Wife for Yitzchak

מבנות הכנעני, “from among the daughters of the Canaanite nation.” Avraham did not want that in the future anyone could claim that his claim on the Holy Land was based on intermarriage with the previous owners of that land. It had to be established beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Israelites’ claim to the land was based on G-d having promised it to their founding father, and that He used His Power to do this on their behalf.

1. And the reason for telling us the God of the Heavens and the God of the land is because in this place when a daughter is set up with someone (a shidduch) it is really from Heaven. And this is a secret.

ואברהם זקן, And Abraham was old, etc. Inasmuch as Abraham felt that he had aged and also in view of the fact that G'd had greatly blessed him, he worried that the servant who was in charge of all this wealth while his master was visibly aging would develop notions of marrying his daughter to Isaac. Eliezer might want to secure Abraham's wealth for himself through the marriage of his daughter to Abraham's son. This is the reason Abraham made Eliezer swear an oath concerning the fact that his son was not to marry someone of Canaanite descent. Eliezer would thus get the message that his daughter was not suitable marriage material for a son of Abraham who was blessed whereas the Canaanites were cursed (compare Bereshit Rabbah 59,9).

ואברהם זקן בא בימים, “Avraham was old, getting on in years, etc.” The meaning of the verse is 1) seeing Avraham felt that he had aged he was afraid that he might die before Yitzchak had married. He did not want to send off his servant without an oath in the event he would not return from his mission before he, Avraham, had died. By making Eliezer swear he assured himself that Yitzchak would do what he wanted as Yitzchak was in the habit of listening to Eliezer’s advice.
The reason Avraham did not impose an oath on Yitzchak instead was so that the servant would not be able to fool Yitzchak by presenting any number of arguments seeing hat he was not under oath to Avraham. Avraham considered the Canaanite as captive to deceitful practices as we know from Hoseah 12,8: כנען בידו מאזני מרמה לעשוק אהב, “A Canaanite uses false weights, loves to overreach.” He made the servant swear to reinforce Eliezer’s obligation in the matter.

אשר לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני, “that you will not take a wife for my son from amongst the daughters of the Canaanite, etc.” He warned Eliezer not to take a wife from a nation which was cursed. When a woman is predestined for destruction, she is apt to drag her husband in the same general direction. This is precisely what the mother of all human beings did (compare Genesis 3, 20). You are aware that this is what happened to Solomon who married a number of alien women (Kings I 11,1). The prophet testifies there that it was these women who turned his heart from being completely loyal to G-d. This is the reason that it has become the custom of the Jewish people to read this portion (in the presence of the assembled guests) to a bridegroom on the day when he gets married to remind all the people to be very circumspect in their choice of life-partners. (There is a section on this custom in Zunz: “Ritus” page 15). The Avudraham at the end of ברכת נשואין brings the custom as “on the Sabbath of the seven days of the Chuppah one reads this section before the bridegroom, etc.” (apparently in the Synagogue during the regular morning service). The groom is reminded not to marry a woman because of her physical beauty, as Solomon has said in Proverbs 31,30 ,שקר החן והבל היופי, “grace is deceptive, and beauty is vain.“ He should also not marry a woman because she is wealthy, as money is apt to develop wings and to fly off just like an eagle (compare Proverbs 23,5). The groom should also not marry a woman because she is a member of a powerful, and influential family and he hopes to become powerful and influential himself due to his wife’s connections. If these are a groom’s considerations in the choice of his wife he will be punished and will likely fail on all three counts. The guiding considerations when choosing a wife have to be reverence for G-d, choosing a family which enjoys a good reputation. Seeing that in the majority of cases the daughter‘s character is similar to that of her brothers, one may form some idea about a girl by observing the way her older brothers conduct themselves. (compare Baba Batra 110).

