Parshas Toldos 5785
In 1982, the Kahan Commission launched an inquiry into the massacre of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon, attempting to determine whether or not select Israeli officials and military personnel bore culpability for the event.
When Prime Minister Menachem Begin was called to give testimony, he was asked to provide his name for the court record. He responded, “Menachem ben Ze’ev Dov v’Chassia Begin,” referring not only to his last name, but to his parents’ names, in a formulation evocative of an aliyah to the Torah or of signing a kesubah.
Begin was insistent that for a Jewish proceeding he would be referred to as a Jew, in the manner that Jews have been referred to dating back to Biblical times.
If it was good enough for Yitzchak Avinu, after all, it would be good enough for Menachem Begin.
Parshas Toldos begins with the declaration that what will follow will be a description of Yitzchak’s progeny. But not just “Yitzchak,” rather, “Yitzchak ben Avraham.” Surely at this point in the Biblical narrative there is little need to assert which Yitzchak is being referred to, yet we could understand the Torah’s describing him using the traditional formulation.
What is truly surprising are the next words.
“Avraham holid es Yitzchak—It was Avraham who sired Yitzchak.”
Well, yes, yes of course.
Why is such a description the least bit necessary, especially considering that Yitzchak had just been identified not only by his own name, but by Avraham’s as well? Why the need to emphasize that, indeed, it was Avraham who sired this Yitzchak ben Avraham?
Rashi explains that this statement—further emphasizing the biological relationship between father and son—is necessary because this very fact had been called into question during Sarah’s pregnancy. Rashi relates that the scoffers of that generation insisted that it was not Avraham to whom Sarah had become pregnant, but to Avimelech, the King of Gerar who abducted Sarah for a night until returning her to Avraham under Divine threat of heavenly retribution.
Rashi further explains that in response to the scoffers’ claims, Hashem intervened and gave Yitzchak the exact likeness of his true father. Immediately upon his birth, there could be no doubt that Yitzchak was indeed the biological son of Avraham. Hence the Torah’s emphasis that “Avraham holid es Yitzchak—Avraham sired Yitzchak.”
That the claim of these scoffers needed to be addressed in that very generation is one thing, but why does the Torah itself make reference to this event for all time? Was this a claim that continued to dog Yitzchak and his future progeny until the time of the giving of the Torah centuries later? And if it did, would the Torah’s testimony prove sufficient to silence the baseless accusations made by members of other nations? Did the Jewish People themselves continue to doubt Yitzchak’s pedigree until the Torah itself asserted that he was indeed Avraham’s son?
Most likely, none of the above. Rashi gives every impression that upon Yitzchak’s birth, the rumor mill immediately ground to a halt, and no trace of doubt remained whatsoever by the time the Torah was given.
Rather, the Torah is simply preserving for all time a critical lesson that applies no less to our lives than to those of Avraham and Yitzchak: Scoffers existed not only in Avraham’s generation, but in every generation. Irrespective of the evidence, there will always be those who doubt, dismiss, and naysay.
Consider for a moment the nature of Yitzchak’s conception and birth in the context of Avraham’s lengthy and impressive resume. Regardless of the true identity of Yitzchak’s father, Yitzchak was unassailably a miracle baby. Ninety year olds simply do not become pregnant, yet here was Sarah, the nonagenarian, with child. Sarah was incapable of conceiving until G-d Himself intervened.
Now which man in the picture does that reality obviously align with, who himself had a long history as the subject of Divine providence and miracles? Avraham walked through fire, survived a famine, became fabulously wealthy, and nearly singlehandedly overthrew the tyranny of the “Four Kings”.
And, oh, by the way, Avraham wasn’t sterile. He had already had a son with another woman and everyone knew it.
Against that backdrop, how could anyone possibly suggest that Sarah’s child was anyone but Avraham’s? Avraham the holy man, whose dedication to the One G-d was world-renowned, and with whom G-d had clearly reciprocated with the blessing of a charmed life. Avraham who was fully capable of having children, and was simply waiting for the Divine intervention that would make it possible to do so with Sarah.
When Sarah became miraculously pregnant at ninety years of age, could there be any doubt as to who was the father?
Yes, there could be. Because there always is. There will always be naysayers who exploit the most unreasonable of doubts, who mock, jest, and spin information in ways that are completely ludicrous and undermine the best efforts of good people who seek truth.
“You’ll never pull that of.”
“That doesn’t make any sense.”
“You’re thinking way too big.”
“When did you get so frum?”
“You don’t have the time, the money, or the experience to pull that off.”
It is true that one cannot be so thick-skinned as to be impervious to criticism and suggestion. But even the most preposterous of claims will find someone to give them voice. Which means that the mere presence of those who will mock and deride isn’t proof that we must have it wrong, that what we seek to accomplish is somehow off-base.
The new career you’re trying to launch, the institution you’re trying to build, the sefer you’re trying to learn—these are all enterprises that need to be analyzed thoughtfully. But the scoffing and cynicism they may well provoke are no indication that they are unreasonable goals to set. And more than scoffing and cynicism were an indication that Yitzchak was not the child his true parents claimed him to be.
By the time the Torah was given, all doubt that Avraham was Yitzchak’s true father had surely melted. Yet the fact that those had to doubt had to be preserved for all future generations. Because there would be no future generation in which naysayers would not once more rear their heads. We must be ready for them, and be ready to ignore them.