Parshas Toldos
1. At the beginning of the sedra, Rashi pauses on the words "ואלה תולדות יצחק" ("And these are the offspring of Yitzchak") and explains: "יעקב ועשו האמורים בפרשה" ("Yaakov and Esav, who are mentioned in the parsha").1
The commentators say that Rashi is troubled here by "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak," because the verses that come immediately after it2 speak about events that happened to Yitzchak, but not about his offspring. Therefore Rashi says that nevertheless, "the offspring of Yitzchak" refers [not to the occurrences recorded immediately after it,3 but] to "Yaakov and Esav, who are mentioned in the parsha"4: although they are mentioned only several verses later, since they are "mentioned in the parsha" — in this passage — the verse "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak" can refer to them.
Accordingly, one can also understand the precision of Rashi's wording, "mentioned in the parsha," and not "האמורים למטה" ("mentioned below," as Ramban phrases it) — because the phrase "mentioned below" also fits something stated one verse further on, or even in the same verse. Rashi is therefore precise to say "mentioned in the parsha,"5 [to convey] that although Yaakov and Esav are only "mentioned in the parsha" (several verses further on6), nevertheless they are what is meant by "the offspring of Yitzchak."
2. But we still need to understand:
a) On the verse "אלה תולדות יעקב" ("These are the offspring of Yaakov")7 Rashi says: "ואלה של תולדות יעקב, אלה ישוביהם וגלגוליהם כו'" ("And these of the offspring of Yaakov — these are their settlings and wanderings etc."). The question then arises: since Rashi accepts that the word "toldos" can also mean the events of a person (his settlings and wanderings), Rashi could have explained that "the offspring of Yitzchak" too refers to his events,3 which stand right next to "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak."8 From where does he take that "toldos" here means children — on account of which he must explain that "the offspring of Yitzchak" are "Yaakov and Esav," who appear only later?
b) According to his interpretation, that the words "the offspring of Yitzchak" refer [not to the events stated immediately after, but] to "Yaakov and Esav," it would seemingly be necessary to quote only the words "the offspring of Yitzchak." Why does Rashi also quote the word "ואלה" ("And these")?
c) "Who are mentioned in the parsha" — Esav was born before Yaakov, so Rashi should have written "Esav and Yaakov"9 — first Esav and then Yaakov,10 just as Ramban11 (who also interprets "the offspring of Yitzchak" as Yitzchak's children, who are enumerated later) indeed uses the wording "Esav and Yaakov." Why does Rashi write "Yaakov and Esav"?12
3. The first two questions above [why Rashi does not want to interpret "toldos" here as events, and why he also quotes the word "And these"] could seemingly be answered one by means of the other — that he quotes the word "And these" because that very word compels that "the offspring of Yitzchak" means his children and not his events:
The word "ואלה" (with a vav — the vav that adds) "מוסיף על הראשונים" ("adds to the earlier ones").13 That is, "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak" comes in continuation of "And these are the offspring of Yishmael," stated earlier.14 Consequently one cannot say that "the offspring of Yitzchak" means his events — for "the offspring of Yishmael" means not his events but, as the verse itself explains, "the sons of Yishmael." One must therefore explain that "the offspring of Yitzchak" too means his children.15
4. But this is not understood: the rule "And these adds to the earlier ones" (that what is told later comes as an addition to what was told earlier) means that both matters — the earlier and the later — have a resemblance between them (for if the two things have no likeness between them, then one is not an "addition" to the other, but a separate matter).
That being so, even according to the interpretation that "the offspring of Yitzchak" means his children, the wording "And these" (with the vav that adds)*15 is difficult: "the offspring of Yishmael" were all wicked,16 but among "the offspring of Yitzchak" there was also Yaakov, who was a tzaddik! Especially according to the order in Rashi's commentary, in which the first of "the offspring of Yitzchak" — the one closest to "the offspring of Yishmael" — is Yaakov.
