In the portion of Toldot, it discusses the birth of Jacob and Esau and aspects of their lives. The Torah opens with the verse:[1]
And these are the generations of Isaac the son of Abraham; Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebecca the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Padan Aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to himself for a wife. And Isaac prayed to the Lord opposite his wife because she was barren, and the Lord accepted his prayer, and Rebecca his wife conceived. And the children struggled within her, and she said, "If [it be] so, why am I [like] this?" And she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two kingdoms will separate from your innards, and one kingdom will become mightier than the other kingdom, and the elder will serve the younger. And her days to give birth were completed, and behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first one emerged ruddy; he was completely like a coat of hair, and they named him Esau. And afterwards, his brother emerged, and his hand was grasping Esau's heel, and he named him Jacob. Now Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them. And the youths grew up, and Esau was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, whereas Jacob was an innocent man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau because [his] game was in his mouth, but Rebecca loved Jacob. Now Jacob cooked a pottage, and Esau came from the field, and he was faint. And Esau said to Jacob, "Pour into [me] some of this red, red [pottage], for I am faint"; he was therefore named Edom. And Jacob said, "Sell me as of this day your birthright." Esau replied, "Behold, I am going to die; so why do I need this birthright?" And Jacob said, "Swear to me as of this day"; so he swore to him, and he sold his birthright to Jacob. And Jacob gave Esau bread and a pottage of lentils, and he ate and drank and arose and left, and Esau despised the birthright.
In the above text there are three parts: 1. the birth and identity of Isaac, as being the son of Abraham and that Abraham fathered Isaac, 2. the pregnancy of Rebecca and birth of Jacob and Esau and 3. the life of Jacob and Esau, Isaac’s offspring. The question that arises is: why does the Torah state 'These are the generations (offspring) of Isaac' and not immediately mention the names of his offspring: Jacob and Esau? Instead, it interrupts with the birth of Isaac, the pregnancy of Rebecca with the birth (not life) of Jacob and Esau and finally the subject of Jacob and Esau themselves.
The subject of the interruption – birth of Isaac
The reason for the second part of the first statement that ‘Abraham fathered Isaac’ (Avraham holid et Yitzchak) – the subject of the interruption - after already stating that Isaac was the son of Abraham (Yitzchak ben Avraham), is answered in the Talmud:[2]
And still those people were gossiping and saying to each other: Even if Sarah, at ninety years of age, can give birth, can Abraham, at one hundred years of age, father a child? Immediately, the countenance of Isaac’s face transformed and appeared exactly like that of Abraham. Everyone exclaimed and said: “Abraham fathered Isaac” (Genesis 25:19). The Talmud continues discussing Abraham: Until Abraham, there was no aging, i.e., old age was not physically recognisable. Consequently, one who wanted to speak to Abraham would mistakenly speak to Isaac, and vice versa: An individual who wanted to speak to Isaac would speak to Abraham, as they were indistinguishable. Abraham came and prayed for mercy, and aging was at last noticeable, as it is stated: “And Abraham was old, well stricken in age” (Genesis 24:1), which is the first time that aging is mentioned in the Bible.
This teaching is also found in Midrash Tanchuma[3] and Rashi: ‘Abraham begot Isaac: Since Scripture wrote: “Isaac the son of Abraham,” it had to say: “Abraham begot Isaac,” because the scorners of the generation were saying that Sarah had conceived from Abimelech, for she had lived with Abraham for many years and had not conceived from him. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He shaped the features of Isaac’s face to resemble Abraham’s, and everyone attested that Abraham had begotten Isaac. This is the meaning of what is written here: “Isaac, the son of Abraham,” because here is proof that “Abraham begot Isaac.”
Gersonides elaborates: that Isaac possessed also the same virtues and wonderful qualities which Abraham excelled in, so that it was clear who must have been his father not only physically, but that the same father also transmitted a spiritual legacy to his son.
Rashbam[4] and Sforno offer another interpretation that the statement: ‘Abraham fathered Isaac’ is meant to establish Isaac as truly the seed of Abraham, as he was born from Abraham’s full wife, Sarah, in contrast with Ishmael, who is not considered the true seed of Abraham, as he was born from the concubine, Hagar.[5]
These explanations may answer a single question in the text: why after stating ‘Isaac son of Abraham,’ does it repeat the obvious: ‘Abraham gave birth to Isaac.’ The second question, however, remains: why, in the first place, does the Torah interrupt the narrative about the offspring of Isaac instead of immediately proceeding with Jacob and Esau, following the opening: ‘And these are the offspring of Isaac?’
