פירוש על בראשית 17:17

ויפל אברהם על פניו ויצחק AND ABRAHAM FELL UPON HIS FACE AND LAUGHED — This word ויצחק Onkelos translates by וחדי which signifies joy (“and he rejoiced’’) but the similar verb in the case of Sarah (ותצחק Genesis 18:12) he translates as meaning laughter. From this you may understand that Abraham had faith and rejoiced, and that Sarah had no faith and sneered, and that is why God was angry with Sarah (when she laughed) but was not angry with Abraham.

‘VAYITZCHAK’ (AND HE LAUGHED). Onkelos translated: “and he rejoiced.” This is correct since the word tzachak can be used intermittently for sporting or rejoicing, just as in the verses: ‘Mesacheketh’ (Sporting) in His habitable earth,⁴³²Proverbs 8:31. ‘mesachkim’ (rejoiced) before the Eternal.⁴³³II Samuel 6:5.
In my opinion the intent of this expression is to convey the thought that whoever sees a favorable unusual event in one’s life rejoices to the point where “his mouth is filled with laughter.”⁴³⁴Psalms 126:2. It is this thought which Sarah expressed: G-d hath made laughter for me; everyone that heareth will laugh on account of me,⁴³⁵Further, 21:6. just as in the verse, Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing.⁴³⁴Psalms 126:2. And this is what Abraham did. When this good tiding was related to him, he rejoiced and his mouth was filled with laughter, and he said in his heart that this is an occasion for rejoicing as it is a very wonderful matter. Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And will this matter not give cause for rejoicing and happiness? Only, Scripture speaks summarily of his wonderment, as it is connected with the word vayitzchak. A similar case is the expression, Have I even here seen,⁴³⁶Above, 16:13. which is connected with the beginning of the verse: for she [Hagar] said, “Have I even here seen G-d, revealing to me that He saw in my affliction, and shall I not call Him E-il-ro’i [the G-d who seeth me]?” Another such example is the expression, Did I reveal Myself unto the house of thy father,⁴³⁷I Samuel 2:27. which is connected with the following verse, Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at Mine offering,⁴³⁸Ibid., Verse 29. thus stating, “Have I chosen you so that you kick at My sacrifice and Mine offering? Why then do you do so?”
It may be that the question, Shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old? is an expression of amazement, not one of impossibility, just as in the verse, Wilt thou judge the bloody city,⁴³⁹Ezekiel 22:2. which means, “Do you want to judge her and cause her to know all her abominations?” A similar case is the verse, Wilt thou set thine eyes upon it? it is gone.⁴⁴⁰Proverbs 23:5. Likewise is the verse, Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?⁴⁴¹Above, 3:11. That is to say, “Has the thought occurred to you to eat of the tree?” This verse likewise is saying, “Has the thought occurred to anyone that a child be born to him that is a hundred years old, and that Sarah, who is ninety years, shall bear?” After that Abraham said to Him that he wishes this miracle be with the life of Ishmael.⁴⁴²Verse 18 here.

?הלבן מאה שנה יולד; He meant that although it is possible for a woman to become pregnant after her prime, when this occurs it is only when she sleeps with a younger man. It has not been known to occur when her partner is also an old man.

ויפל, as we explained already on verse 3. This was his way of gratefully acknowledging what G'd had told him concerning Sarah.

ויצחק, “he rejoiced, laughed internally.” Onkelos renders this word as וחדי, “he rejoiced.” He reacted like someone who has been told of an unexpected fortuitous event, something that qualifies for his shouting for joy.

There are expressions of astonishment that affirm ... I.e., they do not deny the matter. Avraham meant: “Hashem can do anything, even against the laws of nature, but not everyone merits that Hashem should bestow upon him such kindness!” [You might ask:] Rashi later writes: וכך אמר בלבו הנעשה חסד זה לאחר מה שהקב"ה עושה לי. Is this not an expression of astonishment that denies? The answer is: Avraham was not denying the matter, claiming it could not be. Rather, he was praising Hashem for bestowing upon him more kindness than He does anyone else. So it seems to me; this explanation is preferable to the Re’m’s.