The Midrash17 says: "ולכך תולדת יצחק חסר, להוציא יעקב מכלל הרשעים" ("Therefore 'the offspring of Yitzchak' is written defectively — to exclude Yaakov from the category of the wicked"). But in the way of pshat we must explain18 that "And these" — in the plural — refers to both offspring, also to Yaakov. So the difficulty remains: what is the similarity between Yaakov and the sons of Yishmael?
And even if one were somehow to find a similarity between them, it is simply understood that the main likeness between "the offspring of Yitzchak" and "the offspring of Yishmael" (on account of which "And these" is written) is on account of Esav. This makes the third question (above, section 2) all the stronger: why, in explaining the verse "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak," does Rashi put Yaakov before Esav?
5. Seemingly one could say that Rashi puts Yaakov first because he was a tzaddik — similar to Rashi's comment on the verse "את שם את חם ואת יפת" ("Shem, Cham and Yefes")19: although Yefes was the eldest,20 "בתחלה אתה דורש את שהוא צדיק" ("at first you expound the one who is righteous").21
In truth, however, we see that even in that very verse it lists Cham before Yefes — although Yefes is more distinguished than Cham.22 It necessarily follows23 that Shem's coming first is (not because the verse lists them in order of their importance, but) due to a special reason24 — but in general people are listed (even in that very verse) in the order of their birth.25 Therefore, immediately after Shem comes Cham — who was younger than Shem26 — in order at least to place Cham immediately after Shem, in the order in which they were born.27
And since in most places (unless there is a special reason) people are listed in the order of their birth [as we find regarding "the offspring of Yitzchak" itself — "ובני יצחק עשו וישראל" ("And the sons of Yitzchak: Esav and Yisrael")28; first Esav and afterwards29 Yisrael (Yaakov)30], it is understood that had the verse spelled out the offspring of Yitzchak explicitly, it would have said "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak: Esav and Yaakov." And since Rashi here is, as it were, completing the wording of the verse, he too should have written "Esav and Yaakov."
6. The explanation of all the above will be understood by first noting the precise wording of Rashi cited above (section 2) on the verse "These are the offspring of Yaakov" — "And these of the offspring of Yaakov, these are their settlings and wanderings."
For seemingly: (a) The words "These are the offspring of Yaakov" are stated explicitly in the verse, so he should have written in his commentary only "these are their settlings and wanderings etc." Why does Rashi write "these of the offspring of Yaakov"? (b) Since Rashi repeats it anyway — why does he write (departing from the wording of the verse) "And these of the offspring of Yaakov"?
The explanation is that with the words "And these of the offspring of Yaakov," Rashi explains the verse: the Torah tells here [not about things that happened to Yaakov — in which case it would emerge that "the offspring of Yaakov" here means events and the like — but] about things "of" — that happened with — "the offspring of Yaakov," with his children. For the meaning of "toldos" everywhere, here too, is simply as it sounds.31
7. Accordingly it is understood that Rashi's quoting the word "And these" here is [not to bring proof that "the offspring of Yitzchak" means his children — for this needs no proof at all32 — but] to emphasize how fitting the word "And these" is here, which generally32* indicates that those told about later are similar to those told about earlier:33
What is the similarity between "the offspring of Yitzchak" (which includes Yaakov) and "the offspring of Yishmael"? This he addresses with his wording "Yaakov and Esav," by which he indicates that the likeness of "the offspring of Yitzchak" is (not to "the offspring of Yishmael," but) to "the offspring of Avraham," who are mentioned in the verse "(ויקברו אותו) יצחק וישמעאל בניו" ("(And they buried him,) Yitzchak and Yishmael his sons")34: just as Avraham had two sons (who remained with him35), and the elder was wicked36 and the younger a tzaddik — so too was it*36 with "the offspring of Yitzchak."37
And since, in the last place where the verse mentions these sons of Avraham — the verse which the passage "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak" ("And these" with the vav that adds) continues — it lists Yitzchak (the younger, and the tzaddik) before Yishmael, Rashi therefore (according to the interpretation of "And these" — similar) also lists, among "the offspring of Yitzchak," Yaakov before Esav.
