“עדה בת אילון ADAH THE DAUGHTER OF ELON — She is identical with Basemath daughter of Elon (cf. 26:34) and she was called Basemath because she offered spices (בשמים) as incense to idols. אהליבמה OHOLIBAMAH is identical with Judith. He (Esau) changed her name to Judith (Jewess), suggesting that she had abandoned idol-worship, so that he might deceive his father. בת ענה בת צבעון THE DAUGHTER OF ANAH THE DAUGHTER OF ZIBEON — If she was the daughter of Anah she could not have been the daughter of Zibeon, for Anah was the son of Zibeon as it is said (v. 24) “And these are the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah”! Scripture thus tells us that Zibeon took his daughter-in-law, Anah’s wife, and of them twain Oholibamah was born (so that being a daughter of Anah’s wife she is called also his daughter). This text informs you that these were all of illegitimate birth (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1).”

“ADAH THE DAUGHTER OF ELON. She is identical with Basmath the daughter of Elon, and she was called Basmath because she burned incense (besamim) to the idols. And Oholibamah, (mentioned here), is identical with Judith. In order to deceive his father, the wicked Esau changed her name to Judith (Jewess) to suggest that she had abandoned idol-worship.”

“בשמת בת ישמעאל BASE-MATH ISHMAEL’S DAUGHTER — But elsewhere (28:9) she is called Mahalath! We find in the Agadic Midrash on the Book of Samuel (Ch. 17) that there are three classes whose sins are pardoned: a proselyte, one who is exalted to a high position and a man on his marriage. It derives the proof for the latter case from here; viz., the reason why she was also calleth Mahalath (pardon) was because his (Esau’s) sins were pardoned on his marriage to her (Megillah 17a; cf. also Genesis Rabbah 63). אחות נביות SISTER OF NEBAIOTH — because he gave her in marriage after Ishmael’s death she is called after his name (Nebaioth’s sister).”

“BASMATH ISHMAEL’s DAUGHTER. But elsewhere Scripture calls her Mahalath!, 28:9. I have found in the Agadic Midrash on the Book of Samuel: There are three persons all of whose sins are pardoned: a proselyte on conversion, one who is exalted to a high position, and a man on his marriage. It derives the proof for the latter case from here. The reason she was called Mahalath, [from the word mechilah (pardon)], is that Esau’s sins were pardoned when he married her. All this, [including the comment on Verse 2 above], is the language of Rashi. But Rashi has not explained the reason why the father of Oholibamah, who, according to Rashi, is identical with Judith, is there called Be’eri and here called Anah. And Basmath Ishmael’s daughter is here a proper name while there, according to Rashi, is an adjectival noun on account of her burning the incense! And in Bereshith Rabbah, the Sages have said: “Esau set his mind to repent. Mahalath means that the Holy One, blessed be He, did pardon him for his sins. Basmath means that he was content [with his well-born wives and his decision to repent].” Thus according to the Midrash, both names (Mahalath and Basmath) are descriptive, and their proper names are unknown. For this reason Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has said that she had two names, Adah and Basmath. Also in the case of Abijah, [king of Judah, we find that his mother had two names, Micaiah — II Chronicles 13:2 - and Maacah - ibid., 11:20]. It is possible to say that those two women [mentioned above, 26:34, i.e., Judith and Basmath], died childless perhaps as a punishment because they were a bitterness of spirit unto Isaac and to Rebekah. Esau then married his wife’s sister Adah, the daughter of Elon, and another woman by the name of Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah. But as regards Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebaioth, [who was originally called Mahalath] ,, 28:9. because of the repugnance of her name, [which suggests choli, (sickness)] in the Sacred Language, Esau called her by the honorable name of his first wife Basmath, derived from the word besamim (spices). This was because she was beloved by him since she was of his family and was not evil in the eyes of Isaac his father., 28:8.”

