Difference between revisions of "Banishment of Hagar and Yishmael/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Disinheritance</b><ul> | <point><b>Disinheritance</b><ul> | ||
− | <li> | + | <li><b>Legal right</b> – Most of these commentators likely maintain that Sarah had every right to claim Yitzchak as the sole heir, since he was born to the full wife, while Yishmael was the son of a maidservant.<fn>Avraham and Sarah's decision stands in contrast to that of Yaakov, who decided not to differentiate between the sons of his concubines and those of his real wives.</fn>  Moreover, Hashem had told Avraham, "וְאֶת בְּרִיתִי אָקִים אֶת יִצְחָק אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד לְךָ שָׂרָה", marking Yitzchak as the chosen son.  Thus, Sarah was not punishing Yishmael in stating that he would not inherit, but rather clarifying, while she was still alive, who the true heir was.<fn></fn></li> |
− | <li>According to Seforno, Sarah might be reacting to Yishmael's deeds measure for measure.  Yishmael libeled Yitzchak in an attempt to inherit everything, so Sarah ensured that he himself did not inherit at all.</li> | + | <li><b>Measure for measure punishment</b> – According to Seforno, Sarah might be reacting to Yishmael's deeds measure for measure.  Yishmael libeled Yitzchak in an attempt to inherit everything, so Sarah ensured that he himself did not inherit at all.</li> |
− | <li>R. Saadia | + | <li><b>No monetary loss</b> – In contrast to these opinions, R. Saadia claims that Sarah had no authority to disinherit Yishmael, only to distance him from home.  He, thus, reinterprets "לֹא יִירַשׁ" to mean "will not dwell".<fn>As evidence that the root "ירש" can mean "to dwell" he points to Yeshayahu 34:11, "וִירֵשׁוּהָ קָאַת וְקִפּוֹד וְיַנְשׁוֹף וְעֹרֵב יִשְׁכְּנוּ בָהּ", where the word is parallel to "יִשְׁכְּנוּ".  Cf. R. Avraham b. HaRambam above who also equates the disinheritance and banishment.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Banishment</b> – It is not clear why the disinheritance needed to be accompanied by banishment: <br/> | <point><b>Banishment</b> – It is not clear why the disinheritance needed to be accompanied by banishment: <br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Necessary clarification</b> – Most of these sources might suggest that this was simply the clearest way of ensuring that there be no contest after death.<fn>See, for instance, Abarbanel who claims that the longer Yishmael remained in the house, being treated as a full son, the harder it would be to clarify that he had no rights to the inheritance.  See also below that, according to the norms of the Ancient Near East as stated in the Code of Hammurabi 170-171, if a father treated a | + | <li><b>Necessary clarification</b> – Most of these sources might suggest that this was simply the clearest way of ensuring that there be no contest after death.<fn>See, for instance, Abarbanel who claims that the longer Yishmael remained in the house, being treated as a full son, the harder it would be to clarify that he had no rights to the inheritance.  See also below that, according to the norms of the Ancient Near East (as stated in the Code of Hammurabi 170-171), if a father treated a maidservant's child as his own, that child could inherit after his death, but if he did not treat them as such, they could not.  If so, Sarah might be asking Avraham to do a deed which makes it explicit that he does not view Yishmael as a son, thereby clarifying to all that he has no rights to inherit.</fn> </li> |
<li><b>Freedom not expulsion</b> – R. Saadia, in contrast, translates "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"' as "released her",<fn>The piel form of "שלח"  means to release or free.  See this usage in the context of freeing slaves in <a href="Devarim15-12-13" data-aht="source">Devarim 15</a>.</fn> suggesting that he views the action not as an expulsion but a freeing of Hagar (and Yishmael) from slave status.  He does not explain if this was also Sarah's intention when saying "גָּרֵשׁ הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת בְּנָהּ",‎<fn>See <a href="http://etzion.org.il/he/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%97%D7%A7-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%97-%D7%94%D7%92%D7%A8-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%90-%D7%90-%D7%9B%D7%90">E. Samet</a>, who suggests that this was indeed Sarah's intent. He points to the Code of Hammurabi 171 which stipulates that if the child of a maidservant is not to inherit the release of the maidservant and her children is assured upon the master's death. He suggests that Sarah and Avraham were following the norms of their time and that as soon as Sarah decided that Yishmael was not to inherit, she released Hagar from slave status. As evidence that the  root, "גרש" can also mean "free" he points to <a href="Shemot6-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 6:1</a> where the word is parallel to the root "שלח" and both refer to Paroh's freeing of the Nation of Israel. </fn> or if Avraham freed the two on his own, thus abiding by Sarah's wish that they leave, but without the harshness of banishment.</li> | <li><b>Freedom not expulsion</b> – R. Saadia, in contrast, translates "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"' as "released her",<fn>The piel form of "שלח"  means to release or free.  See this usage in the context of freeing slaves in <a href="Devarim15-12-13" data-aht="source">Devarim 15</a>.</fn> suggesting that he views the action not as an expulsion but a freeing of Hagar (and Yishmael) from slave status.  