to bring him back safely to his father after rescuing
him from the pit. He did not mean for Joseph to be harmed in any way.

Radak on Genesis 37:23:1 ‫את כתנת הפסים‬..‫ויהי‬, the letter ‫ ה‬at the beginning of the word ‫הפסים‬, referring to a specific garment, is justified
seeing that we had previously been told ‫את כתנתו‬, “his tunic,” i.e. the same tunic.
Radak on Genesis 37:24:1 ‫ויקחהו‬, there is a letter ‫ ו‬missing in this word, making it appear as if only one brother took him. According to
Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 this is an allusion to who the brother was who seized Joseph and threw him into the
pit. It was Shimon, which was the reason why later on Joseph locked up Shimon as a hostage (42,24 ‫ויקח‬
‫מאתם את שמעון‬, he took Shimon from them.)
Radak on Genesis 37:24:2 ‫אין בו מים‬. If there had been water in the pit, Joseph would have drowned and throwing him into the pit would
have been outright murder. The reason why the Torah mentions that there was no water in the pit, having
already said that the pit was empty, ‫והבור ריק‬, could be that there was sticky mud inside it, as for instance in
Jeremiah 38,6 where the King’s servants threw the prophet into ‫טיט‬, meaning a slime pit. That pit is also
described as devoid of water, although Jeremiah is described as sinking into the mud. However, it did not
cause his death. The allegorical explanation of the sequence of the words in our verse is well known, i.e.
though water, one lethal ingredient, was not present in that pit, other potentially worse dangers such as
scorpions, etc., were. If this explanation corresponds to the facts, throwing Joseph into such a pit was no
better than killing him. The brothers had no way of knowing that G’d would save him by a miracle, i.e. that the
scorpions and snakes would not attack him.

Radak on Genesis 37:25:1 ‫נכאת‬, according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11, wax.

Radak on Genesis 37:25:2 ‫צרי‬, according to the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the word refers to resin, sap found in the trunk of the
balsam tree. The word ‫ לוט‬according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 is ‫מצטכי‬, Lotus?.

Radak on Genesis 37:26:1 ?‫מה בצע‬, “what financial advantage,” as per Onkelos.
Radak on Genesis 37:26:2 ‫כי נהרוג את אחינו‬, what does this mean seeing Reuven had already prevented them from killing their brother
outright? We must therefore understand Yehudah’s words as meaning: “what are we going to do with him? If
we leave him in the pit this is just as bad as having killed him.”
Radak on Genesis 37:26:3 ‫וכסינו את דמו‬, and cover his blood. He meant they had to conceal his death from their father.
Radak on Genesis 37:27:1 ‫לכו‬, we already explained this expression on verse 20.
Radak on Genesis 37:27:2 ‫אל תהי בו‬, to be the indirect cause of his death. If we are going to sell him he will not die.

Radak on Genesis 37:28:1 ‫ויעברו אנשים מדינים‬, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned previously, seeing that both Midianites and
Medanites are descendants of Keturah. [Keturah is understood to be Hagar who had her name changed after
Sarah’s death when Avraham took her as a wife. Seeing that she gave birth to both Medan and to Midian,
(25,2) this made both these sons full brothers to her earlier son Ishmael by the same father. Ed.] Even
assuming that Keturah and Hagar were not identical, the three were at least sons of Avraham and therefore
half brothers. Their respective families had intermarried so that they could be considered as brothers in the
real sense of the word. The close relationship between their respective descendants comes to the fore in
Judges 8,24 where after Gideon’s campaign against the Midianites they are described as Ishmaelites, the
kind of jewelry they wore identifying them as members of that tribe.
Radak on Genesis 37:28:2 ‫וימשכו‬, Joseph’s brothers pulled him out of the pit prior to the sale to the Ishmaelites. All this occurred when
Reuven was not present. Perhaps, in the interval he had returned to his father. [a distance of 120 km, hardly
likely, as Reuven would have had to come back another 120 km. to retrieve Joseph who would have died
from thirst in the interval if not from other causes. Ed.] It is more likely that Reuven had a flock of his own to
look after in that general region.

Radak on Genesis 37:29:1 ‫וישב‬, he returned from wherever he had gone to his brothers, going back to the pit to see if he could rescue
Joseph without his brothers finding out, and to return him to his father. There is a discussion in Bereshit
Rabbah 84,19 as to where Reuven had been in the interval. According to some, it had been his turn to attend
to the needs of his father, whereas according to Rabbi Eliezer he was engaged in doing penance, etc., for
having slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.
Radak on Genesis 37:30:1 ‫וישב‬, he did not know that the brothers had sold him but thought that he had been stolen from the pit.
Radak on Genesis 37:31:1 ‫וישחטו שעיר עזים‬, they said that its blood resembled the colour of human blood.
Radak on Genesis 37:32:1 ‫וישלחו‬, some of the brothers were the messengers who delivered this tattered blood-spattered tunic. Some
commentators believe that the word is derived from Job 36,12 ‫בשלח יעברו‬, “they will die by the sword.”
According to this, the brothers imitated the incisions made by the sharp teeth of wild beasts so that Yaakov
would think that Joseph’s fate had been that he had been devoured or at least killed by such a marauding
animal.
Radak on Genesis 37:32:2 ‫הכר נא‬, According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 G’d repaid Yehudah for his use of the phrase ‫ הכר נא‬when
tricking his father into making a false deduction, by Tamar challenging him with the very same expression
‫הכר נא‬, which embarrassed him into admitting that he was the father of the fetus that Tamar his daughter-in-
law was pregnant with (38,25)

Radak on Genesis 37:34:1 ‫ויקרע יעקב‬, he mourned him excessively because he had loved him so inordinately. Besides, he blamed
himself partially for his fate for having sent him on what turned out to have been a dangerous mission.
Radak on Genesis 37:35:1 ‫וכל בנותיו‬...‫ויקומו‬, his daughter and daughters-in-law who were like daughters to him. In Bereshit Rabbah
84,21 Rabbi Yehudah is quoted as saying that a female twin had been born with each of Yaakov’s sons and
they married their respective half-brothers. Rabbi Nechemyah, in commenting on the words ‫וכל בנותיו‬, says
that actually Yaakov had only one daughter, i.e. Dinah, but that he wished he had already buried her (as the
fact that she had been raped was something he found it hard to live with) [Rashi on that Midrash. Ed] At any
rate, we need not take the text so literally, as most people describe their sons-in-law as sons, and their
daughters-in-law as daughters.
Radak on Genesis 37:35:2 ‫שאלה‬, until the grave, i.e. “I will mourn him for the rest of my life.” The meaning of the words
Radak on Genesis 37:35:3 ‫על בנו‬, instead of the pronoun ending ‫ויתאבלו‬, is to describe Yaakov’s attitude henceforth, i.e. “I will go join
him in his grave.” Compare Samuel II 12,23 where David uses such language explaining that in order to be
reunited with the baby son he had just lost he would have to join him in his grave, as the baby would not
come back to him and be resurrected. Or, compare the standard expression used by the Torah when people
die and they join their ancestors in the grave or hereafter, i.e. ‫“ ויאסף אל עמיו‬he was gathered in to his people”
(Genesis 25,17 et al).
Radak on Genesis 37:35:4 ‫ויבך אותו אביו‬, the reason why the Torah adds the unnecessary word ‫אביו‬, “his father,” is to demonstrate the
serious nature of losing a son who had been constantly the one at his father’s side. The remarkable thing
about Joseph had been that although the Torah had described him as occupied tending sheep with his
brothers, most of the time he had spent in attending to the needs of his widowed father, whose beloved wife
Rachel, Joseph’s mother, had died when Joseph had only been about 6 years old. Whenever an occasion
would arise which would have required the services normally rendered by his son Joseph, his absence would
rekindle Yaakov’s grief over his fate. According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 the superfluous word
‫ אביו‬refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive at the time Joseph was sold, seeing that Yaakov
had been born when Yitzchok was 60 years old, in other words Yitzchok only died when Yaakov was 120
years of age. At the time of Joseph’s sale Yitzchok was 168 years old seeing that the separation between
Yaakov and Joseph lasted for 22 years, the same length of time as Yaakov had been separated from his
father Yitzchok.

Radak on Genesis 37:36:1 ‫והמדנים‬, we already explained who they were and what they did on verse 28.
Radak on Genesis 37:36:2 ‫שר הטבחים‬, as per Onkelos, Pharaoh’s chief executioner.

Radak on Genesis 38:1:1 ‫ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה‬, after Joseph had been sold. The fact that the Torah speaks of ‫וירד‬, “he descended,”
seems to imply that Dotan was situated at a much higher elevation than Adulam. According to a Midrash
quoted by Rashi, the word ‫ וירד‬does not refer to a physical descent but to the brothers having demoted
Yehudah from his role of their leader as they held him responsible for the debacle with Joseph. They had
repented their part in the whole episode, and they accused Yehudah of not having been firm enough. Just as
they had listened to him when he told them not to kill Joseph, they claimed that they would have listened to
him if he had suggested that they should bring him back to their father. In Bereshit Rabbah 85,2 the whole
paragraph commencing with ‫ וירד יהודה‬until the beginning of chapter 39 is considered as not relevant to the
story, at least not at this point. Why then did the Torah insert this episode here thereby spoiling our
concentration on what would happen to Joseph? According to Rabbi Eliezer the Torah wanted to create a
conceptual link between one “descent,” and another “descent.” Rabbi Yochanan justifies the “interruption,” by
linking one ‫“ הכר נא‬please identify!” to another ‫הכר נא‬. Yehudah had deceived his father with these words,
whereas Tamar reminded Yehudah that he had been deceived by her and that his assumption that she was
a harlot who had become pregnant by her customer was totally unfounded.(compare 37,2 and 38,25
respectively)
Radak on Genesis 38:1:2 ‫ויט עד איש עדולמי‬, he pitched his tent and let his flock graze in the proximity of this town Adulam; eventually he
struck up a friendship with the man ‫ חירם‬described in our verse.
Radak on Genesis 38:2:1 ‫בת איש כנעני‬, we do not know why the woman’s name has not been mentioned although the Torah revealed
the name of her father. Her father was a merchant, a resident stranger, an export-import merchant, not a
member of one of the local tribes. The sons of Yaakov were very careful in avoiding intermarriage with the
local population, and when one of them did so, Shimon, his son Sha-ul is mentioned in a derogatory fashion
as the “son of Canaanite” in 46,10. This critical comment on Shimon’s wife sets him apart from all of his
brothers.
Radak on Genesis 38:2:2 ‫ויקחה‬, he first legally married her before having marital relations with her, i.e. ‫ויבא אליה‬.
Radak on Genesis 38:2:3 ‫וירא‬, it appears that she was very attractive physically and therefore appeared to him as an appropriate mate.

Radak on Genesis 38:3:1 ‫ותהר ותלד‬, Yehudah named the first son, whereas his wife named the second son. This appears to have been
the custom at that time. The third son actually should have been named by Yehudah again, but seeing that
Yehudah was in Keziv at the time of his birth, Yehudah’s wife named him. This is why the Torah explains the
departure from the norm by writing of Yehudah that he was in Keziv.
Radak on Genesis 38:7:1 ‫רע בעיני ה‬, the addition of the words “in the eyes of G’d,” is needed, seeing that no one else was aware of Er’s
sin, something committed in the privacy of the bedroom. Our sages in Yevamot 34 said that the reason why
Er ejaculated outside his wife’s vagina was in order for her to retain her beauty and not become pregnant.
Radak on Genesis 38:8:1 ‫ויבם אותה‬, it appears that the practice of the levirate marriage, yibbum, was something accepted long before
the Torah was given to the Jewish people.
Radak on Genesis 38:9:1 ‫וידע אונן‬, he realised this only when his father said to him that it was his task to see that his brother’s seed
would be perpetuated.
Radak on Genesis 38:9:2 ‫ושחת ארצה‬, he ejaculated outside her vagina, just as we explained in connection with Er.

Radak on Genesis 38:10:1 ‫גם אותו‬, both brothers had been guilty of the same sin.
Radak on Genesis 38:11:1 ‫ כי אמר פן ימות גם הוא כאחיו‬...‫ויאמר‬, in commenting on Yehudah’s reasoning, Bereshit Rabbah 85.5 quotes
Rabbi Eleazar as saying [Rashi’s interpretation of his statement, Ed.] that although the Torah has enjoined us
‫לא תנחשו‬, (Leviticus 19,26) not to be superstitious as for instance to allow a black cat crossing our path to
determine our actions, there is such a thing as a ‫סימן‬, a “hint from a higher domain,” to heed which is not
idolatrous. Such a “hint” would be a catastrophe of the same kind three times repeated. This is what
Yehudah was afraid of.
Radak on Genesis 38:12:1 ‫וירבו‬, according to Bereshit Rabbah 85,6 the time frame discussed was 12 months.
Radak on Genesis 38:12:2 ‫ויעל‬, here the trip to Timnatah is described as an ascent, whereas in Judges 14,5 Shimshon is described as
descending to that town. It all depends on the location from which one sets out.
Radak on Genesis 38:12:3 ‫על גוזזי‬, as if the Torah had written ‫אל גוזזי‬, “to the shearers.” We find a similar construction involving the
preposition ‫ על‬instead of ‫ אל‬in Samuel I 1,11 ‫ 'ותתפלל על ה‬instead of ‫'ותתפלל אל ה‬, “she prayed to G’d.” There
are numerous similar examples of such constructions in Scripture.

Radak on Genesis 38:14:1 ‫ותכס בצעיף‬. She covered her face with the shawl in order for Yehudah not to be able to recognise her.
Radak on Genesis 38:14:2 ‫ותתעלף‬, she donned beautiful garments instead of widow’s garb in order to attract Yehudah.
Radak on Genesis 38:14:3 ‫ותשב בפתח עינים‬, at the crossroads. This was a very exposed location, visible to anyone traveling in that
region.
Radak on Genesis 38:14:4 ‫כי ראתה כי גדל שלה‬, she did all this because she realised now that Yehudah had no intention of letting her be
married to his son. She therefore planned to be impregnated by him (seed of his family) without his being
aware of it.

Radak on Genesis 38:15:1 ‫כי כסתה פניה‬....‫ויראה‬, so that he did not recognise her. This is why he considered her a harlot, seeing that she
had positioned herself so prominently at the crossroads. Had she not covered her face, he would have
recognised her as his daughter-in-law and would not have slept with her. Our sages in Sotah 10 say that on
the contrary, she used to keep her face covered in her father-in-law’s house and was extremely chaste.
When he now saw a woman sitting at the crossroads, the last thing he would think of was that it was his
daughter-in-law Tamar.

Radak on Genesis 38:16:1 ‫ויט אליה‬, he detoured in her direction from the direction he had been walking.<br> ‫אל הדרך‬, to the beginning of
the path where she was sitting, there being an opportunity nearby to enjoy privacy.
Radak on Genesis 38:16:2 ‫הכר נא‬, an expression demanding an immediate response, similar to such expressions we had explained in
connection with ‫ הבה נא‬in Genesis 11,4.

Radak on Genesis 38:18:1 ‫חותמך‬, as per Onkelos, the signet ring.

Radak on Genesis 38:18:2 ‫ופתילך‬, your outer garment, cloak, as per Onkelos, ‫שושיפך‬. Or, what is meant is the turban, i.e. a status
symbol. In Numbers 19,15 the expression ‫צמיד פתיל‬, “a tightly fitting lid,” describes a vessel of contours
similar to a turban. The expression also occurs in the Mishnah Shabbat 28, as well as in verse 25 in our
chapter [because of the plural mode, Ed.] it appears to describe attire each composed of two different cloths
and colour.

Radak on Genesis 38:19:1 ‫ותסר צעיפה מעליה‬, from her head and face.
Radak on Genesis 38:19:2 ‫ותלבש‬, her conduct proves that she had no intention of becoming pregnant by anyone other than Yehudah.
Many women of that period had an overpowering desire to somehow be impregnated by the sperm of
Avraham the patriarch, even though it might have been diluted with other genes. Being biologically
connected to Avraham was an important status symbol.

Radak on Genesis 38:21:1 ‫אנשי מקומה‬..‫וישאל‬, in the alley where she lived. Yehudah must have asked her for her address; how else
could he expect to redeem the items he had left with her? She had therefore named a certain alley as her
address. When Chirom came there to seek her out at the address she had given Yehudah, and he did not
see a harlot in that alley, he asked people of the alley if they knew where the harlot was who had been plying
her trade at the road junction. The local residents told him: ‫לא היתה בזה קדשה‬, that in that location there had
not been any prostitute. Both the words ‫ בזה‬and ‫ מזה‬occur in the Torah as references to locations, as we
know already from 37,17.

Radak on Genesis 38:23:1 ‫תקח לה‬, “let her keep it for herself so that we will not look like fools chasing these trinkets and the fact that I
slept with a prostitute will become public knowledge.” In Bereshit Rabbah 85,9 the Midrash quotes Proverbs
8,31 ‫ משחקת בתבל ארצו‬as the Torah rejoicing (making fun) of people. Yehudah who had deceived his father
by inviting him to guess Joseph’s fate by showing him the bloody and tattered remains of his striped coat,
now had in turn been deceived and would become publicly embarrassed through the incident with Tamar. It
is remarkable that in both instances the male goat, ‫שעיר עזים‬, is featured as part of the process of deception,
i.e. as the sin. [perhaps this accounts for that animal being a prime species for sacrifices meant to atone for
sin. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 38:24:1 ‫ויהי כמשלש חדשים‬, after, or at the end of. The letter ‫ כ‬is used to describe a quantity, a measure, as in Samuel I
14,14 ‫כעשרים איש‬, “approximately 20 people.” There are numerous similar examples in Scripture for the use
of the prefix ‫ כ‬in that sense. In Bereshit Rabbah 85,10 Sumchus quotes Rabbi Meir as having said that this
verse is the source of the statement that we cannot tell by looking at her that a woman is pregnant until 3
months after she conceived. Rabbi Hunna, quoting Rabbi Yosseph, added that what is meant is not that until
the end of the third month of pregnancy no signs are visible. The pregnant woman herself can perceive signs
after as little as 2 weeks, but outsiders cannot. [I amended the text of Rabbi Hunna’s comment in order to
make it understandable. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 38:24:2 ‫הוציאוה‬, to the site reserved for such executions by fire.
Radak on Genesis 38:24:3 ‫ותשרף‬, for in accordance with the local practice a widow awaiting to be wed to her brother-in-law was subject
to the same rules of adultery as a regularly married woman, i.e. death by burning. At the same time, she was
not out of bounds to her father-in-law if he wanted to marry her in order to have seed from his deceased son.
Both other sons of the surviving father and the father himself were close relatives of the deceased, after all.
The surviving brother of the deceased had the first claim on such a widow, but Tamar, under the
circumstances had been forced to become the wife of Yehudah seeing that Shelah had been denied her.

Radak on Genesis 38:25:1 ‫היא מוצאת‬, she did not make the matter public even when she was on the point of being executed. Therefore
she only hinted at the owner of the trinkets she wanted Yehudah to recognise without accusing him outright
as having given them to her after he had slept with her.
Radak on Genesis 38:25:2 ‫לאיש אשר אלה לו‬, this prompted our ages in Sotah 10 to say that it is better for a person to throw himself into a
burning furnace than to cause public embarrassment to a fellow human being. Tamar demonstrated this by
the conduct the Torah attributes to her in our verse. The word ‫לו‬, a reference to an unnamed third party left
Yehudah the option to ignore her accusation, and for any future embarrassment on that score to be wiped
out with her death.
Radak on Genesis 38:25:3 ‫ותאמר‬, this she said to the messenger she sent to Yehudah with the pledges that he had given her.
Radak on Genesis 38:25:4 ‫הכר נא‬, Bereshit Rabbah 85,11 notes how the Torah “plays” with people. She hinted to Yehudah that he had
used the same words to deceive his father into believing that Joseph had been devoured by a wild animal.
Now it was his turn to be deceived. The punishment matches the crime. (37,32) The Torah, knowing what
was to happen in the future, smiled to itself thinking: “wait until you will be deceived by these same words.”