Man hat hier ויצחק als Ausdruck der Freude nehmen zu müssen geglaubt; allein die durchgängige Bedeutung von צחק in תנ"ך lässt diese Auffassung durchaus nicht zu. Selbst שחק ist nicht eigentlich ein Ausdruck der Freude, sondern lachen, und zwar überwiegend, ein höhnendes, geringschätzendes Lachen, oder: Scherz, Spiel, nicht eben eigentlich: Freude. צחק ist aber ausnahmslos ein ironisches Lachen, ein Lachen, das eine gewisse Negierung, Verurteilung des das Lachen hervorrufenden Gegenstandes in sich trägt. Wie hier von Abraham, heißt es ja im folgenden Kapitel in ganz gleicher Weise von Sara: ותצחק שרה, und dies war doch sicherlich nicht Ausdruck einer Freude, sie hätte es sonst nicht geleugnet und es hätte sie kein Vorwurf getroffen.

ויאמר בלבו, “He said to himself:” the expression ויאמר בלבו, as in Genesis 27,41 about Esau, or in Esther 6,6 where it is used about Haman, is typical for wicked people; on the other hand, when a similar expression is used in connection with righteous people the formulation is: ויאמר על לבו, as in Samuel I 27,1 in connection with David, or in Daniel 1,8 in connection with Daniel. The reason for this change in formulation is that the righteous are allowed to carry out their plans, i.e. what is in their hearts, as they are in charge of their hearts, whereas the wicked only think that they will be able to carry out their plans. The reason that in connection with Avraham the former formulation is used, is because the reader of these words is apt to think that even Avraham doubted G-d’s promise.

הלבן SHALL A CHILD BE BORN TO ONE WHO IS A HUNDRED YEARS OLD? — There are some questions expressing astonishment which do not imply a doubt but rather affirm the certainty that the circumstance referred to has happened or will happen, as (1 Samuel 2:2) “Did I reveal myself [unto thy father’s house?]” (Of course, I did) and (Ezekiel 8:6) “Seest thou what they do?” (You, of course, have seen it). This question, too, affirms the certainty that it is possible for God to cause Abraham, at the age of hundred, to beget a son and this is in effect what he said to himself: Would there be done to another man one hundred years old this favour that the Holy One, blessed be He, is doing to me”? (Rashi means that the words must be translated, “would a child be born to any other person who is a hundred years old?”).

הבת תשעים שנהת לד, when she sleeps with any man whether young or old. (based on Abarbanel)

ויצחק, he rejoiced in his heart, as per Onkelos. This was not a laughter which was derisive.

הלבן מאה שנה ייולד, “will a child be born to a hundred year old father?” Avraham expressed amazement, but not at the fact that a hundred year old man could sire children. He himself had at least 6 children when much older, and other males fathered children at such an age. His amazement concerned the fact that he would sire a child from a woman with whom he had lived as man and wife for so many decades without having succeeded to impregnate her with his semen. His amazement was reinforced further since he knew that Sarah at 90 had long ago ceased to menstruate.

In the days of Avraham, life was already shorter ... [Rashi is answering the question:] Why was Avraham surprised that Sarah should give birth at 90?] The Re’m writes: I do not understand Rashi’s answer. Although life was shorter in Avraham’s days, the question stands: Avraham’s age of 100 when compared to his lifespan of 175 is about the same as an age of 500 when compared to Noach’s lifespan of 950. Thus, Avraham should not have been surprised. The Re’m elaborated on this difficulty. But it seems to me that Avraham’s surprise was because they both were old. An elderly man can beget children if his wife is young, whereas if they both are elderly it is surprising. This resolves the Re’m’s difficulty. The Re’m also asks: Why did Rashi base his question on Noach? Noach [was different, because] Hashem decreed that he should not be able to beget children, so that his [oldest] son would not reach punishable age before the Flood. The answer is: Hashem decreed only that he should not beget [until then]. But the fact that he was able to beget at 500 was natural.

