Isn’t the word לו in genesis 25:20 unnecessary? Does commentary or tra

Prompt

Isn’t the word לו in genesis 25:20 unnecessary? Does commentary or tradition address why that word is there ?

EnglishLiturgyCommentariesTanakhMishnahTalmudKabbalah

Sources: all collections; answered in English in the Essay style.

THE ANSWER IN BRIEF

The provided sources do not directly address the word לו in Genesis 25:20. The verse reads: "Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean" [Genesis 25:20] — and in the Hebrew, the phrase is וַיִּקַּח אֶת־רִבְקָה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, "he took Rebekah for himself as a wife." The לו, "for himself," does appear potentially redundant. The sources provided do not contain a commentary that explicitly targets this לו. However, they do offer methodological parallels — cases where commentators explain why an apparently unnecessary word carries precise legal, emotional, or theological weight — and these parallels illuminate how the tradition would approach such a question. The Radak [Radak on Genesis .22:24:1] and Da'at Zekenim [Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 24:8:1] are the closest methodological analogues available in this source set.

BACKGROUND

Genesis 25:20 is a brief biographical notice inserted before the account of Rebekah's barrenness and the birth of Jacob and Esau. It establishes Isaac's age at marriage — forty years — and identifies Rebekah's lineage in detail. The Hebrew of the verse runs: וַיְהִי יִצְחָק בֶּן־אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּקַחְתּוֹ אֶת־רִבְקָה בַּת־בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם אֲחֹת לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. The phrase לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, "for himself as a wife," is standard Biblical Hebrew idiom for taking a wife, but the לו specifically — the third-person singular dative pronoun meaning "for him" or "for himself" — is what a careful reader might flag as potentially superfluous. If the text already says "he took Rebekah as a wife," what does "for himself" add?

This kind of question belongs to a well-established genre of classical Jewish commentary. Rabbinic and medieval exegetes operated on the assumption, derived from Talmudic hermeneutics, that the Torah contains no superfluous word, letter, or even cantillation mark. Every element of the text is presumed to carry meaning. This principle, sometimes called דרשינן ריבויא ("we expound amplifications"), drives commentators to ask: if a word appears to be unnecessary, what does it teach that could not be derived without it?

Several strategies are employed across the tradition when such a word is identified:

1. Legal precision: The apparently extra word limits or expands a legal ruling in ways the surrounding text alone would not establish. Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 24:8 [Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 24:8:1] exemplifies this — the word "this" (זאת) in an oath formula is shown to narrow the scope of absolution precisely.

2. Emotional or characterological emphasis: The word underscores a relational or psychological reality that the plain meaning might overlook. Radak on Genesis 37:35 [Radak on Genesis .37:35:4] shows this: the "unnecessary" word אביו ("his father") is explained as emphasizing the particular depth of Jacob's grief.

3. Structural contrast: The word signals a distinction between two parties or two agreements. Or HaChaim on Genesis 26:28 [Or HaChaim on Genesis .26:28:6] demonstrates this with the doubled covenant-language.

4. Grammatical economy: Sometimes a word that looks redundant is actually doing the work that a suffix or prefix would normally do, because the surrounding syntax made that suffix unnecessary — and the commentator explains the omission rather than the presence. Radak on Genesis 22:24 [Radak on Genesis .22:24:1] uses exactly this logic.

The Zohar and Talmud do discuss Genesis 25:20 [Zohar, Toldot.2:15; Yevamot 64a:6], but their attention falls on the number forty and its mystical or legal significance, not on the word לו.

THE SOURCES

Radak on Genesis 22:24 [Radak on Genesis .22:24:1]

The Radak writes: "ופלגשו...ותלד גם היא, the words ותלד גם היא must be understood as ותלד לו גם היא, that his concubine also bore these children for Nachor. The letter ו at the beginning of the word ופלגשו made it unnecessary to add the word לו, 'for him,' after the word ותלד."

This is the most directly relevant methodological parallel in the source set. Here, the Radak explains a case where לו is absent from the text, but must be understood as implied — because a prefix letter (ו) performed the same grammatical-relational function. The logic is reversible: if a prefix can make לו unnecessary, then a text that does include לו must be doing so because no such prefix or syntactic element is present to carry the relational meaning. In other words, לו appears when the sentence needs an explicit marker of the dative relationship — "for him" — that would otherwise go unstated. Applied to Genesis 25:20, the Radak's method suggests that לו לְאִשָּׁה is not redundant but is doing the work of clarifying that Isaac took Rebekah specifically as his own wife — the dative pronoun anchors the marital relationship to Isaac personally in a way the verb alone does not.

Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 24:8 [Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 24:8:1]

"The apparently unnecessary word 'this' (זאת) is to warn Eliezer that the only part of the oath he will be absolved from if the woman refuses to leave her home, is that Yitzchok must not go there to wed her. He would still be obligated to look for a suitable wife for Yitzchok."

This source demonstrates the standard exegetical move: a word that appears unnecessary is shown to carry a legal narrowing function — it specifies the scope of an obligation. The word זאת ("this") limits which part of the oath is being released. This is analogous to how a commentator might approach לו in Genesis 25:20: rather than dismissing it as redundant, the tradition asks what it specifies or limits that the surrounding text does not. The Da'at Zekenim's approach would push a reader to ask: does לו in 25:20 specify something about the nature of this marriage — perhaps distinguishing it from a levirate arrangement, or from a marriage contracted on behalf of another — that the plain verb "he took" does not?

Radak on Genesis 37:35 [Radak on Genesis .37:35:4]

"The reason why the Torah adds the unnecessary word אביו, 'his father,' is to demonstrate the serious nature of losing a son who had been constantly the one at his father's side."

Here the Radak explicitly labels a word "unnecessary" (מיותר in Hebrew exegetical language) and then explains its function: it is not legally precise but emotionally emphatic. The word אביו draws attention to the specific relational bond that made Jacob's grief so acute. This is a second available strategy for לו in Genesis 25:20: rather than legal precision, the word might emphasize the personal, intimate character of Isaac's taking Rebekah — "for himself," as opposed to for dynastic or contractual reasons. Given that Genesis 24:67 [Genesis 24:67] already records "Isaac loved her" — an unusual statement in the ancient Near Eastern marital context — the לו in 25:20 might be understood as a retrospective echo of that personal investment. The Zohar on Chayei Sara [Zohar, Chayei Sara.24:251] in fact raises the question of why "he loved her" seems unnecessary if she became his wife, and answers that each phrase reveals a distinct dimension of the relationship. The same logic could extend backward to לו.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 26:28 [Or HaChaim on Genesis .26:28:6]

"The reason they added the apparently unnecessary word בינותינו was to reinforce the existing agreement concluded with Abraham, and to add a new covenant with Isaac. They wanted to examine whether Isaac considered the agreement with Abraham as valid for him."

This source introduces a third strategy: an apparently redundant word signals a distinction between two parties or two moments in a relationship. The extra word בינותינו ("between us") differentiates the covenant with Abraham from the covenant with Isaac — they are not automatically identical. Applied to Genesis 25:20, one might ask whether לו similarly distinguishes Isaac's marriage from arrangements made by or for others. The servant Eliezer conducted the entire negotiation and journey on Isaac's behalf in Genesis 24; one could read the narrative as a marriage arranged entirely by proxy. The לו in 25:20 may then serve to assert that Isaac personally received and claimed Rebekah — "for himself" — affirming his own agency in what had been largely a mediated transaction.

Zohar, Toldot [Zohar, Toldot.2:15]

"The number 'forty' here has an esoteric significance, to wit, that Isaac when he took Rebekah comprised in himself the union of North and South and fire and water."

The Zohar's interest in Genesis 25:20 is entirely focused on the number forty and its mystical symbolism — the union of opposites that Isaac embodies. The word לו does not enter the Zohar's discussion here. This confirms that the Zohar, at least in this passage, does not treat לו as a site of interpretive significance, though the Zohar's general methodology (as seen in Chayei Sara [Zohar, Chayei Sara.24:251; Zohar, Chayei Sara.24:255]) is precisely to find meaning in every phrase and word.

Zohar, Chayei Sara 24:251 and 24:255 [Zohar, Chayei Sara.24:251; Zohar, Chayei Sara.24:255]

"Why does the Scripture tell us with so much detail that Isaac took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her? The last statement seems to be unnecessary, for naturally if she became his wife he loved her."

And: "Isaac had four spouses, in that Rebekah, mystically speaking, combined in herself the virtues of four women. This is indicated in Scripture: 'And he took Rebekah' alludes to one; 'and she became his wife' indicates a second; 'and he loved her' indicates a third; 'and Isaac was comforted for his mother' makes four."