Radak on Genesis 38:26:1 ‫ ;צדקה ממני‬she is more righteous than I, for I had declared her guilty of being burned to death while she was
innocent, seeing she is pregnant from me and has not acted like a harlot. Our sages in Makkot 23 as well as
in Bereshit Rabbah 85,12 say that there are basically three locations where the Holy Spirit,‫ רוח הקודש‬, was
manifest [was needed to confirm a verdict. Ed.] One was the court of Shem, son of Noach. This is based on
the word ‫ ממני‬in our verse not meaning “than me, Yehudah,” but “from Me, G’d.” [although Shem himself was
no longer alive at the time Tamar’s trial came up, his grandson Ever, probably in conjunction with others
maintained the court he had founded, which was administering the seven Noachide (universal laws for all of
mankind) laws at the time. Ed.] The sages understand that when the verdict was passed on Tamar a
heavenly voice was heard saying that Tamar’s pregnancy by Yehudah had been decreed by G.d, “from Me.”
The second such instance was in the court conducted by the prophet Samuel. They base this on Samuel I
12,5 ‫ויאמר עד‬, G’d confirming that the prophet had dealt fairly with the whole people during his being the
supreme authority, before a King was appointed. Without this confirmation we only had his word for it. The
third example was the court of King Solomon, during the famous trial of two women claiming a live baby as
her own and the dead one as belonging to her adversary. (Kings I 3,27.) A heavenly voice confirmed
Solomon’s verdict [which from a purely halachic point of view was quite unsubstantiated. Ed.] The words ‫היא‬
‫אמו‬, “she is his mother,” then were not said by Solomon but by G’d. G’d’s confirmation of Tamat’s innocence
was needed as people could have argued that while it was true that she had slept with Yehudah, who was to
say that other men had not also slept with her and that she was actually pregnant by someone else? The
Talmud concludes by citing the heavenly voice as saying ‫ממך יצאו כבושים‬, “secrets unknown to others are
revealed by Me.” [according to Rashi on Makkot 23 the fact that in due course Tamar’s and Yehudah’s son
became the forerunner of the Davidic dynasty proved that the seed she had carried was that of Yehudah,
both Tamar and Yehudah being of Royal descent, -Tamar as the daughter of Malki Tzedek King of Shalem,
and Yehudah by dint of the destiny predicted for him by his father on his deathbed.] There is a variant
reading which says that as a result of Yehudah’s admission, G’d decided to appoint him as the founder of the
future Davidic dynasties, and that the line ‫ונכבשה הארץ לפניכם‬, “the land will become conquered before you,”
in Numbers 32,29 is addressed to the leading tribe, Yehudah. This is based on the word‫ כבושים‬in the Talmud
being read as ‫ממך יצאו כובשים‬, “that conquerors will emerge from your loins.”
Radak on Genesis 38:26:2 ‫כי על כן לא נתתיה‬, as if the Torah had written ‫כי על כן שלא נתתיה‬, “because I did not give her, etc., she has done
this, i.e. pretended to be a harlot, because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” We find a similar construction
in Exodus 13,8 ‫בעבור זה עשה ה' לי‬, “on account of this (that I observe the commandment mentioned) G’d has
done this for me” (taken me out of Egypt).”
Radak on Genesis 38:26:3 ‫ולא יסף עוד לדעתה‬, he did not sleep with her again seeing that even this time the act had been unintentional
and in a manner not appropriate to her status. It is demeaning for a socially highly placed individual to sleep
with a harlot. For Yehudah to have done so again would have been demeaning for him [as she would always
be aware that the first time he had done this was in order to merely gratify a biological urge. Ed.] In the
Targum we find two different versions regarding the meaning of the words ‫ולא יסף עוד לדעתה‬. The second
version is that Yehudah never stopped sleeping with Tamar, i.e. he treated her as his wife in every respect
from then on. The reason why the Torah told us about all these details and how the seed of Yehudah
became mingled with that of Ruth the Moabite, as well as how King Solomon was the son of Bat Sheva
whose marriage to David did not exactly come about in a normal manner, is to show that the hand of G’d had
been at work in all of these situations. G’d’s design had been that the Kingdom of Israel should be David’s on
a hereditary basis forever [whenever there would be independent kings, not appointed by conquerors of the
Jewish people. Ed.] The somewhat flawed lineage in Jewish kings is G’d’s device to prevent such kings from
becoming proud of their pure ancestry, and considering themselves ”ancestrally“ superior to their peers.
[perhaps the advice of the Shulchan Aruch that when appointing public officials of high rank one should
select someone with a “skeleton in his closet,” a ‫קופת שרצים‬, is based on the flaws in the ancestry of the
Davidic dynasty. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 38:27:1 ‫ויהי בעת לדתה‬, it is clear from this wording that, in contrast to Rivkah, Tamar had not had any warning signs
that she was carrying twins in her womb. There is an aggadic commentary according to which Rivkah’s
problematic pregnancy was due to her carrying the seeds of two monarchs within her, whereas seeing that
from Tamar only one potential king would emerge, the one being born first had “burst the boundaries,”
excluding the other fetus from competition. (similar to Bereshit Rabbah 85,15.) Micah 2,13 alludes to this.
Radak on Genesis 38:27:2 ‫תאומים‬. This is the only instance when this word is spelled with both the letter ‫ א‬and the letter ‫ו‬, i.e. pointing to
the fact that these two were properly matched twins, i.e. both boys would grow up righteous.

Radak on Genesis 38:28:1 ‫ויהי בלדתה ויתן יד‬, one of them stuck his hand out of his mother’s womb, signaling that he wanted out. Seeing
that he did not succeed, he withdrew his hand.
Radak on Genesis 38:28:2 ‫ותקח המילדת‬, she took hold of his hand before he could withdraw it.<br> ‫ותקשור על ידו שני‬, as a sign who had
been first.

Radak on Genesis 38:29:1 ‫ויהי כמשיב ידו‬, at the time when he withdrew his hand his brother pushed ahead and emerged first. We have a
similar construction to this in 40,10 ‫והיא כפורחת‬, which also describes a process which was deceptive. [that
which blossoms first does not always ripen first. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 38:29:2 ‫ותאמר‬, these words were addressed by the midwife to the newly born infant who had pushed to displace his
brother.<br> ‫פרצת‬, why have you burst forth from the confines of the womb displacing your brother who had
been in the process of emerging?
Radak on Genesis 38:29:3 ‫עליך פרץ‬, you have acted precipitously, inappropriately, in claiming something which was not meant to be
yours, the birthright.
Radak on Genesis 38:29:4 ‫ויקרא‬, Yehudah called his name Peretz in agreement with the comments of the midwife.

Radak on Genesis 38:30:1 ‫זרח‬, she named him in commemoration of the red string she had wound around his hand. This colour
symbolises a warning.
Radak on Genesis 39:1:1 ‫ויוסף הורד‬, although this had been mentioned already, it is mentioned again as the narrative continues now to
concentrate on what happened to Joseph.
Radak on Genesis 39:2:1 ‫ויהי ה' את יוסף ויהי איש מצליח‬, he was successful in all things he undertook on his own behalf and also was
successful in the house of his Egyptian master. Every task that was assigned to him he managed to carry out
successfully.
Radak on Genesis 39:4:1 ‫וישרת אותו‬...‫יוסף חן‬.‫וימצא‬, because Joseph had found so much favour in his eyes he appointed him as his
exclusive personal valet. At the same time he appointed him in charge so that without Joseph’s approval
nothing could be done within this household.
Radak on Genesis 39:4:2 .all that he owned ,‫וכל יש לו‬

Radak on Genesis 39:6:1 ‫ולא ידע אתו מאומה‬, he did not involve himself in anything concerning the affairs of his household. Everything
rested on Joseph’s shoulders. Everything that needed to be done in the household other than matters
relating to the food served in the house. The reason why Joseph was not charged with this relatively minor
task was the fact that he was from a different people. We know already from 43,32 that the family of Yaakov,
loosely known as ‫העברים‬, “the Hebrews,” (from the sticks, i.e. a culture beyond the Euphrates river) had such
different eating habits that the Egyptians could not eat at the same table with them. Joseph had not changed
his eating habits. Other commentators interpret the line ‫כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל‬, as a euphemism applying to
Potiphar’s wife.
Radak on Genesis 39:6:2 ‫ויהי יוסף יפה תואר‬, the reason why the Torah mentions that Joseph was handsome is only to help us
understand why a highly placed person such as Mrs Potiphar would try to get involved with a foreign-born
slave. Joseph was so handsome in appearance. We already explained the nuances of the word ‫ יפה תואר‬and
‫ יפה מראה‬respectively in connection with Rachel (29,17).

Radak on Genesis 39:7:1 ‫ויהי אחר הדברים האלה‬, after Joseph had been in the house of his Egyptian master for some time and had
occupied the highest position in that household, feeling very secure, the invitation of a romantic relationship
with Mrs. Potiphar brought tension into his life again. He had, of course, no way of knowing at the time that
these developments had as its purpose that he would in due course rise to far higher prominence and that he
would become the direct instrument of bringing his family to Egypt where they would reside in comfort and
found a nation. Also the sin of the Chief butler and Chief baker respectively, as well as their being held in the
same jail as Joseph and his becoming their valet, were all part of G’d’s design to further His plans without
interfering with anyone’s free choice. We have to learn from this whole story that when a person suffers a
setback in life, one that appears to him undeserved, he must remember how all these setbacks worked in
Joseph’s favour at the time although he was not yet aware of it. We must therefore trust that G’d has our best
interests at heart at all times, even though we cannot always appreciate this at the time when we are being
tested. The incidents were narrated at this point to demonstrate Joseph’s righteousness when on his own
without family support, after having in effect been cast out from his family.

Radak on Genesis 39:8:1 ‫וימאן‬, the meaning is clear beyond mistake.

Radak on Genesis 39:9:1 ‫איננו גדול בבית הזה‬, there is no one in this house who is superior to me in rank except you who are out of
bounds to me inasmuch as you are my master’s wife; how could I abuse the trust placed in me by my
master?
Radak on Genesis 39:9:2 ‫ ;כי אם אותך באשר את אשתו‬these words lend support to the words of the Midrash which saw in the words ‫כי אם‬
‫ הלחם‬a euphemistic reference to Potiphar’s wife. It is also possible that Potiphar had warned Joseph
specifically against getting involved with his wife because he was so handsome. There was no need for the
Torah to spell out such a prohibition
Radak on Genesis 39:9:3 ‫ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת‬, to sleep with his wife and to betray his trust? Furthermore, this would not only
be a grievous wrong against my master, but it would also be a sin against G’d Who commanded man certain
rules of sexual behaviour. (we explained these rules in connection with Genesis 2,24 on ‫)ודבק באשתו‬

Radak on Genesis 39:10:1 ‫לשכב אצלה להיות עמה‬, she lowered her demands, even to at least lie down on the same bed beside her, or
merely keeping her company. Joseph refused all these suggestions. According to an aggadic interpretation,
the apparent repetition of the line ‫ לשכב אצלה להיות עמה‬refers to intimacy in this world on earth, ‫לשכב אצלה‬,
and the spiritual equivalent in the world to come, i.e. ‫להיות עמה‬. (Sotah 3)

Radak on Genesis 39:11:1 ‫ויהי כהיום הזה‬, a day, quite similar to this day, when she insistently urged him to sleep with her, occurred. Now
a different day occurred when the house was empty of all its other occupants
Radak on Genesis 39:11:2 ‫לעשות מלאכתו‬, to perform specific chores which were part of his regular routine assigned to him, as explained
by Onkelos.

Radak on Genesis 39:14:1 ‫ותקרא לאנשי ביתה‬, how is that possible seeing that none of them were in the house at the time?‫ואקרא בקול‬
‫לאמר‬..‫ותאמר‬.‫גדול‬, to tell her husband.
Radak on Genesis 39:14:2 ‫הביא לנו‬, they said to him (accusingly) how he could have brought such a man.
Radak on Genesis 39:14:3 ‫בנו‬, a word denoting glory, i.e. how could he be “over us, in a superior position?”

Radak on Genesis 39:15:1

Radak on Genesis 39:17:1
Radak on Genesis 39:20:1
Radak on Genesis 39:22:1
Radak on Genesis 39:23:1
Radak on Genesis 40:1:1 ‫לאדניהם‬, the stress is on the letter (syllable) ‫א‬.
Radak on Genesis 40:2:1 ‫ויקצף‬, the Torah appears to have unnecessarily repeated the words ‫על שר המשקים ועל שר האופים‬, seeing that
they had both been mentioned already in the previous verse. What the Torah wanted us to know was that
Pharaoh was not angry at the actual people who had committed a misdemeanour, but at their supervisors
who had allowed such a thing to happen. Joseph attended to the needs of these supervisors as he had been
assigned to attend to only the highest ranking prisoners.
Radak on Genesis 40:3:1 ‫מקום אשר יוסף אסור שם‬, the Torah had to write this so that we understand how these prisoners came to tell
Joseph their dreams, the dreams which became instrumental in Joseph being released from prison,
eventually. The word ‫ מקום‬here is in a construct mode to the word ‫אשר‬. Hence we have only a sheva under
the letter ‫ מ‬instead of the full vowel kametz. Similar constructions are found in Job 18,21 ‫ל‬-‫מקום לא ידע א‬, “a
place for people who did not know G’d. (no kametz under the ‫ מ‬in the word ‫מקום‬. The same applies to Isaiah
8,6 ‫ומשוש את רצין‬, where the word ‫ משוש‬does not have the vowel kametz under the letter ‫ מ‬as it is in a
construct mode to ‫רצין בן רמליהו‬.

Radak on Genesis 40:4:1 ‫ויפקוד‬, he appointed Joseph to be their constant companion and personal valet. We are told this so that we
can understand why Joseph enjoyed their confidence and they told him their dreams.
Radak on Genesis 40:4:2 ‫ימים‬, the Torah does not give further details about how many days. It is possible that the word ‫ ימים‬means “a
year,” as it appears in that sense in Leviticus 25,29.

Radak on Genesis 40:5:1 ‫איש כפתרון חלומו‬, each one would have his dream interpreted as an individual dream forecasting his particular
fate. The interpretations were tailored to measure.
Radak on Genesis 40:5:2 ‫המשקה והאופה‬, these words have been repeated although they have been written before, seeing that each
one of them saw in his dream something related to his vocation. The Torah added the words ‫אשר למלך מצרים‬,
seeing that the dream had come about not just because of their vocation but because they had practiced
their vocation as direct employees of the King of Egypt, they had risen to the top of their profession. The
Torah further adds the word ‫אשר אסורים בבית הסהר‬, seeing that they would leave the prison as a result of
what they had dreamt.

Radak on Genesis 40:6:1 ‫זעפים‬, each one of them was deeply upset about the dream he had had as they could not figure out its
significance.
Radak on Genesis 40:7:1 ‫וישאל‬, the Torah now adds the words ‫סריסי פרעה‬, Pharaoh’s highly placed officials, although at the time ‫אשר‬
‫אתו‬, they were on a par with him, both in jail. When Joseph saw their pitiful state of mind, he felt he had to
ask what caused such highly placed personages to be in such a depressed mood. After all, his superior, the
warden had charged him with looking after the well being of these two special prisoners.

Radak on Genesis 40:8:1 ‫ופתר אין אותו‬, they had already asked other people to explain their dreams to them but had not found anyone
who could interpret it.
Radak on Genesis 40:8:2 ?‫הלא לאלוקים פתרונים‬, he was reminded of his own dreams. He was still awaiting the correct interpretation of
his own dreams, something known only to G’d. He knew however, that G’d lets you dream certain dreams in
order to foreshadow coming events. Seeing that this is so, there must be people who can interpret such
dreams, why else would the phenomenon of dreams exist? The reason why their dreams were so confused,
i.e. that they perceived themselves to be merely bakers and cup-bearers respectively, was that at the time
they themselves were imprisoned and it would not have reflected their psychological makeup to perceive of
themselves as occupying positions of authority.
Radak on Genesis 40:8:3 ‫ספרו נא לי‬, perhaps G’d will grant me the insight to interpret the dream.
Radak on Genesis 40:9:1 ‫בחלומי‬, “I saw in my dream.”
Radak on Genesis 40:10:1 ‫שלשה שריגים‬, branches of the grape vine are known as ‫שריגים‬.
Radak on Genesis 40:10:2 ‫והיא כפורחת‬, at the time when the vine was in bloom it produced leaves at the same time.
Radak on Genesis 40:10:3 ‫עלתה נצה‬, the unripe grapes suddenly ripened until they were fully matured fruit. The fruit of the grape vine is
not called ‫ ענבים‬until it has fully matured. We have already discussed the meaning of the preposition ‫ כ‬in the
word ‫ כפרחת‬in 38,29.

Radak on Genesis 40:11:1 ‫ואשחט‬...‫וכוס‬, the word ‫ שחט‬signals closing something off. It occurs also in this sense in Shabbat 143 ‫אין‬
‫שוחטים את הפירות‬, that it is forbidden to squeeze the juice out of fruit on the Sabbath.
Radak on Genesis 40:11:2 ‫אל כוס‬, not “to the cup,” but “into the cup,” as for instance in Exodus 25,21 where the words ‫ ואל הארון תתן‬do
not mean “you are to give it to the Ark,” but “you are to place it inside the Ark.”

Radak on Genesis 40:12:1 ‫שלשת ימים‬, when reflecting on the meaning of the dream Joseph realised that whatever it presaged would
occur very soon. He surmised this from the speed with which the blossom on the vine in the dream had
turned into fully ripened grapes and wine. He therefore interpreted the number 3 which occurred in the dream
as not referring to years or months but to days.
Radak on Genesis 40:13:1 ‫ישא פרעה את ראשך‬, he will elevate your head. The verb is appropriate as the head of the cup-bearer while in
prison was held low, he dared not hold up his head.
Radak on Genesis 40:13:2 ‫והשיבך‬, the letter ‫ ו‬has the vowel patach, as opposed to Deuteronomy 28,68 ‫והשיבך ה' מצרים‬, “G’d will bring
you back to Egypt.” [compare Rash’bam on verse 13 above where he explains the meaning of the difference.
Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 40:14:1 ‫כי אם זכרתני‬, the same as ‫כי אם תזכרני‬.<br> ‫אתך כאשר ייטב לך‬, when you will experience that you are being
treated fairly, it is no more than fair that you should do me a favour, seeing that through my interpretation you
had the good news of your approaching release and re-instatement. When my interpretation will have proven
itself I expect you in turn to do a kindness for me namely to mention my case to Pharaoh so that he will
release me also. I want you to do me a second favour, i.e. not merely mention me to him, but to lobby on my
behalf. He will listen to you for two reasons. 1) You are an influential minister; 2) I have been jailed although I
am totally innocent.

Radak on Genesis 40:15:1 ‫כי גנב גנבתי‬, I have been abducted from my home in the land of the Hebrews. He could say this as the family
of his father was very well known in the whole region seeing that already Yitzchok and Avraham the
patriarchs had dwelled in the land of Canaan (by that time for about 250 years) It is therefore in order to refer
to the land of Canaan as the “land of the Hebrews,” [quite apart of any promise G’d had made to the
patriarchs. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 40:16:1 ‫וירא‬, he realised in his heart when he had heard the interpretation Joseph had given to the Chief cup bearer
that this was both a true and a positive interpretation, and he was confident that Joseph would also have a
similarly positive interpretation for his own dream. He based himself there on something which our sages
have called: “most dreams follow the interpretation (by the interpreter).” (Berachot 55). Joseph interpreted the
two dreams according to what his reason told him was the most likely interpretation. He was not concerned
whether his interpretation would be considered favourable, i.e. as portending something good in store for the
dreamer or if the reverse.
Radak on Genesis 40:16:2 ‫סלי חרי‬, the word ‫ חרי‬is related to the same word in Kings II 12,10 ‫ויקוב חור‬, “he bored hole.” The baskets are
made of thin strips, peeled, with little holes so that they are elastic and look as if plaited. There is no
difference between the meaning of the ending ‫ י‬in ‫חרי‬, and the noun in the regular plural mode ‫חרים‬. We find
such an ending with the letter ‫ י‬in Samuel II 23,8 ‫ראש השלישי‬, where the noun ‫ שליש‬means “a type of hero,
warrior, leader of a contingent of troops.” Sometimes the author contents himself with a partial plural ending,
i.e. ‫י‬, whereas on other occasions he uses the full plural ending ‫ים‬. According to my teachers (Jerusalem
Talmud Beytzah 2,7) the word ‫ חרי‬is derived from ‫חררה‬, a type of cake baked on hot coals, and according to
this interpretation the baskets the baker saw resembled these cakes in appearance. Whereas the lower two
baskets contained these kinds of flat cakes, the topmost basket contained the kind of baked goods served to
Pharaoh, i.e. superior goods, pastries, baked in an oven or in an oiled pan.

Radak on Genesis 40:17:1 ‫ובסל‬, the meaning is clear.

Radak on Genesis 40:18:1 ‫ויען יוסף‬, he said that also what was forecast for the baker would occur in three days. The goods in the
baskets are also of the type which are prepared in a hurry and which taste well only as long as they are
fresh, and would not be served to Pharaoh when stale. The principal difference between the two dreams was
that the baker did not see himself serving these pastries to Pharaoh, as opposed to the cup-bearer who
featured so prominently in his dream. This detail convinced Joseph that the baker would not be restored to
his position. Seeing that the alternative to a pardon was only execution, he said to the baker:
Radak on Genesis 40:18:2 ‫ישא פרעה את ראשך מעליך‬, i.e. he will separate your head from your body with a sword. Subsequently, he
would be hung, and Joseph understood that he would not be given a burial from the fact that the baker had
dreamt of the birds of prey. These birds feed on flesh which has not been buried.
Radak on Genesis 40:20:1 ‫יום הולדת את פרעה‬, some commentators say that the day referred to was the anniversary of the day Pharaoh
had been born, and that he had been in the habit of celebrating this day annually with a banquet. As to the
meaning of the word ‫את‬, which seems difficult to fit into this explanation, one could cite other examples
where the word ‫ את‬appears without apparent need, such as Numbers 26,55 ‫יחלק את הארץ‬, or in Ezekiel 16,4
‫“ ביום הולדת אותך‬on the day you were born,” where ‫ הולדך‬would have been perfectly adequate.
Radak on Genesis 40:23:1 ‫ולא זכר‬, he did not remember to do him a favour.
Radak on Genesis 40:23:2 ‫וישכחהו‬, not to mention him to Pharaoh.

Radak on Genesis 41:1:1 ‫ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים‬, at the end of two years after the release of the cup bearer Pharaoh had given this
banquet, following which he had the dream narrated here.
Radak on Genesis 41:1:2 ‫ופרעה חלם‬. He was dreaming that he was standing by the river. The word ‫ על‬as meaning “besides, close to,”
occurs for instance, also in Numbers 2,20 ‫ועלי מטה מנשה‬, “and beside him (the army of the tribe Ephrayim)
camped the army of the tribe Menashe.” The meaning certainly could not be that Menashe was “above,
over,” the tribe of Ephrayim, a more common meaning for the word ‫על‬. G’d directs all these various
apparently unrelated little incidents in mysterious ways in order to promote the realisation of His overall plan
in historical developments, both of His people, and of mankind generally. Pharaoh’s dream was inspired by
G’d in order that the prophecy to Avraham that before his descendants would take possession of the land of
the Canaanites which He had promised them could come true. He had spoken of a period of 400 years parts
of which would be harsh treatment of Avraham’s descendants as slaves. In order for this to come about,
Avraham’s descendants had to be in Egypt. In order for them to go there voluntarily G’d had to orchestrate
the famine. In order for Egypt not to perish during the famine Joseph had to interpret Pharaoh’s dream
correctly and make the Egyptians indebted to himself and his family, thus reducing the number of years the
Jews would do slave labour there. David details these steps of G’d’s ‫ השגחה‬in Psalms 105. When we look at
Pharaoh’s dream with hindsight, we cannot fail to wonder why this dream was so difficult to interpret, and
why the collective wisdom of all of Pharaoh’s wise men failed them. The answer is that G’d withheld their
normal sagacity in order to bring Joseph into the picture. This concept of G’d interfering sometimes with the
thought processes of human beings [not with their will which is inviolate they having been created in the
image of G’d, i.e. with free will. Ed.] is described by the prophet Isaiah with the words ‫משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם‬
‫יסכל‬, “He turns sages back and makes nonsense of their knowledge.” (Isaiah 44,25)
Radak on Genesis 41:2:1 ‫והנה מן היאור עולות שבע פרות‬, this was part of the interpretation, as in Egypt the river Nile rises annually above
its embankment irrigating the farmland surrounding it. The cows both pull the ploughs and thresh the grain
after it has been harvested. [thus far the dream reflected a well known reality in Egypt and it is difficult to see
how the Egyptian wise men could have missed something so simple unless their eyes had been blinded by
G’d. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 41:2:2 ‫ותרעינה באחו‬, as they found plenty of grass near at hand.
Radak on Genesis 41:3:1 ‫ותעמדנה‬, this is the first unusual thing in the dream, that the hungry, lean cows instead of grazing as did the
fat, satiated cows, were simply standing around, inactive, as if helpless. Joseph, of course, draws attention to
the meaning of this phenomenon in his interpretation.
Radak on Genesis 41:4:1 ‫ותאכלנה‬, this is the explanation of the strange behaviour of the seven lean cows, i.e. that during the seven
years of famine the seven good years of plenty would be absorbed as if they had never existed. No trace
would remain of the seven good years.