SHALL A CHILD BE BORN TO HIM THAT IS A HUNDRED YEARS OLD? There is no wonder that a person who is a hundred years old should beget children, for men beget as long as they have vigor even if they be ninety years old or a hundred years old, even in these generations. All the more in the days of Abraham, who had not yet lived two thirds of his life.⁴⁴³Since Abraham lived 175 years (25:7) and was now only 100, he had not yet passed two-thirds of his life-span. So it is no wonder that he was yet in his vigor. Moreover, forty years after this, he begot many children from Keturah.⁴⁴⁴Further 25:1-2. “Forty years later.” Isaac was wed at the age of forty (25:20), and Abraham married Keturah after Isaac’s marriage (25:1). There was thus an interval of at least forty years between the time Abraham begot Isaac and when he begot children from Keturah. But Abraham’s saying, Shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old, expressed this thought: Since he did not beget a child from this woman while he was young, how could he beget from her after he was a hundred and she ninety? He knew that her womanly periods had ceased. Therefore Abraham did not say so originally when he was told, And I will make nations of thee,⁴⁴⁵Above, Verse 6. but only when he was told that he would beget a child from Sarah.
Now He commanded him, And thou shalt call his name Isaac,⁴⁴⁶Verse 19 here. on account of the rejoicing done by Abraham, which is proof that it was out of faith and joy [that Abraham said, Shall a child be born, etc.]⁴⁴⁷As explained above. Had it been said out of a sense of derision, G-d would not have told him to call his son by a name which would commemorate his lack of faith. (Bachya.) And after Abraham called him so, as G-d had commanded him, Sarah said, “Is he not rightly named Isaac? For G-d hath made laughter for me.”⁴⁴⁸Further, 21:6.

שאג ,זעק ,צעק ,שחק ,צחק, sind offenbar lautverwandte Wurzeln, und gleichwohl bedeuten sie scheinbar Entgegengesetztes; die mit mittelbuchstabigem ע und א: Schreien, mit ח: Lachen. Worin liegt der gemeinschaftliche Grundbegriff dieser scheinbar völlig verschiedenen Erscheinungen? Beide werden durch wahrgenommene oder empfundene Kontraste, das heißt ungehörig gepaarte Gegensätze, hervorgerufen; objektiv erzeugt dies Lachen, subjektiv: Schreien; Wahrnehmung eines solchen Kontrastes an einem uns fremden, oder doch für den Moment fremden Gegenstand, macht uns lachen; ein uns selbst, oder eine durch Teilnahme mit uns selbst identifizierte Persönlichkeit treffender Kontrast bringt uns zum Schreien. Ein kleines Kind mit einer Allongenperücke, ein Greis als Wickelkind etc. erzeugt Gelächter. Ebenso die völlige Disproportion, das völlige Missverhältnis einer Erwartung, eines Unternehmens oder einer Ausführung zu den Milteln, oder einer Ausführung zu der Erwartung. Das Meer mit Nußschalen ausschöpfen wollen, oder umgekehrt das Stolpern eines Erwachsenen, wenn uns die Teilnahme an seinem Schaden, seiner Scham etc. nicht mit ihm identifiziert, in welchem Falle wir schreien würden etc. etc. (Selbst שחק das heitere Lachen wird nur hervorgerufen durch das Innewerden eines überwundenen Kontrastes, eines über Erwarten geschehenen Gelingens etc. etc. Selbst שחק, das von Wettkämpfen, gymnastischen Übungen und Musik vorkommt, scheint in der Freude über die gelungene Überwindung von entgegenstehenden Schwierigkeiten zu wurzeln, und so eine schlagende Ähnlichkeit mit dem andern gewöhnlichen Ausdruck für musikalische Virtuosität: נַצֵח zu bieten).

ואם שרה הבת תשעים שנה OR SHALL SARAH, WHO IS NINETY YEARS OLD be worthy to bear a son? Although the previous generations used to beget at the age of five hundred years, yet in Abraham’s days the length of life had already become shorter and a diminution of strength had come upon people. Go and learn this from the ten generations from Noah to Abraham who begot their children at the then early age of sixty or seventy.

