Commentaire de citation sur Chroniques 1 1:28

SHEM, HAM, AND JAPHETH. It appears to me that Japheth was the oldest, as it is said, the brother of Japheth the elder,²⁰Genesis 10:21. and so in counting their generations, Scripture mentions the children of Japheth first.²¹Ibid., 10:2. Ham was the youngest of all, as it is said, And [Noah] knew what his youngest son had done unto him.²²Ibid., 9:24. Here, however, Scripture mentions Shem first because of his superiority and then Ham, for they were born in that order. Thus Japheth is left at the end. But Scripture did not want to say, “Shem and Japheth and Ham,” because in that case all of them would have been mentioned out of the order of their birth, and Japheth had no outstanding quality to merit that the order of birth be dispensed with on his account. Shem, however, is mentioned here first because of his superiority even though in the account of the generations he is last.²⁰Genesis 10:21. Similarly, [we find the verses]: The sons of Abraham: Isaac and Ishmael;²³I Chronicles 1:28. Here too Isaac is mentioned first because of his superiority although Ishmael was older. And I gave to Isaac Jacob and Esau.²⁴Joshua 24:4. This also is similar to the above case.

אברהם הוליד את יצחק, according to the plain meaning of the text this statement was necessary to prevent the wrong impression being created by the previous statement in verse 12 where Ishmael is described merely as having been born by Hagar the Egyptian woman. Here when Avraham’s principal son, Yitzchok is the subject of the paragraph, it was important to repeat who had fathered him. He was the son of Avraham’s true wife, his lifetime companion, and G’d had predicted in Genesis 21,12 that Avraham’s descendants would always be known through his son Yitzchok and his descendants. We have a similar verse in Chronicles I 1,28 describing Yitzchok and Ishmael as Avraham’s sons, [but not in the chronological order of their births, to remind us that the principle of preference for the firstborn was ignored. Ed.] In connection with the sons of Keturah, described as the concubine of Avraham, Chronicles does not even spell out that Avraham fathered Keturah’s sons. In fact, in verse 34 of that chapter in Chronicles, the fact that Avraham fathered Yitzchok is repeated once more, no such repetition being made concerning Ishmael.

ABRAHAM BEGOT ISAAC. Rashi comments: “Since it was written, Isaac, Abraham’s son, it became necessary for Scripture to say, Abraham begot Isaac, since the scoffers of the generation³Those who did not believe in the Divine Providence that guided Abraham’s destiny. were saying, ‘It was from Abimelech that Sarah became pregnant.’ Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, formed Isaac’s facial features similar to those of Abraham so that all should say,⁴“Say.” In our text of Rashi: “testify.” Abraham begot Isaac.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra further says that the meaning of the word holid (begot) is “bring up and raise,” as is the expression, ‘Yuldu’ (were raised) upon Joseph’s knees,⁵Further, 50:23. The word yuldu there could not mean “were born,” for it would then mean that Joseph’s great grandchildren were actually born upon his knees. It must mean “raised.” Similarly, it means here, “Abraham raised Isaac.” even as it says, And he sent them away from Isaac his son.⁶Above, 25:6, referring to the other children that Abraham sent away. Thus it is clear that only Isaac was raised by Abraham.
In my opinion the correct reason [that Scripture states here, Abraham begot Isaac], is that it now reverts and begins the genealogy with the founding father, in consonance with Scriptural custom, which is to revert to the head of the ancestry when dealing with people of distinction.⁷The Hebrew anshei hama’alah, which literally means “men of elevation,” refers to spiritual or political distinction. Similarly, it is written in the book of Chronicles, The sons of Shem: Elam and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech. And Arpachshad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber.⁸I Chronicles 1:17-18. After Scripture concluded this listing, it began again by saying, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah,⁹Ibid., Verse 24. This is explained by the fact that Shem is the head of Abraham’s ancestry. Hence Scripture reverts to him in tracing the generations. until, Abram, the same is Abraham.¹⁰Ibid., Verse 27. So also in the genealogy of Benjamin in the book of Chronicles, Scripture reverts to previous generations and begins, And Ner begot Kish, and Kish begot Saul.¹¹Ibid., 9:39. Saul was king of Israel. Hence Scripture reverts to his founding ancestor. Here also [the Torah reverts to the founding father and says], Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob, as Scripture will soon mention.
It is necessary that Scripture return to relate this¹²“This” refers to the statement, Abraham begot Isaac. For the purpose of indicating Jacob’s distinction it would have been sufficient to mention, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Merely mentioning Abraham in this connection would have satisfied the Scriptural principle of reverting to the founding father in the case of “people of distinction.” Why then did the Torah continue, Abraham begot Isaac? Ramban proceeds to resolve this difficulty in accordance with Scriptural textual principles as opposed to Rashi, quoted above, who resorted to an Aggadic explanation: “Since the scoffers of the generation were saying etc.” since it said, And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son.¹³Above, 25:12. Now, had it only said, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son, it would appear that Scripture equated Ishmael and Isaac with respect to genealogy and distinction, all the more so since it mentioned the firstborn first.¹⁴Thus, Ishmael, the firstborn son of Abraham, would seem to be more significant than Isaac since he was referred to in exactly the same manner as Isaac and additionally he was mentioned first. Hence it became necessary to augment Isaac’s distinction by saying, Abraham begot Isaac. Furthermore it would have been fitting that it begin with Abraham¹⁵In other words, instead of saying, And these are the generations of Isaac, it would have been proper that Scripture begin with Abraham, but Scripture had to avoid this for reasons explained further on in the text. and say, “These are the generations of Abraham.” But Scripture did not wish to do this in order to avoid listing Ishmael and the children of Keturah.¹⁶Above, 25:1-4. It is for this reason that Scripture returns and completes the verse by stating, Abraham begot Isaac, as if to say that it is he [Isaac] alone who is Abraham’s offspring. It is considered as if he [Abraham] did not beget anyone else, just as it says, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee.¹⁷Ibid., 21:12. It is for this reason that it also says above, And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bore unto Abraham:¹³Above, 25:12. the phrase, whom Hagar, etc., is for the honor of Isaac, as if to say that the genealogy of these generations is not traceable to Abraham, rather they are the children of the handmaid, even as it says, And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation.¹⁸Ibid., Verse 13. Scripture does also similarly in the book of Chronicles. At first it states: The sons of Abraham; Isaac and Ishmael. These are their generations: the first born of Ishmael, Nebaioth.¹⁹I Chronicles 1:28-29. Then it mentions, And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bore Zimran.²⁰Ibid., Verse 32. Now it would have been logical to follow this by saying, “the sons of Isaac,” but instead it reverts and begins: And Abraham begot Isaac. The sons of Isaac: Esau, and Israel.²¹Ibid., Verse 34. The repetition, And Abraham begot Isaac, is necessary lest we equate “the sons of Ishmael” with “the sons of Isaac.”