Radak on Genesis 41:7:1 ‫ויקץ פרעה‬, he awoke briefly between the first dream and the second dream. Had the dreams been one
continuous experience without Pharaoh waking up in between, he himself would have understood
immediately that the scenario he saw in the second dream was closely related to the scenario he had seen in
the first dream. Seeing that there were two separate dreams, this indicated to Joseph that the events
foreshadowed would come to pass without delay.
Radak on Genesis 41:7:2 ‫והנה חלום‬, the dream was complete. He did not dream any more during that night.
Radak on Genesis 41:8:1 ‫ויהי בבוקר ותפעם רוחו‬, his spirit was broken due to his profound worry about the meaning of this dream.
Although he had dreamt in two stages having awoken in between the two sections, he was convinced that
the message conveyed by what he had been shown was a single message, that the dream was a single
dream containing two parts.
Radak on Genesis 41:8:2 ‫וישלח ויקרא‬, he summoned them by means of messengers.
Radak on Genesis 41:8:3 ‫ואין פותר אותם‬, none of the them could interpret. The word ‫ אותם‬does not refer to the dreams but is used as in
44,4 ‫הם יצאו את העיר‬. “they had departed from the city.

Radak on Genesis 41:9:1 ‫את חטאי‬, even though it is not good manners for a person to mention the sins he had committed against his
sovereign in his presence after the time had passed for forgiveness, in this instance the cup bearer excuses
his mentioning these sins as he does so in the king’s interest.
Radak on Genesis 41:10:1 ‫אותי ואת שר האופים‬, even though he already mentioned ‫אותי‬, I, etc., he repeated this again in the next verse
when he spoke about ‫אני והוא‬, “I and He.” The reason was because of the words he had spoken in the
interval. We find a parallel example in Judges 9.19 ‫ואם באמת ובתמים‬, where these words have been repeated
even though the same speaker had used the identical words already in verse 16 in the same speech, on
account of what he had been saying in the interval between then and now. Yet another parallel example to
the syntax in our verse is found in Nechemyah 4,17 ‫ואין אני ואחי ונערי‬, “neither I, my brothers, or servants,
etc.,” and is repeated verbatim by the same speaker in chapter 5 verse 10 on account of all that he had said
in the interval, though it was all part of the same assembly.
Radak on Genesis 41:11:1 ‫כפתרון חלומו‬, we already explained the meaning of this expression on 40,5.
Radak on Genesis 41:12:1 ‫נער‬, seeing that he performed personal valet duties for them in the prison he referred to him as a ‫נער‬,
[describing his function. Ed.] He added that Joseph was also ‫עבד לשר הטבחים‬, he had been informed about
Joseph’s immediate past before he was thrown into jail. He gave this information so that anyone enquiring
about him would know the name of the person they were trying to locate.
Radak on Genesis 41:12:2 ‫איש כחלומו‬, the prefix ‫ ל‬is missing here in front of the word ‫איש‬. The word ‫ איש‬has to be understood as if the
cup-bearer had said: ‫לאיש‬, meaning that each of the two received an interpretation tailored to his particular
dream. One dream had been appropriate for a cup-bearer, the other for a baker. One dream dealt with a
drink, the other with food, baked goods.

Radak on Genesis 41:14:1 ‫ויריצוהו מן הבור‬, they removed him from jail in haste seeing that Royal commands are always carried out
promptly and as a matter of priority.
Radak on Genesis 41:14:2 ‫ויגלח ויחלף שמלותיו‬, admission to the presence of the king is conditional on both body and attire being in first
class condition.

Radak on Genesis 41:15:1 ‫לאמר‬..‫ ;ויאמר‬people say that you understand the meanings of a dream and are able to interpret it correctly.
Radak on Genesis 41:15:2 ‫תשמע‬, this means the same here as “you will understand.” The root ‫ שמע‬appears meaning the same in
Deuteronomy 28,49 ‫גוי אשר לא תשמע לשונו‬, “a people whose language you do not understand.”

Radak on Genesis 41:16:1 ‫בלעדי‬, “I cannot do this based on my intelligence.

Radak on Genesis 41:16:2 ‫אלוקים יענה‬, G’d will provide the answer and thereby put Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” The meaning of the word
‫ יענה‬here is similar to Kohelet 5,19 ‫מענה בשמחת לבו‬, “G’d provides him with the joy of his heart.” He will
display goodwill and His concern with Pharaoh’s peace of mind. Or, Joseph may have meant that G’d will put
in my mouth words which will provide Pharaoh with peace of mind. This would be analogous to Proverbs
16,1 ‫ומה' מענה לשון‬, “but the answer of the tongue comes from G’d.”

Radak on Genesis 41:17:1 ‫וידבר‬, we have already written that when someone repeats something he has said previously he is apt to
either add something to the previous version, or he is apt to omit something he had mentioned in the
previous version. The speaker, generally, is concerned only with conveying the same meaning as he had
conveyed the first time he said the same thing. The same is thing is true of someone relating a dream he had
more than once.
Radak on Genesis 41:19:1 ‫ורקות בשר‬, with the letter ‫ ר‬instead of the letter ‫ ד‬the meaning is derived from ‫רקק‬, as in ‫רקיקי מצות‬, in Exodus
29,2 where it means “unleavened wafers.” [the author refers to the thinness of wafers describing the thinness
of the flesh on these cows. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 41:20:1 ‫ הרקות‬, the ones mentioned as possessing only a thin layer of flesh as in verse 19.
Radak on Genesis 41:21:1 ‫ולא נודע‬, concerning this comment of Pharaoh’s narrative Joseph said in verse 31 that ‫ ולא יודע השבע‬that
during the years of famine the abundance of food during the preceding 7 years will not even be something
people could remember.
Radak on Genesis 41:23:1 ‫צנמות‬, a word which is understood based on our sages (Rashi, Ram’ban) quoting the expression‫פת צנומה‬
‫( בקערה‬Berachot 39, “dried bread placed in a dish to soak it in water.”) The interpretation of the dream is now
perfectly clear.
Radak on Genesis 41:26:1
Radak on Genesis 41:27:1 ‫ושבע הפרות הרקות‬, the word ‫ הרקות‬is again derived from ‫רקיק‬, wafer, as on the previous occasions it was
mentioned.
Radak on Genesis 41:27:2 ‫השבלים הרקות‬, here the word ‫ הרקות‬is derived from the word ‫ריק‬, empty, as in ‫והבור רק אין בו מים‬, “the pit was
empty, it did not contain water.” (Genesis 37,24)

Radak on Genesis 41:28:1 ‫ הקדים‬as if the Torah had written ‫קדמאה‬, “the one previously mentioned in verse 25.” ‫הגיד‬, “He showed
Pharaoh in his dream,” instead of spelling it out to him.
Radak on Genesis 41:32:1 ‫ועל השנות‬, Joseph added the word ‫פעמים‬, in order to make this more plain after he had used the expression
‫השנות‬.

Radak on Genesis 41:34:1 ‫וחמש‬, he should confiscate one fifth of the harvest.
Radak on Genesis 41:35:1 ‫ויקבצו את כל אוכל השנים‬, concerning this tax of twenty percent of the harvest, Joseph suggested that the
appointed officials should collect the food thus set aside by Pharaoh during the seven years of plenty and
store it near various cities under Pharaoh’s direct supervision so that it would be at hand when the years of
famine would commence. This would be independent of what private individuals would put in storage on their
own account. If this advice were followed, each city would have a substantial hoard of grain near at hand
when the famine would break out and there would not be any panic or undue profiteering.
Radak on Genesis 41:36:1 ‫לפקדון‬, as an insurance to have handy in time of need. Even though the people who had turned in that part of
their harvest would in due course be forced to buy it back, this arrangement would be good for them as at
least they would insure that when needed it would be available.
Radak on Genesis 41:37:1 ‫וייטב הדבר‬, Pharaoh approved of Joseph’s suggestion as did his ministers as they all understood that it was a
wise and practical plan. They realised that it was very likely that Joseph’s interpretation of the dream was
correct. They were furthermore very impressed by the chief of the cup-bearers who had told them how
Joseph’s interpretation of both his and the chief baker’s dreams had come true. Moreover, Joseph had not
claimed that the realisation of the dream would be in the distant future, but by seizing on the word ‫ והנה‬twice
at the very beginning of Pharaoh’s dream and again in verse 29, he had made it plain that these predictions
would come true in short order.
Radak on Genesis 41:38:1 ‫הנמצא כזה‬, the letter ‫ נ‬in the word ‫ הנמצא‬was directed at the people who were talking about the whole subject.
Pharaoh said to the assembled advisers: “Joseph has made certain suggestions. Can we possibly find
someone better qualified to put these suggestions into practice? He is clearly superior in wisdom and
acumen to all our local experts, and this can only be due to the fact that he enjoys Divine inspiration.”
Radak on Genesis 41:40:1 ‫ישק‬, a word derived from ‫נשק‬, arms, as per Onkelos.
Radak on Genesis 41:40:2 ‫רק הכסא אגדל ממך‬, in matters relating to the throne I will rank as superior to you.

Radak on Genesis 41:41:1 ‫ראה נתתי אותך‬, take note of the fact that I have empowered you as effective ruler over Egypt. [the author tells
us that the word or root ‫ ראה‬does not need to be translated as “to see, either with the physical eye or even
with the mental eye. Ed.] Pharaoh gave Joseph latitude to conduct the affairs of state according to whatever
his wisdom dictated to him
Radak on Genesis 41:42:1 ‫ויסר‬, the ring which was the symbol of the supreme authority in Egypt and which was used to sign and
thereby confirm any Royal decree in the country.
Radak on Genesis 41:43:1 ‫במרכבת המשנה‬, in the carriage reserved for the second highest official of the land.
Radak on Genesis 41:43:2 ‫אברך‬. The letter ‫ א‬in this word appears here in lieu of the letter ‫ ה‬and is part of the infinitive as in ‫ונתון אותו‬, in
other words: it is appropriate to bend one’s knee before this person and to raise him to be ruler over the land
of Egypt. Alternatively, the meaning could be that the letter ‫ א‬refers to the respective person (anyone)
announcing at the approach of Joseph’s coach that those who were still a distance away before he passed
them should get down on their knees to pay their respects anticipating his passing.
Radak on Genesis 41:43:3 ‫ונתון אותו‬, and everyone agreed that this person deserved to be given control of the whole land of Egypt.

Radak on Genesis 41:44:1 ‫אני פרעה‬, even though I am nominally king, without your permission ‫לא ירים איש את ידו ואת רגלו‬, in all respects.
[Joseph was appointed as absolute dictator, benevolent, of course. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 41:45:1 ‫צפנת פענח‬, an Egyptian expression, similar to Nevuchadnezzar giving Daniel and his companions Chaldaic
names when he appointed them to high office. (Daniel 1,7) Other commentators (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ram’ban)
explain the name ‫ צפנת פענח‬as being Hebrew.
Radak on Genesis 41:45:2 ‫ויצא יוסף‬, he now proceeded to take the reins of government into his hands

Radak on Genesis 41:46:1 ‫ויצא יוסף מלפני פרעה‬, instead of remaining standing at Pharaoh’s side, like the other ministers, he left to set
about doing his job.
Radak on Genesis 41:46:2 ‫ויעבר בכל ארץ מצרים‬, he did not travel for pleasure but in the course of his new duties he had to traverse the
whole country. His task consisted primarily of supervising that his instructions were being carried out.

Radak on Genesis 41:47:1 ‫ותעש הארץ‬, the earth produced harvests ‫לקמצים‬, even a single kernel produced many handfuls. [possibly by
“kernel” the author refers to a kernel of seed. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 41:48:1 ‫ויקבוץ את כל אוכל‬, we already explained this on verse 35.
Radak on Genesis 41:48:2 ‫ויתן אכל בערים‬, he built all the storage silos in the towns and not in the villages. The twenty percent of the
harvest the farmers in the villages had to turn in, Joseph stored in the cities.

Radak on Genesis 41:49:1 ‫כחול הים‬, an exaggerated way of describing the abundance of grain.
Radak on Genesis 41:50:1 ‫וליוסף יולד‬, the singular mode used by the Torah in describing the birth of these two sons of Joseph suggests
that they were twins. At least they were presumably born during the same night.
Radak on Genesis 41:50:2 ‫שנת הרעב‬, the first year of the famine; the Torah adds: ‫בטרם תבא‬, for they were born during the last year of
the 7 years of plenty. Joseph was 37 years old when they were born. They were therefore 19 years old when
Yaakov died. My teachers (Taanit 11) explained that the wording “before the onset of the famine,” is meant to
teach that a person must not engage in marital intercourse during years of famine.
Radak on Genesis 41:50:3 ‫אשר ילדה לו אסנת‬, this is to teach that Joseph did not have any additional wives, i.e. both of his sons were
born by the same mother.

Radak on Genesis 41:51:1 ‫כי נשני‬, G’d granted me so much wealth and power that He enabled me to forget ‫את כל עמלי‬, all the problems
and setbacks I had experienced, and He has even made me forget all the members of my father’s
household. [not including his father, of course. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 41:51:2 ‫נשני‬, the vowel patach under the letter ‫ נ‬substitutes for the vowel chirik which we would normally expect in
the transitive conjugation from the root ‫נשה‬, as then it would have been nishani as in tzivani from the root
‫צוה‬, “to command.” Some commentators do not accept that this vowel is a variant but claim that it is justified
as the root of the word nashani in our verse is ‫נשש‬. [compare Rash’bam’s comment. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 41:52:1 ‫בארץ עניי‬, in the land which for me was first a land of poverty, oppression, mental anguish, and has now
become the land in which my potential has come to fruition where G’d has granted me children, wealth and
great honour.
Radak on Genesis 41:53:1 ‫אשר היה‬, a collective term, hence in the singular ‫ היה‬instead of the plural ‫היו‬.
Radak on Genesis 41:54:1 ‫ובכל ארץ מצרים היה לחם‬, in all the countries bordering on the land of Egypt there was food seeing that
everyone had amassed a private hoard. [the author may mean that the individual farmers sold their private
hoards to foreigners, knowing that when they would run out they would qualify for the accumulated supply of
the state, while in the meantime overcharging the people from the neighbouring countries. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 41:55:1 ‫ותרעב‬, each one had used up his private hoard either by eating it or selling it. Besides, they could not store a
great deal, having had to surrender twenty per cent of their annual harvests to Joseph’s officials.
Radak on Genesis 41:55:2 ‫ויצעק העם‬, they knew that Joseph had stored up their twenty percent contributions each year. They appealed
to Pharaoh knowing that the food which had been stored was intended to be sold back to the people during
the famine.

Radak on Genesis 41:56:1 ‫ויפתח יוסף את כל אשר בהם‬...‫והרעב‬, he now opened all the silos in which grain had been stored.
Radak on Genesis 41:56:2 ‫וישבר למצרים‬, first he sold grain only to the Egyptians until word had spread that there was food for sale in
Egypt. Then he also sold to foreigners. The expression ‫וישבר‬, vayishbor, is from the conjugation kal, and is
used both as applicable to the seller and the buyer. Actually, the word shever means “breaking,” i.e. the
grain, the harvest, is what “breaks” one’s hunger. Compare Psalms 104,11 ‫ישברו פראים צמאם‬, “the wild asses
slake their thirst, the word for “slaking,” being the word ‫שבר‬. When it comes to the transaction, i.e. trading in
victuals, especially grain, the seller gives something which will still the buyer’s hunger, i.e. break it, whereas
the buyer at the same time is receiving something which breaks his hunger. Hence it is understandable why
the same root is used to describe either buying or selling food, seeing both parties are concerned in dealing
with someone’s hunger, putting an end to it, as it were. One party hands over the price, the other party
receives payment, thus both seller and buyer are active in the transaction. The conjugation ‫ הפעיל‬however, is
applicable only to the seller of food, not to the buyer, as in most instances this conjugation is used
transitively. The word mashbir, or hamashbir, therefore refers to the seller, not to the buyer.
Radak on Genesis 41:56:3 ‫ויחזק הרעב‬, as foreign buyers appeared and the quantities sold to each had to be rationed in order to ensure
that the supply would last, the famine was felt more strongly also by the local population, seeing the famine
had been predicted to last for many years.
Radak on Genesis 41:57:1 ‫לשבור אל יוסף‬, the words have been inverted and mean the same as if the Torah had written ‫באו אל יוסף לשבור‬,
“they came to Joseph to trade in grain.”
Radak on Genesis 42:1:1 ‫וירא יעקב‬, he saw local inhabitants arriving with grain and fodder. He asked these people where they had
bought it, and they told him that they had brought it all the way from Egypt. As a result, he told his sons what
he had heard and wanted to know why they acted as if they did not need additional supplies.
Radak on Genesis 42:1:2 ?‫למה תתראו‬, “Why do you give the impression that you have adequate supplies of grain? Everybody else is
going on a buying trip and you sit at home!”
Radak on Genesis 42:3:1 ‫וירדו אחי יוסף‬. The reason why the Torah describes them all of a sudden as “Joseph’s brothers” instead of as
Yaakov’s sons, is that they went down to Egypt because of what had happened with Joseph so many years
ago. The time had come for Joseph’s dream to be realised, and the Torah wants to alert the reader to this. In
Bereshit Rabbah 91,2 the question is raised why there is a dividing tone sign, etnachta, under the word
‫עשרה‬, as if the verse ended there. The answer given is that nine of the brothers only were concerned with
finding Joseph and being good brothers, whereas the tenth, Shimon, joined them only in order to buy grain.
[the basis of the Midrash is the number “ten” being mentioned. We all knew that only ten brothers went to
Egypt, Yaakov not allowing Binyamin to join them. Hence, the Midrash reads additional meaning into the
word “ten,” as well as into the tone sign under that word. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 42:4:1 ‫ אחי יוסף‬...‫ואת בנימין‬, he is mentioned once more as “Joseph’s brother” as he was the only full brother Joseph
had, being a brother both from the same father and the same mother.
Radak on Genesis 42:4:2 ‫אסון‬, a mishap brought about either by man or by direct heavenly intervention, a natural disaster, for instance.
Yaakov’s fear was based on a mishap having befallen Joseph at the time (as he had been led to believe).
The Talmud in Ketuvot 30 describes mishaps caused by “man” as thorns and thistles, and the like. [based on
Proverbs 22,5. The assumption appears to be that such “mishaps” are preventable by man being careful.]
We may well ask why Yaakov was afraid of a mishap that might befall Binyamin while he was on the way
more than he was afraid of a mishap which might befall him at home? The answer is that mishaps which
befall people on a journey are statistically far more frequent than those that befall a person while he is at
home. Wild animals, bandits, etc., are usually roaming on much traveled routes. Due to the likelihood of
encountering such hazards while traveling, even righteous people who have no reason to fear G’d’s
retribution for any wrongs they may have committed, need to be especially careful in any situation which is
known to be especially hazardous, and they must not ignore such dangers by relying on G’d to keep them
safe. Even if they would be saved from some danger through a miracle G’d would perform for them, their
accumulated merits would be diminished thereby. Our sages have found an allusion to all this in
Deuteronomy 6,15 ‫לא תנסו את ה' אלוקיכם‬, “do not cause the Lord your G’d to have to perform a miracle for
you.” We find proof that even an outstanding man such as the prophet Samuel when sent to anoint a
successor to King Sha-ul and setting out on the way to Chevron to anoint one of Yishai’s sons, was afraid
and said so to G’d. G’d Himself told him what precautions to take. (Samuel I 16,2) In view of the above it is
not surprising therefore that Yaakov was especially concerned about Binyamin’s safety during the journey.
Radak on Genesis 42:5:1 ‫בתוך הבאים‬, they did not appear different although they were Hebrews. Seeing that it was a time of danger, i.
e. famine, they mingled freely with all the other people traveling to Egypt for the same purpose.
Radak on Genesis 42:6:1 ‫ויוסף הוא השליט‬, the brothers had to appear before him personally as he was the seller, i.e. he authorised who
could buy and how much. ‫הוא המשביר‬. The term is only used transitively, someone who sells somebody else’
s property to a third party. He gave instructions to his agents to sell. Initially, all potential purchasers had to
be examined by Joseph personally. Although, no doubt this was a tedious procedure, Joseph had issued
these instructions to make sure he would spot his brothers when they would arrive, as he was sure they
must. As a result he would be able to confront his brothers.
Radak on Genesis 42:7:1 ‫ויכירם‬...‫וירא יוסף‬, our sages explain that the fact that Joseph had left home when he did not have a beard yet,
whereas his brothers already had beards accounts for the fact that whereas they did not recognise him, he
recognised them. (quoted by Rashi) It is possible that they would have recognised him in spite of his having
grown a beard if they had not seen the man confronting them dressed in the uniform of the highest ranking
nobles of the land. They could not imagine that this man could be Joseph even if there had been points of
resemblance. The idea that someone who had been sold into slavery had risen to such power was too mind-
boggling for them.
Radak on Genesis 42:7:2 ‫ויתנכר‬, Joseph moreover deliberately misrepresented himself to prevent their suspecting that it might be him.

