Abravanel

Parashat Ki Tisa, First Aliyah, an excerpt from Abravanel’s World of Torah by Zev Bar Eitan

“And God said to Moshe saying: For the sake of your taking a census of the Children of Israel according
to their count, each man shall give atonement for his soul to the Almighty in reckoning them so that
plague does not befall them by dint of having been numbered.”

"Divine wisdom foresaw that the Hebrews would not donate sufficient quantities of silver to the holy
national enterprise. This attested to its versatile usefulness, making demand for it practically
ubiquitous. In fact, during the forty-year trek, silver was the preferred commodity for buying or selling
merchandise.

Silver coins came in either shekel or half-shekel denominations…"

Page 156 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

“Now Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moshe’s father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moshe,
and for Yisrael His people, how God brought Yisrael out of Egypt.”

‘Before delving into our passage’s narrative, it is important to determine where it fits into the broader
chronology scheme. When did Yitro arrive on the scene and advise Moshe to set up a multi-tiered
court system? Textual sequence indicates that Yitro arrived before the Jews received the Torah. Still,
some posit that it was afterward which might better explain the need for relieving the overtaxed
Judge Moshe of some of his dockets. Talmudic sages are split on this issue.

Medieval-era Torah commentators vie to provide evidence for one view or the other.

Shemot vol. I: Sinai Rules page 349

“And God spoke to Moshe saying. When you take the sum of the
Children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every
man a ransom for his soul unto God, when you number them, that there
be no plague among them, when you number them.”

Our section speaks about a census for soldiers. The count is associated with a “ransom”, in efforts to
ward off pestilence. The means to tally the warriors features a silver coin collection, called machtzit
ha’shekel. After all the coins were counted, then the men’s number was duly ascertained.

Abarbanel asks: Why does the Torah demand this roundabout method? A more straightforward way would have been to simply count heads and thereby short circuit the coin count.

Answering that question, actually, pits Abarbanel against all other classic Bible commentators, including
Rashi and the Ramban. According to the commentators, head counts are prohibited by the Torah, as the
act invites the wrath of the evil eye. They are incorrect. While the Bible does record the disastrous
effects of the evil eye in King David’s time, that discussion is for a different time.

Was the machtzit ha’shekel brought here as subterfuge, a tricky way to forestall pestilence? Hardly. Here
is why.

One has to do with God’s command at present. He did not call for a census by coin collection, or for that
matter, by any other object. When God finds something desirable – He lets people know by issuing a
command. The Maker does not mince His words.

Two, if counting by object represents the preferred methodology for successive times and generations
and if it is considered a positive commandment, incumbent upon the Jews (to use coins or other means),
as well as a negative precept (not to perform headcounts), we need to answer why the sages who list
the Torah’s six hundred thirteen mitzvot do not include them in their count?

Three, how can anyone assert that the Jews were not counted, when the Torah writes explicitly: “This
they shall give, every one who passes among them are numbered.” The words speak for themselves –
this is the Biblical way to describe body counting.

More reasons could be supplied, but these suffice. Let us share Abarbanel’s interpretation, in shorthand,
of our section’s lead verses to count Hebrews.

In the Torah, context matters. Six successive paragraphs pertain to the building and funding of the
Tabernacle. Apropos, the Creator foresaw that the Jews would donate small quantities of silver to the
holy enterprise. For a simple reason. International currency during those years centered on silver, the
machtzit ha’shekel being the common currency.

We add some backstory to the forty-year desert march. The encampment regularly enjoyed visits from
traveling Gentile merchants hawking, well, just about everything. When it came to funding the
Tabernacle, Jews were quite generous. Generous with their gold. Generous with their copper. Generous
with their valuables. Nearly all their valuables.

Silver proved the exception. Jews did not part with silver, because it enabled them to buy things from
traveling salesmen. Those merchants only accepted silver as payment for goods. Now we can better
understand our section.