“AND ESAU TOOK HIS WIVES, AND HIS SONS, AND HIS DAUGHTERS. This journey took place after his brother had returned from Haran and established himself in the land of Canaan, as it says here, and he went into a land away from his brother Jacob. It is possible that this was also after the death of their father. Now when his brother Jacob was still in Haran, Esau was already in Se’ir, as is written above! But the explanation of the matter is that Esau went to Se’ir in the days of the chieftains of the Horites, the inhabitants of the land, and he became a lord with a following of four hundred men while his children and family remained in the land of Canaan. It is possible that Esau had some land there in another location, in the plain, not on mount Se’ir. Therefore Scripture speaks of him as living in the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom. And after his brother returned to the land of Canaan he vacated before his coming for he knew that the land of Canaan was the inheritance of his brother which his father had given him in his blessing. So he took his sons… and all the souls of his house — a multitude of people — and went to Se’ir to settle there. He then fought with the sons of Se’ir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land, for perhaps they feared him, and they did not permit him to enter their territory into mount Se’ir, where the fortifications were. However, he settled in the field of Edom, in his original location, and the Eternal destroyed them from before them, and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead, as it said in Mishneh Torah. It therefore says there, Because I have given mount Se’ir unto Esau for a possession., 2:5. AND HE WENT INTO A LAND. According to Onkelos, the meaning of this expression is “into another land.” But Rashi explained, “He went to stay wherever he could find room” for he went to no particular country but sought a country where he would find room to settle, until he came to mount Se’ir and settled there. In my opinion, the correct interpretation is that Scripture is saying: “And he went to the land of Se’ir,” the name of the place being omitted from the verse as it is self-understood since it has already been mentioned that he dwelled in the land of Se’ir, and it is understood that he led his family there, and right nearby, it is mentioned, And Esau dwelled in mount Se’ir. A similar case is found in this verse: He went into the castle of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house over him with fire, which means that house of the king in which he was. Similarly, And he burned the high place and stamped it small to powder, and burned the Asherah, which means the high place which belonged to Jeroboam, who was mentioned in the beginning of the verse. So also: And Joab said to the Cushite: Go tell the king… And Cushite bowed down to Joab, [which means “the Cushite” mentioned] ; And an ass and the lion, [which means “the ass” mentioned above in Verse 24]. So also: For ships were broken at Etzion-geber,, 22:49. which means “the ships” [mentioned in the beginning of that verse] ; and there are many similar verses. Here also the expression, And he went into a land, is as if it said, “into the land,” i.e., the land of Se’ir which was mentioned.”

“ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם AND THE LAND OF THEIR SOJOURNINGS COULD NOT — supply sufficient pasture for the cattle which they had. A Midrashic comment (Genesis Rabbah 82:13) on מפני יעקב אחיו [HE WENT TO A COUNTRY] ON ACCOUNT OF HIS BROTHER JACOB is: on account of the bond of indebtedness involved in the decree, (Genesis 14:13) “thy seed shall be a stranger etc… and they shall afflict them etc.” that was imposed upon Isaac’s descendants. He said, “I shall go hence — I desire no part either in the gift of this land which has been made to him (to my father) nor in the payment of this bond" . Another reason why he went away was on account of the shame he felt at having sold his birthright (cf. Genesis Rabbah 82:13).”

“AND THE LAND OF THEIR SOJOURNINGS. The meaning thereof is “the city of their sojournings,” which is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned, for the land of Canaan could support a thousand times more than Jacob and Esau. But when Esau saw that he could not stay in his city and in his place, he left the entire country to his brother and went his way.”

“AND THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU THE FATHER OF EDOM. Scripture comes to mention the generations which his children begot after they went with him to Se’ir for Esau did not beget there. Thus Scripture begins from him by saying that he had already begotten Eliphaz and Re’uel, and they begot these children in the land of Se’ir. It also mentions together with them the children of Oholibamah, who were born in the land of Canaan, even though it does not mention any children that were born to them in the land of Se’ir, so that they be counted together with their brothers, the sons of Esau, mentioned in the beginning of the section. It is also mentioned because they became chieftains in Se’ir since Scripture mentions all their chieftains.”

