Notes 23. Negotiations (21:22-34)

SYNOPSIS: Abraham complains to king Abimelech that the wells he dug have been expropriated from him. As a result of these negotiations they swear a pact; Abraham gives Abimelech seven ewes, and plants a tree. The place is named Beer-Sheba, with the expected name play. God is this time called El ‛Olam.

• Text of the passage in Nawat

With regard to its narrative content, this passage does not seem especially interesting or important for the progress of the story, establishing anything of moral significance, or the provision of relevant information. Yet it does bring together several of the more typical themes and topics of Genesis: a story about wells, and about a pact. So what is it really about? Well, it probably records a local tradition or two that we might otherwise never have known of: an explanation (one of several) for how Beersheba got its name - a question which must have fascinated someone to have listed so many, and a local God's name not heard elsewhere, el ‛olam. Moreover, Fox (EF p. 85) points out that this "interlude" seems to play a role in the overall rhythm of the narrative by giving the listeners' minds a rest from the drama of the fate of Ishmael which has just been told, leaving a space between it and the next, even more melodramatic scene that will constitute the climax of this parasha. But no spoilers this time!

There are also no doubt historical references in the story that are lost to us, thereby reducing our ability to make a great deal of sense out of the incident. Remembering that this takes place in Beersheba whereas Abimelech was the ruler of Gerar, apparently a Philistine stronghold at the time some distance away in the direction of Gaza and the coast, Speiser suggests that this might have been the scenario (EAS, p. 160):

Following his encounter with Abimelech ([ch. 20]), Abraham found a promising base of operations in the oasis of Beer-sheba, a number of miles inland from Gerar. Evidently, the ruler of Gerar sought to extend his jurisdiction to the district of Beer-sheba, but could not back his claim with an adequate show of force. When a dispute over water rights at Beer-sheba threatened to get out of hand, Abimelech deemed it wiser to conclude a treaty with the local settlers, which would assure him a certain degree of authority. It is such a mutual non-aggression pact that the story before us commemorates. Abimelech brings with him his army chieftain, and perhaps also his political councillor..., to strengthen his position as the stronger party, a claim which Abraham, as a newcomer, does not appear to dispute.

There is some confusion about the ritual side of the ceremony which has been interpreted by some commentators as self-contradictory, leading to the usual hypothesis of a conflation of distinct sources. Speiser (ibid.) disagrees:

What follows is a description of the ceremonies. The first group of animals symbolizes the basic pact... The second group, on the other hand, which consists of seven ewe-lambs, is clearly labeled as a gift, the acceptance of which by Abimelech is to constitute validation (‛eda) of Abraham's claim to the well. In other words, there is only one formal occasion with two parts to it, instead of two separate pacts - or two different sources.

The ritual sacrifice of the first group of animals is described in v. 27; the additional gift of seven ewe-lambs is described in vv. 28-30.

21:23 im tishqor li
The verb sh-q-r, glossed as 'to lie, deal falsely', occurs half a dozen times in the entire Tanakh, and just this once in Gen.

ul'nini ul'nekhdi
Synonyms used together for effect rather than to increase the information in the proposition, and always in the same combination (3 times in the Tanakh): nin 'descendant', nékhed 'ditto.' The Onk. gloss uvivri uv'var b'ri 'or my son or my son's son', the LXX mêde to sperma mou mêde to onoma mou 'nor my seed nor my name', the Vulg. et posteris meis stirpique meae and so on are approximations; but it is not compulsory to have two conjoined nouns in the translation.

asher gárta bah
Regarding the meaning of g-w-r, see my brief note on shev in 20:15.

21:24 w'hokhíax... ‛al odot b'er hammáyim
The hiphil of the root y-k-x together with a complement introduced by ‛al, as here, is glossed as 'reproach'; other glosses of hokhíax are (CHALOT) 'to set someone right, reprove, requite, give judgment, settle quarrels' or (EK) 'to decide, judge, show to be right, prove, convince, reprove, correct, rebuke'. The participle mokhíax can mean 'arbitrator.' For ‛al odot see note on 21:11.

gaz'lu
The verb g-z-l means 'to take away by force, seize' and occurs again in 31:31.

21:27 wayyikhr'tu sh'nehem b'rit
It is interesting to consider this example of a formal b'rit (pact, covenant) between people, since it gives us a basic paradigm with which to be able to compare the various accounts in Gen. of covenants between God and people. Notice again the use of the verb k-r-t 'cut' for the act of formalizing the b'rit and the corresponding physical ritual of cutting animals in half, which must surely have been a tradition with very ancient roots in a primitive symbolism that is somewhat lost to us, I'm afraid, whatever the theories might propose! Speiser suggests we shouild translate b'rit as 'pact' when it is between humans, as here, and reserve 'covenant' as the translation when it is between humans and God, but I can see no justification for any such thing since no such distinction is made in the H, where a b'rit is a b'rit, and if this implies that God can do what humans can, so be it!

21:28 wayyattzev... l'vadd'hen
The verb n-tz-b means 'to stand, place' (cf. 18:2); here the hiphil (causative) is employed. This seems to refer to a separate group of animals from those just sacrificed; see the comments.

21:30 l'‛eda
As a witness (see comment above). Cf. also 31:52 where the ‛eda between Jacob and Laban is a mattzeva, a pillar - a word derived from the same verb root n-tz-b!

ki xafárti et habb'er hazzot
In Gen., the verb x-p-r means 'to dig' and is always used in reference to wells (b'erot).