This article is based the Torah commentary Torah Giants On Chumash.
13.And Mizraim begot Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, 14.Pathrusim, and Casluhim, whence the Philistines came forth, and Captorim. (Gen 10:13-14)
What are we to make of the wave of pro palestinian protests? Where does Palestine originate from? To understand this we have look in the Torah Portion of Noach for insight.
In the Torah we have the account of the generations of Noach after the flood. Specifically the sons of Noach; Shem, Ham and, Japeth. The focus will be on Ham’s descendants from witch came Cush, Mizraim, Put and, Canaan.
Quoting a midrash, Rashi explains that the Pelishtim literally came from the Patrusim and Kasluchim, for these tribes married one another. Yet the Torah states that the Pelishtim came out from “there,” not from “them.”
More likely is the interpretation of the Ramban. Early in his commentary on Devorim, in a long essay on ancient tribal migrations, Ramban notes in passing that this verse is quite precise. For the Pelishtim, as children of Mitzrayim, belonged in Africa, yet they “went out from there” and entered Canaan as invaders. (In fact, “Pelishtim” comes from the root poleish [invade]!) Furthermore, Ramban understands that they “went out from there with Kaftorim,” the two peoples merging into one. Indeed, Yirmiyahu refers to the Pelishtim as “ ...the remnant of the island of Kaftor” (47:4).
This narrative continues with Avaraham’s covenant with the Pelishtim.
And it was after these events that God tested Avraham... (22: 1)
Unlike Rashi, Rashbam links this introduction to the akeidah with the previous chapter, basing himself on the grammatical rule, often quoted by Rashi himself, that the Hebrew term “achar” (after) means “immediately after” (as opposed to “achare”). He therefore claims that the akeidah was Avraham’s punishment for establishing a covenant with Avimelech concerning the Land of Israel. It was as if God were telling him, “How dare you appease this uncircumcised tribe that controls part of the land I promised you? How can you give away your holy land to other goyim?! You committed future generations to this covenant, but now you may not even have a future!”
How indeed could Avraham have made this mistake? When God enumerates the ten nations Am Yisrael will dispossess as part of the bris bein habesarim (15:19-21), the Philistines are omitted! Perhaps Avraham therefore presumed that they were entitled to their territory The question now becomes: Why in fact are they not mentioned?
As discussed in Noach (comment no. 54), the Pelishtim belonged in Africa but invaded Canaan, their uncle’s territory. That is why they are introduced to us with the fact that “the Philistines went out from there” (10:14). Accordingly, in his commentary on sidras Devorim, Ramban declares them foreign invaders with no claim to Canaan.
(Indeed, the root of the word “Pelishtim” means “invade” in Hebrew!) Therefore, they are not even listed in God’s covenant with Avraham.
The only remaining question is: Since Avraham did make a pact with Avimelech, however misguidedly, how do we extricate ourselves from it? The answer lies in Toldos, where we will demonstrate by textual analysis that: (a) this covenant is no longer binding; (b) Yitzchak made no similar covenant.
Next we need to look at Yitzhak’s covenant with Avimelech and how he dealt with it.
As analyzed in Veyeira (comment no. 112), Avraham’s covenant with Avimelech was an honest mistake. Regardless, whenever one party to a covenant violates its commitments, the covenant is nullified, as the Mordechai rules in Shevuos, section 782. Thus, once Avimelech expelled Yitzchak from his territory (26:16), despite having promised Avraham’s descendants peaceful domicile, the covenant between them was null and void. Hence the king’s attempt to establish a new one (26:26), having realized his colossal blunder.
So claims Ramban, but there are major difficulties in these verses (26:26-33): (1) Why would Yitzchak have made a covenant after God had just told him that he and his children would inherit “all these lands” (26:3)? As we’ll see, he certainly wasn’t acting out of fear. (2) After Yitzchak had finally made peace with the shepherds of Gerar and dug an undisputed well, “Rechovos,” why would God have had to tell him,
“fear not” (26:24)? (3) Why does this chapter end with the digging of a well, and why is Be’ersheva said to be named after this well when we know the city was so named because of Avraham’s oath there (21:31)?