After the Torah dedicated paragraph after paragraph to the building and funding of the Tabernacle, it
segued into our section, beginning with taking a census of the men. “When you take the sum of the
Children of Israel…” The Tabernacle included many silver vessels, but silver donations were scant, for the
reason stated above.

God came with a fix. He had Moshe take a census whereby each counted man would donate a machtzit
ha’shekel. This would provide the Hebrew leader with vital information about his available fighting
forces, a requirement every military leader finds indispensable. After all, Moshe believed the Jewish
incursion into Canaan was imminent. Knowing his troops numbers made perfect sense, something every
general ascertains prior to war.

In closing, let us demonstrate how God aligned disparate goals. “And God spoke to Moshe saying. When
you take the sum of the Children of Israel”, in the main, had little to do with warding off the evil eye.
Mustering up troops is fully justified, as suggested. God observed that the Mishkan was in sore need of
silver, to manufacture certain, sacred vessels. Alignment occurred when the Creator offered sound
counsel to Moshe, bidding him to collect much silver.

Separately, Moshe sought to count the troops as a means of preparing an offensive to take Canaan.
Headcounts court danger, in the form of the evil eye (Read: a count or sum reaches large proportions).
The Maker provided an antidote. He directed Moshe to order the fighting corps to bring “a ransom for
his soul unto God.”

Abarbanel proposes that the silver was tzedakah (charity). He further holds that a direct headcount took place. As
for the threat posed by a direct tally, charity served as a life preserver. Each man safeguarded his life
from the evil eye on the merit of the machtzit ha’shekel he donated to the Mishkan.

“And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.”

Don Isaac Abarbanel (1437-1508) asks on this Torah section of Terumah: Why did God command the
Hebrews to build a sanctuary? As it says: “That I may dwell among them?” One might deduce that the
Maker has physical properties and that a sanctuary can fully contain Him.

Preposterous. Hashem is non-corporeal. Thus, no chamber – no matter how high and spacious – can
accommodate Him. Yeshayahu pegged it: “The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you may build unto Me? And where is the place that may be My resting place?”
Wise Shlomoh, the builder of the First Jewish Temple, props the prophet’s proclamation: “Behold,
heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this house that I have built!”
Does our verse in the first aliyah of Parashat Terumuah challenge the words of the prophet and wise
king?

It should be plain. The Almighty’s command to build the Tabernacle or Mishkan and its vessels had to do
with His desire to tightly interweave His holiness and holy presence or Shechinah with the Chosen
People. Of no consequence was the fact that this intimate relationship commenced between man and
God in a desert wasteland (and not lusher or more picturesque environs).

What mattered most was the goal it accomplished. Providence coddled God’s nation, in exchange of
their keeping the divine Torah. A marriage made in heaven. Never would His people contemplate the
fundamentally false, but near-ubiquitous, premise that the Creator abandoned earth. Nor would they
adopt the attitudes of the Gentiles, one based on the assumption that God retired to the heavens
above, remote from man. Moreover, the Jews would repel heresy built upon a denial of divine
providence interfacing with man. Such skewed philosophy leads to bitter consequences, namely, a
mindset that precludes the Maker from paying man back according to his evil deeds and ways.

On this topic of erroneous, theological assumptions, let us elaborate. Gentile thinkers posit that it is not
possible to attain in-depth understanding of the world, other than by sense perception or other physical
stimuli. Since God is non-corporeal, these theologians surmise, He does not tune into man’s daily doings.
Nor does He apply providence to people. Incorrectly, they believe that the Creator sits upon high, aloof
from man.

The Maker does not abide such false teachings. For a moment. In efforts to redress such misinformation
from among the Jewish ranks, God commands: “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell
among them.” The verse conveys that the Almighty Himself takes up residence amongst the Jews. This is
a religious tenet and imperative. The Creator resides in their midst. Divine providence is the vehicle or
manifestation of faith.

We return to an earlier reference to a verse in Yeshayahu, making better sense of it: “The heaven is My
throne and the earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you may build unto Me? And where is the
place that may be My resting place?”