“ותמנע היתה פילגש AND TIMNA WAS CONCUBINE — This is stated to tell you in what importance Abraham was held — how eager people were to attach themselves to his descendants. This Timna was a descendant of chieftains, as it is said (v. 22) “And Lotan’s sister was Timna”, and Lotan was one of the chieftains inhabiting Seir — he was one of the Horites who had dwelt there from ancient times. She said to Eliphaz, “If I am unworthy to become your wife would that I might become your concubine!” In Chronicles (1 Chronicles 1:36) Scripture enumerates her amongst the children of Eliphaz, thus intimating that he took Seir’s wife and from the two of them Timna was born. When she grew up she became his concubine. This is why it is stated, “and Lotan’s sister was Timna”, and why Scripture does not enumerate her amongst Seir’s children, merely stating that she was sister to Lotan, Seir’s son, (see 5:20) because she was his sister from one mother and not from one father (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1).”

“AND TIMNA WAS CONCUBINE TO ELIPHAZ ESAU’s SON. Because Scripture was not particular to tell us the names of the mothers of all the others, our Rabbis have interpreted that this was to tell us of the esteem in which Abraham our father was held, i.e., how eager people were to attach themselves to his descendants. This Timna was a descendant of chieftains, as it is said, And Lotan’s sister was Timna, [and Lotan was one of the chieftains of Se’ir]. She said to Eliphaz, “If I am unworthy to become your wife, would that I might become your concubine,” as Rashi has written. It is possible that the five sons of Eliphaz, mentioned in the preceding verse, were generally known as his children since he had begotten them from his wives. But Amalek, [born of Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz], was not known among his brothers, [who were the recognized children of Eliphaz], and he might have been included among Esau’s children because he was his descendant. Therefore, Scripture found it necessary to say that his mother so-and-so, to whom Amalek was known to have belonged, bore him to Eliphaz, but he is not listed among the descendants of Esau and did not dwell with them on mount Se’ir. Only the sons of the mistresses, and not the son of a concubine, are called Esau’s seed, since the son of the handmaid will not be heir with his sons, in keeping with the practice of his father’s father. Now concerning the descendants of Esau, we have been commanded not to abhor them or take their land., 2:5. This refers to all his known sons who dwell in Se’ir, as they are called Edomites by his name, but the son of the concubine is not part of the descendants of Esau, and he did not inherit together with them in their land, and in fact with respect to him we have been commanded to the contrary, i.e., to abhor him and blot out his name., 25:19. Now Rashi wrote further: “In the book of Chronicles Scripture enumerates Timna among the children of Eliphaz! This implies that he lived with Se’ir the Horite’s wife and from this union Timna was born. When she grew up she became his concubine. And this is why Scripture says, And Lotan’s sister was Timna, [since Lotan’s father was Se’ir the Horite]. And the reason why Scripture does not enumerate her among Se’ir’s children is that she was Lotan’s sister maternally but not paternally.” But I do not agree with this since in the book Chronicles, it should have said, “and Timna his daughter.” Why should Scripture enumerate the woman among the sons? Perhaps Scripture is not particular about this when a matter is known for so we find there in Chronicles: And the sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, etc. [Scripture thus enumerates a woman among the sons.] If so, it is fitting that we say that this Timna was the daughter of Eliphaz, who had been born to him of the wife of Se’ir the Horite after the death of her husband, and she was thus Lotan’s sister from one mother. Eliphaz took her as a concubine, this being permissible to an idolater. Or we shall say, in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis [that Timna was illegitimate, as explained above in the words of Rashi], that the Timna mentioned in Chronicles is identical with Timna the chieftain mentioned further on, for he is enumerated there in Chronicles among the sons of Eliphaz, just as Korah is enumerated there among the sons of Esau [while here in Verses 15-16 Korah is listed among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude that he was illegitimate, as was Timna]. Furthermore, Korah is listed here in Verse 5 as the son of Oholibamah [and Esau, and further in Verse 16 he is enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude] that both Korah and Timna were illegitimate, born of one father, and enumerated with the children of another, for it is far-fetched to say that the woman Timna was enumerated among the sons, as was suggested above. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it is feasible to conjecture that Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz, after having given birth to Amalek [as stated in our present verse], gave birth to a son, and she had hard labor and died. As her soul was departing she called his name Timna so that her name be remembered, while his father Eliphaz called him Korah. Scripture, however, does not ascribe this son Timna to Timna his mother in order not to prolong the account for the intent is only to enumerate Amalek by himself. However, the sons of Eliphaz were seven, [as they are enumerated here in Verses 15-16, and Korah is among them]. Now Scripture enumerates there the chieftains who were the sons of Eliphaz in the order of their importance. Therefore, it gave Kenaz and Korah precedence over Gatam [although the order of their birth as stated in Verse 11 was: Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz]. I have an additional opinion concerning this verse in connection with that which our Rabbis have said in the Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules by which Agadah is explained.” There they mentioned this rule: “There should have been one arrangement for [two verses, meaning that there are verses which should really be combined] but the prophets divided them for some reason! An example is the verse which says, For a multitude of the people, etc.”, (II Chronicles 30:18). And then in Verse 19 it continues: His whole heart he hath set to seek G-d, the Eternal, the G-d of his fathers, though not according to the purification that pertaineth to holy things. Now Verse 18 does not explain whom G-d should pardon, while Verse 19 does not explain “who set his heart, etc.” Combining the two verses makes the sense clear. Hezekiah prayed that the good Lord pardon every one who, though he had not cleansed himself according, etc., had set his whole heart to seek G-d. Those who pursue the plain meaning of Scripture apply this to other verses. And so too this verse says: (And) the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam and Kenaz, begins Verse 12. Ramban combines the two verses into one, with the result that Timna is also enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. and Timna. Then Scripture returns to say, there was a concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son, and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek, but Scripture does not mention the name of the concubine. But in truth she was Timna, as it is said, Lotan’s sister was Timna, and this is the reason that Scripture did not mention her name here since it did not want to say “and Timna” twice, once in reference to the male chieftain and once in reference to the female concubine. Thus Eliphaz had seven sons, [who are enumerated in Verses 11-12: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek], and they are the same chieftains ascribed to Eliphaz in Verses 15-16, but they changed the name of this youngest son of Eliphaz — namely Timna — to Korah because his name was like that of the concubine and so that he should not be thought of as her son. He was named Korah upon his ascending to the position of chieftain. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Korah the son of Esau’s wife Oholibamah is counted twice; [in Verse 5 he is mentioned as Oholibamah’s son while in Verse 16 he is listed as Adah’s son], because he was the youngest of Oholibamah’s sons, [as indicated in Verse 5 where he is mentioned last. Upon his mother’s death] Adah raised him, [which explains why he is mentioned among Adah’s children in Verse 16]. So also the verse, the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, as our Rabbis have said. According to this opinion [of Ibn Ezra, i.e., that because Adah raised Korah he is counted among her children], the explanation of Scripture in the book of Chronicles (I, 1:36), [where it mentions seven sons of Eliphaz, and among them, and Timna and Amalek, while here in Verses 11-12, it mentions only six sons of Eliphaz, is as follows: The expression in Chronicles, and Timna and Amalek, means] that Timna gave birth to Amalek, the sense of the verse thus being, “and to Timna, Amalek.” The letter lamed meaning “to” is missing just as in the verse: And there were two men that were captains of bands Saul’s son, which means “to Saul’s son.” [Thus it was Timna who was his mother, but because Adah raised him he is enumerated here in Verse 12 among the sons of Adah]. The correct interpretation however is, as I have suggested, [that Timna, Lotan’s sister, bore Amalek to Eliphaz], and the verse stating, And these are the sons of Adah — [namely, Verse 16, which mentions Amalek among them], refers to the majority of the names mentioned there, for Amalek was not her son. Similarly the verse, These are the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Padan-aram, does not apply to Benjamin, [who was born in the Land of Israel, although he is mentioned in the enumeration which follows].”