I am convinced that there was no covenant between Yitzchak and Avimelech. After all, just before our passage, God had reissued the promise made to Yitzchak in greater detail in 26:2-5, so how could he have signed away his territory to Avimelech? Rather, heeding God’s message to “fear not,” Yitzchak greets Avimelech’s entourage with disdain and antagonism (26:27).
Avimelech and his chief of staff, Pichol, respond fawningly: “We have seen that God has been with you, so we said, ‘Let there be an oath between us - between us and you - and let us make a covenant with you” (26:28). Why the repetition of “we” and “between us”?
Perhaps Pichol first convinced Avimelech that any covenant with Yitzchak could only be enforced if Pichol controlled the king’s soldiers, just as the king himself controlled the civilian population. Thus, they promise Yitzchak, “We have agreed to all this; the covenant is first between us [Avimelech and Pichol] and then between us and you!” Unlike Avraham (21:24), Yitzchak does not respond, “I will swear.” Rather, “he made them a party and they ate and drank.” And instead of the usual Biblical “and they slept over,” the next verse declares, “And they awoke in the morning...” - Yitzchak got them so drunk that they simply fell asleep, awakening the next morning with no recollection of the night before! Thus, Yitzchak avoided any oath!
Now comes the tricky phrase: “and they swore, each to his brother” (26:31). Whereas Avraham’s covenant with Avimelech is mentioned four times, this is the only reference to an actual oath in our chapter. Further-more, rather than stating that they swore “to each other” or “each to his friend, why would the Torah call this uncircumcised Pelishti- viewed as an abomination throughout Tanach - a brother to Yitzchak Avinu?
Nowhere else in Tanach is any Jew called “brother” to any non-jew, except for actual brothers like Yaakov and Eisav. Rather, Avimelech and Pichol are just reaffirming the oath between them. Tellingly, Yitzchak is not mentioned in this verse until “and Yitzchak sent them off, and according to grammarians like Ibn Ezra, the pi’el verb form here connotes throwing someone out! The next phrase, “and they left him in peace,” sounds cordial enough, until we remember the Talmudic statement that
“go in peace” is a curse and only “go to peace” is a blessing (Moed Kalon гga). Thus, Yitzchak kicked them out and - inwardly, at least - wished them a speedy demise, much in the spirit of 26:27!
If this interpretation seems too midrashic, consider how neatly it answers the question of the well. Since Yitzchak made no oath - and Avraham’s was null and void - the Torah explains that Be’ersheva retained its name only because of the well discovered there that day, which Yitzchak dubs “Shivah,” meaning “seven,” as explained by Seforo and others. But we are free of our oath to the Philistines forever!
(In a sermon, I once pointed out how the modern-day “Palestinians” are the spiritual [if not genealogical] heirs of the Pelishtim, for they, too, have invaded Israel from Arab lands and then proclaimed themselves the “indigenous” population, telling us where to go and what to do! And they, too, make oaths with “Pichol,” literally, “the mouth of all,” meaning the international mouth, the U.N.! Haven’t they, too, been toasting all their resolutions in which they tell us where, when, and how to retreat? Perhaps it is time we emulated Yitzchak’s response.)
I recognize that this analysis is a radical departure from accepted interpretation and many will doubt it. But skeptical readers should at least note that this oath does not mention Yitzchak’s progeny. Thus, at most, Yitzchak bound himself alone to a peaceful relationship with the Pelishtim. And since Avraham’s covenant was nullified, no treaty remains to bind future generations of Jews. This alternative approach also explains the insertion of the story of the well to justify the name Be’ersheva.
With this understanding, we can see that the Pelishtim don’t have a homeland so to speak but, rather they wander about looking to invade an unsuspecting nation that won’t look into their history and simply let them in without the expectation of assimilation. This the mistake that Europe and the rest of the western world is making when comes to this unfortunate mindset among our national leaders who have no idea the kind of people they really are.
When we look at world events with a Torah perspective you will see clearly what is occuring. The following verse should remind us all that:
Whatever has been is what will be, and whatever has been done is what will be done. There is nothing new beneath the sun!