Unequivocally, the Creator has zero need for a Temple or Tabernacle. In the very next verse in
Yeshayahu, we read: “For all these things has My hand made.” Why, then, did God command the Jews
to build the Mishkan? The answer resounds unmistakably: to etch within the Jews’ psyche the principle
of divine providence, as per Yeshayahu: “But on this man will I look, even on him that is poor and of a
contrite spirit, and trembles at My word.” This is precisely what wise Shlomoh meant in his prayer, on
the solemn occasion at the dedication of the Holy Temple.

“And you shall command the Children of Israel, that they bring unto you
pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually. In
the Tent of Meeting…Aharon and his sons shall set it in order, to burn
from evening to morning before God…”

Isaac Abravanel contends that it is curious for our section to start with a divine command regarding the
priests arranging the lights of the Tabernacle’s menorah. Yet, at present, such a commandment is out of
place. Better would have been to insert this mitzvah after we read about building the Tabernacle and
heard about the placement of the menorah (plus the other holy vessels). Granted, the menorah
directive relates to the priests, still and all, at this point in the Torah, they had not even been duly
designated (It occurs in the next verse.). If so, Abravanel wonders why verse two of our section already
tells Kohanim how to handle the menorah. In short, the instruction appears premature.

Abravanel poses another question, this time not about the content of the first verse, but rather about its
style. Phrasing seems off: “And you shall command” or ve’ata tetzaveh. The object of Moshe’s request
is the Jewish people. But, preferable would have been the imperative: “Command Aharon” or tzav et
Aharon or even “Command the Children of Israel” or tzav et bnei Yisrael. After all, and on this very
commandment, the imperative is used in Sefer Vayikra, where it reads: “Command the Children of
Israel.”

The Ramban, another classic Bible commentator, attempts to provide an answer to our first question.
He learns that the particular phrasing conveys that Moshe should not delegate this commandment to
others; it is incumbent upon him to do. For the Ramban’s approach to hold water, really, the Torah
should have written: “And you command” or veatah tzaveh, similar to an upcoming verse that does use
that grammatical construct: “And you bring forth” or ve’atah hakrev and not what we have above:
ve’ata tetzaveh.

Indeed, Biblical grammar matters. From our section’s lead verses, it does not appear that the Torah here
is issuing a divine imperative about the lighting oil. Nor do they represent a pressing message to light the
menorah.

Here is Abravanel’s answer to both questions. Consider the big picture of this section, with the first two
verses setting the scene for what ensues: priestly garb. That is, the Torah intends to launch a broader
discussion into the subject of holy garments that priests must don when officiating in the Mishkan. Thus,
the Maker tells Moshe: “And you shall command…” When? Sometime in the future you shall command
your brethren to take pure olive oil. Moreover, in the Tent of Assembly, outside of the partition covering
the Testimony, Aharon and his sons shall arrange the lamp in the evening until the next morning, before
the Creator – an everlasting edict. Exclusively, only priests or Kohanim may attend to this service. It
devolves upon Moshe to summon Aharon his brother, as well as Aharon’s sons to officiate before the
One Above.

Notice how our section pivots from its preface (menorah) to the main thrust (priestly garb). It would be
patently gauche for Kohanim to perform sacred service while wearing ordinary clothing. Given this
solemn requirement to “dress the part”, it befits Moshe to occupy himself with proper, priestly attire, as
per the balance of this section.

Precisely because sacred garments are of paramount importance, the Torah, at present, is not coming to
request the lighting of the menorah. Rather, the chief thing here is to put together respectable garments
for the Kohanim. So, when they enter the sanctuary to attend to the menorah (and other Tabernacle
activities), they dress respectfully.

Now, since Aharon and his sons will be entering the Sanctuary night and day before the Almighty to light
the menorah, they shall not make spectacles of themselves by violating the holy compound’s dress
code. Hence, our section alludes to one of the priests’ Mishkan tasks. In effect, the Torah establishes a
timeline (sometime down the road…) through a grammatical nuance before beginning in earnest, “And
you shall command”, but not the more time critical tone of “Command the Children of Israel” – which
implies posthaste.