Radak on Genesis 42:8:1 ‫ויכר יוסף‬, as we already explained on verse 7. The reason the Torah has repeated this is that the Torah
wished to emphasise that he showed them brotherly love by not harming them or killing them, whereas they,
at the time had not shown him any brotherly feelings in their treatment of him, first planning to kill him, then
stripping him, throwing him into the pit, and subsequently selling him into slavery.
Radak on Genesis 42:9:1 ‫אשר חלם להם‬, for the dreams had really concerned the brothers, primarily. He realised now that they had
hated him on account of his dreams; this is why when he remembered all that they had done to him instead
of repaying them in kind, he only made them extremely uncomfortable for a while. [perhaps what the author
means is that originally, Joseph had thought that the brothers resented his becoming a big shot in his
dreams, whereas only now did he realise that what they really resented was the fact that they, the brothers,
appeared as socially low ranking, slave like, in Joseph’s dreams. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 42:10:1 ‫ועבדיך‬, the letter ‫ ו‬at the beginning of this word substitutes for the word ‫אבל‬, “but”. In other words: “no my lord,
not as you have said; but your servants simply came here to buy food.” The use of the letter ‫ ו‬instead of the
word ‫ אבל‬is not unique, as it also occurs in Psalms 7,5 ‫ואחלצה צוררי ריקם‬, “but I have rescued my foe without
reward.”
Radak on Genesis 42:11:1 ‫כלנו בני איש אחד‬, if you claimed that the fact that we stick together is proof that we are spies, consider that the
reason why we stick together is because we are all sons of the same father. This is why we always ask our
questions in unison. We belong to the same family, and are honest upright people.
Radak on Genesis 42:13:1 ‫בני איש אחד‬...‫ויאמרו‬, they now felt the need to assert further that they were in fact honest and forthcoming by
revealing that actually there were twelve of them, all sons of the same father, etc.
Radak on Genesis 42:13:2 ‫את אבינו‬, they had left one brother to attend to the needs of their father during their absence
Radak on Genesis 42:13:3 ‫ ;איננו‬the reason why they chose this ambiguous way of referring to the fate of their missing brother was to
avoid being trapped. If they had said that their missing bother was dead, Joseph could have accused them of
lying –in the event Joseph was alive and this ruler had knowledge of the fact.- They knew that Joseph had
been sold to Egypt but had no knowledge beyond this. They had reason to fear that while a slave in Egypt
and wanting to obtain his freedom he might have revealed his origins, implicating the brothers in having sold
him. The fact that this slave, like they themselves was of Hebrew origin, may well have become known as he
had been bought from Hebrews. Even the wife of Potiphar, when thwarted in her advances too him, suddenly
refers to him in a derogatory fashion as “the Hebrew man her husband had brought into the house to belittle
them, etc.” (39,14) The Chief of the cup-bearers had also referred to him as Hebrew slave. (41,12) However,
while Joseph may have revealed or may not have been able to conceal that he was a Hebrew, it was by no
means certain that he had also revealed details about his family, his father, etc. Neither would he have had
reason to reveal how many brothers he had\, etc. Therefore, when referring to him, they decided to use the
non committal ‫ואיננו‬, meaning that they had no knowledge of where he was if he was still alive.
Radak on Genesis 42:14:1 ‫הוא אשר דברתי‬, if you really spoke the truth that ten of you came as brothers, why did the eleventh not come
also? As far as your claiming that he stayed home in order to attend to the needs of your father, what about
your father’s wives and your own wives? Are they not able to cope with these chores during your absence?
Radak on Genesis 42:16:1 if you indeed speak the truth, as you claimed when you said that you are ‫כנים‬, truthful, above board.
Radak on Genesis 42:17:1 ‫ויאסוף‬, he caused them mental pain without touching their bodies or causing them financial loss.
Radak on Genesis 42:18:1 ‫את האלוקים אני ירא‬, therefore I will not detain all of you seeing that your families are starving and I would be to
blame for this. I will only detain one of you in order to put your claim to the test.
Radak on Genesis 42:19:1 ‫שבר רעבון בתיכם‬, what will break the hunger, i.e. the harvest; this is why the harvest, ‫ תבואה‬is also called ‫שבר‬,
as we have already explained on 41,56.
Radak on Genesis 42:21:1 ‫ויאמרו‬, after Joseph had finished speaking with them and had left, the interpreter who had acted to preserve
the impression that Joseph did not understand Hebrew also left the room where the encounter between
Joseph and his brothers had taken place. In the absence of the interpreter the brothers acknowledged their
sin against Joseph, seeing in their incarceration and in their position as accused, G’d’s punishment for their
conduct against Joseph. They knew that they had been discriminated against by Joseph, knowing that they
had been subjected to a far more intense questioning than other travelers who had come to Egypt to buy
food. This is why they connected their present predicament to their behaviour against Joseph. However, they
saw the nature of their sin not in their basic attitude to Joseph but
Radak on Genesis 42:21:2 ‫ ¸בהתחננו אלינו‬their turning a deaf ear to Joseph’s pleas for mercy after he had been thrown into the pit.
Joseph had started pleading already when they stripped him of the coloured coat his father had had made for
him especially. The entire episode is described in detail by the Torah to teach the reader that if and when
apparently undeserved troubles befall him, that he is to examine his past deeds to find out what sin,
intentional or unintentional, could have caused G’d to bring this to his attention in such a manner so that he
would repent his error. He is to exploit his troubles to ask G’d for forgiveness for his wrongdoing. [even if the
major act of penitence has to be performed toward the person against whom he had sinned and from whom
he must ask for a pardon. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 42:22:1 ‫וגם דמו הנה נדרש‬, seeing that they believed that Joseph had died after he had been sold, they felt that G’d
was also holding them responsible now for having shed his blood.
Radak on Genesis 42:23:1 ‫כי המליץ‬, we already explained the function of the interpreter.
Radak on Genesis 42:24:1 ‫ויבך‬. Overhearing the brothers confess their sin against him caused Joseph to weep.
Radak on Genesis 42:24:2 ‫את שמעון‬, he shackled him for it had been Shimon who had thrown him into the pit.
Radak on Genesis 42:24:3 ‫ויאסור‬, he brought him back to jail in front of their eyes. In Bereshit Rabbah 91,8 Rabbi Chani points out that
the restrictive addition of the word ‫לעיניהם‬, “in their presence,” means that Shimon remained tied up only
while the brothers could see him. As soon as the brothers started their home-bound journey Shimon was
released by Joseph. He fed him, bathed him, anointed him, in other words treated him like a V.I.P not like a
suspected criminal.

Radak on Genesis 42:25:1 ‫ויצו יוסף‬, he instructed his servants, the ones who were selling the grain (completing the transaction once it
had been approved) to fill the brothers’ containers with grain, which they did. ‫ ;וימלאו‬this is one of many
verses in the Torah which has been written in an abbreviated manner.
Radak on Genesis 42:25:2 ‫ולהשיב‬, he also instructed his servants at the same time to replace the purchase money the brothers had
paid.
Radak on Genesis 42:25:3 ‫ויעש להם כן‬, these words refer to the restoration of the money and the brothers being given enough provisions
for themselves for their journey. We had heard already that their containers had been filled with grain.
Radak on Genesis 42:27:1 ‫ויפתח האחד‬, one of them. According to a homiletic comment quoted by Rashi, the definitive article at the
beginning of the word ‫ האחד‬is a hint that this was Levi, who, through his buddy Shimon having been detained
by Joseph, was now “the one,” i.e. left alone without his closest companion.
Radak on Genesis 42:27:2 ‫בפי אמתחתו‬, Joseph had instructed that the money of one of them should be not just placed back in his sack,
but should be placed near the top so that he would find it immediately he opened the sack. The money of the
other brothers had been placed somewhere in the middle section of their respective containers, or even at
the very bottom. If the money of all of them had been placed near the top of their bags they would see it as
soon as they started giving fodder to their beasts, and they would turn around to Egypt pointing out that
someone had made a mistake. They would be anxious to clear themselves of the danger of being accused of
an additional crime, of being thieves. Joseph had therefore taken precautions that only one of them should
find his money before they would get home. He had arranged matters in a way to cause them maximum
worry.
Radak on Genesis 42:28:1 ‫ויצא לבם‬, as Joseph expected, discovery of the money was a major shock for them. The expression used by
the Torah for this emotion is also found in Song of Songs 5,6 ‫נפשי יצאה בדברו‬, “I fainted because of what he
said.”

Radak on Genesis 42:29:1 ‫ויבאו‬, the words they told their father are quite clear, although there are minor variations, additions,
omissions; changes; the basic subject was reported faithfully
Radak on Genesis 42:33:1 ‫ואת רעבון‬, the words are once more inverted and mean ‫ואת שבר רעבון‬, “the food for the starving, etc.”
Radak on Genesis 42:35:1 ‫בשקו‬, in the actual text it does not say ‫בפי שקו‬, as we already mentioned on verse 27.
Radak on Genesis 42:35:2 ‫ ;וייראו‬they now worried if the sellers of the grain had not deliberately replaced their money in order to set a
trap for them when they would return when they would be accused of being thieves.
Radak on Genesis 42:36:1 ‫שכלתם‬, “you have bereaved;” a transitive mode, referring to a third person. The same construction appears
when the prophet Samuel tells King Agag why he is about to kill him, saying ‫שכלה נשים חרבך‬, “your sword has
bereaved women” (Samuel I 15,33) Yaakov meant that “you my sons have caused me this problem with
three of my sons.”
Radak on Genesis 42:36:2 ‫כלנה‬, all these problems.

Radak on Genesis 42:37:1 ‫את שני בני תמית‬, two of my sons. [he had four. Ed.] Reuven said something foolish in even suggesting that his
father might kill his own grandsons. Yaakov responded: (not in text) “you are a foolish firstborn what makes
you think that your sons are not also my sons?” Seeing that Reuven’s suggestion was so foolish, Yaakov did
not even bother to formally reply to it. It did not deserve to be dignified with a serious answer. He just told him
that he would not send Binyamin with him and the other brothers.
Radak on Genesis 42:38:1 ‫כי אחיו מת‬, not a statement of fact but an assumption. Yaakov reasoned that if Joseph were alive he would
have heard from him at some time during the over twenty years that he had been missing.
Radak on Genesis 43:1:1 ‫והרעב‬, Yehudah said to his brothers not to argue with their aged father until there would be no more bread in
the house at which time he would agree to send his son Binyamin with the brothers.
Radak on Genesis 43:3:1 ‫העד העיד‬, when a caution is issued to people in the presence of witnesses, the caution is not called ‫התראה‬,
“warning,” but ‫עדות‬, “testimony.”
Radak on Genesis 43:8:1 ‫גם אנחנו גן אתה גם טפנו‬, each one in addition to the one already mentioned. What Yehudah meant was it was
better that one Binyamin should come along with them although his safe return was subject to some doubt,
than they should all die, something which would be a certainty.
Radak on Genesis 43:9:1 ‫וחטאתי לך‬, Yehudah did not really man that if he did not bring Binyamin back this would automatically be a
sin in the objective meaning of the word. He meant that he would consider himself as a sinner against his
father forever in the unlikely event that this would happen. He would guarantee his brother’s return under
such conditions. These considerations prompted our sages in Makkot 11 to characterise Yehudah as placing
himself in the position of a conditional outcast, ‫מנודה‬, they derive the halachah that someone who places
himself in such a state requires the court to annul his conditional vow, status. Needless to say that
ostracising oneself from the Jewish community even conditionally is forbidden, and we have a tradition that
the bones inside Yehudah’s coffin were rattling for the entire 40 years the Jewish people carried the coffins of
the 12 founding leaders of the tribes with them through the desert. This stopped only at the request of Moses
who asked mercy for Yehudah in his final blessing in Deuteronomy 33,7, ‫וזאת 'ליהודה וגו‬
Radak on Genesis 43:11:1 ‫אם כן אפוא‬, if the situation is such that I cannot detain Binyamin here,
Radak on Genesis 43:11:2 ‫זאת עשו‬, in order to curry favour with the ruler of the land;
Radak on Genesis 43:11:3 ‫מזמרת הארץ‬, of the produce which this land is especially famous for;
Radak on Genesis 43:11:4 ‫מעט צרי ומעט דבש‬, both of these products were known as exports from the land of Canaan. as is spelled out
specifically in Ezekiel 27,17 ‫יהודה וארץ ישראל המה רוכליך בחטי מנית ופגג ודבש ושמן וצרי‬, Yehudah and the Land
of Israel, they were your peddlers. With wheat from Minis, balsam oil, honey, oil and balm, etc.” ‫ צרי‬is known
as “balsam” nowadays.
Radak on Genesis 43:11:5 ‫נכאת‬, according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 this is wax. In the same paragraph there ‫ דבש‬is understood as
“hard as stone.” Rabbi Saadyah Gaon explains the word ‫צרי‬, as Triaki, and ‫ נכאת‬as some kind of cabbage
(cauliflower), and ‫ לוט‬as lotononis, something better known today as armon, chestnut.
Radak on Genesis 43:11:6 ‫בטנים‬, which are known in Arabic as piniulash. Apparently this nut was known in Spain as tzenuvar.
Radak on Genesis 43:11:7 ‫ושקדים‬, almonds, something familiar to all of us. In Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 both the words ‫ בטנים‬and ‫שקדים‬
are understood as referring to an ointment based on the oil of these nuts. [why would Yaakov send
something as common as peanuts and almonds? Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 43:12:1 ‫וכסף משנה‬, and a second amount of money. The word ‫ משנה‬occurs in the same sense as here in Jeremiah
17,18 ‫ומשנה שברון‬, “and shatter them with double destruction.” The vowel segol instead of tzeyreh in ‫שני‬,
indicates that the word is not in a construct mode.
Radak on Genesis 43:12:2 ‫אולי משגה הוא‬, perhaps one of the people selling the grain and filling the sacks of the buyers had mistakenly
and temporarily put a bag of coins in the bag of the brothers forgetting about it and had not retrieved it. At the
time when they counted the money to tally it with the quantity of grain sold, it had already been mixed up in
the grain and there was no knowing where it had disappeared to. When you now bring it back, you will
establish your reputation as being trustworthy by doing this.

Radak on Genesis 43:14:1 ‫ושלח‬, he will release Shimon to you from his imprisonment.
Radak on Genesis 43:14:2 ‫כאשר שכלתי שכלתי‬, seeing the subject matter is being repeated, Yaakov changed the wording he used,
something that is standard procedure in Scriptures, as we pointed out previously. (21,1) The first word
shakolti is from a passive mode, whereas the second word shakalti is an active mode. What he meant was:
“what can I do if some mishap will befall one of you, just as I have already had to endure the bereavement of
Joseph having been lost. I may have to make peace with the idea of losing anyone of you due to whatever
mishap will befall him. [The first word refers to the past, when it had never occurred to Yaakov that something
might happen to Joseph; hence it is described as something in which Yaakov views himself as having been
totally passive. If something were to happen now, he could not view himself as a totally passive bystander,
seeing he had agonised about the very fact that it might happen. Therefore, according to the author, the
active mode is justified here. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 43:15:1 ‫ויעמדו לפני יוסף‬, they encountered Joseph in the public square while on their way to the hotel. When Joseph
saw them he did not offer any kind of greeting in public until they would be in his house. However, as soon as
he saw them he instructed his servant, the one in charge of his household, to bring them to his private
residence.
Radak on Genesis 43:16:1 ‫בצהרים‬. At midday, the hour of day at which princes, judges, the nobility, all people who look after public
affairs consume their main meal, as we know from Kohelet 10,17 ‫ושריך בעת יאכלו‬, “and your ministers eat at a
proper time.” Joseph belonged to this category of people, seeing that all public affairs were under his control.
Radak on Genesis 43:18:1 ‫להתגולל עלינו‬, the reason he brought us to his private palace was in order to subject us to accusations
concerning the money we were supposed to have stolen, something which he will use as a pretext ‫להתנפל‬
‫עלנו‬, to attack us seeing that he had been ill disposed against us from the beginning, when he had treated us
as suspected spies. Now he will use the trumped up charges in order to keep us as slaves, a traditional
punishment for thieves. He probably also wants to confiscate our donkeys What other reason could possibly
account for his taking us to his private residence!

Radak on Genesis 43:19:1 ‫פתח הבית‬, in order that the people of Joseph’s household should not overhear them.
Radak on Genesis 43:20:1 ‫ויאמרו בי אדוני‬, we have a request; they then proceeded to explain to him what they had experienced with the
money, and why they had brought this extra amount with them now.
Radak on Genesis 43:23:1 ‫מטמון‬, if you found this money in your sacks it was a gift from heaven, comparable to if a human being had
given you a treasure. But as far as the money you owed for your purchases is concerned, ‫כספכם בא אלי‬, “I did
receive your money.”
Radak on Genesis 43:23:2 Immediately after saying this, ‫ויוצא‬, he gave instructions to have Shimon brought out to join them. He did this
so promptly in order to allay their fears and suspicions and to comfort them.

Radak on Genesis 43:24:1 ‫ויבא‬, he escorted them inside from the entrance where they had been having the conversation.
Radak on Genesis 43:25:1 ‫ויכינו‬, they arranged the gifts they had brought in a manner that would look appropriately impressive by the
time Joseph would come home.
Radak on Genesis 43:25:2 ‫כי שמעו‬, from the official in charge of Joseph’s palace that they were preparing the meal.
Radak on Genesis 43:25:3 ‫לחם‬, a term which is inclusive, meaning the entire meal.

Radak on Genesis 43:26:1 ‫ויביאו‬...‫ויבא‬, the letter ‫ א‬in the word ‫ ויביאו‬has a dagesh.
Radak on Genesis 43:26:2 ‫הביתה‬, to the house where they were being dined, for although they were also in the same “house,” they
were not in the same compound. In the house or palace of an important personage there are many smaller
separate buildings. The brothers at this time had been in one of the outer buildings, whereas Joseph
occupied the inner palace, so that the line “they brought the gift they carried with them to the inner palace to
him,” is quite justified.

Radak on Genesis 43:28:1 ‫ויקדו וישתחוו‬, when they prostrated themselves this was with the intention of making an obeisance to their
father after whom Joseph had inquired (although outwardly, this was not noticeable).
Radak on Genesis 43:29:1 ‫וישא עיניו‬, seeing that they all surrounded him without any specific order of seniority, Joseph looked up in
order to recognise his brother Binyamin, [who had only been about 10 years old at the time he had last seen
him. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 43:29:2 ‫ ;יחנך בני‬the word ‫ יחנך‬has the same meaning as if the Torah had written yechancha with a dagesh in the
letter ‫ נ‬avoiding the doubling of the letter ‫נ‬. The word has been written in the conjugation kal, something that
occurs quite frequently when the root contains a dual consonant, i.e. ‫חנן‬. We find exactly the same
construction with our root in Isaiah 30,19 ‫חנון יחנך‬.

Radak on Genesis 43:30:1 ‫נכמרו‬, as translated by Onkelos “his feelings of mercy had been aroused.”
Radak on Genesis 43:31:1 ‫ויתאפק‬...‫ ;וירחץ‬he managed to gain control of himself and to stop himself from weeping anymore.
Radak on Genesis 43:32:1 ‫וישימו לו לבדו‬, they served him separately as a symbol of his exalted position.
Radak on Genesis 43:32:2 ‫ ולמצרים לבדם‬,‫ולהם לבדם‬, and the brothers separately, and the Egyptians separately again, ‫כי לא יוכלון‬, for the
Hebrews were eating meat, as we know from the instructions to slaughter meat which had been issued in
verse 15. Egyptians did not eat sheep or goats, and the only reason they raised these animals was for their
wool and their milk. [According to Rashi and evidence cited in Torah Shleymah 92,5, the reason why the
Egyptians did not eat sheep was that they considered sheep a deity, and it was inconceivable for them to
consume their deities.]
Radak on Genesis 43:32:3
Radak on Genesis 43:33:1 ‫וישבו לפניו‬, in the order in which Joseph had given instructions to seat them.
Radak on Genesis 43:33:2 ‫הבכור כבכורתו ויתמהו‬, the oldest in accordance with his seniority etc. They were amazed. They could not
explain to themselves how Joseph had known their respective ages seeing that only seven years separated
all of them from the oldest except for Binyamin, whom they had described as the youngest so that Joseph
knew about him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 92,5 Joseph had made a great pretense of consulting the
goblet he used to drink from to determine the seating arrangement to correspond with their importance. He
would claim that seeing that Yehudah was destined to become a king, he should sit at the head of the
brothers. Reuven who was the biological senior of the brothers should sit next to Yehudah. He would
continue in this fashion, explaining the reason why he had chosen to seat the brothers in the sequence he
assigned to them. When he came to Binyamin, he said: “seeing that I have no mother and he has no mother
let him sit closest to me.” No wonder that the brothers were utterly confused by this.

Radak on Genesis 43:34:1 ‫וישא‬, the person who handed out the gifts. We find a similar construction where the subject is presumed
without being named or being specifically referred to in 48,2 when Yaakov is informed that Joseph is about to
visit him. The Torah there also uses the impersonal ‫ויגד‬, “someone told,” without bothering to inform the
reader who it was that informed Yaakov. All this friendliness which Joseph displayed during the meal was
intended to contrast with the manner in which they, the brothers would do everything in their power to cause
him anguish and discomfort prior to the time when they had sold him. He displayed especial fondness for
Binyamin because he had been forced to come to Egypt on account of what must have seemed like his
caprice, and to compensate him for having been separated from his father for no apparent reason. At least,
these were some of the thoughts which the brothers thought of to explain Joseph’s strange behaviour.

Radak on Genesis 44:1:1 ‫ויצו‬, all the matters described are quite clear to the reader. Joseph arranged this whole charade in order to
discomfort the brothers and to make them feel afraid without actually causing them any harm, and not hurting
them physically or even economically. He displayed great wisdom in what he did.
Radak on Genesis 44:3:1 ‫הבקר אור‬, the word ‫ אור‬here is a verb in the active mode of the passive conjugation We encounter a similar
construction in Samuel I 14,29, ‫כי אורו עיני‬, “for my eyes have lit up.”
Radak on Genesis 44:3:2 ‫וחמוריהם‬, they were given a sendoff together with their fully loaded donkeys.
Radak on Genesis 44:4:1 ‫הם יצאו את העיר‬, the word ‫ את‬in this verse means “from.” A similar construction is found in Exodus 9,29 ‫כצאתי‬
‫את העיר‬, “when I leave the boundaries of the city.”
Radak on Genesis 44:4:2 ‫הרחיקו‬, a verb in the intransitive mode. A similar construction of the same verb occurs in Judges 18,22 ‫המה‬
‫הרחיקו מבית מיכה‬, “they had traveled a certain distance from the house of Micah.”
Radak on Genesis 44:4:3 ‫והשגתם‬, hurry in order that you catch up with them.

Radak on Genesis 44:5:1 ‫נחש ינחש‬, some commentators understand this expression to mean “is in the habit of consulting oracles, or
people who are expert at doing this.” It is also possible that the expression means that the loss of the goblet
represents a bad omen for Joseph as it deprives him of the instrument by which he could foretell the future.
The entire sequence from here to verse 10 is quite clear.
Radak on Genesis 44:10:1 ‫ גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא‬,‫ויאמר‬, he meant that although legally speaking the law is as you say, I will be more
lenient with you, etc.
Radak on Genesis 44:10:2 ‫אשר ימצא‬, the one in whose possession, etc. Other commentators interpret the words ‫ כדבריכם כן הוא‬to mean
that your argument that you are honest as proven by your bringing back the money you found is acceptable,
[but it does not apply to either Shimon or Binyamin, neither of whom have brought back any money.] but if
the goblet is found in someone’s sack, that individual will have to be my master’s slave. I will however, not
hold you responsible by association.