8. Seemingly one can ask on this:
a) Before the passage "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak," the discussion is not about the offspring of Avraham but about the offspring of Yishmael. How then can one say (especially in the plain meaning of Scripture) that "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak" continues the passage before the preceding one (the offspring of Avraham), and not the immediately preceding passage (the offspring of Yishmael)?
b) Even in the passage before the preceding one, Yitzchak and Yishmael are mentioned only in passing — that they buried Avraham — but not in the sense that "the offspring of Avraham" are enumerated there. How then can one say that "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak" — where the main narrative about "the offspring of Yitzchak" comes — continues "Yitzchak and Yishmael his sons," who are only mentioned there, and that too only in passing?
The explanation is: We find in several places that two verses (and likewise passages) which both begin with a vav both come in continuation of the verse (or passage) that precedes both of them.38 In other words: the two verses (passages) together are an explanation of the verse (passage) before them.
So too in our case: the passage "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak," together with the preceding passage "And these are the offspring of Yishmael" — which also begins with "And these" (with a vav) — both come in continuation of a passage that precedes both of them: the passage "ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה גו'" ("And Avraham again took a wife...")39, as will be explained.
9. The purpose of marriage is to bear offspring.40 From this it is understood that the content and outcome of the passage "And Avraham again..." consists in Avraham's offspring, and that the verse "And Avraham again took a wife" is only a preface to "ותלד לו" ("and she bore him").41
Accordingly we understand that "Yitzchak and Yishmael his sons," mentioned in the passage "And Avraham again," is relevant [not only to "they buried him," but also] to the content of the passage — to the offspring of Avraham.
The flow of the passage is as follows: at the beginning of the passage it enumerates the sons of Keturah, whom Avraham fathered after Yishmael and Yitzchak; afterwards it separates the "sons of the concubines" (among whom Yishmael too is included42) from Yitzchak — that Avraham sent them all away from himself, "מעל יצחק בנו" ("away from Yitzchak his son")43; and immediately after that it continues that nevertheless Yishmael too remained with Avraham (because he later returned to him) — "And Yitzchak and Yishmael his sons buried him" (yet even then he is not equal to Yitzchak — "ויברך אלקים את יצחק בנו" ("And G‑d blessed Yitzchak his son")44).
And in continuation of the two categories in Avraham's offspring in that passage [the sons of Keturah, whom Avraham sent away from himself permanently, and Yitzchak and Yishmael, who at the end of Avraham's days were with him] come the two passages "And these are the offspring of Yishmael" and "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak": "the offspring of Yishmael," who were all wicked, are similar to the sons of Keturah; and "the offspring of Yitzchak — Yaakov and Esav" are similar to "Yitzchak and Yishmael," as explained above in section 7.
10. But we still need to understand: True, in order to liken the order of the offspring of Yitzchak to the offspring of Avraham one must put Yaakov before Esav — but how can one put him first? Esav was born before Yaakov, and the order everywhere is to list offspring according to their age (as above, section 5) — so how can one say "the offspring of Yitzchak: Yaakov and Esav"?
In truth this is no difficulty: Rashi himself later45 brings a "Midrash Aggadah"46 which expounds the verse "according to its plain meaning," that "יעקב נוצר מטיפה ראשונה ועשו מן השני'" ("Yaakov was formed from the first drop and Esav from the second") — i.e., only when Rivkah gave birth to them was Esav first, but in formation Yaakov was the firstborn; and as Rashi says, "צא ולמד משפופרת" ("Go and learn from a tube"), that "Yaakov was formed first."
Therefore, in our verse, which speaks about "the offspring of Yitzchak," Yaakov can be placed first, since in formation — which comes from the father (Yitzchak) — Yaakov was formed first.
Yet because of this alone Rashi would still not have put Yaakov first, for the verse says "the offspring of Yitzchak" — and in birth Esav was the first;12 Yaakov's being formed from the first drop merely makes room to put him first, but does not compel us to write him first. Rather, Rashi's reason for saying "Yaakov and Esav" is as explained above — in order to emphasize the vav of "And these."
