Genesis 36:12

Verse 12. Timna was concubine to Eliphaz] As Timna was sister to Lotan the Horite, Ge 36:22, we see how the family of Esau and the Horites got intermixed. This might give the sons of Esau a pretext to seize the land, and expel the ancient inhabitants, as we find they did, De 2:12.

Amalek] The father of the Amalekites, afterwards bitter enemies to the Jews, and whom God commanded to be entirely exterminated, De 25:17; De 25:19.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(12) Amalek.—We have already read of the “field of the Amalekite” in Gen_14:7. As Balaam describes Amalek as “the beginning of nations” (so the Heb., Num_24:20), the race can scarcely have had so ignoble an origin as to have sprung from a concubine of Eliphaz; for we gather from Amo_6:1 that the phrase used by Balaam implied precedence and nobility. It was, moreover, one of the most widely spread races of antiquity, occupying the whole country from Shur, on the borders of Egypt, to Havilah, in Arabia Felix. But probably there was a fusion of some of the Horites with the Amalekites, just as the Kenezites, under Caleb, were fused into the tribe of Judah. For in 1Ch_4:42-43, we find the Simeonites invading Mount Seir, and smiting Amalekites there. Of these Amalekites in Seir, Amalek, the grandson of Esau, was probably the founder; for in Gen_36:16 he is called a duke, and therefore one district of the country would belong to his descendants, in the same manner as each son of Jacob had a territory called after his name. In this district the chiefs would be Semites of the race of Esau; the mass of the people a blended race of Horites. and Amalekites. There is no difficulty in the absence of their names from Genesis 10. Though Balaam magnified them, they were regarded by Israel, not as a nation, but as a hateful horde of plunderers.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. Amalek] Here a grandson of Esau; but, as the descendant from a concubine, he denotes a subordinate clan. Amalekites infested the Sinaitic Peninsula (Exo_17:8-15; Deu_25:17) and harried southern Palestine (1Sa_15:2).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And these are the sons of Reuel,.... Another son of Esau's; this man had four sons, as follow:

Nahath, and Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah: of whom we know no more than their names, unless Maps or Massa, which Ptolemy (z) places in Idumea, should have its name from Mizzah:

these were the sons of Bashemath, Esau's wife; her grandsons, as before.

(z) Geograph. l. 5. c. 16.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Amalek

(See Scofield "Exo 17:8").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

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].

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ותמנע, it is possible that the Timna mentioned here was not a sister of Lotan as opined in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 82,14) where we were told that this woman’s name and husband is mentioned in order to further illustrate the tremendous esteem in which Avraham had been held internationally at the time. This woman, who was the sister of an Aluf, i.e. a well known dignitary, a man of great prominence, said that seeing she did not have the good fortune to marry a direct descendant of Avraha, she was willing to settle for the lower rank of being a concubine to a son of Esau in order somehow to become a member of this outstanding family.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.