Radak on Genesis 44:12:1 ‫ בגדול החל‬,‫ויחפש‬, in order that they should not suspect him of having planted the goblet in Binyamin’s sack, he
made a show of starting to search the oldest, etc. He knew their respective rank in seniority from the way
Joseph had seated them at the meal.
Radak on Genesis 44:13:1 ‫ויעמס‬, each one of them reloaded his ass.
Radak on Genesis 44:16:1 ‫ומה נצעק‬, what good would it do if we loudly proclaim our innocence. In the matter of the goblet we cannot
argue that we have already previously proved our honesty, as we could in respect of the money we had
brought back.
Radak on Genesis 44:16:2 ‫האלוקים מצא‬, G’d found our guilt and has now devised a way to trap us and to punish us. This corresponds to
how the prophet Ezekiel 3,20 describes G’d’s modus operandi, saying ‫ונתתי מכשול לפניו‬, “I shall place a
stumbling block before him” (a penitent who slides back into sin).

Radak on Genesis 44:17:1 ‫אל אביכם‬. Who is waiting for you to bring back food.
Radak on Genesis 44:18:1 ‫כי כמוך כפרעה‬, the repeated use of the prefix ‫ כ‬is meant to draw a comparison between the two subjects
mentioned. We find a parallel construction in Isaiah 24,2 ‫כעבד כאדוניו‬, “like master like servant.” [that verse
contains a string of these comparisons. Ed.] What Yehudah meant was “on the one hand you rule like
Pharaoh, and Pharaoh is like you in many respects.” I am therefore as afraid to speak up in front of you as I
would be afraid to speak up in front of Pharaoh. However, due to the extreme difficulty we are finding
ourselves in I cannot remain silent. I can only ask that in all that I am going to say ‫אל יחר אפך בעבדך‬, “do not
become angry at your servant.” You have already accused us of crimes when we first came here, as distinct
from other people who came to buy grain whom you did not subject to such treatment.”

Radak on Genesis 44:19:1 ‫אדוני שאל‬, he proceeded to tell Joseph the sequence of events in a manner calculated to arouse Joseph’s
sympathy for the plight of his aged father.
Radak on Genesis 44:30:1 ‫ ;ונפשו קשורה בנפשו‬due to the intense love he has for this son. If he will not return with us, my father will die
and both we and you will be guilty of having brought about his death. If you claim that he has sinned against
you, consider against this the fact that you had claimed you merely wanted to see him, i.e. to convince
yourself of his existence, not of his being a righteous individual. We fulfilled this request by bringing him with
us. We are faced with the dilemma that he says he has not taken the goblet, whereas you claim he has
sinned against you seeing the goblet has been found in his bag, which may be circumstantial evidence hard
to refute, but it is still his word against yours. If you were now to forgive his presumed guilt this would
constitute the ‫תשומת עין‬, “setting your eye on him,” which is what you requested in the first place. If you were
to ask why I of all my brothers have chosen to be the spokesman,
Radak on Genesis 44:32:1 ‫כי עבדך ערב את הנער‬, I have guaranteed him; if you now do not want to forgive his presumed guilt, take me in
his stead because I am more useful to you as a slave than he is.
Radak on Genesis 45:1:1 ‫ולא יכול‬, the repeated references by Yehudah to the mental anguish experienced by his aged father proved
too much for Joseph to maintain his composure. It kindled his sense of compassion also towards his brothers
so that he could not restrain himself from weeping. In order not to make a public spectacle of himself in front
of people whom it did not directly concern, he ordered ‫הוציאו כל איש מעלי‬, “remove everybody from my
presence! The ones present not only left themselves but mad sure that no one entered until invited. Joseph
had said after all, ‫כל איש‬, “everybody!”

Radak on Genesis 45:2:1 ‫וישמעו מצרים‬, the Egyptians who had left the house heard the sound of weeping, and the matter spread like a
wildfire until it came to the attention of Pharaoh’s servants that Joseph was crying.
Radak on Genesis 45:3:1 ‫ויאמר‬, After Joseph had finished weeping he told his brothers ‫אני יוסף‬.
Radak on Genesis 45:3:2 They were dumbfounded, remembering that they had sold him and now being utterly ashamed, unable to
face him.
Radak on Genesis 45:4:1 ‫גשו נא אלי‬, seeing his brothers in a state of shock, Joseph called to them and encouraged them to come
closer and to stop being afraid of him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 93,8 he showed them that he was
circumcised in order that they should believe him when he claimed to be their brother. Everything else he told
them is quite clear and does not require further explanation.

Radak on Genesis 45:12:1 ‫והנה עיניכם‬, you can recognise my features with your own eyes. You can also identify me by my speaking
Hebrew.
Radak on Genesis 45:12:2 ‫כי פי המדבר אליכם‬, for I am speaking to you without the services of an interpreter. I used his services only in
order to conceal my true identity from you.

Radak on Genesis 45:14:1 ‫ויפול‬, seeing that Joseph and Binyamin were full brothers the bond between them was stronger. They cried
one after another.
Radak on Genesis 45:15:1 ‫ויבך עליהם‬, but the brothers did not cry being too ashamed to do so ‫ואחרי כן דברו אחיו אתו‬, seeing that he had
wept and kissed them they knew that he did not harbour a grudge against them and they now asked him
about what had happened to him during all the years since he had left his father’s house.

Radak on Genesis 45:16:1 ‫וייטב‬, the Egyptians were very relieved to see that Joseph was the member of a distinguished family.
Avraham’s family was an internationally known family.
Radak on Genesis 45:17:1 ‫טענו את בעירכם‬, the word ‫ טען‬is an expression for “loading;” we find it used in this sense in Sanhedrin 32 ‫אחת‬
‫טעונה ואחת שאינה טעונה‬, “one which was loaded whereas the other was not loaded.” My grandfather of
blessed memory explained the word ‫ טען‬as related to Isaiah 14,19 ‫מטועני חרב‬, meaning that something had
been stabbed, pierced. Accordingly, Joseph urged his brothers to spur on their beasts of burden by means of
the ‫דרבן‬, a spur or goad in order that the good news of his survival should reach his father sooner. Rabbi
Saadyah gaon also translated the word in this fashion into Arabic.
Radak on Genesis 45:17:2 ‫בעירכם‬, a collective term [seeing that surely each brother had an animal of his own to ride on and to carry the
grain. Ed.] Other examples of the collective term being used where a plural seemed indicated are Samuel II
10,5 ‫“ עד יצמח זקנכם‬until your beard (sing.) grows back.” [David had addressed several people, each of
whose beard had been shaved off on one side of his face. Ed.] Joshua 1,3 is another such construction
where we read ‫כף רגלכם‬, “the sole of your feet,” instead of “the soles of your feet.” There are many other
similar examples in Scripture.

Radak on Genesis 45:19:1 ‫ ואתה צויתה‬you have been commanded by me to tell them: ‫זאת עשו‬, this is what you are to do, etc. My
grandfather of blessed memory explained that Joseph commanded that that no carriages loaded with grain
should depart from his house so as not to make Egypt short of food in the future. Upon hearing this, Pharaoh
said that the standing orders prohibiting the export of grain in carriages notwithstanding, tell your brothers to
commandeer carriages and load them with grain so that after arrival at your homes these same carriages can
serve to carry their wives and children on their journey to Egypt.

Radak on Genesis 45:20:1 ‫ועינכם אל תחוס‬, it is the custom of the Holy Tongue to use the verb ‫חוס‬, to take pity, in connection with the
eyes, although we would expect that it should be used in connection with the heart, seeing it describes an
emotion of the heart.
Radak on Genesis 45:21:1 ‫ויעשו כן‬. They did in accordance with what Joseph had told them to do. They loaded their beasts and they
were quick about it in order to get started on the way home to Canaan.
Radak on Genesis 45:21:2 ‫על פי פרעה‬, these words prove what my father wrote that without Pharaoh’s express permission it was not
possible for these carriages to be removed beyond Egypt’s borders.
Radak on Genesis 45:22:1 ‫לאיש‬, to each of them separately, individually.
Radak on Genesis 45:23:1 ‫ולאביו שלח כזאת‬, changes of clothes, similar to what he had already given to the brothers. In addition he sent
‫עשרה חמורים‬
Radak on Genesis 45:23:2 ‫בר‬, ten donkeys loaded with grain, fodder for the animals. ‫ולחם‬, not literally bread, but the kind of grain for
human consumption used to make into flour and bake into bread. The word ‫ לחם‬applies to food generally, not
only food made from cereals. It includes even delicacies such as dates, etc.
Radak on Genesis 45:24:1 ‫אל תרגזו בדרך‬, do not quarrel with one another on the journey concerning your having sold me, blaming each
other for the decision taken at the time.
Radak on Genesis 45:26:1 ‫וכי הוא‬, and in addition to this he is ‫מושל‬, the first word ‫ עוד‬in our verse performs a dual function, also
applying to the portion relating to Joseph being a ruler.
Radak on Genesis 45:26:2 ‫ויפג לבו‬, it became weak. The very mention of Joseph provoked such a reaction from Yaakov.
Radak on Genesis 45:26:3 ‫כי לא האמין להם‬, he did not believe them as he could not fathom why they would make such a statement.
Presumably, the brothers rushed in with the information, not having shown Yaakov any supporting evidence
yet, such as the ten donkeys’ loads of food, the carriages etc. Once when the brothers elaborated and
showed Yaakov what they had brought with them from Egypt, especially the carriages, he did believe them.

Radak on Genesis 45:27:1 ‫ותחי רוח‬, his spirit which had been as dead from shock, now revived. Our sages (compare Rashi) have said
that the “spirit” mentioned in our verse which was revived in Yaakov was the spirit of prophetic insights which
had departed from him 22 years ago when Joseph had been sold. We have an ancient tradition, amply
documented in history, that in the absence of joy in one’s life a person cannot enjoy such a spirit of prophecy.
On the way to Egypt, at Beer Sheva, the prophetic spirit of Yaakov (Yisrael) did indeed become manifest
again (46,2)

Radak on Genesis 45:28:1 ‫רב‬, I enjoy much goodness seeing that my son Joseph is alive.
Radak on Genesis 46:1:1 ‫לאלוקי אביו יצחק‬. The reason why Yitzchok is mentioned here is because he too was about to escape from a
famine by traveling to Egypt, whereas in his case, G’d stopped him from going there. (26,2) Yaakov, as
opposed to his father, offered meat offerings at Beer Sheva. This town was at the border of the land of
Canaan, and he wanted to enquire from G’d if he had His approval in his undertaking to leave the Holy Land
a second time in his life. The sacrifices he offered were intended to restore the Holy Spirit to him which had
departed when Joseph had departed from him.
Radak on Genesis 46:2:1 !‫ יעקב! יעקב‬:‫ ;ויאמר‬the reason this call to Yaakov is repeated is to illustrate that for how many years Yaakov
had not been favoured with a communication from G’d. By repeating his name at this point, Yaakov was
alerted to the fact that he would receive a prophetic insight.
Radak on Genesis 46:3:1 ‫אלוקי אביך‬, the very G’d Who prevented your father from descending to Egypt is now telling you not to be
afraid to undertake this journey together with your family, as ‫כי לגוי גדול‬, the redeeming feature of this journey
will be that I will cause you to develop into a great nation there. The promise was fulfilled in Exodus 1,7
where we read that the Israelites multiplied and became a very powerful people in Egypt.
Radak on Genesis 46:3:2 ‫אשימך‬, i.e. “I will make your children.” What G’d is reported as saying to Yaakov here in verse 4, i.e. ‫אעלך‬, “I
will lead you up” (back to the land of Canaan) is also to be understood as referring to Yaakov’s descendants,
the purpose being to inherit the land of Canaan, not to G’d accompanying Yaakov’s his bodily remains.

Radak on Genesis 46:4:1 ‫אנכי ארד עמך‬, the meaning of these words is that you will not suffer a mishap on the way to Egypt.
Radak on Genesis 46:4:2 ‫ואנכי אעלך‬, as we explained already on the preceding verse. Another possible explanation: the words refer to
the person of Yaakov himself, G’d promising that He would be with him on his way to burial in the land of
Canaan. The reason G’d added the words: ‫ גם עלה‬would then be a reference to his children who would carry
him from Egypt to Canaan to be buried there.
Radak on Genesis 46:4:3 ‫ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך‬, we see that this promise was fulfilled in 50,1 when the Torah reports ‫ויפול יוסף על פני אביו‬,
“that Joseph fell on the face of his father.” The promise mentioned here included the fact that after Yaakov’s
death Joseph would look after the economic requirements of the brothers and their families. [presumably
based on Yaakov’s knowledge that the famine would start again after his death. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 46:7:1 ‫בנותיו‬, his daughter Dinah and his daughters-in-law.
Radak on Genesis 46:7:2 ‫ובנות בניו‬, His daughters-in-law and Serach the daughter of Asher

Radak on Genesis 46:10:1 ‫ושאול בם הכנענית‬, it appears that all of Yaakov’s sons abided by his aversion to intermarry with Canaanites.
Even Shimon also honoured this tradition. However, after he had married a woman who was not a Canaanite
and had had children by her, he married an additional wife who was a Canaanite. Shaul was a son of that
second wife of his. Seeing that this had been a breach of the tradition, the Torah alludes to it in considering
this son as the “son of the Canaanite woman.” Our sages on 34,26 took the view that Shimon had taken pity
on his sister Dinah who had been raped by a Canaanite, and married her and the son from the rape was the
one named Shaul. (based on Bereshit Rabbah 80,11)
Radak on Genesis 46:15:1 ‫כל נפש בניו ובנותיו שלושים ושלוש‬. If we count the names mentioned we find only 32 names. This prompted the
sages to say that Yocheved, daughter of Levi, was born on the way to Egypt when Levi’s wife had just
arrived at the border so that on arrival the requisite number of Israelites entered Egypt. (Baba Batra 123) She
could not have been enumerated at departure, not having born and named as yet. This is also why we find
the word ‫בנותיו‬, “his daughters, (pl.) “as an obscure reference to Yocheved [daughter and granddaughter
being lumped together as “daughter.” Serach, being a daughter of Asher who was a son of Zilpah, is
mentioned separately as a “sister” in verse 17. Ed.] Both Ibn Ezra and my father wrote that the number 33 is
made up by the addition of Yaakov to the total [although he was not anyone’s descendant, so that it is
difficult to see him as included in the words ‫ בני ישראל‬in verse 8. Ed.] According to the commentary of these
two scholars the words ‫ ובנותיו‬would have to be understood as similar to “‫ובני דן‬,” and the sons of Dan, seeing
that he is reported as having had only one son by the name of Chushim (verse 23)
Radak on Genesis 46:23:1 ‫ובני דן חושים‬. At the time he moved to Egypt he had only this one son. The reason the Torah commences our
verse with the word ‫ובני‬, “and the sons of, etc.,” is as if the Torah had meant to say “and all the sons of Dan
were only one, i.e. Chushim.” Similar formulations are found in Chronicles I 2,8 ‫ובני איתן עזריה‬, where
Azaryah, though the only son of Eytan, is described as part of Eytan’s children, i.e. ‫בני‬.
Radak on Genesis 46:26:1 ‫כל הנפש הבאה‬, we are told about number of the members of Yaakov’s household appearing with the
masculine ending twice, such as the number fourteen in verse 22, and the number seven in verse 25. On the
other hand, in verse 15 the Torah uses the feminine ending for the number 33 (‫ )שלושים ושלוש‬and in verse 18
it uses the feminine ending for the number 16 (‫)שש עשרה‬. The reason for this apparent anomaly is that the
noun ‫ נפש‬mentioned in verse 26, for instance is feminine, hence the number associated with that noun has to
be in the feminine mode also. The word ‫ בני‬being in the masculine mode, however, determines that the
adjective or attribute accompanying it be in the same mode, i.e. masculine.
Radak on Genesis 46:26:2 ‫הבאה‬, the stress is on the second syllable, seeing that the verb is in the past tense. The meaning of the word
is the same as if the Torah had written ‫אשר באה‬, “who had arrived,”
Radak on Genesis 46:26:3 ‫מצרימה‬, an inaccuracy, as the family did not arrive in Egypt, but in Goshen, a border province. The word is
used as an “umbrella,” i.e. a description of the entire state.
Radak on Genesis 46:28:1 ‫ואת יהודה‬, Yaakov sent him ahead to Joseph in order for him to be given details about Goshen, the part of the
country Joseph had said his brothers would be settled in (45,10) Alternatively, the meaning of our verse may
be that the word ‫להורות‬, refers to Yehudah providing information to Yaakov, to make sure the family would
proceed on the best route and the best location in Goshen.
Radak on Genesis 46:29:1 ‫וירא אליו‬, my grandfather explained this somewhat strange formulation saying that Joseph appeared to
Yaakov from a distance, someone having pointed him out to Yaakov, (he did not know what Joseph looked
like at this time). This gave Yaakov an opportunity to adopt the appropriate posture before coming face to
face with such a mighty ruler and not to be disoriented due to a sudden encounter.
Radak on Genesis 46:29:2 ‫ויפול על צואריו‬, when Joseph had come close enough to his father he fell around his neck weeping for joy for a
considerable period of time. The meaning of the word.
Radak on Genesis 46:29:3 ‫עוד‬, is that this went on for a time. We find the word used in this sense in Exodus 4,6 where G’d is persisting
in His efforts to convince Moses to accept the position of Israel’s leader by showing him miracles he could
perform to legitimise himself before his people. The word describes something that happened repeatedly, at
intervals. Yaakov wept only once, whereas Joseph wept repeatedly. Some commentators claim that Yaakov
did not weep at all but was preoccupied with reciting the ‫שמע ישראל‬, an affirmation of G’d and His uniqueness
which he formulated on that occasion for the first time. (compare Rashi)

Radak on Genesis 46:30:1 ‫אמותה הפעם‬, I am not longer dissatisfied if I were to die now, having been granted my wish to see you with
my own eyes once more before my death.
Radak on Genesis 46:31:1 ‫ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו‬, there can be no question that he did not say what follows before first having secured his
father’s consent. [What was under discussion was a matter of major importance, i.e. how to preserve the
integrity of Yaakov’s family as a clan, and how to minimize assimilation with the local population through
voluntary ghettoisation. Pharaoh’s offer of the brothers participating in the political life of Egypt, something
Joseph anticipated, had to be declined without giving offence to him. Ed.] The reason the Torah only
mentions Joseph speaking to the brothers was that it was the brothers to whom the above-mentioned offer
would be made.
Radak on Genesis 46:31:2 ‫אעלה‬. The word poses a problem, Joseph having been described previously as “ascending” when going to
meet his father. How could he now again be ”ascending” on the return journey to his capital? We must
therefore understand the word as not referring to the return journey but to Joseph climbing back into his
carriage.

Radak on Genesis 46:34:1 ‫בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן‬, seeing it was a land in which cattle were being raised. Furthermore, Joseph did what he
did in order to prevent Pharaoh from enlisting his brothers in Pharaoh’s political and military echelon.
Radak on Genesis 46:34:2 ‫כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן‬, seeing that they did not eat the flesh of sheep, they detested anyone raising these
animals. They only raised the number of such animals needed for their wool and milk.

Radak on Genesis 47:2:1 ‫ומקצה אחיו‬, after Jospeh had told Pharaoh about his family’s arrival he selected the five least impressive
looking of them or the five most impressive looking ones among them. Our sages disagree about the
meaning of the ambiguously worded text.
Radak on Genesis 47:6:1 ‫אנשי חיל‬, capable cattle (livestock) breeders.
Radak on Genesis 47:7:1 ‫ויברך יעקב את פרעה‬. He greeted him (bestowed a blessing) as is customary when one is introduced to the
king. The custom is highlighted in Kings II 4,29 where Elisha told Gechazi not to respond to anyone’s
greeting. Yaakov blessed Pharaoh again upon leaving after the audience. I have not found a satisfactory
explanation why the Torah had to report something so ordinary.
Radak on Genesis 47:9:1 ‫ימי שני מגורי‬, the days and years which I have lived so far amount to 130 years. They are few and have been
earmarked by many negative experiences. The latter is what he meant by the word ‫רעים‬. However, how did
Yaakov know that his (total) years would be few? He must have assumed that due to the troubles he had
already experienced and the effect on his general well being he could not look forward to live to the same
age as had his father and grandfather before him.
Radak on Genesis 47:9:2 ‫ולא השיגו‬, they did not match in either length of time or quality of life.

Radak on Genesis 47:11:1 ‫ויושב‬, Joseph made his family settle in Goshen and gave them parcels of land as permanent ancestral
property.
Radak on Genesis 47:11:2 ‫במיטב הארץ‬, in the most fertile part of the country, which is around Raamses and near the province of
Goshen, ‫כאשר צוה פרעה‬, in accordance with what Pharaoh had commanded (verse 6). Unless Pharaoh
himself had authorised this Joseph would not have done this on his own authority, even though he had the
power to shift around the entire population of Egypt, as we know from verse 21. His powers were those of an
absolute ruler but he did not become guilty of abusing it in order to favour members of his own family.

Radak on Genesis 47:12:1 ‫לחם לפי הטף‬..‫ויכלכל‬, the reason children are mentioned is that children eat all day long and waste food,
leaving crumbs behind all over the place. Our sages in Pessachim 10 state that it is in the nature of children
to break food up into crumbs and to leave them all over the place. There is a well known proverb which
states that children are responsible for decay of food.
Radak on Genesis 47:13:1 ‫ותלה‬, a word describing mental disturbance, Famine has that impact on people. The dagesh in the first root
letter also indicates that meaning, compare Proverbs 26,18 ‫כמתלהלה היורה זקים‬, “like a madman who throws
firebrands.”
Radak on Genesis 47:14:1 ‫וילקט יוסף‬, he did this at the end of the first two years of the famine and during the remaining years of the
famine At the beginning of the famine people were mostly eating from private stores they had accumulated
during the years of plenty. Subsequently, they used their money to purchase food until their money ran out.
Yaakov came to Egypt during the second year as Joseph had said to him: ‫כי זה שנתים הרעב‬, “for these two
years have been famine.” (45,6)
Radak on Genesis 47:14:2 ‫ויבא יוסף‬, in order to demonstrate his integrity. He did not need to do this and could have stored it in the
granaries. Pharaoh had never demanded an accounting from Joseph, knowing that he was absolutely
trustworthy. Nonetheless, Joseph was concerned not to allow anyone to suspect him of pocketing anything
for his own private purposes.