11. Among the matters of the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of Torah") in our comment of Rashi:
As mentioned earlier (sections 1 and 2), Ramban says "Esav and Yaakov, mentioned below," while Rashi says "Yaakov and Esav, mentioned in the parsha." These two differences depend on each other:
It is known47, regarding the fact that in birth Esav was the firstborn while in formation Yaakov came first and was the firstborn, that Yaakov and Esav also allude to the good inclination and the evil inclination. In birth — revelation — the evil inclination comes first,48 while in formation — the root — the good inclination is first.
So too regarding the root of Yaakov and Esav — as explained in Kabbalah and Chassidus — that this is Tohu and Tikkun: in hishtalshelus (the chain of descent) — revelation — Tohu precedes Tikkun, but (in the root, and) in the inner intent, which is higher than hishtalshelus, Tikkun comes first.49
Therefore, when speaking about "below," in the world, Esav is put first (as in Ramban's wording50). But when speaking about "in the parsha," as it is in (and from the standpoint of) Torah — for "אורייתא וקוב"ה כולא חד" ("the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one")51 — Yaakov is put first (as in Rashi's wording). For in the inner intent, "ואוהב את יעקב ואת עשו שנאתי" ("I loved Yaakov, and Esav I hated"),52 and "He desires"53 specifically the deeds of the tzaddikim.
(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5727)
Notes
1) Ramban here: "mentioned below" (see further in the text). In the first printing of Rashi: "mentioned at the end of the matter" (see the marginal gloss to note 6).
2) But "Avraham begot Yitzchak," stated in this very verse, does not trouble Rashi, as Rashi explains immediately* — "and since it wrote etc."
*) So it reads in the first printing, and so it is cited in the Re'em, Gur Aryeh and Levush here. (In several printings this matter appears as a separate heading.) Gur Aryeh and Levush here write that Rashi needed this only according to the interpretation that "the offspring of Yitzchak" refers to Yaakov and Esav; but according to the interpretation that offspring means events (see further in the text), "Avraham begot Yitzchak" is included in "the offspring of Yitzchak."
3) As Sforno explains here. See also Radak here.
4) The Maskil LeDovid here asks (on the Re'em): if Rashi meant to teach us only this — that although they are not adjacent, the word "these" applies to them because they are written in this same passage — it would have sufficed to write "mentioned in the parsha." Why does Rashi also write "Yaakov and Esav"? But according to what is said in the text — that Rashi's intent is to teach us that "the offspring of Yitzchak" means offspring in the plain sense (and not events and the like) — this is understood simply from his writing "Yaakov and Esav." See also note 32 below.
5) Or (according to the version in the first printing) "mentioned at the end of the matter."
6) Ramban here: "and the verse mentioned how their birth took place." Accordingly, the narrative of "the offspring of Yitzchak" begins with the verse "And Yitzchak was etc." But for Rashi this is not smooth,* since "And Yitzchak was etc." is not "the offspring of Yitzchak" (but only the account of how they were born); he therefore writes "mentioned in the parsha," as in the text.
*) Which is why Rashi is precise to say (according to the version in the first printing) "mentioned at the end of the matter."
7) Vayeshev 37:2.
8) Especially since, according to this interpretation, there is no need for the explanation "and since it wrote etc., because the scoffers of the generation etc." — for "Avraham begot Yitzchak" too is among the events (and offspring) of Yitzchak (see Gur Aryeh and Levush here, quoted in the marginal gloss to note 2).
9) One cannot say that Rashi puts Yaakov before Esav because Yaakov was formed first (Rashi on our parsha, 25:26). For [besides the fact that Divrei HaYamim says (quoted below, section 5) "And the sons of Yitzchak: Esav and Yisrael" (and it is forced to distinguish between "sons" and "offspring")], since Rashi himself writes "mentioned in the parsha," he should have listed them in the order in which they are mentioned in the parsha. See also section 10 below.