One question or two?
According to the above, there are two separate questions: firstly, why the repetition that Abraham fathered Isaac, after it already stated: ‘Isaac son of Abraham,’ and, secondly, why does it interrupt with the birth of Isaac instead of proceeding directly with the offspring of Isaac, Jacob and Esau?Another approach is to combine the question into one:[6] why does it interrupt the verse about the offspring of Isaac with the fact that Abraham fathered Isaac?
One answer or two?
As a standalone question, why the interruption of the text, there are three answers: a. Sforno and Rabbi David Kimchi, known as Radak, explain that the Hebrew word ‘toldot’ in this case means chronicles that include the biography of Isaac, including his own birth, and the birth and life of his descendants. b. Nachmanides explains that ‘toldot’ here refers to the section that follows the interruption: the pregnancy of Rebecca and birth of Isaac’s offspring and their lives. c. Rashi explains that ‘toldot’ means in this case literally offspring, Jacob and Esau, who are spoken about towards the end of the section. Rashi writes: ‘And these are the generations of Isaac the son of Abraham: [תּוֹלְדוֹת refers to] Jacob and Esau mentioned in this section.’
Accordingly, Sforno and Radak maintain there is in fact no interruption, as the birth of Isaac himself can be included in the word ‘toldot’ if one translates it as chronicles or biography; Nachmanides maintains the interruption is very brief, as the birth of the offspring of Isaac begins not immediately but in the verse that follows (verse 20): ‘And Isaac was forty years old;’ Rashi maintains the interruption is longer and the narrative only resumes - after their births - with the verse: ‘And the youths grew up, and Esau was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, whereas Jacob was an innocent man, dwelling in tents.’ While Sforno translates ‘toldot’ chronicles, Rashi and Nachmanides translate ‘toldot’ literally offspring. They differ however whether it includes only the life of the offspring or also their births.
Alternatively, as mentioned, the questions about the interruption and its subject – ‘Abraham fathered Isaac’ - may be read as a single question. In this case the answers are related: the reason for the interruption when discussing the lives of the offspring is because the very fact that Isaac had offspring is attributed to his inheriting the disposition and spiritual merit of Abraham that enabled him to have children.[7]
Manuscripts
I would like to suggest that the different ways of understanding this conundrum in the text about the repetition and interruption as a single issue combined and the length of the interruption are reflected in the variations in the Hebrew manuscripts of Rashi’s commentary as found in the Bodleian Library and other libraries at Oxford. There are two variations in the manuscripts: 1. In the printed version, MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225) fol. 15 and MS. Oppenheim 35 (1408) fol. 15, it states: ‘And these are the generations of Isaac the son of Abraham: Toldot refers to Jacob and Esau mentioned in this section (parsha).’ In CCCMS165 fol. 18, it adds: Toldot refers to Jacob and Esau mentioned in this section (parsha) at the end of the subject (b’sof ha’inyan).’ In MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396) fol. 23, the additional words: ‘at the end of the subject (b’sof ha’inyan)’ have dots on top indicating the words should be omitted. In MS. Canonici Or. 35 (1401-1425) fol. 29 and MS. Oppenheim Add. 4° 188 (1301-1400) fol. 11a it only writes: Toldot refers to Jacob and Esau mentioned at the end of the subject (b’sof ha’inyan),’ omitting ‘in this section (parsha).’[8]
The difference between these variations may be understood in light of the difference between the interpretation of Nachmanides and Rashi regarding the degree of the length of the interruption of the text and precise meaning of the word ‘offspring’ (toldot) of Isaac. According to Nachmanides’ reading of Rashi, the term ‘offspring’ (toldot) includes also the pregnancy of Rebecca and birth of Jacob and Esau. Accordingly, the correct version of Rashi’s commentary should be: ‘Toldot refers to Jacob and Esau mentioned in this section (parsha),’ omitting the additional words: ‘at the end of the subject (b’sof ha’inyan),’ since the birth of Jacob and Esau does not appear at the end of the subject but rather just after a brief interruption about the birth of Isaac. If however the term ‘toldot’ refers literally to only the offspring themselves - similar to the statement with Noah:[9] ‘These are the generations of Noah: Shem Cham and Japheth’ - the additional words: ‘at the end of the subject (b’sof ha’inyan)’ is most accurate in describing the length of the interruption.