Radak on Genesis 47:15:1 ‫ויבאו כל מצרים‬, the people living in the land of Canaan went elsewhere to secure their food supplies. By now
the Torah speaks of conditions during the sixth year of the famine. During that year Joseph distributed food
and accepted livestock as payment. In the seventh year he handed over food in return for the local land
owners renouncing their title to their land in favour of Pharaoh. He distributed seed so that there would be a
harvest during the eight’s year when the famine was supposed to have ended. Our sages, quoted by Rashi,
claim that the famine ceased with the arrival of Yaakov in Egypt and his blessing to Pharaoh which resulted
in the Nile once again overflowing its banks and providing irrigation for the fields. One can raise serious
reservations about this approach. If the famine did indeed stop already in the second year or at the end
thereof, when did all the measures Joseph is described as taking in verses 14-22 take place?

Radak on Genesis 47:19:1 ?‫למה נמות‬, the reason why the verse speaks also about the death of the land, i.e. ‫גם אדמתנו‬, is that earth
which is desolate is as if “dead.” This is also why the farmers used the expression ‫ולא תשם‬, “and it would
become desolate.”
Radak on Genesis 47:21:1 ‫ואת העם העביר אותו לערים‬. He did not want the people to get too attached to the land they would be working
on, not as the attachment they had felt for their land in the past which they had owned outright. He did give
them the land as something they could transfer by inheritance to their children, but he made sure that they
would remain aware that they had received it by the largesse of Pharaoh who had been the true owner and
who could therefore claim a tax of 20% of their harvests.
Radak on Genesis 47:22:1 ‫הכהנים‬, the officials in charge of the myriad of altars in the country.
Radak on Genesis 47:24:1 ‫ולאשר בבתיכם‬, a reference to male and female servants as well as to horses and donkeys. [which had not
been included in the ‫מקנה‬, livestock, which Joseph had taken in payment for food on behalf of Pharaoh. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 47:24:2 ‫ולאכול לטפכם‬, and for your children to eat. Joseph made sure that the people would have enough food from
the 80% of harvests of their parents even though he was aware that the children would require more food
than their elders, it being well known that they were being wasteful. The land of Egypt, normally, has a
surplus of food due to the irrigation method based on the overflow of the Nile, so that by being allowed to
keep four fifths of their crops the farmers would not suffer hardship.

Radak on Genesis 47:27:1 ‫וישב ישראל‬, the term is used to describe the entire family of Yaakov, as if the Torah had written ‫בני ישראל‬.
Radak on Genesis 47:27:2 ‫ויאחזו בה‬, they bought land in it, additional to that which Joseph had allocated to them.
Radak on Genesis 47:27:3 ‫ויפרו וירבו מאד‬, both in children and in property.

Radak on Genesis 47:28:1 ‫ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים שבע עשרה שנה‬, the commentators point out that just as Joseph was under the protection
of his father for the first 17 years of his life, so his father was under Joseph’s protection for the last 17 tears of
his life.
Radak on Genesis 47:29:1 ‫ויקרבו‬, Yaakov felt himself that he was approaching death, as his physical weakness kept increasing, and he
began to be afraid that his death would occur without adequate warning signs, suddenly. This is why he
commanded Joseph that when the time came he should carry him to his final resting place in the land of
Canaan where he wished to lie next to his fathers.
Radak on Genesis 47:29:2 ‫שים נא ידך תחת ירכי‬, we explained the meaning of this phrase in Parshat Chayey Sarah (24,2).
Radak on Genesis 47:29:3 ‫חסד ואמת‬, the word ‫אמת‬, a truth, i.e. a requirement he can insist on, referred to Joseph’s duty to bring his
father to burial. The word ‫חסד‬, an act of love, not required by law, was that he should take the trouble to
transport his remains from Egypt and have them buried in the land of Canaan.

Radak on Genesis 47:31:1 !‫ השבעה לי‬:‫ויאמר‬, normally, unless mentioned to the contrary, an oath is always rendered by using the name
of G’d.
Radak on Genesis 47:31:2 ‫וישתחו‬, he prostrated himself thanking G’d that his son had promised him this favour.
Radak on Genesis 47:31:3 ‫על ראש המטה‬. The bed on which he had been sitting or lying. He gave thanks to the Lord for having a son
who was alive and well after he had for so long given him up as lost, and that this son was even willing to
bury him all the way in the land of Canaan so that he could lie with his fathers. The reason why the Torah
bothered to tell us, the readers, that Yaakov thanked the Lord “at the head of the bed,” is to tell us that he
turned to the “head,” in honour of G’d Who is presumed to watch over the sick at that point. Our sages
(quoted by Rashi) use this incident to teach us that the presence of G’d is located at the top of one’s bed. [for
those of us worthy of the presence of the Shechinah. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 48:1:1 ‫ויאמר‬, whoever it was who said it. It is reasonable to assume that it was one of the brothers who traveled to
the capital to inform Joseph that his father had taken ill.
Radak on Genesis 48:2:1 ‫ויגד‬, the one who had carried the news to Joseph now returned to tell Yaakov that his son Joseph was about
to visit him.
Radak on Genesis 48:3:1 ‫ל שדי נראה אלי בלוז‬-‫א‬, that was the location where G’d had introduced Himself to Yaakov with His attribute of
Shaddai. He had blessed him saying: “be fruitful and multiply. (35,10-11)
Radak on Genesis 48:4:1 ‫הנני מפרך‬, we have explained this term on 35,11 as having been a necessary introduction leading up to taking
possession of the land of Canaan in due course. Yaakov explains that in view of the fact that his sons will be
the ones according to whom the keys in the distribution of that land will be determined, he wanted now
already to establish that both of Joseph’s sons will rank equally with Joseph’s brothers in this respect.
Radak on Genesis 48:5:1 ‫עד בואי‬, I am not saying that all your sons will be treated as if they were literally my own sons; only Menashe
and Ephrayim will enjoy this status.
Radak on Genesis 48:6:1 ‫ומולדתך אשר הולדת‬, perhaps Joseph had sired other sons during the years that Yaakov had resided in Egypt
even though the Torah did not see fit to mention this explicitly. The reason that Joseph did not bring them
with him to his father’s bedside may have been that they were too young to travel.Even if you were to
understand the word ‫ ומולדתך‬as does Onkelos, and other commentators, i.e. ‫תוליד‬, as if Yaakov had meant:
“whom you will sire,” we also do not find any mention of children born to Joseph after Menashe and
Ephrayim.

Radak on Genesis 48:7:1 ‫ואני‬, this entire paragraph was inserted to describe Yaakov’s apology or justification to Joseph why he, who
was so insistent on where he wanted to be buried and who was putting Joseph to so much trouble in this
connection, had himself not acted in a similar manner when it came to burying Joseph’s mother, his own
favourite wife, seeing that he had buried Leah in the cave of Machpelah. He explained that he had in no way
been at fault, that it was not negligence on his part, but that fate had intervened, Rachel dying suddenly on
route to the land of Canaan. The fact that he was moving extremely slowly at the time on account of all his
livestock, something that the Torah had reported Yaakov as explaining already to Esau at the time, (33,13)
made it impossible for him to carry Rachel’s body with him seeing he had no means to embalm it and keep it
from decaying and becoming putrid until he would reach Chevron. Presumably, the season was summer
when it is even harder to keep a body from decaying quickly. He therefore chose to bury her without delay, in
the most dignified manner which the prevailing conditions had permitted.

Radak on Genesis 48:8:1 ‫וירא‬, he saw them from a distance and was unable to make out who they were due to his failing eyesight.
This is why, even when they were already quite close to him, he had to ask: “who are these lads?”
Radak on Genesis 48:9:1 ‫בזה‬. As if the Torah had written ‫במקום הזה‬, “in this place.” The brief ‫בזה‬, also appears in the same sense
already in 38,21 ‫לא היתה בזה קדשה‬, “no harlot has been in this place, the word for “place,” ‫מקום‬, being
omitted.
Radak on Genesis 48:10:1 .not in this order ,‫ויגש אותם אליו‬
Radak on Genesis 48:11:1 ‫לא פללתי‬, related to the word ‫( ונתן בפלילים‬Exodus 21,22) meaning here “I have not judged the situation and
responsibility by myself but have left it to independent judges who are without prejudice.” As far as Joseph’s
fate was concerned, Yaakov said that he had not arrived at definitive conclusions but had not dared hope
that he would ever see him again. Some commentators relate the word ‫ פללתי‬to the word ‫תפלה‬, prayer, in
which case Yaakov was saying to Joseph that he had not prayed to G’d concerning being reunited with
Joseph in this life as he had considered it a forbidden, vain prayer, i.e. uttering the Lord’s name in vain,
seeing that all the evidence he had at his disposal indicated that Joseph was already dead. (compare
Midrash Lekach Tov on this paragraph)

Radak on Genesis 48:12:1 ‫ויוצא‬, after he had kissed and embraced them before he had blessed them, Joseph took them away from
Yaakov’s knees. The reason was that he had not brought them to his father in the order in which he meant
for them to receive their blessing. He therefore now arranged them in what he considered the appropriate
order. ‫וישתחו‬, he thanked his father for wanting to bestow special blessings on his sons.
Radak on Genesis 48:12:2 ‫מעם ברכיו‬, from between his knees. The word ‫ מעם‬occurs in this sense in connection with a table in Samuel I
20,34, ‫מעם השלחן‬, it also occurs in a similar meaning in the phrase ‫עם באר לחי רואי‬, (Genesis 25,11) “right by
the well named by Hagar ‘the well of the Living G”d Who sees me.’”
Radak on Genesis 48:13:1 ‫בימינו‬, on Joseph’s right, which was the left side of Yaakov (Yisrael)
Radak on Genesis 48:14:1 ‫שכל את ידיו‬, he conferred intelligence to his hands, so that they appeared to act intelligently on their own,
seeing that Menashe was the firstborn and Yaakov saw with prophetic vision that he would be the “smaller
one,” in the sense that his future would reflect less blessing than the future of his younger brother. Had he
placed his right hand on Menashe, what intelligence would this have demon-strated? [the author surely
means that the Torah does not have to speak about an act of special intelligence being required to put one’s
right hand on the older of the two sons. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 48:15:1 ‫ויברך את יוסף‬, anyone blessing his sons, automatically was conferring a blessing on him also.
Radak on Genesis 48:15:2 ‫אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו‬, I have already explained on Genesis 17,1 that this wording includes serving G’d in
one’s heart as well as with deeds. The root of all religious service is in the heart. [when it is only the from the
lips outward it is a sham. Ed.] We must not understand Yaakov as claiming credit for himself or boasting, that
he himself had served G’d, although it is a fact that he had served the Lord; he meant to give credit to his
fathers, suggesting that if G’d had been at his side this had been largely due to the merits of both his father
and grandfather. ‫המלאך‬, having first spoken about G’d having assisted him, and creating the impression that
G’d, personally, had done so, he now mentions the intermediary always used by G’d to do His work. We
know from Psalms 34,8 ‫חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם‬, “G’d’s angel camps around those who fear Him and
He rescues them,” that His agents called ‫ מלאכים‬are close at hand whenever the righteous are in danger.
This is why Yaakov at this time referred to ‫המלאך הגואל אותי מכל רע‬, the one sent by G’d to rescue him,
protect him, and bless him, ‫ יברך את הנערים‬will function similarly and protect Joseph’s sons. We know that
such angels had been in evidence protecting Yaakov first from Lavan, then from Esau, and again when the
Emorites launched an attack after Yaakov’s sons had killed the males of Shechem and looted the town.
Radak on Genesis 48:16:1 ‫ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי‬, he meant that Joseph would be called Israel on occasion, as for instance in Psalms
80,2 ‫רועה ישראל האזינה נהג כצאן יוסף‬, “Give ear O shepherd of Israel who leads Joseph like a flock.” Also in
Amos 6,6 we read ‫ולא נחלו על שבר יוסף‬, “but they are not concerned about the ruin of Joseph;” (Joseph being
a euphemism for Israel, of course) The author quotes several more verses proving the same point, i.e. that
Joseph is being equated with his father Israel, i.e. is the spiritual continuation of his father Yisrael, the
founder of the 12 tribes. Psalms 80,3 uses the same simile for Joseph’s sons Ephrayim and Menashe when
writing ‫לפני אפרים ובנימין ומנשה עוררה את גבורתך ולכה לישועתך לנו‬, “at the head of Ephrayim, Benjamin, and
Menashe! Rouse Your might and come to our help!”
Radak on Genesis 48:16:2 ‫וידגו לרב‬, may the multiply like fish.
Radak on Genesis 48:17:1 ‫וירא‬, it is possible that Yaakov made this comment even before he began the formal blessing, or that after he
commenced blessing them that this was the first part of the blessing.
Radak on Genesis 48:19:1 ‫יהיה לעם‬, will become so numerous until people will refer to his descendants as “a nation.”
Radak on Genesis 48:19:2 ‫וגם הוא יגדל‬, he will also develop into becoming very numerous. However his younger brother will become
even more numerous. At the Exodus from Egyptian the arms-bearing males of the tribe of Ephrayim were
45.500 (Numbers 1,33-35 as opposed to only 32.200 members of the tribe of Menashe. Interestingly, when
numbering the males over 20 who entered the Holy Land, the members of the tribe of Menashe outnumbered
those of Ephrayim by 52.700 to 32.500. (Numbers 26,34-36.) If we keep this in mind we may have to redefine
the meaning of the word ‫ יגדל‬when used by Yaakov not as referring to numerical strength, but as referring to
the great men produced by each of these tribes and the relative importance of these men. We know that
Moses’ successor, Joshua, was from the tribe of Ephrayim. He was a great saviour, and conquered the land
of Canaan enabling the promise of G’d to the patriarchs to finally become realised. The tribe of Ephrayim
also provided the first king of the 10 tribes who had split away from Solomon’s son Rechavam after the death
of Solomon. Furthermore, throughout the history of the Jewish people until the destruction of the first Temple
the political rivalry between Ephrayim and Yehudah is well documented, whereas hardly ever is Menashe
mentioned as playing a major part in this. When the prophet Isaiah prophesied an idyllic future, he described
this as being characterised by the end of the rivalry between Ephrayim and Yehudah. (Isaiah 11,13). Still, it is
possible to also understand the word ‫ יגדל ממנו‬as referring to numerical strength, as except in the single
instance we mentioned before Ephrayim always outnumbered Menashe. We must also take into
consideration the words ‫וזרעו יהיה מלא הגויים‬, “and his seed will become plentiful enough to form nations.” The
unique phenomenon of the members of Ephrayim being inferior in numbers at the time the Israelites entered
the Holy Land may possibly be accounted for by the tradition that 30 years prior to the Exodus the tribe of
Ephrayim rebelled, left Egypt and marched to the land of the Philistines on the way to the land of Canaan.
According to that report they lost 200.000 of their number in a battle at Gat. [the reason why I do not think
this relevant is that if so, there should have been fewer member of the tribe of Ephrayim at the time of the
Exodus, instead of 40 years later when near entering the Holy Land. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 48:19:3 ‫יהיה מלא הגויים‬, until his descendants are numerous enough when they go into exile to fill countries belonging
to, or having belonged to other nations with their numbers alone. [possibly a reference to the population
transfer mentioned in Kings II after the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom. and replaced the exiled
Jews there with other nationals. (Kings II chapter 17) Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 48:20:1 ‫ויברכם‬. He bestowed an additional blessing on them on the same day, saying: ‫בך יברך ישראל‬, whenever an
Israelite wants to bestow a blessing on his son, he will preface it with the words: ‫ישימך אלוקים כאפרים ומנשה‬.
“May the Lord make you to be like Ephrayim and Menashe.”
Radak on Genesis 48:20:2 ‫וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה‬, in this blessing too, Yaakov placed more emphasis on the recipient of the blessing
being compared to Ephrayim, the younger of Joseph’s sons, by mentioning his name first. Even the choice of
words ‫ כאפרים וכמנשה‬instead of ‫כאפרים ומנשה‬, indicated clearly that Menashe was considered secondary in
Yaakov’s blessing. He was considered the adjunct.

Radak on Genesis 48:21:1 ‫אנכי מת‬, I am close to dying, therefore I command you that when the time comes and the Lord will bring you
back, the word ‫ אתכם‬referring not to “you,” but to “your descendants,” ‫אל ארץ אבותיכם‬, that you will have an
extra share over and above that allocated to your brothers, i.e. the extra share befitting the firstborn. This
was the practical meaning of Yaakov having said that Joseph’s sons would be to him as Reuven and
Shimon. They would inherit as if they had been biological sons of their grandfather (not merely grandsons)
when it came to the division of that land among the tribes.

Radak on Genesis 48:22:1 ‫שכם‬, another word meaning ‫חלק‬. The word occurs in the same sense in Psalms 21,13 ‫כי תשיתמו שכם‬, as well
as in Tzefania 3,9 ‫ולעבדו שכם אחד‬.
Radak on Genesis 48:22:2 ‫אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי‬, as if the Torah had written this in the future tense, i.e. “which I am going to take from
the Emorite.” It is quite common for the past tense to be employed instead of the future tense. When
reporting prophecies, Scripture very frequently resorts to describing something in the future as if it had
already taken place. [presumably in order to strengthen the belief of the reader in such prophecies, positive
ones, to the fulfillment of which one looks forward. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 48:22:3 When Yaakov said: ‫לקחתי‬, “I will take or I took,” he did not refer to his own person but to the extension of
himself, his children or offspring. The same is true also when he said: ‫ובחרבי ובקשתי‬, “and with my sword and
with my bow.” He referred to the sword and bow used by the members of the tribes of Ephrayim and
Menashe in the conquest during the days of Joshua. Although we read in the Book of Joshua 24,12 ‫לא בחרבך‬
‫ולא בקשתך‬, that Joshua is reminding the Jewish people that their victory was not due to their prowess in the
martial arts, our sages already explained that Joshua did not mean to deny the facts, but to deny faulty
interpretations of the facts, by not giving the credit for their success to G’d’s help, or in this case, for the
assistance of the merit of their illustrious ancestor Yaakov. This is not the only time in Scripture that we
encounter such apparently enigmatic statements. We read in Samuel II 22,3 that David speaks of G’d being
“my shield, my fortress and my refuge.” Any fool can understand that David did not consider G’d as an
invisible shield, seeing he had refused to use one in his fight against Goliath, for instance. He indicated that
without G’d’s help, even if holding a shield in his hand, such a shield would have been powerless to protect
him.
Radak on Genesis 48:22:4 When Yaakov made reference to ‫האמורי‬, he did so merely because this tribe was the most ferocious and
powerful among all the Canaanite tribes Joshua faced. We find this confirmed in Amos 2,9 ‫ואנכי השמדתי את‬
‫האמורי מפניהם אשר כגובה הארזים גבהו‬, “and I have destroyed the Emorite before them, whose stature was as
tall as the cedar’s and who was as stout as the oak, etc.” According to Bereshit Rabbah end of chapter 96 as
quoted by Rashi, Yaakov had referred to the city of Shechem, Yaakov telling Joseph that the city in which he
would eventually be buried would be part of his tribal territory. The word ‫ לקחתי‬is also understood by the
Midrash as in the past tense, and as referring to what had happened there at the time. Shimon and Levi,
Yaakov’s sons, had conquered that city, and the Emorite and the Hittite are two different names for the same
tribe.

Radak on Genesis 49:1:1 ‫ויקרא‬, he called them in to assemble around him

Radak on Genesis 49:1:2 ‫את אשר יקרא אתכם‬, a reference to future events, ‫מקרה‬, events that are not the direct outcome of man’s
initiatives. The word occurs in this spelling (with the letter ‫ א‬instead of ‫ ה‬at the end) in Jeremiah 13,22 ‫מדוע‬
‫?קראני אלה‬, “Why did these things happen to me?” Or, in Isaiah 51,19 ‫שתים המה קוראותיך‬, “these two things
have befallen you.” There are many other examples of a similar nature in Scripture.
Radak on Genesis 49:1:3 The meaning of the words ‫ את אשר‬is the same as ‫כאשר‬, “when;” the word ‫ את‬frequently means the same as
‫מן‬, “part of.” Yaakov, after all, did reveal only a very small fraction of what would happen to the tribes in the
‫אחרית הימים‬, the period when the tribal heads had long died and their offspring had become part of the
Jewish nation. Some of what he predicted was to occur relatively soon, other parts much later. When he
used the words ‫ באחרית הימים‬he meant that what he spoke about would be as real as what would happen on
the morrow. He referred specifically to the period when the Israelites would settle in the Holy Land,
describing events that would take place then. Whatever he told them had been inspired by the spirit of
prophecy. Parts of the prophecy concerned Israel when settled peacefully on its land, other parts spoke of
events occurring during wars which would threaten the nation’s continued existence. He listed the names of
his sons in the order of their birth up until Yehudah only.

Radak on Genesis 49:2:1 ‫הקבצו ושמעו‬, this was the introduction to his prophetic utterances, just as in Moses’ parting speech to the
nation the words ‫( האזינו השמים והארץ‬Deut. 32,1) were the opening line. The prophetess Devorah in her
victory song extolling G’d, (Judges 5,3) also began with a similar opening, i.e. ‫שמעו מלכים‬, “listen, pay
attention, kings!”
Radak on Genesis 49:3:1 ‫ ;ראובן בכורי אתה‬Yaakov repeated this theme a second and a third time when he continued: ‫ וראשית אוני‬,‫כחי‬.
The reason was that theoretically, Reuven was entitled to three advantages. 1) birthright; 2) priesthood, as
every firstborn in each family was automatically what the ‫ כהן‬would be after the sin of the golden calf when
that privilege was transferred to the tribe of Levite who had not participated in that sin. 3) the position of
political head of the nation, known as ‫ מלכות‬in the language of our sages.
Radak on Genesis 49:3:2 ‫יתר שאת‬, this expression encompasses both the birthright and the priesthood, both of which are primarily a
description of an aristocratic social standing.<br> ‫ויתר עז‬, a reference to the political power, Royalty. Kings
need to excel in this fortitude, toughness described by the word ‫עוז‬. We find the expression used in that
sense in Samuel I 2,10 ‫ויתן עוז למלכו‬, “He will give power to His king.” Yaakov is reminding Reuven: “you
would have enjoyed all these advantages over your brothers if you had not become guilty of a great sin.” This
is why he continued with ‫פחז כמים‬, you were precipitous as water in not restraining your biological urges
which led you to mount the couch of your father. You did not stop to consider what a sin with far ranging
effects you would make yourself guilty of by your lack of self control.
Radak on Genesis 49:3:3 ‫אל תותר‬, you will no longer enjoy any advantage over your brothers.
Radak on Genesis 49:4:1 ‫כי עלית משכבי אביך‬, when you committed that act, ‫חללת יצועי‬, you defiled my couch; your act prevented me
from having any further marital relations with my wife Bilhah. My grandfather explained the expression ‫יתר‬
‫ שאת‬as an allusion to atonement. [‫ שאת‬from the root ‫נשא‬, to elevate, i.e. to forgive as in ‫ונשאתי לכל המקום‬, “I
will forgive the whole place” (Genesis 18,26) Ed.] If so, far from putting down Reuven in his final words to
him, Yaakov blessed him by offering his forgiveness at this time for the sin he had committed. against him.