10) Sforno, Kli Yakar and Ohr HaChaim (25:20) write that Esav was [wicked] on account of Rivkah [the sister of Lavan the Aramean, since most sons resemble the mother's brothers]. See also Bereishis Rabbah 65:4, that the matter depended on her. But one cannot say that this is why Rashi puts Yaakov before Esav in "the offspring of Yitzchak": (a) none of this is mentioned at all in Rashi's commentary on the Torah, not even by allusion. On the contrary, from Rashi's comment there, "Was it not yet written etc.? Rather, to tell her praise etc." (unlike the explanation of Sforno etc.), it is implied that he holds that this* is not the reason Esav was wicked. (b) Even if Esav's wickedness were due to Rivkah, this is not sufficient reason to put Yaakov before Esav in "the offspring of Yitzchak," since Esav was born before Yaakov — as is proven from what is written (quoted below, there): "And the sons of Yitzchak: Esav and Yisrael."
*) Not even the fact that Rivkah was the daughter of Besuel, and all the more not the fact that she was the sister of Lavan — for Rashi on Va'eira 6:23 says: "From here we learn that one who marries a woman must examine her brothers."
11) So too Ibn Ezra here.
12) Especially since Rashi himself says here "mentioned in the parsha" — and in this parsha Esav is mentioned before Yaakov.
13) Shemos Rabbah 30:3; Rashi at the beginning of Mishpatim. The novelty in Rashi there is that those listed afterwards are similar to those listed before ("just as the earlier ones were from Sinai, so these are from Sinai"); but that "And these" with a vav indicates continuity and a connection between the two passages is simple even without Rashi. Therefore one cannot say that the offspring of Yitzchak are Yitzchak's events, since that has no continuity with the offspring of Yishmael, as in the text. See above p. 42, note 34, and below, note *15.
14) Chayei Sarah 25:12 ff. See also the commentary of the Maharam A., cited in Ohr HaTorah, Bereishis vol. 4, beginning of Toldos.
15) See also Ibn Ezra here: after mentioning the offspring of Yishmael, it returns to mention the offspring of Yitzchak.
*15) And although the rule that wherever "And these" with a vav is said, those listed afterwards resemble those listed before, is innovated (and proven) by Rashi in Parshas Mishpatim (and see note 13) — once Rashi has already established (in Mishpatim) that this is so, we must say that "And these" in our parsha too resembles those listed before it. Hence the difficulty: what is the similarity of "the offspring of Yitzchak" to "the offspring of Yishmael," as further in the text.
16) See Shemos Rabbah there. So it is also plainly, for Yishmael himself was wicked earlier (as below, note 36), only that he repented, but his sons remained wicked. That is why "once Avraham died, they fell" (Rashi at the end of Chayei Sarah).
17) Shemos Rabbah there.
18) For besides the fact that in the way of pshat the main interpretation follows the way the word is read [to the extent that in most places Rashi does not interpret the written form (see above p. 17 and note 15)], in our case, since "all occurrences of toldos in Scripture are written defectively except two" (Shemos Rabbah there), on the contrary: it is reasonable to say that it is in those two places that Scripture comes to allude to something — and not where toldos is written defectively.
The statement in Ohr HaTorah (Bereishis vol. 1, beginning of Toldos) on this Midrash requires study: "And from this Rashi's comment on 'And these are the offspring' — 'Yaakov and Esav mentioned in the parsha' — will be understood." Perhaps his intent is (in the manner of the "wine of Torah" in Rashi): "And these" (which adds — that is) Esav; "offspring" (which is defective — that is) Yaakov; mentioned in the parsha.
19) Bereishis 5:32.
From the other places where "Shem, Cham and Yefes" is written, no proof at all can be brought for our matter. For (even) in the way of pshat it is superfluous to mention Cham and Yefes (after having mentioned them once), since the main point of the narrative is to tell the chain of generations from Adam to Avraham, and therefore in each generation only one man (the one who continues the chain) is mentioned explicitly. And obviously, when for some reason all of them are specified — even then Shem is the main one. But the first time they are mentioned, since they are not superfluous, a proof can be drawn from the order of their listing.