These Zohar passages are about Genesis 24:67 rather than 25:20, but they establish the Zohar's characteristic method: phrases that appear redundant are in fact windows onto layered realities, whether psychological, relational, or mystical. The Zohar refuses to read any phrase as truly unnecessary. If applied to the לו of 25:20, the Zoharic method would demand that it reveal something not captured by the surrounding words — perhaps that Isaac's reception of Rebekah was a complete, self-contained act of personal will, or that it had a specific kabbalistic valence relating to the divine name or the sefirot.

Yevamot 64a [Yevamot 64a:6]

"And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah…to be his wife, and it is written with regard to the birth of Jacob and Esau: 'And Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.'"

The Talmud uses Genesis 25:20 for a halakhic argument about how long a couple may wait before addressing infertility — deriving from the twenty-year gap between Isaac's marriage and the birth of his sons. The Talmud's focus is entirely on the chronological data embedded in the verse, not on the word לו. This is useful negative evidence: the Talmudic discussion, at least as preserved here, does not find the לו to be the operative term.

Or HaChaim on Numbers 11:28 [Or HaChaim on Numbers.11:28:2]

"The apparently unnecessary word ויען means that he replied to the words (the content) that Eldod and Medod had prophesied."

Another instance of the "unnecessary word" genre: ויען ("and he answered/replied") might seem superfluous since Joshua clearly speaks next. Or HaChaim shows it specifies what Joshua was responding to — the content of the prophecy, not the report of it. This reinforces the general principle that dative and relational particles in Biblical Hebrew often carry specificity of reference rather than pure redundancy.

WHERE THEY AGREE AND DISAGREE

The sources available do not present disagreeing positions on the specific word לו in Genesis 25:20, because none of them addresses it directly. What they do present is a consistent methodological agreement across commentators from different schools and periods: no word in the Torah is genuinely superfluous, and the task of the exegete is to identify what function the apparently redundant word performs.

Where the sources diverge is in what kind of function they assign to such words:

- The Radak [Radak on Genesis .22:24:1; Radak on Genesis .37:35:4] tends toward grammatical and emotional explanations — a word is present either because syntax required it or because it intensifies a relational truth. - The Da'at Zekenim [Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 24:8:1] favors legal precision — the extra word narrows or expands an obligation. - The Or HaChaim [Or HaChaim on Genesis .26:28:6; Or HaChaim on Numbers.11:28:2] leans toward relational and contractual distinction — the word differentiates between parties or moments. - The Zohar [Zohar, Chayei Sara.24:251; Zohar, Chayei Sara.24:255] operates in a mystical register — each apparently redundant phrase reveals a hidden dimension of reality.

These are not contradictory approaches so much as complementary registers of reading. Classical Jewish exegesis routinely held that a single word could be explained simultaneously on the level of peshat (plain meaning), derash (homiletical reading), and sod (mystical reading). The לו of Genesis 25:20 would, in principle, be amenable to all four approaches — grammatical, legal, relational, and mystical — and the tradition would not require choosing among them.

CONCLUSION

The sources provided do not contain a commentary that directly addresses the word לו in Genesis 25:20. What they do supply is a coherent and well-attested methodological framework for how the tradition handles such apparent redundancies. From the Radak's grammatical analysis [Radak on Genesis .22:24:1], the Da'at Zekenim's legal precision [Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 24:8:1], the Or HaChaim's relational distinction [Or HaChaim on Genesis .26:28:6], and the Zohar's refusal to dismiss any phrase as truly unnecessary [Zohar, Chayei Sara.24:251], the tradition converges on a single answer to the reader's underlying question: yes, the word לו may appear unnecessary, but the tradition's presumption is that it is not. It most likely specifies Isaac's personal agency in the marriage — "for himself" — distinguishing his own reception of Rebekah from the proxy negotiation that preceded it, or emphasizing the intimacy of the union in a way the bare verb does not. A direct commentary on this specific word, if it exists, lies outside the sources presently available.

References

Asked without an account, so published to the SeferAI public library · 2026-10-19 · 2502 words

Syntheses are written by AI. They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the SeferAI team and are not halakhic rulings. They are meant to stimulate thought and study, not to offend anyone. Check them against the primary texts.

Ask your own question