“(Verse 20.) And the inhabitants of Chorraea, and the rest. After he enumerated the sons of Esau, he goes on further and explains who were the princes from the race of the Chorraeans who were before Esau in the land of Edom, which in our language is interpreted as free. Let us read diligently Deuteronomy (II, 21), where it is written more clearly how the sons of Esau came and killed the Chorraeans, and possessed their land as inheritance.”

“ישבי הארץ THE INHABITANTS OF THE LAND — i.e. who had been its inhabitants before Esau came there. Our Rabbis explained (Shabbat 85b) that they are called יושבי הארץ because they were experts in making the land habitable (by skillful cultivation) saying: this entire rood of ground is suitable for planting olives, that entire rood for vines — because they tasted the soil and so discovered what was suitable for planting in it.”

“THESE ARE THE SONS OF SE’IR ‘HACHORI’ (THE HORITE). Hachori was the name of a man who was the father of an ancient nation which was called by his name, just as the Amorite and the Perizzite, as it is said, When He destroyed the Horites from before them. And he was called Se’ir because of the name of the land which was Se’ir — a name derived from Esau who was a hairy man — from the day Esau came there. The name Edom likewise stemmed from Esau. However, Scripture seems to distinguish between “Se’ir” and “Edom” for it says, These are the sons of Se’ir the Horite who were the inhabitants of the land from the first, not the sons of Se’ir the Edomite who came there. With the help of G-d, I will yet explain the genealogy of the Horite in the book of Mishneh Torah. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Scripture mentions this in order to delineate the genealogy of Se’ir and Esau since Israel was to be commanded, concerning the sons of Esau, [not to abhor them or take their land].”, 23:8; 2:5. And Rashi wrote: “It would have been unnecessary to write the genealogy of the Horites had it not been that Scripture wishes to mention Timna, thereby showing the esteem in which Abraham was held.””

“(Verse 22.) And the sons of Lotan were Hori and Homam, and Lotan's sister was Timna. This is Timna, of whom it was said above. And Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz, the firstborn son of Esau, and from her was born Amalek. Now it is worth noting that the Horites, because the firstborn sons of Esau took their concubines as wives. And as for the names that are mentioned, Teman and Kenaz and Amalek, and so on: we will learn later the regions of the Edomites from which these names were derived.”

“AND LOTAN’s SISTER WAS TIMNA. This is analogous to the verses: And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah; And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail; And Tamar was their sister;, 3:9. and Serah their sister. It is the custom of Scripture to trace the genealogy of a daughter through the brothers. Now it would have been proper that Timna be enumerated above with the sons of Se’ir by saying, “And Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan and their sister Timna.” But since she was Lotan’s sister both paternally and maternally, and not the maternal sister of the other brothers, Scripture therefore wanted to trace her genealogy through Lotan. It may be that she was Lotan’s maternal but not paternal sister and she was not the daughter of Se’ir the Horite, [and therefore could not be listed among his children].”

“(Verse 24) He is Ana, who found Jamin in the desert, while feeding the donkeys of his father Zebeon. Much and varied is debated among the Hebrews about this chapter: for indeed, both the Greeks and our own are silent on this. Some believe that Ajamim () is a name for the seas. For the same letters are used to write seas as are used in the present discourse. And they say that he, while feeding the donkeys of his father in the desert, found gatherings of water, which are called seas in the Hebrew language: namely, that he discovered a lake, the discovery of which is difficult in the wilderness. Some people believe that hot springs near the border of the Punic language, which is adjacent to Hebrew, are signified by this word. There are those who think that wild donkeys have bred with female donkeys through this act, and thus the fastest offspring known as Jamim are born. Many believe that he himself was the first to ascend the herds of female horses with donkeys in the desert, so that new animals contrary to nature, mules, would be born from there. Eagle translated this passage as follows: He is Ana, who discovered it with the mimics. And Symmachus likewise translated the mimics, which signifies a plural number. However, the Seventy and Theodotion translated it equally, saying: the mimi, which indicates a singular number.”