One commentary or two commentaries?
A second variation in the manuscripts is whether the two commentaries about the interruption in the text and the subject of the interruption (Abraham fathered Isaac) are a single commentary or two commentaries. In all the manuscripts, it’s a single commentary and the second part – on ‘Abraham begot Isaac’ - even begins with ‘and,’ indicating a continuation. In the printed edition of Rashi’s commentary, the comments are however separated into two commentaries: the first quoting the biblical text: ‘And these are the generations of Isaac’ - about the interruption - and the second quoting the biblical text ‘Abraham begot Isaac’ – about the subject of the interruption and the repetition of who Isaac’s father was.[10]
The reason for the separation of the commentaries is because the primary question about the interruption is related to what the precise meaning of the word ‘toldot’ is: a. offspring only, b. offspring including the pregnancy and birth. c. chronicles, as found later in Genesis:[11] ‘And these are the chronicles of Jacob.’ Since Rashi is of the opinion that later in Genesis ‘toldot’ means ‘chronicles,’[12] it is necessary to emphasise that in this case ‘toldot’ means literally offspring and it relates to the offspring, Jacob and Esau, later in the section.
The commentary of the Ohr Hachaim, however, appears to combine the two commentaries, suggesting that the reason for the interruption is explained by the subject of the interruption itself, namely: the birth and very life of Jacob and Esau themselves (toldot) was only because of the fact that ‘Abraham fathered Isaac’ and they were similar to each other, not only physically but also spiritually. This was due to the fact that Isaac, who was barren, may have not been able to have a child, if not for the spiritual merit and attributes of Abraham.
In conclusion, the reason why the Torah interrupts the text that presents the life of Jacob and Esau with the birth of Isaac can be explained in three ways: a. there is no interruption as the word ‘toldot’ has a broader meaning – chronicles, b. a short interruption about the birth of Isaac does not count as a real interruption, c. a longer interruption about the birth of Isaac and the pregnancy also does not count as a real interruption as long as the original narrative (the offspring of Isaac: the life of Jacob and Esau) is resumed in the same section. We argued that this explains the variation in the manuscripts and the printed edition whether the additional words ‘end of the subject’ are included in Rashi’s commentary. In addition, we explained a reason why in all the manuscripts the two commentaries about the interruption and the repetition about Isaac as the son of Abraham are combined, suggesting, as argued by Ohr Hachaim, Abraham was not only responsible for the birth of Isaac but it was due to his merit and the same attribute of kindness that was channelled to Isaac that Isaac himself had offspring of his own: Jacob and Esau.
[1] Genesis 25:19.
[2] Talmud Bava Metzia 87a.
[3] Midrash Tanchuma, Toledot 1.
[4] Rashbam writes: ‘This is the story of Isaac ... Abraham begot Isaac. According to the plain sense of the scripture, since it says above regarding Yishma'el (v.25), "Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian bore." But here, Isaac was Abraham's principal son, as he begat Isaac from his full wife, as it is written (Gen. 21:12), "for it is through Isaac that your progeny will be accounted." And likewise in (I) Chronicles, after it wrote (1:28) that the sons of Abraham were Isaac and Yishma'el, and (1:32) about the sons of Keturah, it goes back and writes flatly (1:34), "Abraham begat Isaac."’ This explanation is also mentioned by Nachmanides but regarding a different point: ‘These are the descendants. The Torah did not give a similar genealogy for Abraham’s descendants to avoid having to include Yishmael and the offspring of Keturah. Instead it began Isaac’s genealogy with Abraham, indicating that Isaac alone is considered his seed.’
[5] Sforno. The Rosh explains that ‘Holid’ has the Gematriah of ‘domeh’ -‘similar ofappearance’ to Abraham, alluding to the Talmudic and Midrashic teaching, quoted by Rashi.
[6] Ohr Hachaim on Genesis 25:19.
[7] Ohr Hachaim on Genesis 25:19: ‘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.’
[8] See also Likkutei Sichot 5:12 footnote 1.
[9] Genesis 10:1.
[10] See also Likkutei Sichot 5:12 footnote 2.
[11] Genesis 37:39.
[12] Rashi on Genesis 37:39.