20) The Re'em on Noach (9:24) holds that Cham was older than Yefes. Accordingly one must force the interpretation that "Yefes the elder" (there, 10:21) is only relative to Shem — that is, that Shem was the brother of Yefes who was older than he. But the plain meaning of "the elder" is the eldest of the brothers* [which is why Rashi there proves simply from "Shem was a hundred years old... two years after the Flood" that "the elder" refers to Yefes, as Gur Aryeh writes there]. And so it is stated explicitly in Rashi (Bereishis 5:32, s.v. "five hundred years old"): "Yefes, the eldest of his sons." See also Rashi on Noach 9:25: "of these elders."** And see below, note 26.
According to the above, it is well understood that Rashi's question (Bereishis there, in the second heading), "But was not Yefes the eldest?", is on the words "Shem, Cham and Yefes" — for his question, "But was not Yefes etc.," is that Yefes should have been listed before both of them, Cham too.
*) So it is even in the Talmud's mode of study — see Sanhedrin 69b: "Yefes was the eldest of the brothers." The Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha there already questioned the Re'em from this Gemara; see there.
**) The Re'em there proves that Cham was the eldest of the brothers (a) from his being listed before Yefes, (b) from Rashi's needing to explain "his youngest son — the unfit and despised one." But in my humble opinion this requires great study. For Cham's being listed before Yefes is in order to place him next to Shem, as below, note 27. And Rashi is compelled to explain "the unfit and despised one" because he was troubled: what difference does it make in this verse that he was "the youngest" — as Gur Aryeh writes.
21) Rashi, Bereishis there.
22) See Tosafos s.v. "Ela" (Sanhedrin there): "This is puzzling — if so, let Cham be counted last."
23) And from the very fact that Rashi did not need to explain (even by allusion) why Cham precedes Yefes — although we find discussion of all this among the commentators on Rashi in Parshas Noach and among the commentators on the Talmud — it is proven that in the way of pshat* there is no room for the question in the first place, since it is obvious that they are listed in the order of their birth, as further in the text.
*) For the explanation of this according to the way of Chassidus, see Ohr HaTorah, Bereishis (vol. 3) p. 595a.
24) That is why (a) Rashi is not content with "righteous" but adds: "he was born circumcised, and Avraham was to descend from him etc."; (b) he is precise to say "at first you expound etc.," and also adds at the end of his comment "in Bereishis Rabbah."
25) Only in the very rarest cases are people listed contrary to the order of their birth, and each time a (strong) proof is needed that it is impossible to explain it plainly (and so it is even in the Talmud's mode of pshat — see Sanhedrin there: "Know..."). This is not the place to elaborate on all this [and note what was discussed (Likkutei Sichos vol. 8, p. 200 ff.) regarding Rashi on the daughters of Tzelofchad]. The order of the listing of the tribes proves it (see Rashi on Vayigash 47:2). So too in Rashi on Bereishis (2:14): the most important one — and it is listed fourth! This is simple.
26) In Rashi on the Talmud (Sanhedrin there, s.v. "Bar Me'ah"; Avodah Zarah 9a, s.v. "Hachi Garsinan"), Shem was the youngest of them all. One can say that Rashi's proof for this is that according to the Talmud's mode of study they were only a year apart from one another (see Re'em on Noach 10:21), and since Noach began to have children at five hundred years, and Shem was born when Noach was five hundred and two, necessarily Shem was the youngest of them all.* But in his commentary on the Torah, Rashi writes explicitly (cited in note 20) that Cham was the youngest of them all. One can say that his proof for this is from the very fact that Cham is listed after Shem. See the next note.
*) Gur Aryeh on Noach there writes that the statement in Sanhedrin that each was a year older than the next is only according to the initial supposition, which counted them in the order of their birth; but according to the conclusion, which counts them in the order of their wisdom, "we can well say that Cham was born after Shem, and we do not know when." But in Rashi on Sanhedrin there (and so too in Avodah Zarah there) it is explicit (according to the Talmud's conclusion) that Shem "was the youngest of them all."