Parashat Tzav, First Aliyah, based on Abravanel’s World of Torahby Zev Bar Eitan

Bible Studies with Don Isaac Abarbanel and the Ramban. Sacrifices in the Tabernacle: Sin offerings, guilt
offerings, and peace offerings. Abarbanel asks: Does God even want sacrifices? What does the Torah’s
sequence of the offerings teach about God?

“And God spoke to Moses saying. Command Aaron and his sons saying,
this is the law of the burnt offering…”

Don Isaac Abarbanel asks what appears to be a question of style, better of an inconsistency of style.
Regarding the sequence of the Tabernacle’s sacrifices, he makes a simple observation. Earlier in
Leviticus, where the subject of offerings is broached, the section pertaining to peace offerings is
followed by sin offerings, and then guilt offerings. Yet, here in our section, verses begin with sin and guilt
offerings prior to moving on to peace offerings. Why?

Here is Abarbanel’s answer. Early in Leviticus, God says to Moshe: “Speak to the Children of Israel.” That
section discusses the divine commandment to bring sacrifices. And the Hebrews complied, bringing their
offerings. But here something else is going on. “Command Aaron and his sons saying…”

Here the verses focus on practice, meaning the emphasis rests on the men who will actually do or carry
out Tabernacle service. Performers or agents of execution were the priests. Some sacrifices had been
the domain of the high priest, while other types fell to rank-and-file priests. Hence, “Command Aaron
and his sons saying…”

At the lead were verses concerning burnt offerings, owing to its most lofty status. Of all the varied types
of offerings, these are the Creator’s most beloved. That explains why Leviticus begins with verses
discussing burnt offerings. Top of the top. We may view it as if the Maker extends a wish or a hope. How
wonderful it would be if Hebrews only brought this altruistic type! Indeed, it is God’s prayer that Jews
would not sin and thus not need to bring either sin or guilt offerings, as they imply misdoing.

In contrast, we find the earlier section that discusses peace offering before sin and guilt sacrifices, as
opposed to our section, whose order is flipped (first sin and guilt and then peace offerings). The
Ramban, a classic Bible commentator responds as follows. In the Temple times, all sacrifices fell into one
of two broad categories: most holy and ordinary holy offerings. In the sacrifice pyramid, per se, the most
holy were the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. Underneath them were peace offerings.

But there is more to the various offering types than what meets the eye. Abravanel explains. In the
beginning of Leviticus, we find this sequence: burnt offerings, gift offerings, peace offerings, with sin
(and guilt) offerings trailing last. This order bespeaks God’s traits, always putting the right foot forward,
in a manner of speaking. Except for sin/guilt sacrifices, all other offerings highlight the positive. This
reflects the Maker’s preference; He desires idealistic folks who bring gifts to the Temple out of love and
for good occasions, good cheer.

Put differently, whenever God is faced with two options – positive and negative – He naturally favors the
positive and good. Consequently, the order of sacrifices begins with altruistic and favorable ones. They
are the goodwill offerings (burnt, gift, and peace). They exude love and idealism. Next is the sin offering,
an obligatory sacrifice suggesting remedying a wrong. Fear of God as a motivator places a distant second
place to those ushered in with affection.

“And Moshe assembled all the congregation of the Children of Israel and he said to them: These are
the words that God has commanded to do them.”

Abarbanel asks : When did Moshe make the appeal to fund the Tabernacle?

‘After Moshe descended the mountain, he addressed the entire nation. His call, naturally, reached out
to men and women. A gathering took place in the prophet’s personal Tent of Meeting, located beyond
the Hebrews’ encampment. It was crucial to assemble everyone so that they could all hear God’s
words spoken via Moshe.