Radak on Genesis 49:5:1 ‫שמעון ולוי אחים‬, they had acted like brothers in their concern for their sister Dinah, as the Torah credits them in
Genesis 34,25.
Radak on Genesis 49:5:2 ‫כלי חמס‬, their swords, (weapons) have become instruments of violence. [used aggressively instead of
defensively. Ed.] Yaakov considered the slaying of the male population of Shechem as having been illegal.
He did not consider the men of the city responsible for the sin of rape committed by their crown prince
Shechem. Seeing that their act was illegal they endangered their whole family, including their father, as they
could not count on G’d’s protection against the avengers of Shechem when the wrong they had committed
themselves had brought that attack upon them. The fact that in the event, G’d did protect them, was not
thanks to these two brothers.
Radak on Genesis 49:5:3 ‫מכרותיהם‬, as if the Torah had written ‫במכרותיהם‬. The construction is parallel to ‫ארץ מגוריהם‬, the land of their
sojourn, i.e. the land in which they sojourned. The people of Shechem had lived peaceably side by side with
the family of Yaakov, there being no war-like actions between them. [The author apparently sees in the word
‫ מכרותיהם‬the root ‫הכר‬, “to recognise someone, i.e. to know him well.” Yaakov describes the deed of Shimon
and Levi against the people of Shechem as having been perpetrated on friendly unsuspecting neighbours.
Ed.] Ezekiel 21,35 as well as 29,14 also speaks of ‫ מכורותיך‬meaning ‫ מגורים‬the place where one resides.
Onkelos also translates it in this sense. Midrash Tanchuma Vayechi 9 understands the word as applying to
their swords. In Greek a sword is known as makirin.

Radak on Genesis 49:6:1 ‫בסודם אל תבא נפשי‬. At the time they planned their revenge I had not been taken into their confidence either
about what they were going to do or about how they were going to do it. It had not been done at my
suggestion. Yaakov repeats what he said in different words, continuing ‫אל תחד כבודי‬, the word ‫ תחד‬is in the
feminine mode seeing it refers to ‫ כבוד‬which is another word for ‫ נפש‬which is a feminine noun.
Radak on Genesis 49:6:2 ‫כי באפם הרגו איש‬, the word ‫ איש‬refers to people generally, as in Samuel I 14,24 ‫ואיש ישראל נגש‬, where it also
did not refer to a single Israelite but to the Israelite troops who were pressing for action. Yaakov too
describes the whole population of the city of Shechem as ‫איש‬, as if a single unit. We find that the word ‫ שור‬is
often used also as a reference to many oxen although it is in the singular mode. Other examples of such
constructions are Exodus 15,19 ‫כי בא סוס פרעה‬, where the Torah speaks of all of Pharaoh’s (Egypt’s) horses,
not just of Pharaoh’s personal horse. Some commentators understand the words ‫ שור‬as meaning the ruling
prince of the land, Chamor. We have several examples of someone in a high position being referred to as
‫שור‬, as for instance in Deuteronomy 33,17 ‫בכור שורו‬. The word ‫ עקרו‬in our verse, is another word for ‫הרגו‬,
“they killed.” The word ‫ שור‬may also mean “wall, fortification,” as understood by Onkelos.
Radak on Genesis 49:6:3 ‫וברצונם‬, “in order to carry out their will; their urgent desire.” In our homiletic literature, (compare Rashi) the
entire line starting with ‫ אל תבא‬is understood as referring to misdeeds carried out by members of the tribe of
Shimon in the distant future such as the leader of that tribe Zimri who slept with a Midianirte princess in an
act of defiance of Jewish mores, and the infamous Korach of the tribe of Levi who wanted to usurp the
position of Moses and Aaron. Due to Yaakov’s express wish here, neither of these two men had his
genealogy traced all the way back to Yisrael when the Torah explains who they were. (compare Numbers
16,1 and Numbers 25,15)

Radak on Genesis 49:7:1 ‫ארור אפם‬, whenever we encounter the expression ‫ ארור‬it involves denial of some blessing or something good
and welcome to the party subject to the curse. For instance, we read in Maleachi 2,2 ‫וארותי את ברכותיהם‬, “I
will turn their blessings into a curse.” The words ‫ ארור אפם‬must be understood as a type of prayer by Yaakov,
who wishes that Shimon and Levi be denied at least a part of their willfulness of character, as something that
has become too strong to endure. Yaakov repeated the same thought in different words to make his point
more insistently. This is why he added the words ‫ועברתם כי קשתה‬.
Radak on Genesis 49:7:2 ‫אחלקם ביעקב‬, so that they will not constantly be next to one another. Shimon’s ancestral territory in the land of
Israel actually became an enclave within the boundaries of the land allocated to the tribe of Yehudah.
Shimon and Levi (who had no territorial claims after being granted the status formerly occupied by the
firstborn after the golden calf episode) had no common territorial boundaries, so that the danger of their joint
cooperation resulting in a repeat of what happened at Shechem was drastically reduced. In Bereshit Rabbah
99,7 the words ‫אחלקם ביעקב‬, are understood as referring to the 24 thousand members of the tribe of Shimon
who were killed as a result of Zimri’s brazen act of sexual union with a Midianite princess. This resulted in 24
thousand wives of these men becoming widows, These widows were distributed to the other tribes, 2000 to
each tribe, so that anyone having to go begging was from the tribe of Shimon. As a result, G’d said that the
Levites were to be similarly distributed among all the tribes seeing he did not deserve a better fate than that
of his partner in crime Shimon. Seeing that the Levites became dependent on the tithes, etc, voluntarily given
to them by the farmers of the other tribes, their basic livelihood was no less precarious than that of the
widows and orphans of the members of the tribe of Shimon who had been killed by a plague by G’d at
Shittim.( Numbers 25,9) It is a historical fact then that Yaakov’s prediction came true. Seeing what had
happened, G’d elevated the Levites by granting them 10% of the combined harvests of all the other tribes.
However, the Levites, just as the members of the tribe of Shimon, had to visit all the threshing floors and
request from the local farmers to give the tithe tithes they were obliged to give to a Levite to them. [The
Midrash endeavours to justify Yaakov saying both ‫אחלקם ביעקב‬, and ‫אפיצם בישראל‬, meaning that each of
these tribes will be busy looking for handouts and not have spare time for aggressive ventures such as those
hatched by their respective founding fathers. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 49:8:1 ‫יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך‬, they will elevate you to the position of royalty instead of Reuven, for the royalty, or
potential for royalty of which I have deprived him your brothers will bestow upon you. We have proof of this
happening from Samuel II 5,1 when David was crowned in Chevron by all the tribes of Israel. We are told in
Bereshit Rabbah 99,8 that when Yehudah saw that Yaakov suddenly served up Reuven’s sin, as well as that
of his brother Shimon and Levi, he became afraid that his own sin with Tamar would be the next one to be
referred to by his father. He only calmed down when Yaakov began his remarks to Yehudah with the words
“your brothers will elevate you to the position of royalty because you had the strength of character to publicly
acknowledge and repent your having slept with your daughter-in-law Tamar.”
Radak on Genesis 49:8:2 ‫ידך בעורף אויביך‬, a reference to King David, who was victorious in all his wars against his enemies. We have a
parallel verse said by David himself in Samuel II 22,41 ‫ואויבי תחת לי עורף‬, “He made my enemies turn tail
before me.”
Radak on Genesis 49:8:3 ‫ישתחוו לך בני אביך‬, when they will observe that you are successful, then they will prostrate themselves before
you and declare that you are fit to be their king. When Yitzchok blessed Yaakov in Genesis 27,29 he referred
to “the sons of your mother” prostrating themselves before him. Seeing that Yitzchok had only one wife this
was quite normal. Seeing that Yaakov had four wives it would not have been good enough to refer to the
sons of Yehudah’s mother, as that would have included only half the tribes. By phrasing the blessing as
applicable to the “sons of your father,” Yaakov included all 12 tribes.
Radak on Genesis 49:9:1 ‫ ;גור אריה יהודה‬at the beginning of his career he would be only a ‫גור‬, a cub, one that has not attained maturity.
Even so, such a lion is stronger than all the other beasts. Yehudah was also the first of the tribal princes to
offer his inaugural sacrifice (Numbers 7,12). When it came to the war against the Canaanites in Judges 1,2
this tribe was the one leading all the others. Again, at Geva in Binyamin (Judges 20,18) the tribe of Yehudah
was in the lead in the tragic civil war against the tribe of Binyamin. [at any rate a heavenly voice or the High
Priest after consulting the Ephod had announced that Yehudah should be in the lead. Ed.] The first of the
Judges who were heads of the nation after the death of Joshua who had failed to appoint a successor, was
Othniel son of Knaz from the tribe of Yehudah. (Judges 3,9). Eventually, when David was appointed King of
all the Israelites, this ‫גור‬, “young lion,” became a fully grown mature lion, i.e. ‫אריה‬,
Radak on Genesis 49:9:2 ‫מטרף בני עלית‬, due to the surfeit of loot you rose to a position of distinction and glory as we know from
Samuel II 8,13 “David gained fame when he returned from defeating Edom in the valley of Salt.”
Radak on Genesis 49:9:3 ‫כרע רבץ כאריה‬, my father of blessed memory explained this verse as follows: during the period of David,
Yehudah crouched as does a lion who at the time when he is afraid of other ferocious beasts does not lie
down and relax, but only crouches. This he does in order to be able to rouse himself at a moment’s notice
when attacked. However, at a time when he does not face imminent danger he lies down relaxed. Similarly,
David. Seeing that he was involved in wars practically during the entire period of his reign and had to be
ready to rise at a moment’s notice to face his enemies and to kill them, he was like a lion concerned about
staying alive. However, his son Solomon, could afford to lie down in repose seeing that all the nations were
afraid of him and none dared attack him. There was no one around who would rouse him from his slumber.

Radak on Genesis 49:10:1 ‫לא יסור שבט מיהודה‬, the ruler is called ‫ שבט‬because he exercises authority over the people and disciplines
them if they disobey. He uses his power like a father uses his rod on a disobedient son. In fact, the rod or
scepter, or its equivalent, are carried by people in authority in order to remind those who are subservient to
them as a symbol of their power to exact punishment. We find such a ‫ שבט‬called ‫שרביט הזהב‬, “the golden
scepter,” and whether the king extended it or failed to extend it to a supplicant determined if he would be
executed. (Esther 5,2) The expression also occurs in the sense we have mentioned in Isaiah 14,5 and in
Psalms 45,7.
Radak on Genesis 49:10:2 ‫ומחוקק מבין רגליו‬, a reference to the sons of Yehudah, i.e. that his appointment as forecast by Yaakov will be
hereditary, just as the priesthood is transferred from father to son. (if the son is worthy and the people do not
object) The expression ‫ מבין רגליו‬is analogous to the afterbirth, which exits from between the mother’s legs
(Deuteronomy 28,57) The reason why the king is referred to as ‫מחוקק‬, is because he has the authority to
legislate laws, ‫חוקים‬. Yaakov said that this authority of an informal nature would not depart from Yehudah
until he would have someone from his tribe who wields formal authority, i.e. is elected king, a reference to
David.
Radak on Genesis 49:10:3 ‫ ;שילה‬a reference to David’s son, seeing that the meaning of the word is derived from Deuteronomy 28,57
‫ובשליתה‬, i.e. “and against her afterbirth, etc.” Onkelos understands the word as referring to the Messiah. He
bases himself on the variant spelling here still having the same meaning as ‫שלו‬, “his.” This is also the way
Bereshit Rabbah 99,8 understands the word ‫ שילה‬in our verse. Yaakov would be saying that Yehudah’s
preeminence would not be short-lived, but would continue until the coming of the Messiah, the one to whom
royalty would belong permanently. The whole blessing to Yehudah could then be compared to a father
saying to his son: “accept this token in the meantime until I can give you the real thing!”
Radak on Genesis 49:10:4 ‫ולו יקהת עמים‬. The word ‫ יקהת‬is a noun meaning “obedience,” as it is also in Proverbs 30,17 ‫ותבוז לקהת אם‬,
“and disdains to relate with obedience to his mother.” Yaakov predicts that all the nations will show
obedience to the king stemming from Yehudah. This prophecy began to be fulfilled in the days of King David,
and in an even greater measure during the reign of his son Solomon.

Radak on Genesis 49:11:1 ‫אסרי לגפן‬. The letter ‫ י‬in the word ‫ אסרי‬is an addition, similar to the letter ‫ י‬in Deuteronomy 33,15 ‫שכני סנה‬, and
other examples of a similar construction. Also the letter ‫ י‬in ‫בני אתונו‬, is an addition. The entire expression
‫ ולשרקה בני אתונו‬is a duplication, seeing that the word ‫ שרקה‬means the same as ‫גפן‬, perhaps a superior type
of vine. The entire verse is a praise of the quality of the land apportioned to the tribe of Yehudah which yields
such bountiful harvests that the farmer can tie his ass to the vine after having eaten from its grapes, without
any worry. There are so many grapes on a single vine that they suffice to make up a full load for his ass.
Similarly, there is so much wine that even if he were to launder his garments in wine instead of in water, he
would not run short of wine. Yaakov repeats the theme once more in different words, saying: ‫ובדם ענבים סותה‬,
the expression ‫ דם ענבים‬refers to wine, the word ‫ סותה‬to garments. Naturally, this is an exaggeration
permissible to poets.
Radak on Genesis 49:12:1 Yaakov adds something else which is an exaggeration when he says: ‫חכלילי עינים סותה‬, not only Yehudah’s
clothing would be red but even his face and eyes. The word ‫ עינים‬describes the exterior appearance, as in
Proverbs 23,29 ‫“ ?למי חכלילות עינים‬Who suffers from redness of his eyes? The word ‫ עינים‬,‫עין‬, to describe an
exterior appearance is also used to describe the manna in Numbers 11,7.
Radak on Genesis 49:12:2 ‫ולבן שנים מחלב‬. Due to drinking a lot of milk his teeth are white. Some commentators understand the word
‫ שנים‬in our verse as describing the teeth-like points of the rocks being white from the drippings of excess milk
by the sheep and goats. Accordingly, even these so-called teeth have to be explained allegorically, as a
reference to the Messiah. [I believe that all the commentators who chose the path of interpreting Yaakov’s
words allegorically, simply could not credit that he would waste his last few minutes on earth with describing
mundane matters as being the essence of what he had to communicate to his children at that time, even if
these words were garbed in poetic language. The sages were convinced that behind this lovely prose there
must be hidden far more profound spiritual messages. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 49:12:3 To continue with the “Messianic” interpretation. ‫אסרי לגפן עירה‬, the word ‫ הגפן‬is a metaphor for the concept of
the Jewish nation, ‫כנסת ישראל‬, an expression used in the same sense in Psalms 80,9 ‫גפן ממצרים תסיע‬, “You
transplanted a vine (the people of Israel) from Egypt.” Just as the word ‫ גפן‬is used as a metaphor for the
Jewish people in Psalms, so the word ‫ שרקה‬is used in a similar sense in Jeremiah 2,21, ‫ואנכי נטעתיך שורק כלו‬
‫זרע אמת‬, “whereas I had planted you as a vine, all with the choicest seed.” The prophet, of course, compares
the Jewish people to a vine, normally yielding excellent grapes, but somehow having become corrupted.
When such vines are at their best, the grapes they produce do not even have kernels, (i.e. seedless grapes)
Radak on Genesis 49:12:4 Yaakov continues with ‫אסרי‬, this King Messiah, when he arrives, will tie together two vines, i.e. the Kingdom
of Yehudah and the Kingdom of Ephrayim who had been bitter competitors until then, as predicted in clear
language by Ezekiel 37,19 ‫”ועשיתם לעץ אחד‬so that they will become a single stick.” The reason Yaakov chose
the expression ‫ אסרי‬for this kind of unification can be well understood when we read in Hoseah 10,10 ‫באסרם‬
‫על שתי עוונותם‬, an expression used by the prophet when referring to these two kingdoms. The most effective
union, one that is least likely to come undone, is the one described in Hebrew by the verb ‫ אסר‬and ‫קשר‬
respectively. ‫ עירה‬and ‫בני אתונו‬, refer to the King Messiah of whom it has been said in Zecharyah 9,9 that he
will appear riding on an ass, on a donkey foaled by a she-ass. Yaakov continues with ‫כבס ביין לבושו‬, here the
word ‫ לבושו‬is an alternate for ‫ בגדו‬a word also used in Psalms 45,9 an expression used in Kohelet as
describing one’s words of wisdom and one’s good deeds. In other words, tangible phenomena that we are
familiar with are used as substituting for meta-physical, abstract concepts by our sages and patriarchs.
Yaakov refers to ‫ ביין‬with the vowel patach under the letter ‫ב‬, meaning a specific wine as distinct from wine
generally. The fragrance of good wine envelops the people who drink it. Compare Hoseah 14,8 ‫זכרו כיין לבנון‬,
“His scent is like the wine of Lebanon.” The wine Yaakov speaks of is well known for its fine bouquet. A
similar reference to the fragrance of wine occurs in Song of Songs 7,10 ‫וחכך כיין הטוב‬, “and the breath of your
mouth is like the choicest wines.” We believe that the thrust of these allegorical interpretations is that if ever
Yehudah were in difficulties in matters physical, then spiritual mental faculties should compensate for what
he could not accomplish in the natural way. This is the definition of the Messiah in Isaiah 11,2 “the spirit of
the Lord shall alight upon him; a spirit of wisdom and insight; a spirit of counsel and valor, a spirit of devotion
and reverence for the Lord.” The prophet continues.‫והריחו ביראת ה' ולא למראה עיניו ישפוט ולא למשמע אזניו יוכיח‬
‫ וברוח שפתיו ימית רשע‬,‫ושפט בצדק דלים והוכיח במישור לענוי ארץ והכה ארץ בשבט פיו‬. “He shall sense the truth by his
reverence for the Lord. He shall not judge what his eyes behold, nor decide by what his ears perceive; thus
shall he judge the poor with equity and decide with justice for the lowly of the land. He shall strike down with
the rod of his mouth and slay the wicked with the breath of his lips.” ‫ובדם ענבים סותה‬, Yaakov mentions the
appearance as something comparable to how it appears after it has been laundered, whereas he describes
the wine as symbolic of a pleasant fragrance but here he uses it in connection with the external appearance
of something. All these hyperboles are just that, a parable.
Radak on Genesis 49:12:5 He continues: ‫חכלילי עינים מיין ולבן שנים מחלב‬, having already mentioned wine as symbolising fragrance as well
as symbolising an impressive appearance, he did so because he views them as the most appropriate
description of something that looks pleasant and inspiring. Such a perception of what looks beautiful is also
echoed in Lamentations 4,7 ”Her elect were purer than snow and whiter than milk,” and in Song of Songs
5,10 the example for such a lovely appearance is “my beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy.” The appearance
of wine is most impressive and it is reddish and sparkling as described in Proverbs 23,31 “do not ogle that
red wine as it lends its colour to the cup.” It is described as if giving off sparks. Pure white colour is also
extolled in Exodus 24,10 when the elders before the revelation at Mount Sinai feasted their eyes on a Divine
appearance described as “like a brick of sapphire, and the essence of the heavens in purity.” The whitest
parts of the human body are the teeth They are praised for their whiteness also in Song of Songs 6,6 where
their whiteness is compared to that of “a flock of ewes climbing up from the washing pool.” [The author
continues in this vein for a few more lines. Ed.] The point he is trying to make is that over and beyond any
physical perfection we know of in this world, the perfection of virtues, albeit intangible, is superior to anything
perfect but tangible on earth. Hence the superiority of the Messiah with his virtues and supernatural qualities.
Yaakov, using his prophetic insights, addresses each of his sons with the degree of prophetic insight he has
been granted in describing the future in store for him.
Radak on Genesis 49:13:1 ‫זבלון‬, up until this point Yaakov listed his sons in the chronological order of their birth, not paying attention to
who was their mother. At this juncture he mentions Zevulun before Issachar although the latter had been
born earlier by the same mother, Leah. Concerning this anomaly we read in Bereshit Rabbah 99,9 that the
fact that Issachar chose the pursuit of Torah as his vocation whereas Zevulun supported him financially with
his marine endeavours enabling his brother to concentrate on his Torah studies, he deserves to be
mentioned first. The concept underlying this preferential mention of Zevulun here is explained in Proverbs
3,18 as ‫עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה‬, “the Torah will prove a tree of life to those who support it (financially).” Moses
followed Yaakov’s example when blessing Zevulun before Issachar (Deuteronomy 33,18) when he said ‫שמח‬
‫זבולון בצאתך ויששכר באהליך‬, “rejoice Zevulun when you set out (on your journeys) and Issachar in your tents.”
Everywhere else Issachar is mentioned ahead pf Zevulun.
Radak on Genesis 49:13:2 ‫לחוף ימים ישכון‬, part of his ancestral heritage will be situated along the shores of the sea as stated in Joshua
19,11 ‫ועלה גבולם לימה‬, ”their boundary ascended to the sea.” Moses had already hinted at this in Deut. 33,19
when he said ‫כי שפע ימים ינקו‬, “they will draw from the riches of the sea.” The word ‫ חוף‬describes something
covered, or better: “a place where ships can find refuge from the storms.”
Radak on Genesis 49:13:3 ‫והוא לחוף אניות‬, he, Zevulun, will constantly be as a haven for ships. Most of his mercantile endeavours will be
related to wares brought from overseas. Hence, ships will constantly anchor on its coast.
Radak on Genesis 49:13:4 ‫וירכתו על צידון‬, his borders will extend as far north as the coastal town Tzidon. The meaning of the word ‫ על‬in
this phrase is similar to the meaning of the word ‫עד‬, “as far as.” The word ‫ על‬occurs as meaning “as far as”
also in Joshua 2,7 ‫על המעברות‬, “as far as the fords.”
Radak on Genesis 49:13:5 ‫וירכתו‬, as if the Torah had written ‫ ולירכתו‬as in Exodus 26,23 ‫ולירכתו המשכן‬, “at the rear of the Tabernacle.”

