פרשה: תולדות · עלייה: ראשון (חסד)

ואלה תולדת, And these are the developments, etc. Why did the Torah mention the birth of Isaac instead of the birth of his children at this point? Why did the Torah need to tell us here that Abraham fathered Isaac?

The intent of the Torah may be understood thus. "And these are Isaac's developments," refers to events that are mentioned later on in this פרשה. Seeing the Torah will speak about the sons of Isaac, and Isaac himself was not originally capable of siring children since his own existence had been rooted in the "left" side of the emanations [until the fact that he submitted to the binding on the altar resulted in his "graduating" to the status of someone born under the aegis of the "right" side of the emanations (kabbalistic concept) compare 22,2 Ed.], the reader might have asked how Isaac could sire children at all? The Torah therefore hints in this way that the fact that Abraham had fathered Isaac enabled him to bestow upon Isaac the ability to beget children.

Alternately, the Torah may refer to Yevamot 64, where we learn that when two righteous people offer a prayer simultaneously, if one of them is also the son of a righteous person G'd will listen to his prayer first. This is why the Torah described G'd as listening to Isaac's prayer in 25,22. Accordingly, the words: אברהם הוליד את יצחק means that Abraham's righteousness was a factor in G'd enabling Isaac to have children.

A further meaning may be connected to Bereshit Rabbah 63,2 which explains Isaiah 29,22, where the prophet describes the as yet unborn Jacob as having redeemed Abraham, i.e. saved him from Nimrod's furnace. Had it not been for Jacob's merit Abraham might not have survived that experience. Our verse then would hint that it was only the combined merit of Jacob and Isaac that enabled Abraham to live long enough to beget Isaac.

The wording of our verse contains an additional meaning of the word תולדת, "developments, offspring, generations." The true "offspring" of the righteous are their good deeds. The various trials Isaac underwent during his life are not specifically described as such by the Torah, although it was he who offered his life to G'd on the altar at Moriah. There are even commentators (such as lbn Ezra 22,4) who claim that Isaac submitted only against his will. In order to prevent us from arriving at such a conclusion the Torah describes Isaac once more as a true offspring of Abraham, someone who was in no way inferior to his father in his love for and obedience to G'd. This is stressed both by the word בן אברהם and the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה. Isaac continued to accumulate meritorious deeds just as Abraham had done before him.

The Torah may also simply hint that Isaac had only one son who followed in the footsteps of Abraham, i.e. "and these are the generations of Isaac, the one who was a true son of Abraham."

Still another meaning may be gleaned from the wording "Abraham begat Isaac." Whereas Isaac did indeed match Abraham in good deeds, he could not receive the same credit since he had his father as an example and could model himself accordingly. Abraham was unique. He was "self-made," did not have a father who served as his role model. This was the reason that the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 41,8) quotes G'd as describing Abraham as "the one who loved Him." Abraham had had to initiate this love towards his Creator without the Creator having served as a guiding light for him first.

Another reason that Isaac is described as the son of Abraham here once again is to teach us that a צדיק who is himself the son of a צדיק is in class by himself, not to be compared to a צדיק who is the son of a רשע. Even though Bereshit Rabbah 38,12 states that Abraham's father Terach became a penitent before he died, he had been wicked for most of his life. The activities of a sinful father cast a pall over the spiritual light spread by the son. When looked at from that vantage point Isaac was better prepared for a pious life than his father. All this is included in the wording ואלה תולדת יצחק בך אברהם.

Isaac did not experience all the painful experiences that Abraham endured. The Torah explains the reason why by writing that he was the son of Abraham. He was the first beneficiary of his father Abraham's great and cumulative merit. If Abraham experienced far more turbulence in his life this was because it could not be said of him that a great man fathered him.

ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, When Isaac was forty years old, etc. The reason the Torah reports the age at which Isaac married, something that we were not told concerning Abraham, is in order to to explain why Isaac married so late. The words בקחתו את רבקה, explain that he had to wait that long in order to marry this particular girl. The words: "לו לאשה" "for him as a wife," spell out that only this woman could have fulfilled the role of becoming Isaac's wife. Prior to Rebeccah's birth no בת זוג, suitable potential wife, had existed for Isaac. We have explained in the last פרשה that Rebeccah was very young, having only been born when Isaac lay bound on the altar (at the age of 37) and thus became capable of fathering issue. Under the circumstances no criticism can be levelled at Isaac for not getting married earlier. Rebeccah was only three years old when Isaac married her.

בת בתואל הארמי…אחות לבן, the daughter of Bethuel from Aram,..sister of Laban. The Torah does not repeat this information in order to remind us who Rebeccah was but in order to defend Rebeccah against possible accusations. Inasmuch as the Torah tells us in the next verse that G'd responded to Isaac's prayer (though both of them prayed simultaneously), someone might have concluded that Rebeccah did not merit that her prayer should be answered by G'd; the Torah explains therefore that the only reason G'd did not respond to her prayer at the time was the fact that her father was the wicked Bethuel. Repeating the information that this Bethuel was an ארמי, is an allusion to the other way of spelling these letters, i.e. רמאי, swindler. The Torah deliberately did not mention the town Bethuel lived in in order to have a chance to allude to the fact that the man was a swindler.

The reason that the Torah again mentions that Rebeccah was a sister of Laban, something we already knew from the encounter of Eliezer and Laban at the well, is in order explain why such a fine woman gave birth to the wicked Esau. Having both a father who was a swindler and a brother who was a master swindler in her background, the marvel was Rebeccah's innocence, not the fact that one of her sons might turn out to be wicked. Baba Batra 110 already remarks that most sons turn out to have a character resembling that of their mother's brothers. The Torah attests that Rebeccah herself was an absolutely righteous woman when Isaac her husband is described as praying in the presence of his wife. Should you ask why Isaac did not examine Rebeccah's brother's character before he decided to marry her, we have already answered that she was the only woman who was his בת זוג, divinely appointed to become his wife. Had this not been so Isaac would never have married the sister of a wicked person such as Laban.

The words אחות לבן also allude to the reason that Rebeccah was barren for so many years. According to Bereshit Rabbah 60,13 this was in order that her fertility could not be credited to the blessings bestowed upon her by her brother Laban in 24,60. The Torah therefore alludes to the cause of barrenness before mentioning the fact that she could not conceive. It was because she was Laban's sister that she needed to wait to conceive until her husband's prayer.

ויעתר לו, "He responded to his entreaty." The reason that the Torah does not mention the customary "Isaac knew his wife" (as in Genesis 4,1, or Samuel I 1,19) prior to reporting her pregnancy may have been that they prayed within three days of having had marital relations. Their prayer was that the semen should not go to waste (compare Berachot 60 on the subject of semen turning unfit for conception).

ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה, The children were quarrelling inside her, etc. Both the expression ויתרצצו, "they quarrelled" and the words למה זה אנכי, "why am I therefore" need examination. Rashi explains that "if the pain involved in giving birth is so intense, why did I bother to pray to become pregnant?" It is difficult to reconcile our image of the pious and righteous Rebeccah with Rashi's comment, i.e. that she did not think the pain worth her while in order to become a mother. Also, if that had been her real concern, how did G'd's response alleviate her problem? Our rabbis have offered many and various explanations none of which are acceptable as the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the word ויתרצצו is based on the root רצץ, to crush. Since there were two fetuses in her womb she felt as if her womb was being crushed. She was afraid that she could not complete her pregnancy and would have a miscarriage as a result. Her question then was rhetorical, i.e. "what good was my becoming pregnant if this pregnancy will not be completed successfully?" The words: "she went to ask G'd," mean that she prayed to G'd to let her complete her pregnancy without mishap. She felt that the miracle of her becoming pregnant after all these years surely should not be wasted by her not giving birth to a healthy child.

