Esav's Genealogy

(4) You will be passing through the territory of your kinsmen, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. Though they will be afraid of you, be very careful (5) not to provoke them. For I will not give you of their land so much as a foot can tread on; I have given the hill country of Seir as a possession to Esau.

(5) It is a Positive Commandment to obliterate Amalek, as it says, “erase the memory of Amalek” (Deut. 28:19). It is a Positive Commandment to perpetually remember their wicked deeds

(8) Jacob was greatly frightened and became anxious...

......because he (Esav) is coming to me with the advantage of living in the land of Israel. All these years he was dwelling (in Israel) and honouring his parents, that is to say he is coming to (meet) me with the advantage of honouring his parents

(1) בן ארבעים שנה [AND ESAU WAS] FORTY YEARS OLD

Esav is compared to a pig….A pig when it lies down stretches forth its cloven hoof as much as to say, “See, I am a clean animal”. In the same way these (descendants of Esav - again this is another whole talk in its own right) rob and extort and pretend to be honourable. For 40 years Esav snatched women from their husbands and abused them. When he was 40 he said (to himself) ‘my father was 40 when he got married – I will do the same’

Bereishis Rabba 65:1

(2) ליצחק ולרבקה TO ISAAC AND REBEKAH, because they worshipped idols (Genesis Rabbah 65:4).

(6) When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him off to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, charging him, as he blessed him, “You shall not take a wife from among the Canaanite women,” (7) and that Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and gone to Paddan-aram, (8) Esau realized that the Canaanite women displeased his father Isaac. (9) So Esau went to Ishmael and took to wife, in addition to the wives he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, sister of Nebaioth.

(1) וירא עשו כי ברך יצחק את יעקב, Esau realised that in the blessings which Yitzchok had given Yaakov the land of Canaan as his heritage had been included, and that Yitzchok also had given Yaakov specific instructions to get a wife from amongst the daughters of Lavan, the brother of his mother, and on no account to marry a local Canaanite girl. Esau therefore arrived at the conclusion that he had been deprived of his share in the land of Canaan as a penalty for having married Canaanite girls and that this was the reason why Yaakov had been successful in stealing the blessing of Avraham from him. He therefore decided to marry into Avraham’s family, i.e. a descendant of Ishmael. He thought to himself that perhaps by doing this he would restore his claim to Avraham’s heritage.

(1) This is the line of Esau—that is, Edom. (2) Esau took his wives from among the Canaanite women—Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah daughter of Anah daughter of Zibeon the Hivite— (3) and also Basemath daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth.

(4) He concerned Himself also with the genealogy of Esau’s sons in the chapter These are the generations of Esau to disclose their degeneracy. You find that they too were the offspring of incestuous relations....

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 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).

(24) The sons of Zibeon were these: Aiah and Anah—that was the Anah who discovered the hot springs in the wilderness while pasturing the asses of his father Zibeon.

(1) THERE are in the Law portions which include deep wisdom, but have been misunderstood by many persons.; they require, therefore, an explanation. I mean the narratives contained in the Law which many consider as being of no use whatever....

Had Moses nothing else to write than, And the sister of Lotan was Timna" (Gen. 36:22)

(2) Every narrative in the Law serves a certain purpose in connection with religious teaching. It either helps to establish a principle of faith, or to regulate our actions, and to prevent wrong and injustice among men; ...

(12) Timna was a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz; she bore Amalek to Eliphaz....

(40) These are the names of the clans of Esau, each with its families and locality, name by name: the clans Timna, Alvah, Jetheth,

.To teach that (Eliphaz) married his (own) daughter. How? He had a relationship with the wife of Seir and she became pregnant; from that relationship, she gave birth to Timna – he married her as if he married the daughter of Seir, but she was his daughter …… That is why it says: And the children of Seir: Lotan … and Timna was Lotan’s sister (I Chron. 1:38–39). She was Lotan’s sister by her mother, but not by his father; Elephaz was her father, and Timna became the concubine of Elephaz the son of Esau

(38) The sons of Seir: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. (39) The sons of Lotan: Hori and Homam; and Lotan’s sister was Timna.

