I Dont Know Admitting Ignorance

Parsha Halacha | December 31, 2025

In the end of the Torah portion of Toldot, we read how Rivkah and Yitzchak sent Yaakov to Charan to find a wife. The matter was urgent since Eisav was planning to kill Yaakov in revenge for Yaakov’s stealing the brachot (blessings) which Eisav thought he rightfully deserved. In that context, the verse says,

“And Yitzchak sent Yaakov, and he went to Padan Aram, to Lavan, the son of Betuel the Aramean, the brother of Rivkah, the mother of Yaakov and Eisav.”

It is not clear why the verse mentions that Rivkah was the mother of Yaakov and Eisav, which was told to us at the beginning of the Torah portion.

Rashi says that he does not know what these words teach us. Other commentaries offer various explanations. Here are 10 of them:

Eisav’s Failing
The Ramban says that the verse is contrasting Yaakov’s behavior with that of Eisav’s. Yaakov carried out his parents’ wish precisely and went to Charan to find a wife. Eisav, who was aware of his parents’ command to Yaakov, chose, however, to marry the daughter of Yishmael, who, although not a Cananite, was a wicked woman. Had Eisav paid attention to his parents’ words, he would have realized that a daughter of Lavan might be a good match for him too, considering that Lavan was the sister of Rivkah, who was both his and Yaakov’s mother.
A Tzadik Can Come from a Rasha
The Ohr HaChaim says that the verse is explaining why Yitzchak and Rivkah were sending their righteous son Yaakov to marry a daughter of the wicked Lavan. This can be understood when we realize that Rivkah was a righteous woman despite her father’s wickedness, and she had a wicked son despite her own righteousness. As such, we see that there is a mixture of good and bad in certain families and that the good can be extracted from the bad.
Rachel and Leah Had No Brothers
The Alshich Hakadosh explains that there was no need to worry that Rachel and Leah would have wicked children as did Rivkah who had mothered Eisav. The difference is that Rivkah had a wicked brother which caused her to have a wicked son since the Talmud says that children resemble their mother’s brothers. This would not be a problem with the daughters of Lavan since at that time they had no brothers.
No Concern for Influence
The Pane’ach Razah says that the verse is pointing out that Yitzchak was so confident in Yaakov’s righteousness that he was willing to send him to the house of his uncle Lavan even though Lavan’s wickedness is what caused Eisav to turn out wicked (as explained above). This is why Rivkah said, “Stay there for a short time,” out of concern that Yaakov be influenced by Lavan. In fact, Yaakov stayed there for 20 years because he felt he was not being influenced at all, as the verse says, that “in his eyes” seven of those years were “like a few days.”
Many Rivkahs
According to the Bechor Shor, there were many women at that time with the name of Rivkah. This is why the verse clarifies that Lavan was the brother of the Rivkah who was the mother of Yaakov and Eisav.
Don’t Air the Family’s Dirty Laundry
Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura, quoting his teacher, points out that it would be uncomfortable for Yaakov to explain the family fight to a stranger. But since Lavan was the brother of Rivkah, who was their mother, he would be able to understand the family dynamics. In addition, he quotes Rabbi Yitzchak Leon who says that the Torah is alluding to the above-mentioned teaching of the Talmud that children turn out similar to their maternal uncles by pointing out that the wicked Eisav’s mother’s brother was none other than the wicked Eisav.
The Solution Is in the Problem
The Chidah in Chomat Anach explains that the problem of Yaakov’s having a wicked brother was caused by his mother’s brother Lavan (as explained above). But Lavan would also become the solution to this problem as he provided a safe haven for Yaakov at this harrowing time. This is in keeping with the Midrashic interpretation on the verse, “And from your wounds I will heal you.”
Concern for Eisav
The Chizkuni says that by writing that Rivkah was the mother of (Yaakov and) Eisav the verse indicates that Rivkah sent Yaakov away both to save his life and Eisav’s lest Eisav be killed while trying to kill Yaakov. Although Eisav was wicked, he was still her son, and she was concerned for him as well.
Daughters Will Be Like their Father’s Sister
According to Rabeinu Bechaye, girls will turn out to be like their father’s sister just as boys will turn out to be similar to their mother’s brother (see above). As such, the verse explains that Yitzchak and Rivkah felt that Lavan’s daughters would be worthy for Yaakov to marry since Lavan’s sister was Rivkah who was so righteous that she favored Yaakov over the wicked Eisav even though Eisav was older.
Lavan Would Protect
Additionally, he says that, by mentioning the relationship between Lavan and Yaakov and Eisav, the verse alludes to the fact that Yitzchak and Rivkah were confident that Lavan would protect Yaakov from Eisav since he was their uncle. The Radak adds that Lavan was expected to favor Yaakov over Eisav just as Rivkah did. The verse alludes to this by calling Rivkah “the mother of Yaakov and Eisav,” in that order.