27) As Gur Aryeh explains on Noach 9:24. So too in Ramban there, 6:10. (Ramban there writes: "Scripture did not want to say 'Shem, Yefes and Cham,' for then they would all be mentioned out of the order of their birth." His intent is that even though Yefes would then be listed before Cham, who was younger than he, nevertheless, since Shem was born between Yefes and Cham, it would not be in the order of their birth, for Shem came between them.)
28) I Divrei HaYamim 1:34.
29) What is written (in our parsha, 28:5), "the mother of Yaakov and Esav," is (not because of Yaakov's importance, but) because in the narrative "And Yitzchak sent Yaakov etc." all that matters is that Rivkah was Yaakov's mother (and even on this Rashi writes, "I do not know what this teaches us"). Having written "the mother of Yaakov," it added "and Esav," since she was the mother of both. (See Radak there, who explains differently.)
30) That among the sons of Avraham, Divrei HaYamim there (verse 28) lists Yitzchak before Yishmael is because Yishmael was "the son of the maidservant" and is not attributed to Avraham to the same extent as Yitzchak, as stated explicitly in the verse (Vayera 21:10; see Rashi there): "the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son" — being "the son of the maidservant," he would not inherit (Avraham's property) together with the son of the mistress. (Note what is explained below, p. 231, note 20.)
31) So too in the Re'em at the beginning of Vayeshev. Accordingly, Ramban's question there is answered simply.
32) One can say that according to Rashi's approach this is so obvious that he need not teach it to us. And his writing "Yaakov and Esav" is intended [not to establish that "the offspring of Yitzchak" refers to Yaakov and Esav (as in note 4 above), but] to convey the order of Yaakov and Esav, as further in the text.
32*) And although the rule that wherever "And these" with a vav is said, those listed afterwards resemble those listed before, is innovated by Rashi in Parshas Mishpatim (see note 13 above) — the novelty there is that this is a binding rule, in every place. But it is understood that even without this novelty, it is more reasonable to interpret the word "And these" this way. Therefore Rashi explains that "And these are the offspring of Yitzchak" comes in continuation of "the offspring of Avraham," as in the text.
33) See also Maskil LeDovid here.
34) Chayei Sarah 25:9.
35) See below, section 9 and note 42.
36) And although he repented (Rashi on Chayei Sarah there; see also Rashi on Lech Lecha 15:15), earlier he was wicked. Especially since what matters here is how he was from birth — the offspring of Avraham (see note 37).
*36) Also: Yaakov, though seemingly the younger, was formed first (Rashi on our parsha, 25:26). Likewise Yitzchak, though seemingly the younger, was the son of the mistress (see note 30 above). Esav contested with Yaakov over the inheritance — the firstborn's portion (our parsha 27:32; there, 36), just as Yishmael contested with Yitzchak over the inheritance — the firstborn's portion (Rashi on Vayera 21:10). And more.
37) Especially since this similarity relates to the matter of offspring (of Avraham and of Yitzchak). For in the offspring of Avraham, regarding Yishmael — even before he was born — it was said (Lech Lecha 16:12), "his hand against all," and Rashi there explains: "a bandit" (see also Mechilta on Yisro 20:2; Sifri on Devarim 33:2). And regarding Yitzchak, from the words (Lech Lecha 17:19) "I will establish My covenant with him" it is understood that this is because he was righteous. Likewise, regarding "the offspring of Yitzchak" it says (Toldos 25:23), "from your innards they shall separate," and Rashi there explains: "from the innards etc. — this one to his wickedness and this one to his innocence." See also Rashi there, verse 22.
38) Like the passages (Bereishis chs. 36 and 37) "And these are the offspring of Esav" and "And Yaakov settled," both of which come in continuation of the end of the passage preceding them, "Esav and Yaakov his sons" (see Rashi at the beginning of Vayeshev: "After writing for you the settlements of Esav... he explained to you the settlements of Yaakov").