...... The Torah uses this paragraph to tell us that Amalek, the son of a servant maid was not included in the list of Esau’s true offspring from his proper wives.....
Our sages (Tanchuma Vayeshev 1) claim that Esau slept with the wife of Seir HaChori and that as a result Timnah was born. This is why Timnah had not been included in the count of the sons of Seir, seeing that though she was the daughter of Seir’s wife she was not Seir’s daughter.

Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Israel, who would sit and teach flawed interpretations of Torah narratives. Manasseh said: But did Moses need to write only insignificant matters that teach nothing, for example: “And Lotan’s sister was Timna” (Genesis 36:22), or: “And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, son of Esau” (Genesis 36:12)........

Manasseh began by mocking a few verses and ultimately violated the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: With regard to that verse that we came to discuss, in any event, what is the significance of the phrase in the verse “And Lotan’s sister was Timna”? The Gemara explains: Timna was the daughter of kings, as it is written: “The chief of Lotan” (Genesis 36:29), and: “The chief of Timna” (Genesis 36:40), and each chief is a member of a monarchy, albeit without a crown. That is why they are called chief and not king. Timna sought to convert. She came before Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they did not accept her. She went and became a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and said, referring to herself: It is preferable that she will be a maidservant for this nation, and she will not be a noblewoman for another nation. Ultimately, Amalek, son of Eliphaz, emerged from her, and that tribe afflicted the Jewish people. What is the reason that the Jewish people were punished by suffering at the hand of Amalek? It is due to the fact that they should not have rejected her when she sought to convert. Therefore, the verse is significant.

.....if he is a man, check after him perhaps he placed his eyes on a Jewish woman. And if she is a woman, check after her perhaps she placed her eyes on the single men of Israel.

this source is quoted above - this is the full source

ותמנע היתה פילגש, “and Timnah had been a concubine.” After the Torah has provided a list of the principal descendants of Esau, i.e. the ones born by either Adah or Oholivamah, Esau’s major wives, it goes on to mention that Amalek was also a descendant of Esau through his son Eliphaz and a concubine by the name of Timnah. The Torah uses this paragraph to tell us that Amalek, the son of a servant maid was not included in the list of Esau’s true offspring from his proper wives. We know already from Ishmael and Sarah that the son of a servant-woman has no share in the father’s inheritance seeing he is a slave and as such whatever he has belongs to his master. (compare Genesis 21,10). The reason that the Torah had to tell us these details is that the descendants of Seir HaChori intermarried with the descendants of Esau so that their respective families were completely integrated with one another. At a later time the Torah commanded the Jewish people not to harass the descendants of Esau nor to invade and conquer their land. In fact the Torah (Deut. 23,9) deliberately commands us לא תתעב אדומי, “do not despise or reject an Edomite (descendant of Esau)” while at the same time commanding us to wipe out Amalek completely (Deut. 25,19), something which appears contradictory in view of the fact that Amalek is a descendant of Esau/Edom. In order to know which people qualify for treatment according to the commandment in Deut. 23,9 and which are subject to the commandment to destroy Amalek and any memory of it, it was necessary to describe the makeup of the descendants of Esau and the respective mothers who bore his or his sons’ children. When the Israelites left Egypt and Amalek attacked them in no man’s land, these were the Amalekites who were descended from Timnah the concubine of Eliphaz. This Amalek was not considered as a direct descendant of Esau, neither was he the product of any major wife of Esau or his sons.
Our sages (Tanchuma Vayeshev 1) claim that Esau slept with the wife of Seir HaChori and that as a result Timnah was born. This is why Timnah had not been included in the count of the sons of Seir, seeing that though she was the daughter of Seir’s wife she was not Seir’s daughter. (The Torah teaches that Amalek was the product of an illegitimate union which his mother had indulged in- i need to check if this is the correct translation). The Torah underlines this by describing her as a sister of Lotan instead of as a daughter of Seir, Lotan’s father (compare verse 22). Timnah was not only Eliphaz’s concubine but his sister from his father Esau. Eliphaz begat a son from Timnah who died at the birth of that son. They therefore called the son Timnah in order to keep her name alive. This is the reason that you find that name cropping up amongst the descendants of Esau. This is what is meant in verse 40 אלוף תמנע אלוף עלוה. The chieftain in question was a son of Eliphaz from his concubine Timnah.
The following paragraph beginning with אלה בני שעיר החורי, was written only in order to avoid us misunderstanding the words “Timnah was a sister of Lotan.” It teaches that this particular Timnah was the sister of chieftains and was interested in intermarrying with the family of Avraham even if it meant to become merely a concubine of one of Avraham’s descendants. This shows in what high regard Avraham’s family was held. Consider the fact that the verse commencing with ותמנע contains eight words totaling forty letters. This is an allusion to the eight times Yaakov addressed Esau as “my lord,” and to the words ארבעים יכנו, in Deut. 25,3 “that the guilty, evil party is to have forty strikes administered against him.”