Our portion also teaches that it is appropriate to select a bride from amongst one’s family, as did Avraham (compare verse 4) for his son Yitzchak, and as did Amram who married Yocheved (an aunt, Exodus 2,1 something that the Torah forbade later on). Whenever people marry someone to whom they already have a natural affinity, such as members of their own family (excluding incest, of course), the likelihood of harmonious relations not only between husband and wife but between the mutual members of the respective families is enhanced.
If someone marries a wife from a lower social strata, there is a chance that he will feel superior to her and this will lead to bad blood and resentment on his wife’s part. The result will be an ongoing friction. Our sages in Pessachim 49, have described families who are cleaving to one another because they are all part of the same social strata as ענבי הגפן בענבי הגפן דבר נאה ומתקבל, “grapevines joining grapevines are something beautiful and acceptable.” The author continues in this vein, concluding with the quotation from Psalms 125,4 הטיבה ה’ לטובים ולישרים בלבותם, “Do good, O Lord to the good, to the upright in their heart.” The psalmist implores G-d to grant His blessing to people whose motivations in their choice of wife are guided by the principles we have just outlined. The psalm goes on by predicting that those who are guided by base motivations will join the path of the evildoers. When such clear lines of distinction are drawn between people who are sincere in their motivations and those who are not, Israel will be at peace (as one will not confuse one group with another).

ואברהם זקן בא בימים, “Avraham was old, getting on in years, etc.” The meaning of the verse is 1) seeing Avraham felt that he had aged he was afraid that he might die before Yitzchak had married. He did not want to send off his servant without an oath in the event he would not return from his mission before he, Avraham, had died. By making Eliezer swear he assured himself that Yitzchak would do what he wanted as Yitzchak was in the habit of listening to Eliezer’s advice.
The reason Avraham did not impose an oath on Yitzchak instead was so that the servant would not be able to fool Yitzchak by presenting any number of arguments seeing hat he was not under oath to Avraham. Avraham considered the Canaanite as captive to deceitful practices as we know from Hoseah 12,8: כנען בידו מאזני מרמה לעשוק אהב, “A Canaanite uses false weights, loves to overreach.” He made the servant swear to reinforce Eliezer’s obligation in the matter.

'ונקית משבעתי וגו THEN SHALT THOU BE CLEAR FROM THIS MY OATH etc. — and take a wife for him from the daughters of Aner or Eshcol or Mamre.

רק את בני וגו ONLY [BRING NOT] MY SON [THITHER] etc. — The word רק narrows and limits (מעוט) the sense: it is only my son who may not go back there, but Jacob, my son’s son, in the end will go back there to find a wife (Genesis Rabbah 59:10).

ויאמר בת מי את AND HE SAID, WHOSE DAUGHTER ART THOU? — He asked her this after he had given her these presents, for he was confident that, on account of the merit of Abraham, the Holy One blessed be He, had made his journey successful.

לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WIFE FOR MY SON FROM THE DAUGHTERS OF THE CANAANITES if you do not first go to my father’s house and to my family that thou mayest take a wife to my son and she will not be willing to follow you.

אלי לא תלך האשה PERADVENTURE THE WOMAN WILL NOT FOLLOW ME —The word אולי perhaps is written without ו so that it may be read אֵלַי unto me. Eliezer had a daughter and he was endeavouring to find some reason why Abraham should say that he must appeal to him (Eliezer) that he should give his daughter in marriage to Isaac. Abraham said to him, “My son is blessed and you are subject to a curse. One who is under a curse cannot unite with one who is blessed” (Genesis Rabbah 59:9).

And though Lavan, the father of Rachel and Leah, was an idol-worshipper, Isaac preferred that Jacob choose a bride from Lavan's family rather than from the daughters of Canaan. The reason for all this is as follows: A man has free will and can choose whichever way he wishes, as it is written (Deuteronomy 30:15): "See, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil — and choose life." If one denies this, it is as if he denies the entire Torah. And not only does he undermine the foundations of Torah, but he also denies the manifest nature of reality. For it is apparent that nature contains three categories: necessary, possible, and impossible, and that those things which are possible are as hidden to nature as they are to us. If it were not so, one would know what his neighbor would do momentarily or he would be just as ignorant of such deeds of his own as he was of his neighbor's. But the nature of reality plainly demonstrates otherwise — that a man's deeds are in his own hands, that he is not compelled or restrained.