Radak on Genesis 49:14:1 ‫יששכר חמור גרם‬, like a strong donkey possessing strong bones. He is able to lie down while carrying his load
and to get up again while still having his load on his back.
Radak on Genesis 49:14:2 ‫המשפתים‬, a reference to the load the donkey carries. Yaakov uses the word in the plural mode, to indicate
that Issachar will be loaded with not only one burden but two, carrying one on his right side, the other on his
left. His soil will be extremely good, as if to say that he will not join battle formations in war but will belong to
the troops bringing the supplies to the front lines. He will pay a special tax to the king to be allowed this
arrangement, hence ‫ויהי למס עובד‬. This is what Yaakov had in mind when he said of Issachar ‫וירא מנוחה כי‬
‫טוב‬. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 98,12, and 99,10 explain the entire blessing as a prophecy that Issachar
would make his primary occupation the study of Torah, and Yaakov depicting such a way of life as something
lovely and rewarding for those who pursue it. The more one labours and immerses oneself deeply in Torah
study the greater the ultimate sense of serenity, ‫מנוחה‬, constructive peace of mind one will experience. All
the expressions used here such as ‫וירא מנוחה כי טוב ואת הארץ כי נעמה ויט שכמו לסבול ויהי למס עובד‬, describe,
step by step the immersion in Torah study, the difficulties in mastering that discipline, and the eventual
satisfaction it yields the person who stays the course. As proof that Yaakov’s blessing for Issachar did indeed
come true, consider that the tribe of Issachar sent only 200 representatives to attend the crowning of David
as King, whereas all the other tribes sent delegations numbering between 10,000 and 120,000. The 200 men
from Issachar however, are described as ‫יודעי בינה לעתים‬, “knowing how to interpret the signs of the times.”
They were all Torah scholars. (compare Chronicles I 12,24-38)

Radak on Genesis 49:16:1 ‫דן ידין עמו‬, Yaakov predicts that a judge will emerge from among the Danites as, or equal to, any of the other
tribes of Israel. The reason why Yaakov had to make such a strange sounding comment was that Dan was a
son of Rachel’s maid, Bilhah, and the status of the descendants of the maidservants of the matriarchs might
have been questioned. Yaakov wants it understood that there is not going to be such a relationship between
his sons. To emphasise this, Moses appointed the tribe of Dan as one of the four tribes who were leaders of
their respective army corps comprising three tribes each. (compare Numbers 2,25) The judge from the tribe
of Dan who presided over the court was Shimshon, of whom we are told in Judges 16,31 that he judged the
people for 20 years.
Radak on Genesis 49:17:1 ‫יהי דן‬, Yaakov compared Dan to different kinds of serpents which do not travel (hunt) in packs, but rely on
their wits, killing many. Shimshon, the most prominent warrior of the tribe of Dan, was a loner, never involving
others when he faced danger. Compare Judges 15,8 ‫ויך אותם שוק על ירך וכלחי חמור הכה אלף איש‬, “he struck
them leg as well as thigh, and with the jawbone of a donkey he killed one thousand men.” He saved the
Israelites from the constant incursions of the Philistines before he engaged in his acts of daring. This is what
prompted Yaakov to wish him success with the words: '‫לישועתך קויתי ה‬, “your type of salvation for Israel,
orchestrated by a single individual, is something that normally, only G’d Himself can orchestrate.” Some
commentators (Rashi) view these words of Yaakov as his reaction when he foresaw with prophetic vision
how Shimshon had his eyes blinded by the Philistines. The words ‫ 'לישועתך וגו‬then are Yaakov’s prayer that
G’d Himself would avenge what was done to Shimshon. This prophecy/prayer was also fulfilled, as we are
told in Judges 16,30 that Shimshon killed more Philistines in dying than he had killed cumulatively while alive.
Radak on Genesis 49:19:1 ‫גד גדוד יגודנו‬, if a troop, battalion attacks him he will overpower that troop. This is the meaning of the last
words in the verse ‫והוא יגד עקב‬, in the end (‫ )עקב‬he will prevail. This is a specific reference by Yaakov to what
we have been told in Chronicles I 5,18-22 in which this tribe (together with Reuven and half the tribe of
Menashe) is described as waging a successful war against the Hagrites. Their victory, -apparently they had
been attacked,- is credited to the fact that they implored G’d to help them, and had faith that He would help
them. Their trust was justified as is evident from the amount of loot they captured after that battle,
Subsequent to that battle they remained undisturbed until their exile, about 150 years before the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Radak on Genesis 49:20:1 ‫מאשר שמנה לחמו‬, the introductory letter ‫ מ‬appears to indicate that the bounty described in the verse following
applied to only part of the territory in which Asher dwelled. The word ‫ לחמו‬is a euphemism for the whole
ancestral land of the tribe of Asher, as it is what produces the bread of this tribe. The word ‫ לחם‬here as well
as in many other examples, is a collective term including all the food these people grew and consumed.
There were many olive trees on the territory of Asher, something confirmed by Moses in Deut. 33,24 where
the tribe is described as immersing its feet in that oil. Also all the other fruit grown on its soil was especially
good in quality. This is why the verse concludes with the words: ‫והוא יתן מעדני מלך‬, that the dignitaries of that
tribe would send gifts of these fruit to be served at the king’s table.

Radak on Genesis 49:21:1 ‫נפתלי אילה שלוחה‬, Yaakov prophesied regarding the extraordinary salvation which would accrue to Israel
thanks to a single man from the tribe of Naftali, Barak, the commander of the forces who defeated Siserah at
the river Kishon, putting to flight an army boasting 900 armoured vehicles. Seeing that he would be assisted
by the prophetess Devorah, his being fleet-footed is not credited only to him, and the word describing this is
in the feminine gender, ayalah, instead of ayal. Barak had refused to attack unless Devorah would be with
him. This is also why Yaakov said ‫שלוחה‬, again in the feminine mode, to allude to Devorah’s role in the battle.
It sounds as if Devorah had been dispatched by G’d to hasten Barak’s coming to a decision, seeing he had
been so hesitant to join battle with Siserah. Concerning the song of thanksgiving composed by Devorah after
that battle (Judges chapter 5), Yaakov describes that song as ‫אמרי שפר‬,”words of beautiful poetry.”

Radak on Genesis 49:22:1 ‫בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין‬, the branch ‫סעיף‬, is referred to as ‫בן‬, as it is an offshoot of the tree. Seeing that it is
called ‫ בן‬in the masculine mode, he word ‫פרת‬, the adjective modifying it, ought to be in the masculine mode
also, but it is not. Suddenly, the Torah changes grammar in mid-stream and speaks of ‫בנות צעדה עלי עין‬
instead of ‫בנים צעדו עלי עין‬, “his branches spilling (running) over the wall.” The reason is that the word ‫סעיף‬
also occurs as a feminine noun, as in Ezekiel 31,6 ‫בסעפתיו קננו‬, “in its boughs they made their nest.” Such
nouns in a dual role are not that rare, as for instance we find the ‫חמור‬, male donkey, treated as if it were an
‫אתון‬, the she-ass in Samuel II 19,27 ‫אחבשה לי החמור וארכב עליה‬, “I will saddle my donkey and ride on her.”
The donkey is both a beast, ‫בהמה‬, a feminine noun, and a male of its species. We are therefore free to use
either gender when referring to it. A similar example is found in Exodus 22,25 where the Torah describes the
word ‫שלמה‬, dress, as masculine although generally we always use it as feminine. The fact is that the specific
garment “dress, ‫שלמה‬,” is at the same time a garment, ‫בגד‬, a noun describing all garments, a masculine
noun. While a bough, ‫פארה‬, is indeed a feminine noun, referring to a specific type of branch, the word ‫סעיף‬
includes many types of branches and is a masculine noun. There are quite a few examples of this
grammatical phenomenon. As to the addition of the letter ‫ ת‬in ‫פרת‬, it substitutes for the letter ‫ ה‬as it does on
many occasions. Look at Deuteronomy 31,29 for instance, where we have ‫ וקראת‬instead of ‫וקראה‬.
Radak on Genesis 49:22:2 ‫בן פרת עלי עין‬, its leaves will not wilt and it will prove to be very fruitful as per Psalms 1,3 ‫והיה כעץ שמול על פלגי‬
‫מים‬, “he will be as a tree planted by springs of water, etc.” The reason for this apparent duplication is that
Joseph would be split into two of the twelve tribes, hence the blessing had to be twofold.
Radak on Genesis 49:22:3 ‫בנות צעדה עלי שור‬, these two branches (from the ‫ בן‬above) would grow and branch out so much until they
would spillover the protective wall around the orchard, just as grapevines are in the habit of doing when they
require trellises to support them..

Radak on Genesis 49:23:1 ‫וימררו ורובו‬, if Yaakov spoke of the past in this verse we must understand his remarks as pertaining to
Potiphar and his wife, as well as to the members of his household, but not to Joseph’s brothers. It is quite
impossible to conceive of our patriarch Yaakov speaking of the brothers’ shame at the same as he was
blessing them. Even though Yaakov had spoken of Reuven’s having disgraced himself, Yaakov had to do
this in order to justify why he had deprived him of the privileges of the birthright. The same reasoning applies
to his having recalled Shimon and Levi’s acts of violence, for which Yaakov made appropriate precautions for
the future by dividing them up so that they could not pose a threat again.
Radak on Genesis 49:23:2 ‫וימררוהו‬, they embittered his life throwing him into jail for at least two years, as we know from Psalms 105,18
‫ענו בכבל רגלו ברזל באה נפשו‬, “his feet were subjected to fetters, an iron collar was put on his neck.”
Radak on Genesis 49:23:3 ‫ורבו‬, they shot arrows at him. The root of the verb ‫ רבו‬is of the type in which two root letters appear ‫רבב‬
repeated. Yaakov repeats the thought expressed by the word ‫וימררוהו‬, also a root with a double consonant.
The word ‫ רומו‬in Job 24,24 is a parallel construction to our word here.
Radak on Genesis 49:23:4 ‫וישטמהו בעלי חצים‬, they hated him for no cause, slandering him to his employer. Yaakov summarises all these
wicked words with the word ‫חצים‬, arrows. We find the word ‫ חץ‬used in the same sense in Psalms 120,4 ‫חצי‬
‫גבור שנונים עם גחלי רתמים‬, “a warrior’s sharp arrows with hot coals, etc.” [the previous verse speaks of the
deceitful tongue, so that this verse is a simile for such deceitful tongues. Ed.]

Radak on Genesis 49:24:1 ‫ותשב באיתן קשתו‬, the bow from which they aimed their arrows at him broke, whereas the supposed victim,
Joseph, remained unhurt, not only that, but advanced to ever higher positions.
Radak on Genesis 49:24:2 ‫ויפוזו זרעי ידיו‬, his hands and arms kept getting stronger, i.e. he acquired the means to punish those who had
slandered him. We encounter the expression ‫ מפזז‬in Samuel II 6,16 as a description of strength. It appears
there next to the word ‫מכרכר‬, a variation of the root ‫ פזז‬having a similar meaning, when applied to the legs.
What was the source of Joseph’s strength?
Radak on Genesis 49:24:3 ‫מידי אביר יעקב‬, the G’d Who had manifested Himself many times as the Power that stood by his father and
lent him strength, not allowing him to collapse in spite of all the troubles that had dogged him for many years.
Radak on Genesis 49:24:4 ‫משם רועה אבן ישראל‬, Joseph’s great honour originated from there, ‫משם‬, from the Shepherd of Israel. Seeing
that a stone represents something solid, unshakable, permanent, all of Israel is compared to a stone, ‫אבן‬.
Alternately, seeing that Yaakov/Israel was the founding father of the nation, Yaakov refers to himself in that
manner, i.e. the corner stone of the nation. Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon translates it into Arabic as ‫עצם‬, the
essence. This conforms to what we said.

Radak on Genesis 49:25:1 ‫מאל אביך‬, your glory stems from the G’d of your father, and He will assist you, ‫ואת שדי‬, and your blessing will
be confirmed by Shaddai. The letter ‫ מ‬in the word ‫ מאל‬also serves as an unwritten preposition for the
expression ‫ואת שדי‬, i.e. it really means ‫ומאת שדי‬, “and from Shaddai.”
Radak on Genesis 49:25:2 What will Shaddai’s blessing consist of? ‫מברכת שמים מעל‬, the dew which comes from above and the rain
which arrives at its proper time.
Radak on Genesis 49:25:3 ‫ברכות תהום רובצת תחת‬. The subterranean blessing from below. Moses uses similar words when he blesses
the tribe of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33,13 saying: ‫מברכת ה' ארצו ממגד שמים מטל ומתהום רובצת תחת‬. He only
reversed the order in which he recited these blessings. He says of the water which reposes in the belly of the
earth that it is perceived as lying down, as if in preparation for the time when it is expected to rise and to
irrigate the crops. Alternately, it awaits man to draw it to perform irrigation. A third possibility would be that
irrigation will be performed by the rain from heaven. The gist of the blessing is that the soil in the part of the
land on which the tribe of Joseph dwells is so amply irrigated from underneath that even if there should be a
drought, and no rain would fall, there is enough moisture to support the herbs in the fields.
Radak on Genesis 49:25:4 ‫ברכת שדים ורחם‬, Onkelos, who understands this as the blessing of father and mother, is familiar to most
readers. Other commentators understand these words as referring to blessing emanating both from heaven
and earth, although if we were to accept this, Yaakov would have repeated himself. The fact is that he
wanted to reinforce the power of the blessing. “The heavens” are a euphemism for the breasts, and the drops
of rain they yield are being compared to the drops of milk from the breasts, whereas the earth is a simile for
the womb, seeing it produces fruit, as does the womb. My late father of blessed memory explained the word
‫ שדים‬as referring to the wet nurse, (when the mother herself cannot nurse her baby) and the word ‫ רחם‬as
referring to the actual mother. Yaakov follows this blessing with the blessing of ‫“ אביך‬your father,” seeing that
the baby requires a blessing from three sources. They are: father, mother, and the wet nurse who feeds the
baby with her own milk. Personally, I feel that the blessing refers to the children that are being born to the
tribe of Joseph, the opposite of a ‫רחם משכיל ושדים צומקות‬, which we already referred to as a curse (Hoseah
9,14).
Radak on Genesis 49:26:1 ‫ברכת אביך גברו‬, although Yaakov uses the past tenses in the word ‫גברו‬, what he means is the future, that the
blessing will prove to be what he says. The anomaly of using the past tense to describe matters that are yet
to occur is no anomaly; it occurs again and again in Scripture. The word ‫הורי‬, normally translated as “my
parents,” refer to Avraham and Yitzchok, Yaakov’s father and grandfather respectively, his mentors. The very
expression ‫הורה‬, horeh, and ‫הורה‬, horah, respectively, apply to father and mother, depending on the vowel
under the letter‫ ר‬. This is so as both are involved in bringing about the pregnancy leading to the eventual
birth of the child. The father is the active partner, whereas the mother is considered the passive partner
seeing that she is the recipient of the male’s sperm.
Radak on Genesis 49:26:2 ‫עד תאות גבעת עולם‬, these blessings should in turn be transferred to your offspring in an unending chain. We
know the word ‫ תאוה‬as describing a limit, boundary, from Numbers 34,10 ‫והתאויתם לכם‬, “you will draw for
yourselves (boundaries).” Yaakov simply means that as long the universe will continue to exist “my blessing
to you shall remain in force.” Hills and mountains, as opposed to rivers, are symbols of something that
endures. The prophet Isaiah echoes this thought when he said (Isaiah 54,10)‫כי ההרים ימושו והגבעות תמוטינה‬
“for even if the mountains were to move and the hills to collapse, etc.” [just as the former is unlikely, so G’d’s
loyalty shall remain steadfast towards Israel. Ed.]
Radak on Genesis 49:26:3 ‫תהיינה לראש יוסף‬, in all the blessings which have been mentioned in this chapter Joseph should be the first
and principal beneficiary. The words ‫ וקדקד נזיר אחיו‬are again a duplication, repetition, in order to emphasise
how strongly Yaakov feels about the matter.
Radak on Genesis 49:26:4 ‫נזיר‬, an expression applied to leading people as in Nachum 3,17 ‫מנזריך כארבה‬.”your guards were like locusts.”

Radak on Genesis 49:27:1 ‫בנימין זאב יטרף‬, he will be comparable to a ravenous wolf which tears apart its victims whether domestic
animals or predators. The wolf is more courageous than other wild animals, not being afraid to invade human
habitations. The members of the tribe of Binyamin demonstrated this quality of fearlessness on many
occasions during their long history. In Judges chapter 20 they took on single-handedly the armies of all the
other tribes in a tragic civil war. Also in Chronicles I 12,2 they joined the persecuted David who commanded
only a small number of men, in what must have appeared as a hopeless undertaking. In verse 19 there we
read that David placed these Binyaminites at the head of his small band.
Radak on Genesis 49:27:2 ‫בבוקר יאכל עד ולערב יחלק שלל‬. He will outdo the wolves, which have to wait until evening to eat any part of their
prey. Binyamin will consume the foe in the morning and the loot in the evening following. Compare Tzefaniah
3,3 for confirmation of this. The word ‫ עד‬is equivalent to the word ‫שלל‬, loot, booty. The Aramaic term for the
word ‫ שלל‬is ‫עדאה‬. This also contains an allusion to the war of Sha-ul, of the tribe of Binyamin against the
Amelekites as well as against other nations as we know from Samuel I 14,47. Also Mordechai, who was
descended from Binyamin , won against all the Antisemites including Haman and thus brought a great
salvation to his people. The reason why the wars of Sha-ul are referred to by Yaakov as ‫בוקר‬, morning, is
because they occurred at the very beginning of the years during which the Jews had a crowned head as their
leader. Mordechai’s “war,” by comparison was called ‫ערב‬, evening, seeing that during his time the Jews were
in exile, something compared to evening.
Radak on Genesis 49:27:3 ‫יחלק שלל‬, you may ask that we read in the Book of Esther 9,15 that the Jews did not pocket any of the loot.
The meaning of that line was that seeing the King had given to Mordechai all that had belonged to Haman,
such belongings could not longer be described as “loot.”

Radak on Genesis 49:28:1 ‫כל אלה שבטי ישראל שנים עשר‬, he had to mention this seeing that Joseph amounted to two tribes, which
otherwise would have made us believe that Yaakov envisioned 13 tribes. When it came to the distribution of
the land of Canaan there were only 12 tribes, seeing that the tribe of Levi did not share in that land
distribution but was allocated only cities in which the Levites were to reside, scattered among all the other
tribes.
Radak on Genesis 49:28:2 ‫וזאת אשר דבר להם‬, this is the future of which he spoke to them.
Radak on Genesis 49:28:3 ‫ויברך אותם‬, these were the words with which he blessed them,
Radak on Genesis 49:28:4 ‫איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם‬, each of these tribes according to the specific blessing Yaakov had bestowed on
them. The blessings would all become effective in the future.
Radak on Genesis 49:29:1 ‫ויצו אותם‬, after he had completed his blessing, he instructed them that they should bury him in the family plot;
even though he had already commanded Joseph concerning this, he also commanded his other sons. He
wanted them all to be prompt in carrying out his wishes.
Radak on Genesis 49:29:2 ‫אל אבותי‬, same as ‘“with” my fathers.’ We find the word ‫ אל‬meaning “with” also in Leviticus 18,17 ‫אשה אל‬
‫אחותה לא תקח‬, “you must not marry the wife together with her sister.”
Radak on Genesis 49:29:3 ‫אל המערה‬, same as ‫במערה‬, “in the cave.” We have the same construction in Exodus 25,21 ‫ואל הארון תתן את‬
‫העדות‬, “you are to place the tablets inside the ark,” not: “you shall give the tablets to the ark.”
Radak on Genesis 49:30:1 ‫במערה‬, we have explained on Genesis 25,10 why this mention of the cave of Machpelah as the patriarchs’
burial site is mentioned so many times in the Torah as if we did not know already.
Radak on Genesis 49:31:1 ‫שמה קברו‬, Yitzchok and Ishmael.
Radak on Genesis 49:31:2 ‫קברו את יצחק‬, the reason why Yaakov did not say “we buried,” but “they buried,” although the Torah had
testified that he and Esau had buried their father, was that he did not want to even be mentioned in the same
breath as his brother who was a wicked person.
Radak on Genesis 49:33:1 ‫ויאסוף את רגליו‬. As long as he had still been speaking to his sons he felt strong enough to carry on sitting on
the bed with his feet on the floor. As soon as he had finished, he pulled up his feet to the bed and lay down.
Radak on Genesis 49:33:2 ‫ויגוע‬, an expression used with the righteous, describing a painless death. Some (Taanit 5) explain the fact
that the Torah did not add the word ‫וימת‬, “he died,” which is customary, as a hint that Yaakov did not actually
die in the accepted sense of the word. Although the Torah specifically mentioned that Moses died, i.e. ‫וימת‬
‫משה‬, (Deut. 34,5) the fact is that he did not die. (Sotah 13). The fact is that the righteous do not die in the
accepted sense of the word.
Radak on Genesis 49:33:3 ‫ויאסף אל עמיו‬, I have explained the meaning of this expression on 25,8.

Radak on Genesis 50:1:1 ‫ויפול יוסף‬, not only he but also his brothers, of course. Seeing that he was the most highly placed of the
brothers the Torah mentions him. If he allowed himself this display of emotion, his brothers surely did no less.
Radak on Genesis 50:2:1 ‫לחנט‬, a procedure of embalming the remains of the deceased so the body would not become putrid.
Radak on Genesis 50:3:1 ‫ שבעים יום‬. Forty days were spent embalming his body and thirty days of weeping for the absence of this man
henceforth. We find that both Moses and Aaron were mourned for 30 days (Numbers 20,29 and
Deuteronomy 34 8) The difference was that Moses and Aaron were mourned after they had been buried,
whereas Yaakov was mourned prior to his interment. This was permissible as the embalming procedure was
equated with a kind of burial. During all these days the Egyptians wept out of respect for the feelings of
Joseph. According to a view quoted by Rashi, the Egyptians also mourned him, being aware that this man
had been able to arrest the famine five years before it had run its predetermined course. This concludes the
manuscripts available of the Redak’s commentary on the Torah. We are all impoverished when reflecting on
much has been lost of his commentary.