(1) And Jacob sat in the land (Gen. 37:1). Whenever Scripture uses the expression and he sat (also translated “and he dwelt”), it connotes misfortune: And Israel sat in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, … and the time drew near that Israel must die (Gen. 47:29); And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to make merry (Exod. 32:37); And there fell of the people on that day three thousand men (Exod. 38:28); And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:25); And Judah and Israel sat safely (I Kings 5:5); And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon (ibid. 11:14); And Israel sat among the cedars, etc., and the people began to commit harlotry (Num. 25:1). You may explain every other use of “and he sat” with this negative implication. In this instance And Jacob sat is followed by and Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:2).

(2) What is written prior to this episode? These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau: … the chief of Lotan, the chief of Magdiel … These are the chiefs of Edom (ibid. 36:15–43). When Jacob saw the chiefs of the sons of Esau, he was terrified. “Who will be able to withstand these chiefs?” he exclaimed. To what may this be compared? It may be compared to many camels laden with flax (in a certain place), and a blacksmith standing nearby asked in amazement: “Where will it be possible to store all this flax?” An observer responded: “Why do you wonder about that? After all, a single spark from your forge can consume it all.” Similarly, when our patriarch Jacob became terrified at the sight of Esau and the chiefs, and cried out: “Who will be able to assist me against them?” The Holy One, blessed be He, answered: A spark from you will consume them. And Joseph was that spark, as it is said: And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them (Obad. 19). Therefore it is written: And Jacob sat … these are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, etc.

(3) Another explanation. Why did Scripture concern itself with the genealogy of the chiefs? Did the Holy One, blessed be He, have nothing else to write about other than the chief of Timna, the chief of Lotan, etc.? He did so to teach us that from the very beginning of the creation of the world, the Holy One, blessed be He, concerned himself with the genealogies of the idolatrous nations so that it would not be left to them to describe for mankind their sterility and their degeneracy. How did He do that? When He came to the genealogy of the sons of Ham, He said: The sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim … and Cush begot Nimrod (Gen. 10:6–8); thus He indicated that they had become defiant, as it is said: He began to be a mighty one in the earth (ibid., v. 8). Similarly, when He said: And Mizraim begot Ludim … whence went forth (ibid., vv. 13–14), He did not say “he bore him” but he went forth, thereby informing us that he was the product of an incestuous relationship.