Why Say “I Don’t Know?”

The commentaries on Rashi wonder why Rashi does not accept any of these explanations. In addition, they ask, why must Rashi inform us that he doesn’t know the meaning of the words when he can simply not say anything?

The Siftei Chachamim says that Rashi means that he was not sure which of the many interpretations is the correct one.
Rabbi David Pardo interprets Rashi’s words as follows: Yitzchok was instructing Yaakov to be careful when going to Lavan’s house since his sister Rivkah had two sons, one wicked and one righteous. As mentioned, boys are similar to their mother’s brother. But since Rivkah had two sons, one righteous and one wicked, the odds of Lavan being wicked were fifty-fifty. As such, Yitzchak told Yaakov, “I don’t know what this [the status of his nephews] teaches us.”
The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that when Rashi says “I don’t know,” this doesn’t mean he was not aware of the possible interpretations of the text. He knew them, but the interpretations did not conform to Rashi’s style of commentary which is based on the plain meaning of the text.

It has been pointed out that Rashi writes “I don’t know” another 11 times in his commentary on the Torah. Here is the list of these places:

Gen 35:13 (about the location where G-d spoke to Yaakov)
Exodus 25:29 (about why the pipes of the Shulchan were called “menakiyot.”)
Ibid 26:24 (about if the rings attaching the boards of the Mishkan were removable)
Ibid 27:10 (if the pillars of the Mishkan’s courtyard had silver bands on the entire height or perhaps just on the top and the center)
Leviticus 8:11 (about where Moshe was commanded to sprinkle the anointing oil on the Mizbe’ach seven times)
Ibid 10:15 (why it says that the leg of the Shelamim sacrifice was lifted and the chest was waved when, in fact, both were lifted and waved)
Ibid 13:4 (how a white spot might not appear deeper than the surrounding skin)
Numbers 21:11 (why the passage of Avarim was called Iyei Ha’avarim)
Ibid 26:13 (unsure as to which was the fourth missing Levite family in that count)
And verse 16 (why the family of Etzbon was called Ozni)
Deuteronomy 33:24 (what does it mean that Asher was blessed with sons?)

Asking for Help

The Sdei Chemed writes that Rashi chose to share his lack of understanding of these verses rather than simply not commenting on them in order to share the pain of his lack of understanding with the public, in the hope that someone else would figure out the correct interpretation of the verse. This is in keeping with the teaching of the Mishnah which says that one of the hallmarks of a wise man is that he states, “I have not heard it,” when a question comes up which he cannot answer. He cites the Yad Malachi who points out that many other sages followed this practice as well, such as Tosfot, the Rashba, Ritva, Ran, and the Shita Mekubetzet.

Get Used to It

The Talmud counsels one to accustom his tongue to say “I don’t know,” for if one gives the wrong answer, he can be disproven and be embarrassed.

The commentaries explain that, if one is sure of the answer and can prove it, one may reply. But if one is not 100 percent sure, or even if he is sure but cannot prove it, it is better to say, “I don’t know.”

Tosfot explains that this refers either to mundane matters or to an instance where one is asked if he knows a particular part of the Torah. It is best to still maintain ignorance for the sake of humility and in case one may make an error. But if one is asked a specific Torah question about a matter that he has learned, one may not withhold that knowledge but must impart it.

May We Merit to Deep Knowledge While Maintaining our Humility!