But notwithstanding this, it cannot be denied by any means that a man has certain natural predispositions which incline him towards certain good or bad characteristics respectively. And these predispositions are transferred from father to son, for they are inherent natural inclinations (though they do not constitute compulsions). Therefore, since the daughters of Canaan possessed these evil predispositions, our forefathers chose to keep far from them and to enter into unions with those who were not similarly predisposed, though they served idols. For the aforementioned predispositions are inherited by one's children and are in the category of those physical sicknesses referred to in the medical treatises as "hereditary illnesses." Now the mitzvoth and transgressions of the Torah fall into two classes. There are some that jointly affect body and soul, and others that affect only the soul alone. The latter effect, though it be extremely severe, is not transferred to the offspring, there being no ties of familial relationships between souls. But those transgressions which affect soul and body jointly for the bad perforce transfer these effects to the offspring. And the transgressions which thus affect both body and soul are those which border upon character traits, such as hatred, envy, cruelty, slander, and the like. These make an evil imprint on the soul in that they are both transgressions and evil characteristics. And, in addition to this, they make an evil imprint on the body, as I shall explain.

It is clear and well known that just as the humors affect the traits, so the traits affect the humors. For just as it is dictated that one with hot, boiling blood be inclined to anger, so is it dictated that one who always becomes angry implant in his nature a predisposition to anger. The same is true of all personality traits. Therefore, one who habituates himself to these evil traits predisposes his nature to them, and, in most cases, the nature of the children is patterned after that of their parents. Accordingly, it followed that the evil characteristics of the men of Canaan be passed on to their children after them. (But though Lavan served idols it did not follow that his children's nature correspond to his in this respect at all.) For what demands the greatest circumspection are those things which border on the character traits and the influences attributable to the temper of one's heart, this being the beginning, the root, the spring, and the source of most of a man's characteristics, as our sages of blessed memory have said (Yerushalmi Berachoth 1:5): "Give Me your eyes and your heart and I shall know that you are Mine." Though the eyes are here conjoined with the heart, it is not by virtue of their possessing any special influence of their own, but by virtue of their transmitting impressions and perceptions to the heart. As Scripture states (Proverbs 4:23): "Of all watchings watch your heart, for from it are the issues of life." The commentators have explained that "from it" refers to the "watchings," the intent being to exhort one to take heed not to make light of any watchings," i.e., the gates and fences that were instituted by our sages; for though they may be insignificant in his eyes, the "issues of life" depend upon them. This is their understanding, and it is undoubtedly true, but it does not seem to be the intent of the verse. For if it were, it should not have been stated "your heart," the gates and fences being the province of act and not of heart. It would seem, then, that "from it" refers to the heart and not to the watchings and that it subsumes a wondrous idea and an extremely noble analogy, the analogy being in the realm of the material and the analogue in that of the spiritual, and both containing the same idea and with the same subject. This is the most perfect type of analogy possible and it achieves the optimum realization of the very purpose of analogies, as I shall explain.