(4) He concerned Himself also with the genealogy of Esau’s sons in the chapter These are the generations of Esau to disclose their degeneracy. You find that they too were the offspring of incestuous relations. Scripture states in one place: And the children of Elephaz were: Teman, and Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna (ibid. 36:11), and elsewhere it states: And Timna was concubine to Elephaz (ibid., v. 12). This clearly informs us that Elephaz had sexual relations with his own daughter. How did that occur? He had sexual relations with Seir’s wife first and made her pregnant and begot Timna. Later he married Timna, as though she were Seir’s daughter, when in fact she was his own. That is why it says: And the children of Seir: Lotan … and Timna was Lotan’s sister (I Chron. 1:38–39). She was Lotan’s sister by her mother, but not by his father; Elephaz was her father, and Timna became the concubine of Elephaz the son of Esau.

(5) You find likewise (that the expression sat also alludes to) the degeneracy of the descendants of Seir, since it is written: These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who sat on the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah (Gen. 36:20). However, Anah is elsewhere called the son of Zibeon: And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah (ibid., v. 24). We learn from this that Zibeon had sexual relations with his own mother, and conceived and begot Anah by her. Consequently, (Anah) was both (Zibeon’s) brother and his son. Later he had intercourse with his daughter-in-law, the wife of Anah, and Oholibamah was their child, as it is said: And these were the sons of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, Esau’s wife (ibid., v. 14), and Esau took her as a wife. Inasmuch as they were all products of incestuous relations, Scripture mentions them only to disclose their degeneracy.

(6) The Holy One, blessed be He, however, befriended Israel and called them his possessions, inheritance, (and) portion, as it is said: For the portion of the Lord is His people Jacob, the lot of His inheritance (Deut. 32:9); and ye shall be Mine own treasure among all the peoples (Exod. 19:5); and I have planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed (Jer. 2:21). Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, concern Himself from the very beginning of time with the genealogies of the nations? This may be likened to a king who dropped a pearl into sand and pebbles. The king was compelled to search the sand and the pebbles to recover the pearl. As soon as he recovered the pearl, however, he discarded the sand and the pebbles, for he was only interested in retrieving the pearl.

(7) Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, devoted Himself superficially to the earlier generations, and then ignored them. He mentioned Adam, Seth, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, etc. (I Chron. 1:1–2), and also the second ten generations, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, etc. (ibid. 1:24), so that a child could take the Bible and read about the ten generations from Adam to Noah at a single sitting, and also about the ten generations from Noah to Abraham at one time. But when he reached the section dealing with the pearls, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he would have to apply himself diligently in reading about them. That is why the section on Elephaz the son of Esau is included in this chapter.

(8) Another comment on These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, etc. (Gen. 37:2). Was not Reuben actually the firstborn? He was, but since he defiled his father’s couch (I Chron. 5:1), his birthright was given to the descendants of Joseph, the descendants of Israel. However, they are not actually accounted as the firstborn in the genealogy of the people. Another explanation. These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph. You find that Joseph resembled his father in every way, and that everything that happened to Jacob also happened to Joseph. Jacob’s brother was envious of him, and Joseph’s brothers were envious of him; Jacob was exiled to Haran, and Joseph was exiled to Egypt; Jacob said: Whether stolen by day or stolen by night (Gen. 31:39), and Joseph said: For indeed, I was stolen away (ibid. 40:15).

ויירא...ויצר HE FEARED GREATLY AND WAS DISTRESSED — He was afraid lest he be killed, and he was distressed that he might have to kill someone (Genesis Rabbah 76:2).

(20) Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean.

(1) And Jacob sat in the land (Gen. 37:1). Whenever Scripture uses the expression and he sat (also translated “and he dwelt”), it connotes misfortune: And Israel sat in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, … and the time drew near that Israel must die (Gen. 47:29); And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to make merry (Exod. 32:37); And there fell of the people on that day three thousand men (Exod. 38:28); And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:25); And Judah and Israel sat safely (I Kings 5:5); And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon (ibid. 11:14); And Israel sat among the cedars, etc., and the people began to commit harlotry (Num. 25:1). You may explain every other use of “and he sat” with this negative implication. In this instance And Jacob sat is followed by and Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:2).