In essence, the gathering was a rally for people to generously come forward and shoulder the financial
costs of building the Mishkan. According to the Ramban, this appeal, for lack of a better word, took
place the day after Moshe had come down from Sinai….

Page 320 Shemot vol. II: Assembled at Sinai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible. In Genesis chapter 7, the Bible details and describes the flood that wiped clean an
entire planet, after repeated Heavenly warnings fell on deaf ears.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Yaakov (Jacob), a bitter famine coupled with his sons’ insistence comprised formidable tailwinds propelling him to Egypt. Still, he might have braved hunger and stayed put in beloved Canaan. Perhaps he could have resisted their incessant appeals had it not been for one irresistible magnet. Its force tugged and jerked mercilessly. Uppermost in the mind and heart of the aged patriarch was an image that he hadn’t been able to shake for two decades: Yosef’s (Joseph's) face.

Abravanel’s World of Torah Shemot Vol 1 pages 13-14

Splitting the Red Sea

“And God went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar
of fire, to give them light, that they might go by day and by night. The pillar of cloud by day and the
pillar of fire by night departed not from before the people.”

‘The Almighty also provided these travelers with a pillar of fire. This flaming entity, too, was ethereal,
stretching from the sky to the ground. The Jews in the desert had not taken along lanterns or oil from
Egypt. God did not want the Jews stumbling in darkness, and He knew that an illumination source
would put a spring in their step and a smile on their faces. A burning, torch-like fire column lit up the
night. Knowing all too well that His children were in for a long haul with many zigzagging pit stops in
the wilderness, God rolled out the fire and cloud implements in advance.

Page 256 Shemot vol. I: Sinai Rules

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

Introduction to Angelology and Abarbanel

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

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

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

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

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

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

This section pertains to Jewish law, a cornerstone of Judaism. Let us provide a brief introduction to this
all-important subject. The Torah has three distinct categories of commandments or mitzvot. At present,
we are only interested in statutes or mishpatim, divine laws which comprise Jewish jurisprudence. At
root is what is commonly referred to as civil law, rules that govern the relations between a man and his
friend.

Does Jewish law or mishpatim hold advantages over other systems of civil justice? Some say no. They
contend that Jewish jurisprudence is typical in the sense that it resembles all other people’s legal
systems. This position flies in the face of Scripture: “He declares His word to Yaakov, His statutes and His
ordinances unto Israel. He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His statutes, they have not known
them.” Of course, from time immemorial societies have promulgated laws and conferred upon courts
the authority to adjudicate.

How do mishpatim stand apart? The Midrash quotes from Psalms: “The strength also of the king who
loves statutes” (read: justice). Moshe addresses, the Midrash continues, the Jewish people, explaining
that the Almighty has transmitted the Torah to them. If, however, the nation rejects mishpatim, their
negligence will result in the entire Torah being taken away from them.

Why should this be so? The Midrash concludes that the transmission of the Torah was predicated upon
the observance of the statutes, as supported by a verse: “The strength of the king who loves statutes” –
justice.

The message conveyed by the Midrash begs another question: Is praise of mishpatim excessive,
exaggerated? After all, the corpus of mishpatim discusses the mundane. How ho-hum to legislate the
consequences of a fellow’s ox goring another guy’s mule! How underwhelming are court cases
presented by someone who claims his garment had been damaged by another? On topic, the psalmist
pens: “Surely for vanity they are in turmoil. He heaps up riches, and knows not who shall gather them.”

King David calls out the superficiality of material pursuit and possessions. Given the transitory nature of
man’s tangible holdings or other commercial interests and dealings, why does the Midrash place such
sky-high value on the observance of mishpatim, stating that failure to heed them results in forfeiting
Holy Writ?

Furthermore, given that this area of the Torah deals with the ordinary, how should we understand
Judaism’s position that mishpatim rank superior to other systems (like the Noachide Code or any other
one), when on the face of it, we do not find glaring distinctions between how a Jewish versus non-Jewish
court would adjudicate torts?