ויאמר ה׳ לה, G'd said to her, etc. Although this verse has been explained by many there is still no truly satisfactory answer. G'd responded to her fear that she would miscarry by explaining to her that there was nothing medically wrong in her womb but that she was carrying two instead of merely one fetus. Whereas normally, when a mother expects twins, the two fetuses get along inside the womb (compare Song of Songs 7,4), in Rebeccah's case they did not. Hence her feeling of being crushed. She did not merely carry twins but each one was destined to become a nation with very different characteristics from one another. Not only would each one be a king in his own right, but these respective nations would endure for thousands of years. All of this would not have resulted in her having a feeling of being crushed were it not for the fact that these twins did not conform to the usual pattern of twins. When G'd explained that ממעיך יפרדו, "they will be totally separate already while still inside of you," this meant that they would not only be separate inside of Rebeccah but their being separate would continue after they were born. At any rate, G'd reassured Rebeccah that there was nothing wrong with her womb.

ולאום מלאום יאמץ, "and one nation will be stronger than the other, etc." This means that there is an additional factor preventing these two peoples from dwelling together in harmony; each one will derive its strength from the other (the defeat of the other). We find an example of this concept in a statement in Megillah 6 that the city of Tzor attained its true prominence only through the fall of Jerusalem. Seeing that each nation therefore anxiously awaits the downfall of the other, there is no hope that they will live together in brotherly harmony.

ורב יעבד צעיר, "and the senior one will serve the younger." None of the many commentaries on this expression seem to do justice to the words. Our approach will solve the problem. Not only will one of these two nations attain its respective grandeur at the expense of the other, but the nation which is defeated will wind up in servitude to the respective victor. The victor will not content himself with having vanquished his antagonist and deprived him of his assets, but he will oppress him to boot. This will further inhibit any chance of reconciliation and will increase the degree of mutual hatred. This is what the Talmud (Ketuvot 72) had in mind when it stated that a human being and a snake cannot live together in cramped quarters. The words do not mean that Esau and Jacob respectively will live in such a dependence on each other; the meaning is that whoever will be the senior one of these two nations during different periods of history will relate to the other as a tyrannical overlord.

ויקרא שמו יעקב. He called his name Jacob. The Torah refers to G'd, not to Isaac. Proof is that had Isaac been the subject in our verse, the Torah would not have continued : "and Isaac was sixty years, etc," but would have written: "and he was sixty years, etc."

ויאהב יצחק את עשו, And Isaac loved Esau. According to the Midrash Tanchuma Esau snared the love of his father by misrepresenting his true character such as enquiring about the correct manner of tithing salt. He did not bother to engage in such trickery except when dealing with his father. This was because he was not concerned about the performance of good deeds but only wanted to ensure his father would have no reason to curse him. He also hoped to obtain blessings. His mother could not dispense either, therefore he made no effort to camouflage his true self when in his mother's presence. This is why we find later on (27,41) that Esau waited for the death of his father before killing Jacob, whereas he did not wait for his mother to die before committing murder. The reason Rebeccah did not inform Isaac of Esau's wickedness may have been that Esau was careful never to put on such a charade in her presence so as not to give his mother an excuse to challenge Isaac's love for him. According to Onkelos who renders the words כי ציד בפיו as ארי מצידה הוי אכיל, "that Isaac ate from the game Esau hunted," we must ask why this reason did not also cause Rebeccah to love Esau, for surely they took most of their meals together or at least Esau did not discriminate against her? Perhaps the reason is that in accordance with the commentary of the Maharik on Even Ha-ezer 70,1 Isaac was under an obligation to feed his wife a meat diet. When a wife comes from a family who is used to such a diet the husband must keep her in the style she was accustomed to. Bethuel was a wealthy and influential man in his town, and no doubt Rebeccah had been used to a high standard of living prior to her marriage. She would not therefore be particularly grateful for the venison, considering it merely as her due.

ויזד יעקב נזיד. Jacob cooked food. Perhaps the reason Jacob did this was that he had observed how effective Esau's providing his father with delicious meals had been in cementing Isaac's love for him. He therefore tried to emulate his brother.

על כן קרא שמו אדום, this is why he named him Edom (the red one). Esau called the dish "Edom" not because he called something that was already of a reddish colour "red," but inasmuch as his lifestyle flirted with death and this food was bound to give him an additional lease on life, he called it by his own name. Esau was quite well versed in the significance of names as he himself said in 27,36: "has he (Jacob) not rightly been called יעקב, i.e. "crooked?"

ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום, Jacob said: "Sell as of this day, etc." The word "as of today," needs amplification. There are aspects to the birthright which do not become effective until after the death of the father, and as such they are legally considered as דבר שלא בא לעולם, something the eventual existence of which is still subject to doubt. The claim to such things cannot legally be established on an "if and when" basis. Jacob added the words "as of this day" in order to make the sale legal at this time. This is in accordance with Baba Metzia 16 and Choshen Mishpat 211,2. When someone who is poor and does not have what to eat goes hunting and offers the proceeds of his hunt for sale adding that such sale be effective "today," the sale is valid. The reason for this is that the poor man desperately needs the proceeds from such a sale. The Geonim write that the word "today" is not critical to the effectiveness of such a sale. Even if the sale was to be effective the day after it would still be valid. The decisive criterion is the critical need for the proceeds of the sale. The only reason the Talmud mentions the word "today" is to exclude dates such as "after thirty days or longer." As long as the time stipulated for the sale to take effect is within one day so that the seller can assure his survival during this space of time he has met the important criterion. When Jacob said "כיום," he did not mean "today" but "in accordance with the rule applying to sales that take effect within a day. He saw Esau was very tired and weak and providing this food for him at that time was a matter of survival. Had Esau not been in a temporarily desperate situation the sale would not have been legal.

ויאמר השעבה לי. He said: "swear it to me on an oath." The reason that Jacob requested an oath from Esau was because the whole institution of the birthright contains many intangibles, such as the honour and dignity conferred on the firstborn. Jacob was particularly interested in the privilege of performing duties in the Temple, something which was the duty of the firstborn at that time. We are conversant with the rule that a person cannot transfer the right to intangibles either by sale or by gift (Maimonides Hilchot Mechirah chapter 22). This is why Jacob insisted on making such acquisition by means of an oath. Yoreh Deah 239 rules that both tangibles and intangibles may be acquired by means of an oath.

Jacob used the words "swear it to me." Actually the oath is not sufficient to acquire an intangible which does not even exist yet such as becoming heir to one's father if the latter dies before the heir. The reason is that the purchaser cannot truly have convinced himself that he will ever obtain what he has purchased (Baba Metzia 16). If, however, the purchaser was absolutely certain in his mind, the object has indeed been acquired and the oath is quite irrelevant. This is why Jacob had to add the words כיום, as I have explained already. In the meantime I have found a book of the Rivash in which he writes as follows in the course of item number 328. "You have written that you have seen that the son of the Rosh wrote in the name of his father that if someone tried to acquire a "future" by means of an oath such an acquisition is legally valid. He proves the thesis from the sale of the birthright from Esau to Jacob and the fact that the latter insisted on an oath. Since we have neither the signature of the Rosh or his son Rabbi Yaakov to confirm such a theory, it is not admissible to place such theories in the mouths of great men [in order to lend them weight Ed.] seeing that the theory has absolutely no merit. The "so-called" proof from our story is no proof at all seeing that all this occurred before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. It is quite possible that in those days people did not distinguish between selling "futures" and selling "actuals." The oath then would merely have served to reinforce the sale, to protect oneself against the seller changing his mind at a later date. Esau was, after all, a man of violence." Thus far the Rivash. This is exactly in agreement with what we have written, the only difference being that the Rivash did not see fit to provide a reason why Jacob insisted on an oath.

The reason Jacob said: "swear an oath on it to me," instead of merely "swear an oath on it," is so that it would be understood that the sale was for the benefit of Jacob (not for someone else). The oath had to be acceptable to Jacob else Esau could have annulled it in his heart. The essential element of an oath is the heart, i.e. what a person has in mind at the time of the oath (compare Rabbi Akiva in Torat Kohanim 12). Rabbi Akiva insists that at the time an oath is sworn the person undertaking it must have no reservations about the declaration he makes on oath. When Jacob said "swear it to me," he meant: "make your oath correspond to my will."