(2) What is written prior to this episode? These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau: … the chief of Lotan, the chief of Magdiel … These are the chiefs of Edom (ibid. 36:15–43). When Jacob saw the chiefs of the sons of Esau, he was terrified. “Who will be able to withstand these chiefs?” he exclaimed. To what may this be compared? It may be compared to many camels laden with flax (in a certain place), and a blacksmith standing nearby asked in amazement: “Where will it be possible to store all this flax?” An observer responded: “Why do you wonder about that? After all, a single spark from your forge can consume it all.” Similarly, when our patriarch Jacob became terrified at the sight of Esau and the chiefs, and cried out: “Who will be able to assist me against them?” The Holy One, blessed be He, answered: A spark from you will consume them. And Joseph was that spark, as it is said: And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them (Obad. 1:18). Therefore it is written: And Jacob sat … these are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, etc.

(3) Another explanation. Why did Scripture concern itself with the genealogy of the chiefs? Did the Holy One, blessed be He, have nothing else to write about other than the chief of Timna, the chief of Lotan, etc.? He did so to teach us that from the very beginning of the creation of the world, the Holy One, blessed be He, concerned himself with the genealogies of the idolatrous nations so that it would not be left to them to describe for mankind their sterility and their degeneracy. How did He do that? When He came to the genealogy of the sons of Ham, He said: The sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim … and Cush begot Nimrod (Gen. 10:6–8); thus He indicated that they had become defiant, as it is said: He began to be a mighty one in the earth (ibid., v. 8). Similarly, when He said: And Mizraim begot Ludim … whence went forth (ibid., vv. 13–14), He did not say “he bore him” but he went forth, thereby informing us that he was the product of an incestuous relationship.

(4) He concerned Himself also with the genealogy of Esau’s sons in the chapter These are the generations of Esau to disclose their degeneracy. You find that they too were the offspring of incestuous relations. Scripture states in one place: And the children of Elephaz were: Teman, and Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna (ibid. 36:11), and elsewhere it states: And Timna was concubine to Elephaz (ibid., v. 12). This clearly informs us that Elephaz had sexual relations with his own daughter. How did that occur? He had sexual relations with Seir’s wife first and made her pregnant and begot Timna. Later he married Timna, as though she were Seir’s daughter, when in fact she was his own. That is why it says: And the children of Seir: Lotan … and Timna was Lotan’s sister (I Chron. 1:38–39). She was Lotan’s sister by her mother, but not by his father; Elephaz was her father, and Timna became the concubine of Elephaz the son of Esau.

(5) You find likewise (that the expression sat also alludes to) the degeneracy of the descendants of Seir, since it is written: These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who sat on the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah (Gen. 36:20). However, Anah is elsewhere called the son of Zibeon: And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah (ibid., v. 24). We learn from this that Zibeon had sexual relations with his own mother, and conceived and begot Anah by her. Consequently, (Anah) was both (Zibeon’s) brother and his son. Later he had intercourse with his daughter-in-law, the wife of Anah, and Oholibamah was their child, as it is said: And these were the sons of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, Esau’s wife (ibid., v. 14), and Esau took her as a wife. Inasmuch as they were all products of incestuous relations, Scripture mentions them only to disclose their degeneracy.

(6) The Holy One, blessed be He, however, befriended Israel and called them his possessions, inheritance, (and) portion, as it is said: For the portion of the Lord is His people Jacob, the lot of His inheritance (Deut. 32:9); and ye shall be Mine own treasure among all the peoples (Exod. 19:5); and I have planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed (Jer. 2:21). Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, concern Himself from the very beginning of time with the genealogies of the nations? This may be likened to a king who dropped a pearl into sand and pebbles. The king was compelled to search the sand and the pebbles to recover the pearl. As soon as he recovered the pearl, however, he discarded the sand and the pebbles, for he was only interested in retrieving the pearl.

