🧵 Debunking the Age of Riḇqa I keep seeing Muslims discuss the age of Riḇqa when she got married to Yiṣḥaq to put down Jews, comparing Yiṣḥaq marrying a minor of 3 to Muhammad marrying ʿAʾishah at 6 or 9 years old. Riḇqa's age is not mentioned in the Tora whatsoever. This is just another form of Islamic belittlement of People of the Book; this one happens to be a tactic of polemics in the 21st century. Christians and atheists bash your prophet, so you bash the Jews. Here are the topics covered in this thread: Age of Riḇqa in the Tora Midrash and Context Seḏer ʿOlam Rabba Chronology Symbolism and Misuse And as always, happy to debate and discuss.

Age of Riḇqa in the Tora The Tora itself does not specify Riḇqa's age at the time of her marriage to Yiṣḥaq. Many will falsely claim it does and cite Genesis 25:20. Any claims regarding her age come from later rabbinic literature, not the biblical text itself. This is a crucial distinction often overlooked in these discussions. Genesis 25:20: וַיְהִ֤י יִצְחָק֙ בֶּן־אַרְבָּעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּקַחְתּ֣וֹ אֶת־רִבְקָ֗ה בַּת־בְּתוּאֵל֙ הָֽאֲרַמִּ֔י מִפַּדַּ֖ן אֲרָ֑ם אֲח֛וֹת לָבָ֥ן הָאֲרַמִּ֖י ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ لما كان إسحٰق ابن أربعين سنة تزوج بريبقه ابنة بتوئيل الآرامي من فدان آرام أخت لابان الآرامي فكانت له زوجة: When Yiṣḥaq had reached the age of forty years, he took Riḇqa, the daughter of Bethuʾel the Aramean from Paddan Aram, the sister of Laḇan the Aramean, and she became his wife. It's important to clarify that the woman named Riḇqa offered to draw water from a well to give drink not only to Aḇraham's servant but also to his entourage of 10 camels as mentioned in Genesis 24:10 & 19-20. If each camel can drink up to 30 gallons (about 113 liters) of water, then for 10 camels, that would be 300 gallons (about 1,135 liters). This isn't something a 3-year-old can do; they lack the strength, let alone the mental capacity, to accomplish such a task. The practical impossibility of such an act by a young child highlights the misinterpretation often perpetuated.

Midrash and Context The notion that Riḇqa was three years old when she married Yiṣḥaq stems from Midrash Aggada, specifically Seḏer ʿOlam Rabba, a 2nd-century CE Jewish text attributed (but may not even be) to Ribbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta, a tanna of the fourth generation. It lists a chronology detailing the dates of biblical events from creation to Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia. Many Ḥakhamim (Jewish scholars) have asserted timelines in Jewish history that contradict what's listed in Seḏer ʿOlam Rabba, as it is not binding. Midrashic literature is also known as an exegesis, being somewhat akin to the esoteric interpretation of the Qurʿan known as taʿwil, offering metaphorical interpretations intended to educate or inspire rather than to legislate. It often aims to explore meanings and lessons within the biblical text. These narratives are symbolic and should not be interpreted as literal historical events.

Seḏer ʿOlam Rabba Chronology Seḏer ʿOlam Rabba (first chapter) links her birth with significant moments in the lives of the patriarchs and matriarchs, emphasizing continuity and divine providence: "Our father Yiṣḥaq was 37 years old when he was bound on the altar, and Aḇraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines (Sea-Peoples) for many days (Genesis 21:34). These days were more numerous than those in Ḥeḇron, which were 25 years, and the latter were 26 years. At that time, Riḇqa was born. Thus, our father Yiṣḥaq married Riḇqa when she was 3 years old. Our father Aḇraham buried his father Teraḥ two years before Sara's death." According to Seḏer ʿOlam Rabba, the chronology is as follows: Yiṣḥaq was allegedly 37 years old when he was bound on the altar. At the time of Yiṣḥaq's binding, Riḇqa was born. Aḇraham buried his wife Sara (in Ḥeḇron, which is why that is mentioned in the quote). In order to connect these events together, their calculations suggest that Yiṣḥaq’s binding coincided with Sara’s death and Riḇqa’s birth, implying she was 3 when she married Yiṣḥaq. Riḇqa's birth around the time of Sara’s death symbolizes the continuity of the patriarchal and matrilineal lineage. At that point, Aḇraham's wife died, and he needed to ensure the continuation of his lineage through Yiṣḥaq, which necessitated finding a wife and head of household for him. If you read the text inside (the Tora itself), after the episode of Yiṣḥaq’s binding, Aḇraham is blessed with many children (and still his son is single) and we learn that his brother is now a grandfather with many grandkids, one being Riḇqa. And verses later, it is said his wife died. The narrative is pushing a sense of urgency. So the Midrash is playing off that and adding some dates.

Symbolism and Misuse The transition from Sara to Riḇqa underscores the importance of matriarchs in Israelite identity, as Riḇqa carried the mantle after Sara, reflecting her assertiveness and leadership. Other midrashim complement these ideas, noting that the divine blessings present during Sara's life returned with Riḇqa: "Yiṣḥaq brought her into the tent of his mother Sara; he took Riḇqa, she became his wife, and he loved her, and Yiṣḥaq was comforted after his mother” (Genesis 24:67). “Yiṣḥaq brought her into the tent of his mother Sara” – all the days that Sara was alive, there was a cloud suspended over the entrance to her tent. When she died, that cloud ceased. When Riḇqa came, the cloud returned. All the days that Sara was alive, the doors were kept wide open [for guests]. When Sara died, that opening ceased. When Riḇqa came, the opening returned." - Bereshith Rabba 60:16 I could also point to her leadership noted especially in the Tora regarding her taking action concerning her children, but this is outside the scope. These stories, deeply embedded in Jewish tradition, offer symbolic lessons rather than concrete historical data. Misunderstandings arise when these interpretations are taken out of context or used for polemical purposes. Using these interpretations to argue about historical or legal matters is a misuse of the text. These stories are meant to convey deeper religious and moral truths rather than be taken as literal historical facts. So please leave us out of your poorly constructed polemics.