It is well known that intellect contemplates and perceives its rarefied objects in themselves; it does not require them to be clothed in material vestments. But the nature implanted in a human beinG-does not accede to this, but requires that all of its percepts and concepts be material things that can be sensed by physical senses. Therefore, when intellect wishes to guide nature and to edify it with a subtle understanding, it must do so through the agency of a gross, perceptible analogy that is attuned to it and from which it can educe the intended teaching. Intellect follows, in this respect, the practice of the accomplished sage who desires to apprise his disciple of a subtlety beyond his understanding. First he trains him with ideas less subtle than the first but close to it in nature to habituate him to the type of thinking required. The same is true of intellect vis-à-vis nature, and this is the purpose of most analogies; but they vary, however, from subject [of analogy] to subject [of analogue]. Consider, for example, the following analogy of Solomon, may peace be upon him (Ecclesiastes 9:14): "There was a little city with few men within it. And a great king came against it and besieged it and built great siegeworks against it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he saved the city through his wisdom, but no one remembered that poor man." This is an analogy to encourage and edify a man. For all of a man's senses and lusts are at the beck and call of the evil inclination, the "great king" of the analogy. And the helpers of a man's intellect are very few, so that at first glance it would seem too weak and frail to conquer this king, who has already built great siegeworks — man's senses and lusts. Still, as will be clearly seen, this poor man, who is held to be of no account, will save the city through his wisdom from the hands of this mighty king. So the intellect, though it seem no match for the evil inclination, can humble and reduce it, for a little truth can vanquish much falsehood as a little light vanquishes much darkness. Now this analogy, though corresponding to the analogue, differs from it in subject. And this is true of most of Solomon's analogies in The Book of Proverbs. Another case in point is his analogy for the ignorance to be found in one who is lax in his pursuit of wisdom, viz. (Proverbs 24:30): "I went by the field of a lazy man and by the vineyard of a man lacking a heart. And, behold, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered it over, and its stone wall was broken down." The intent here is that if one is not absolutely zealous in his pursuit of wisdom, most of its concepts will be foreign to him and ignorance will assert itself over him, as our sages have stated (Sifrei, Ha'azinu 306): "Let us sift through the halachoth so that they do not raise rust." Now all of these analogies are true and directed to one idea, but they vary in subject. It is very rare to find an analogy corresponding to the analogue in its very subject, and, at the same time, for the analogy to be in the realm of the material and the analogue in that of intellect — and our present analogy embodies both of these perfections!

First, to explain something which is at the root of the analogy and the analogue. It is well known that an error which arises in the beginning of any analysis, though it be extremely slight, will lead to far greater deviations than will result from a far greater error which does not arise in the beginning. For example, imagine a great circle with many radii projecting from its center to its circumference. It is possible that the distance between the radii at the circumference be a mile or more, though they meet at one point in the center of the circle. Now if one finds himself at this center point and wishes to travel to a distant place along one of these radii, if he errs between one radius and another, the error, at that point, will be imperceptible. Notwithstanding this, however, that slight, initial error will cause him to stray much more than an error in the middle of the way, though the later error at the outset, involve a visibly greater movement from his path. For the beginning error perpetuates itself; not so, the later one. And this is the intent of "Of all watchings watch your heart, for from it are the issues of life." "From it" refers to the heart. Now this verse contains a "gross" material element — the analogy — and a subtle, intellectual element — the analogue. The analogy is clear. The heart is the source of life, from which all the faculties derive. For even according to those who hold that the faculties are three-fold — spiritual, vitalistic, and natural — all agree that their origin and prime material source is the spirit emanating from the heart. Therefore, nature is extremely solicitous in guarding the heart and in rejecting any elements inimical to it. For, being the beginning of things, the slightest injury to it does more damage than the greatest injury to any of the other organs. For this reason it does not tolerate abscessing, or disconnecting and rejoining, or great variations in climate. The analogy, then, is to protect the heart against anything which might injure it and to be extremely solicitous of its health, all the faculties deriving from it and the slightest mistake affecting it severely, as is the case, in general, with all mistakes affecting beginnings. This is the analogy, and it is true in its own right. The analogue, however, is of a more subtle, spiritual nature. And that is that the characteristics of the heart, which are referred to as the "spiritual affectors" are the root of all Divine service and the root of all transgressions. And it is for this reason that our forefathers did not enter into alliances with the daughters of Canaan, for the evil predispositions of their hearts were inheritable by their children after them, as we have explained (these predispositions affecting soul and body and being transferable in respect of the latter).