(7) Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, devoted Himself superficially to the earlier generations, and then ignored them. He mentioned Adam, Seth, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, etc. (I Chron. 1:1–2), and also the second ten generations, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, etc. (ibid. 1:24), so that a child could take the Bible and read about the ten generations from Adam to Noah at a single sitting, and also about the ten generations from Noah to Abraham at one time. But when he reached the section dealing with the pearls, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he would have to apply himself diligently in reading about them. That is why the section on Elephaz the son of Esau is included in this chapter.

(8) Another comment on These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, etc. (Gen. 37:2). Was not Reuben actually the firstborn? He was, but since he defiled his father’s couch (I Chron. 5:1), his birthright was given to the descendants of Joseph, the descendants of Israel. However, they are not actually accounted as the firstborn in the genealogy of the people. Another explanation. These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph. You find that Joseph resembled his father in every way, and that everything that happened to Jacob also happened to Joseph. Jacob’s brother was envious of him, and Joseph’s brothers were envious of him; Jacob was exiled to Haran, and Joseph was exiled to Egypt; Jacob said: Whether stolen by day or stolen by night (Gen. 31:39), and Joseph said: For indeed, I was stolen away (ibid. 40:15).

(6) The Holy One, blessed be He, however, befriended Israel and called them his possessions, inheritance, (and) portion, as it is said: For the portion of the Lord is His people Jacob, the lot of His inheritance (Deut. 32:9); and ye shall be Mine own treasure among all the peoples (Exod. 19:5); and I have planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed (Jer. 2:21). Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, concern Himself from the very beginning of time with the genealogies of the nations? This may be likened to a king who dropped a pearl into sand and pebbles. The king was compelled to search the sand and the pebbles to recover the pearl. As soon as he recovered the pearl, however, he discarded the sand and the pebbles, for he was only interested in retrieving the pearl.

The Gemara explains: Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. This is as there was a certain man whose friend was named Kamtza and whose enemy was named bar Kamtza. He once made a large feast and said to his servant: Go bring me my friend Kamtza. The servant went and mistakenly brought him his enemy bar Kamtza.

The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: I will give you money for half of the feast; just do not send me away. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza then said to him: I will give you money for the entire feast; just let me stay. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Finally, the host took bar Kamtza by his hand, stood him up, and took him out. After having been cast out from the feast, bar Kamtza said to himself: Since the Sages were sitting there and did not protest the actions of the host, although they saw how he humiliated me, learn from it that they were content with what he did. I will therefore go and inform [eikhul kurtza] against them to the king. He went and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor said to him: Who says that this is the case? Bar Kamtza said to him: Go and test them; send them an offering to be brought in honor of the government, and see whether they will sacrifice it.

בפיו [THERE WAS HUNTING] IN HIS MOUTH — Understand this as the Targum renders it: in Isaac’s mouth (i. e. Isaac ate the venison he brought home). But its Midrashic explanation is: there was hunting in Esau’s mouth, meaning that he used to entrap and deceive him by his words (Genesis Rabbah 63:10).

...According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is meant to tell us a theological message, namely that the whole world was on one side – idolatry – while Avram was alone on the other – in recognizing Hashem. Rabbi Nechemia offers that “HaIvri” is meant to indicate that he was a descendant of Ever. This message is similar to Rabbi Yehuda’s, since being called a descendant of Ever in this instance is another way to say that Avram remained righteous and followed the ways of his forefather, while the rest of the world veered from the righteous path. Both opinions emphasize Avram’s total uniqueness, whether by focusing on theology or its manifestation in righteousness. He was a lone figure in the world. The Sages, on the other hand, offer a different understanding of the term, which does not connote that Avram is unique but rather embeds him in the world which he left in fulfillment of God’s command. According to the Sages, “HaIvri” is meant to indicate that was from the other side of the river (m’ever ha’nahar) and spoke their language.