?הלבן מאה שנה יולד Avraham spoke of being 100 years old, seeing that by the time his son would be born he would be 100 years old. This would be so even if his wife were to conceive immediately. He had been 99 years old and Sarah had been 89 years old for some time. The amazement Avraham expressed was not due to his lack of belief, seeing that the Torah had already told us in chapter 15,6 that Avraham did believe in G'd's promise and was even credited with a merit on account of his belief in this astounding prophecy. Avraham simply voiced his amazement of the fact that G'd would go to such lengths to change natural law. He added words about Sarah, seeing that when she would give birth this would be an even greater miracle, seeing that Sarah - as opposed to her husband - had not given birth at all, whereas Avraham had sired Ishmael. Her basic barrenness had been proven beyond doubt.

Who gave birth at the early age of 60-70. Meaning: Previously, people could not have children until age 100, for in those days a 100-year-old was still a youth, like today’s 13-year-old. Then their lifespan shortened and they began to have children at 30. The fact that Avraham begat at 100 does not raise any question. The astonishment is mainly over the fact that an elderly man who had become weak and an elderly woman would beget children. This answers all the Re’m’s questions. I found the Maharshal cited in a similar vein.

Jedenfalls wird צחק nur durch die Wahrnehmung von etwas Lächerlichem hervorgerufen. Wo gibt es aber wohl in aller Welt einen größeren, lächerlichen Kontrast als die Erwartung, dass ein hundertjähriger Mann und eine neunzigjährige Frau, die in ihrer langjährigen Ehe nie ein Kind zusammen erzeugt, nun, fast am Ende ihres Lebens, einen Sohn erhalten sollen! Und auf diesen gar nicht mehr zu erwartenden, jedenfalls vereinzelten und selbst von den Eltern früh — wie zu erwarten stand — verwaisten Spätling nun gar die Aussicht eines großen weltüberwindenden künftigen Volkes, die Hoffnung der ganzen Menschheit gegründet! Das ist — nur die natürlichen Verhältnisse der Dinge in Anschlag gebracht — eine bare Lächerlichkeit, das Knüpfen des Allergrößten an den winzigsten, fast nichtigsten Anfang. Dieser Kontrast war so groß, dass selbst ein Abraham bei allem seinem — durch das Fallen auf sein Angesicht sich kund gebenden — Vertrauen unwillkürlich lachen musste, und dieses Lachen war und ist so bedeutsam, dass es bei Sara wiederholt hervorgehoben wird und in dem Namen des verheißenen Kindes für alle Folgegeschlechter Verewigung finden sollte.

Der ganze Anfang des jüdischen Volkes ist lächerlich, seine Geschichte, seine Erwartungen, seine Hoffnungen, sein von diesen Hoffnungen getragenes, ganzes Leben erscheint dem nur die gewöhnlichen, natürlichen Kausalitätsverhältnisse berechnenden Ver- stande als die ungeheuerlichste, lächerlichste Prätension. Sie wird nur vernünftig, ja, sie gewinnt den allerhöchsten berechtigtsten Ernst, wenn sie die erste und höchste Kausalität aller Kausalitäten, wenn sie das tief eingreifende, frei allmächtige Wollen und frei allmächtige Vollbringen eines frei all- mächtigen Gottes zur Basis der Beurteilung nimmt. Das sollte von vornherein unseren Stammeltern zum Bewusstsein kommen, das sollte allen ihren Nachkommen im Bewusstsein bleiben. Darum wartete Gott mit der Keimlegung dieses Volkes bis zu diesem "lächerlichen" Alter seiner Stammeltern, darum begann er erst die Realisierung seiner Verheißung zu pflanzen, nachdem alle menschliche Hoffnung zu Ende gekommen; denn es galt ja ein Volk zu schaffen, das von Anfang zu Ende seines Lebens und Strebens mit seinem ganzen Dasein im Gegensatz zu allen in die Erscheinung tretenden welthistorischen Potenzen ein ׳אצבע אלקי, ein Fingerzeig Gottes in Mitte der Menschen werden sollte, und daher bis auf den heutigen Tag jeder Gott leugnenden Beschränktheit als die lächer- lichste Lächerlichkeit erscheinen muss. Das dem Juden in seinem Wege durch die Geschichte nachschallende Gelächter ist die vollgültigste Wardeiung der Göttlichkeit dieses Weges; es berührt ihn nicht, weil er von vornherein auf dieses Gelächter vorbereitet ward.