“ואיה וענה literally, AND AJAH AND ANAH — The ו in ואיה is redundant, so that the words are equivalent to איה וענה Ajah and Anah. There are many examples of this in Biblical Hebrew: (Daniel 8:13) “to give (וקדש וצבא) both the Sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot”; (Psalms 86:7) “they are cast into a deep sleep (ורכב וסוס) the riders also and the horses”. הוא ענה THIS WAS THAT ANAH mentioned above (Genesis 36:20) as the brother of Zibeon. Here is called his son, thus telling us that Zibeon and his own mother were the parents of Anah (Pesachim 54a). את הימים means THE MULES — He crossed an ass and a mare, the offspring being a mule. Being himself the offspring of an unnatural union he reared such in the animal world (Pesachim 54a). Why are they called ימים (which may signify “dreaded beings”)? Because the fear of them lies upon people; for R. Hanina said, “No-one has ever consulted me about an injury caused by a white mule and has recovered (וחיה literally, lived)”. “But do we not see that such a person has recovered (lived)? But you should not read וחיה “and he lived”, but וחיתה “and it (the wound) healed up” — for such a wound never heals up (Chullin 7b). From “But do we not see" is to be found in an old text of Rashi. It would have been unnecessary to write the genealogy of the Horites had it not been that it wishes to mention Timna, thereby showing in what importance Abraham was held, as I have explained above (Genesis 5:12).”

“AND THESE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ZIBEON: AND AJAH, AND ANAH. The letter vav in the word v’ayah — (and Ajah) is redundant. Similarly: Thy father’s servant ‘va’ani’ (and I) have been in time past, so ‘va’ani’ (and I) will now be thy servant. In both cases the vav is redundant, and the meaning of the word is ani (I). And there were the heads of their fathers’ houses: ‘va’epher’ (and Epher), and Ishi — here too the vav is redundant. And there are many others like them. Now this Zibeon was the third son of Se’ir the Horite, and he begot these two children, Ajah and Anah, and Scripture relates that this Anah, Zibeon’s son, was that same Anah who found the mules in the desert as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father, to differentiate between him and his uncle Anah, the brother of his father, Zibeon. This Anah, Zibeon’s son, was Esau’s father-in-law.. WHO FOUND THE ‘YEIMIM’ IN THE DESERT. In the opinion of some of our Rabbis in the Talmud, the yeimim are mules, and this man discovered that an ass and a mare, even though they were unlike species, could breed together as opposed to other unlike species. Scripture says that he found them in the wilderness as he fed the asses, for he had there in the desert many asses seeking she-asses and he mated them with mares, and they begot offspring. It would appear that in his generation it was accounted to him as an act of wisdom in that he knew the various species which are nearly alike in nature and thus can produce offspring by cross-breeding. He was thus known by this deed, and therefore Scripture described him by it. And Onkelos translated yeimim as valiant men. It would appear from his opinion that this Anah was attacked by people from a nation called Emim, as it is said, The Emim… a people great, and many and tall as the Anakim, and they wished to rob him of the asses of Zibeon his father. He was in the desert with no one to help him, but he overtook them and saved the asses from their hand. The word matza in matza eth hayeimim is thus to be associated with these expressions: Thine hand ‘timtza’ (shall overtake) all thine enemies; And I have not delivered thee into the hand of Saul. It may be that the word matza means that he found them and they were thus saved, and he came to be known for this prowess. This is correct.”