And yet, the assertion is a serious one. Really, what was lacking with the code of law devised by the sons
of Noach, or Hammurabi? In short, how should we understand our section’s lead verse: “Now these are
the statutes which you shall set before them?” Assuredly, the Maker vested divine wisdom solely in
mishpatim. To paraphrase the Talumudic sages on our verse: “Before them” – the Hebrews – and not
before the Gentiles. Furthermore, the sages stressed “Before them” – and not before the illiterates.

Understand this. Divine mishpatim stand unmistakably distinct from all other legal codes, such as the
one created by Noach or successive civilizations. Here are two major differences that show Jewish
jurisprudence’s decisive edge over the rest.

One has to do with the intrinsic nature of mishpatim: They are abundantly rich, encompassing much.
That is, statutes sub-divide and pullulate, giving rise to more and more legal refinement or categories.
Some of these divine laws relate to individuals, others communal. Together, they endure far beyond
societal conventions that people devise for purposes of maintaining civil order.

We must especially consider the vast body of Jewish law which stems from the Ten Commandments.
Not surprisingly, Gentiles hold a vastly different and narrower view of the interpretation of them (“You
shall not murder” or “You shall not steal” etc.).

Two deals with the consequence of compliance. For mishpatim, God rewards handsomely. In contrast,
governments do not compensate the law abiding. To be sure, compliance for the Gentiles does ensure a
smooth, orderly community. The Creator, too, does not pay the nations for good conduct. But, as stated,
compliance does promote neighborliness.

God broadcasted the Ten Commandments on Sinai to the Hebrews. They were delivered in fantastic
shorthand (“You shall not…”). The game-changing, mountain-desert event staggered huddled masses. In
unison, the people told Moshe that they had had enough direct communication with God. From here on
out, Moshe would be their go-between. Subsequently, the exceedingly fine details of the Ten
Commandments, including Heaven’s renumeration for observance, came to the Jews via Moshe.

This preface provides proper context for our lead verse: “Now these are the statutes which you shall set
before them.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Genesis chapter 18, God once again appears to Abraham.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 4, the Bible introduces Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve’s first two sons.
Though little is explicit concerning Cain’s motive for taking Abel’s life, Abravanel plumbs Cain’s psyche.
His observations build a case to help solve the murder mystery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis Chapter 4

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. 

“And I will make you swear by God, the God in heaven and the God of
the earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son of the daughters of
the Canaanites, among whom I dwell. But you shall go unto my country,
and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, even for Isaac.”

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a preeminent Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. In Genesis chapter 24, Abraham turns his attention to finding the right wife for Isaac.
Abravanel asks about Abraham’s precondition. Why was it crucial that Isaac’s wife hail from the
patriarch’s homeland? What was his objection to the local, Canaanite girls? Certainly, it had nothing to
do with Canaan’s affinity to idol worship, though Abraham found it wholly despicable. In that
department, the patriarch’s homeland was on the same page, sharing those irreverent mores.

Abravanel gives two answers. The first one takes into account Abraham’s awareness of, and sensitivity
to, Noah’s curse: “And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his youngest son had done unto
him. And he said, cursed be Canaan.” The patriarch was adamant that his blessed Isaac would not marry
a woman born to an accursed nation. Water and oil.

Here is a second rationale behind Abraham’s qualification for his son’s wife. God had promised the Holy
Land to Noah’s son Shem. Though Canaanites, at present, ruled the land, that would not always be the
case. In time, and in accordance with divine will, Shem’s descendants would wrest control of the land of
Israel away from Canaan, liberate it, and take possession of it. Abraham traced his lineage to Shem. He
was not about to let Isaac marry a Canaanite girl, for that union would effectively enable Canaan to take
hold of the Holy Land, in violation of God’s promise to Shem. Shem, and only Shem was the legitimate
heir to the land.

Abravanel lists other reasons for Abraham’s conduct, concerning his son’s wife. Please see Abravanel’s World of Torah: Bereshit