Kommentar zu Bereschit 11:30

ותהי שרי עקרה אין לה ולד. Sarai remained barren, she had no child. Why did the Torah have to add "she had no child?" Our sages (Yevamot 64) comment that she had no womb. The Talmud there elaborates that both Abraham and Sarah were congenital טומטמאים, people with undeveloped genitals. The Talmud bases this on Isaiah 51,1: "Look to the rock you were hewn from, to the quarry you were dug from. Look back to Abraham your father and to Sarah who brought you forth." Rashi comments there that "hewn from" and "dug from" refer to G'd having supplied male and female genitals to Abraham and Sarah (after they were adults). The Talmud also states there that when someone marries a woman and lives with her for ten years and she bears no children during that time, he should divorce her and pay her כתובה, her marriage settlement. This is based on Genesis 16,3 where Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to have children with after she had failed to bear children after ten years in the land of Israel. The Talmud questions why we do not rather take Isaac as an example. He lived with Rebeccah for at least twenty years and did not take another wife but prayed and as a result had children from Rebeccah. The Talmud answers that actually the reason the Torah mentions the number of years Abraham lived in the land of Israel before he married Hagar was to enable us to compute Ishmael's age in comparison to Isaac's. This also enables us to calculate Jacob's age during different periods of his life. Tossaphot comment that actually Isaac too waited only for ten years before he prayed, seeing that Rebeccah was three years old when he married her and her normal child-bearing years did not commence until after Isaac was married to her for ten years. Tossaphot concludes that a) not all Midrashim agree on the subject; b) in those days girls were able to bear children at a much younger age than nowadays. They also say that even assuming that Abraham had been born without visible genitals, by the time he married he had obviously developed in this respect. However, we must accept the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah who holds that once a טומטום, such a person is unable to sire children even after his genitals have become visible. Of course, one must assume that Sarai's genitals too, had become visible by the time Abraham married her. [there is no good reason that Abraham a) would have married while suffering such a crucial physical blemish; b) that Sarah would have been given in marriage to anyone while she was similarly afflicted. Ed.] Even according to the view that once the genitals of a טומטום have become visible he is no longer totally sterile, it is unlikely that such people will be capable of siring or bearing children. The Torah therefore adds the words אין לה ולד in the case of Sarah to tell us that though she was no longer a טומטום, her condition had not changed materially, and she still did not conceive.

ותהי, the Torah makes clear that Sarai was barren, and that even if at a much later stage in her life she did give birth to a son, Yitzchok, this was not a natural development but was a miracle which could not be explained scientifically. This is the reason why the Torah did not simply content herself with the words ותהי שרי עקרה, “Sarai remained barren.” When Sarah did eventually bear a child, not only was the fact that she gave birth a miracle, but her age at the time, long after she had passed the child-bearing age, was an additional miracle. Although Sarai’s sister did not bear a child for many years, she is not reported as having been genetically barren. She apparently suffered some disease which was not connected to her basic ability of bearing children.

ותהי שרי עקרה, אין לה ולד, “Sarah remained barren, she had no child.” Some women remain childless for many years, appearing to be barren; at the end of a number of years they become pregnant and have children. Our verse informs us that in addition to Sarai being עקרה, “barren,” she was unable to conceive any children by nature, i.e. אין לה ולד. This is why both Avram and Sarai decided to leave their home and to move to the land of Canaan hoping that due to the additional merit of the Holy Land they would be able to have children. Although the words “Terach took his son Avram, etc.” convey the impression that Terach was the prime cause of that move, this is not true. The fact is that the family undertook the whole journey only on account of Avram. We find later on that after Terach died, his grandson Lot joined Avram (12,4; 13,1) who was the enterprising member of the family.