So too earlier, in Parshas Noach: first it is written (10:6) "And the sons of Cham: Kush and Mitzrayim," and in continuation of this (there, 7 ff.) "And the sons of Kush etc.," and afterwards (there, 13 ff.) "And Mitzrayim begot etc."
39) Chayei Sarah 25:1 ff.
40) See the next note.
41) Moreover, one can say that "And Avraham again etc." is not merely a preface to "and she bore him," but that this is the content of "took a wife" itself. For since the Avos were holy and separated from the matters of this world all their days (Tanya, ch. 23), to the extent that Avraham "did not recognize her [beauty]" (Rashi on Lech Lecha 12:11*), it is obvious that not only was the intent of their marriage for the sake of children (see Rashi on Vayetzei 31:17), but that they did not feel anything other than this intent** (and note what is explained in Likkutei Sichos vol. 17, p. 174 ff., on the saying of our Sages (Shabbos 118b), "Never have I called my wife 'my wife'... but rather 'my home'"). If so, the content of "took a wife" itself is the bearing of children (as explained above, p. 74, regarding "And Yitzchak sowed"; see there and note 61).
*) And although in Rashi there this comes from a "Midrash Aggadah," since it is cited in Rashi's commentary on the Torah it also belongs to the way of pshat (especially since he brings it as the first (primary) explanation), in the words of Rashi (Bereishis 3:8): "There are many Midrashei Aggadah etc., but I have come only for the plain meaning of Scripture and for Aggadah that settles the words of Scripture, each word in its proper way" (Mishlei 25:11).
**) This explains Rashi's comment (Vayetzei 29:21), "And this is why he said 'that I may come to her' — even the most frivolous person does not say this; rather, he said it in order to beget offspring." For seemingly, after all, this statement appears contrary to modesty. [The explanation is:] since all that Yaakov saw in "that I may come to her" was only "to beget offspring," it is comparable to "and they were not ashamed" (Bereishis 2:25), which was before the sin of the Tree of Knowledge (see Moreh Nevuchim, part 1, ch. 2).
42) For "the sons of the concubines," in the plural, includes also the sons of Hagar (see at length below, p. 231 ff., and the notes there) — that is, Yishmael. And although before this he was in the desert of Paran (Vayera 21:21), he necessarily returned to Avraham afterwards (and was present at the binding of Yitzchak — see Rashi on Vayera 22:3), and afterwards Avraham sent him away from his presence (together with the sons of Keturah), and afterwards he returned once again to Avraham, as further in the text. See below, there (p. 236), in the marginal gloss to note 55.
43) 25:6.
44) 25:11.
45) 25:26.
46) Bereishis Rabbah 63:5.
47) Shelah 67b. Kitzurim VeHe'aros LeTanya p. 48 ff. Kuntres U'Mayan, maamar 13, ch. 2.
48) See Koheles Rabbah 4:13; Zohar I, 179a. See also Rashi on Noach 8:21.
49) Kitzurim VeHe'aros there. Torah Ohr, Toras Chaim and Ohr HaTorah, beginning of Vayishlach. Kuntres U'Mayan there.
50) Indeed, Ramban's commentary on the Torah is "in plain meanings... and for those who know grace [the Kabbalah]" (end of the introduction to his commentary).
51) Zohar — cited in Tanya, beginning of ch. 23.
52) Malachi 1:2–3. See the sources noted in Likkutei Sichos vol. 7, p. 25, note 46.
53) Bereishis Rabbah, end of ch. 2. But this is from the aspect of inwardness specifically ("in the parsha"), whereas from the aspect of revelations ("below") — "I do not know in which of them He desires" (see Kuntres U'Mayan, maamar 10, ch. 2, and elsewhere).
Key Lesson
Rashi lists "Yaakov and Esav" rather than in birth order because, at the level of Torah and the inner Divine intent, the good comes first: Yaakov was formed first, and Tikkun is rooted before Tohu. Although in the revealed world the evil inclination comes first, a Jew should know that his true root and essence is the good, and that G‑d desires specifically the deeds of the righteous.