“AND THESE ARE THE CHILDREN OF ANAH: DISHON AND OHOLIBAMAH THE DAUGHTER OF ANAH. Such is the way of Scripture when referring to daughters, as in the expression, and his daughter Dinah. Now this Anah was the fourth son of Se’ir the Horite, enumerated above, after Zibeon his brother, for the section enumerates seven sons of Se’ir the Horite in the order of their birth. This Anah had another son also called by the name Dishon as was his uncle, and he had a daughter called Oholibamah, which was also the name of her relative, the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon. This is why Scripture says concerning Esau’s wife, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, in order to relate that she was the daughter of Anah who had found the mules, and granddaughter of Zibeon, not Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the son of Se’ir the Horite, Zibeon’s brother. However, in the opinion of some of our Rabbis there is in this entire section only one man called Anah, and he was Zibeon’s son. Since Zibeon committed incest with his mother, the wife of Se’ir the Horite, Scripture thus enumerates Anah among Se’ir the Horite’s sons because people considered him as Se’ir’s son and called him “Anah the son of Se’ir,” and he grew up among his sons because Se’ir thought he was his son. Scripture, however, enumerates him a second time as Zibeon’s son in keeping with the true facts. This is the interpretation of the symbolizing interpreters as is mentioned in Tractate Pesachim, but it is not the consensus of opinion in the Gemara and is not at all the plain meaning of Scripture.”

“AND THESE ARE THE CHILDREN OF DISHAN: HEMDAN AND ESHBAN. This Dishan is identical with Dishon, the fifth son of Se’ir, it being of no consequence whether he is called Dishan or Dishon, except when both names are mentioned in one verse in order to distinguish between them. Similarly, And Hirom made the pots… So Hiram made an end of doing all the work. It was necessary for Scripture to call him Dishan here so that it should not be thought that he is identical with Dishon the son of Anah mentioned nearby [in Verse 25] for the purpose of ascribing his children to him, for so it would have appeared.”

“’ואלה המלכים וגו AND THESE ARE THE KINGS etc. — There were eight and Jacob raised an equal number in whose days the kingdom of Esau temporarily ceased to exist, viz., Saul, Ishbosheth, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Asa, Abiah and Jehoshaphat. For of the days of Yoram his (Jehoshaphat’s) son it is written, (2 Kings 8:20) “In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah and made a king over themselves”, whereas in the days of Jehoshaphat it is written, (1 Kings 22:48) “And there was no king in Edom: a deputy was king”.”

“AND THESE ARE THE KINGS THAT REIGNED IN THE LAND OF EDOM. This was written in order to relate that the blessing of Isaac was fulfilled in Esau. He had said to him, And by thy sword shalt thou live, and they prevailed over the sons of Se’ir the Horite and reigned over them in their land. These cities mentioned here were provinces in the land of Edom, for Bozrah belonged to Edom, as it is written, For the Eternal hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom. Similarly, the land of the Temanites, is also of Edom, as it is said concerning it, And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one may be cut off from the mount of Esau, as are all the cities mentioned here. Scripture, however, relates that these kings did not succeed their fathers, as was the case in Israel. The expression, Before there reigned any king, means “many years before.” But before there reigned any king does not mean that these kingdoms of Edom continued to exist until the kingdom of Israel. Instead, it means to say that at that time the Edomites will not have sovereignty, in order to fulfill Isaac’s words, and thou shalt serve thy brother. It is possible that all these kings had already passed away in the days of Moses, refers to Moses. This coincides with the opinion of Ibn Ezra expressed in his commentary on Verse 31. as they were old when they crowned them, and their lives were not prolonged.”

“יובב בן זרח מבצרה JOBAB, THE SON OF ZERAH OF BOZRAH — Bozrah was one of the Moabite cities, as it is said (Jeremiah 48:24 which chapter is a prophecy against Moab), “[Judgment is come upon…] and upon Keriath and upon Bozrah etc.” Because it produced a king for Edom it is to be smitten together with them (the Edomites), as it is said (Isaiah 34:6) “For the Lord hath a slaughtering in Bozrah, [and a great slaughter in the Land of Edom]’ (Genesis Rabbah 83:3).”

“המכה את מדין בשדה מואב WHO SMOTE MIDIAN IN THE FIELD OF MOAB — for Midian came to war against Moab and the king of Edom went to assist Moab. From here we learn that although Midian and Moab were at strife one with the other yet in the time of Balaam they made peace in order to band themselves against Israel (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 3).”