Another reason Jacob was careful to add the word לי "to me," was that only he was able to acquire the birthright. Inasmuch as the benefits of the birthright include such intangibles as the duty to perform sacrificial service in the sanctuary, this was something that devolved from Isaac to his son. This privilege could not be sold to anyone who was not a son of Isaac. The dignity of the office of the priesthood (in those days equivalent to the birthright) could also not be transferred to an outsider.

וימכור את בכרתו, He sold his birthright, etc. The Torah here had to state the validity of the sale a) because of the reasons we have explained, b) because Esau acted under some kind of duress, c) that Esau sold something for a mere fraction of its real worth. In his commentary on Choshen Mishpat item 227, the Maharik writes as follows: "if someone sold something due to pressing need even at a price significantly below its accepted market value, he cannot retract because he was aware of what he was doing and forgave the difference in value to the purchaser." In view of this ruling the fact that Esau sold the valuable birthright for a single swallow of Jacob's potage did not invalidate the sale. Esau had described his state of exhaustion as: "here I am about to die;" there is no greater emergency than a person selling something in order to save his life. We know from Job 2,4 that a person will give up all that he has for his life. Had Esau not been in such a state, Jacob could not have acquired the birthright from him. When Solomon said in Proverbs 5,22 that the wicked will be entrapped by their iniquities, he had Esau in mind. According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,14 Esau had committed a number of sins on that fateful day and this was the reason that he forfeited the birthright which was transferred to someone more deserving than he.

ויקם וילך ויבז עשו את הבכורה, Esau arose, went on his way and despised the birthright. The Torah stresses that Esau's despising the birthright was a conscious act. Had the Torah written: "He arose, he went and he despised the birthright," we could have thought that he merely did so unconsciously. The Torah added the word "Esau" here once more to tell us that Esau deliberately showed disdain for the birthright. Even if Esau had not desperately needed to trade something to obtain some of Jacob's potage he would have sold the birthright cheaply at any time if Jacob had asked him to.

שכון בארץ אשר אמר אליך. "Dwell in the land I shall tell you to." This was a general directive to accept G'd's instructions where he was to take up residence even if it conflicted with his own wishes. G'd told him this in order to be able to reward him for obeying. G'd had done something similar when He told Abraham in 12,1 that he was to go to a place G'd would designate (in the future). Five verses later on G'd specified the land, i.e. "the land of Canaan," something He could have done immediately were it not for the fact that He wanted Abraham to accumulate merit for obeying His directive.

כי לך ולזרעך אתן, "for I shall give to you and to your descendants, etc." The land of the Philistines was included in the this gift of the land. Nachmanides also understands our verse in that sense. He writes that the reason G'd said "to you" i.e. not only to Isaac's descendants, may have accounted for the phenomenal success Isaac experienced when he planted in the land of the Philistines (26,12). G'd also intended to tell Isaac that he would be farming successfully there. [after all, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were shepherds not tillers of the soil. Ed.] Perhaps it was because Abraham at the time had failed to establish himself on the soil of the land of the Philistines that G'd told Isaac that he would stake a better claim to that land by ploughing and sowing it. This is why G'd was specific in speaking about כל הארצות האל, "all of these lands."

G'd also wanted to assure Isaac that Ishmael would not share in any of the promises made by Him to Abraham. This is why G'd stressed the word לך, "to you." G'd added the word ולזרעך, "and to your seed," to exclude children of Isaac who would not qualify as his seed in the spiritual sense of the word. This is similar to G'd having told Abraham (21,12) "through Isaac will your seed be known." Nedarim 31 derives from that wording that not all of Isaac's seed would be worthy.

שמע אברהם בקולי, "Abraham hearkened to My voice." He successfully passed all the tests I subjected him to; וישמור משמרתי, he was careful not to transgress anything l had commanded him even unintentionally, through momentary carelessness. וחוקותי, these are the commandments that appear to be without logical foundations. תורתי, "he studied My commandments in order not to forget them," just as Moses commanded Israel in Deut. 4,9.