“WHO SMOTE MIDIAN IN THE FIELD OF MOAB. The intent thereof is to tell of Hadad’s prowess, for the Midianites had come into the field of Moab to overpower them, but he was victorious over them all. Baal-hanan the son of Achbor was of the same place as Shaul of Rehoboth by the River, in whose stead he reigned, and therefore Scripture does not ascribe another city to him. It is possible that “Hanan” is the name of a place, and he was the master thereof, which accounts for his name Baal-hanan, and afterwards he became king.”

“ואלה שמות אלופי עשו AND THESE ARE THE NAMES OF THE CHIEFS OF ESAU — [… AFTER THEIR PLACES ACCORDING TO THEIR NAMES] they were called by the names of their districts after Hadad died and the royal dignity had ceased so far as they were concerned. The former names mentioned above (v. 15ff.), are the names given them at their birth. This, too, (the first statement made here) is expressly set forth in Chronicles (2:51) “And Hadad (Hadar) died, and the chiefs of Edom were: the chief of Timna etc.” (We must therefore translate here: “the chieftain of Timna etc.”)”

“AND THESE ARE THE NAMES OF THE CHIEFS THAT CAME TO ESAU. At first Scripture enumerated Esau’s grandsons who were chieftains in that generation, and afterwards some of his descendants succeeded in attaining sovereignty. After that their kingdom ceased, and the Edomites once again appointed these chieftains as their head. And so it is said in the book of Chronicles: And Hadad died. And the chiefs of Edom were: the chief of Timna. So did Rashi explain it here in his commentary on this verse. And that which Scripture says here, according to their families, after their places, by their names, [and in Verse 43], after their habitations in the land of their possessions means that among the previous chiefs, [mentioned above in Verses 15-19], all the brothers who were the chiefs dwelled in one city, ruling one people, or their position was analogous to the princes of the tribes and the heads of families [in Israel]. But these latter ones were chiefs according to their families, meaning that each one was chief of all the families of Esau’s descendants, and in all of their dwelling places, for in that generation he alone was called “chief,” no other person being so called in all the land they possessed. Thus they were as kings in their countries, but they were not enthroned, and the glory of royalty was not bestowed upon them. In the opinion of many commentators (Verse 31) refers to Saul, king of Israel. Moses who wrote the Torah could therefore know it only by prophecy. this section was written as a prophecy. But this is not correct. Why should prophecy mention these kings, and until what point in time was Scripture to enumerate them and stop? Rather the correct interpretation is that all these ruled before the Torah was given in the days of Moses. Now we may say that they all ruled in one time, and then the explanation of after their places would be that each one ruled in his place, or else their rule lasted but a short time, as Scripture says, But the years of the wicked shall be shortened.”

“MAGDIEL. This is Rome. Thus the words of Rashi. But I have not understood this. If we say that this is a prophecy for many days to come, and of times that are far off, then many Roman kings have ruled over the Roman kingdom, and Rome is not a chieftaincy, but rather it is a great empire, terrible, and strong exceedingly, there never having been her like among kingdoms. However, the Rabbis have said in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, “In reward for having cleared out his utensils in the face of our father Jacob, G-d granted him one hundred provinces, from Se’ir to Magdiel, and Magdiel is Rome, as it is said, The chief of Magdiel, the chief of Iram.” By this the Rabbis intended to say that of which I have already informed you several times, i.e., that that which occurred with the first ones contains allusion to their descendants. Now these last ten chiefs, together with Magdiel who is the tenth, allude that there will be ten Edomite kings. in their sovereignty during the Fourth Kingdom. who will rule over Edom, and the tenth of these will rule over Rome, and from there their kingdom will spread over the whole world. It is to this that the name Magdiel — [from the words gadol and el] — hints that he will magnify himself above every power, as it is said concerning him, And the king shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every power., 11:36. And it is this which is written, And as for the ten horns, [which were on the head of the fourth beast], out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise; and another shall arise after them, and he shall be diverse from the former., 7:24. And the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah, “All of the chiefs mentioned by Scripture are descendants of Esau.” And the Rabbis have further interpreted: “The chief of Iram — that he is destined to heap up [l’arom] treasures for the king Messiah.” May he speedily reveal himself. Vayeishev”