He does not explain if this was also Sarah's intention when saying "גָּרֵשׁ הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת בְּנָהּ",‎<fn>See <a href="http://etzion.org.il/he/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%97%D7%A7-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%97-%D7%94%D7%92%D7%A8-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%90-%D7%90-%D7%9B%D7%90">E. Samet</a>, who suggests that this was indeed Sarah's intent. He points to the Code of Hammurabi 171 which stipulates that if the child of a maidservant is not to inherit the release of the maidservant and her children is assured upon the master's death. He suggests that Sarah and Avraham were following the norms of their time and that as soon as Sarah decided that Yishmael was not to inherit, she released Hagar from slave status. As evidence that the  root, "גרש" can also mean "free" he points to <a href="Shemot6-1" data-aht="source">Shemot 6:1</a> where the word is parallel to the root "שלח" and both refer to Paroh's freeing of the Nation of Israel. </fn> or if Avraham freed the two on his own, thus abiding by Sarah's wish that they leave, but without the harshness of banishment.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Biblical Parallels</b> – The disinheritance and | + | <point><b>Biblical Parallels</b> – The disinheritance and expulsion of Yishamel and Hagar can be viewed as parallel to Avraham's later sending away of the sons of his concubines in <a href="Bereshit25-1-6" data-aht="source">Bereshit 25</a>.  There, too, the context relates to the inheritance of Yitzchak<fn>The text contrasts Yitzchak's inheriting all with Avraham's giving of gifts to the sons of the concubines and sending them away from Yitzchak while he was still alive.</fn> and it is possible that in both stories, Avraham is simply acting to confirm Yitzchak's status as sole heir.</point> |
<point><b>Ancient Near Easter Parallels</b></point> | <point><b>Ancient Near Easter Parallels</b></point> | ||
<point><b>"גָּרֵשׁ" versus "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"</b></point> | <point><b>"גָּרֵשׁ" versus "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"</b></point> |
Version as of 01:40, 29 October 2015
Banishment of Hagar and Yishmael
Exegetical Approaches
Yishmael's Negative Behavior
Sarah's actions were motivated by the problematic behavior of Yishmael and the desire to protect Yitzchak from his repugnant deeds and influence.
Sources:Tosefta, R. Akiva, R. Elazar b. R. Yosi HaGelili, R. Yishmael, and R. Levi in Tosefta, Sifre Devarim, and Bereshit Rabbah, Shemot Rabbah, Tanchuma, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, Rashi, R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Ramban, R. Yosef ibn Kaspi,
"מְצַחֵק" – Though all these sources assume that Yishmael's behavior was reprehensible, they disagree regarding what action is referred to by the term "מְצַחֵק":
- Cardinal sins – According to most of these commentators, the word refers either to idolatry,1 murder,2 or illicit relations,3 the three cardinal sins in Judaism.4
- Sin of speech – Ramban asserts that Yishmael was mocking Yitzchak and the party, while Ibn Kaspi posits that he was poking fun at Sarah. In contrast, R. Avraham b. HaRambam maintains that Yishmael was more generally fooling around and speaking with a foul mouth.5
- Gambling – Ibn Kaspi also raises the possibility that Yishmael was gambling (משחק בקוביא).
Banishment – According to this approach, the decision to banish Yishmael stemmed directly from his behavior and "צחוק":6
- Spiritual protection – According to many of these sources,7 Sarah believed that Yishmael needed to be expelled to ensure that Yitzchak did not learn from his negative ways. R. Avraham b. HaRambam adds that Sarah feared that she and Avraham might die while Yitzchak was still young, leaving him to grow up under the sole influence of Yishmael, with no counter role models.
- Physical protection – R. Levi, Rashi, and Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer all maintain that Yishmael had attempted to kill Yitzchak. As such, Yishmael's banishment was also necessary to physically protect Yitzchak.
- Punishment – In contrast to the above, Ramban views the banishment as a punishment to Yishmael. He maintains that Sarah viewed Yishmael's actions as a forgetting of his rightful place as servant. Though this normally would deserve death or corporal punishment, Sarah decided instead to expel him.
Disinheritance
- Monetary inheritance – According to most of these commentators Yishmael's deeds made him unworthy of benefiting from Avraham's wealth. Alternatively, the disinheritance might have simply been a by-product of the expulsion.
- Spiritual inheritance – R. Avraham b. HaRambam, in contrast, maintains that Sarah was not referring to a monetary inheritance8 but to a spiritual one. He asserts that Sarah's words "לֹא יִירַשׁ" are equivalent to the term "גָּרֵשׁ", and simply mean that Yishmael should not live with and be raised by the family. While Yitzchak was to be educated to religious perfection, Yishmael was to leave and not to join in such an upbringing.
Why is Avraham "upset about his son"? These commentators disagree on this point:9
- Yishmael's behavior – Shemot Rabbah and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan10 suggest that Avraham was upset that Yishmael had veered from the right path.
- Yishmael's banishment – Rashi, R. Avraham b. HaRambam, and Ramban, in contrast, maintain that Avraham was upset about the expulsion and fate of his osn.11 Ramban suggests that Avraham's natural love for his son made it painful for him to banish him. Although Yishmael's actions were wrong, and Avraham might have even understood Sarah's desire for the expulsion, they were not so terrible to prevent his anguish.12 R. Avraham b. HaRambam instead claims that Avraham was unaware of Yishmael's true nature.13
Why is Hagar also expelled? Ramban asserts that Hagar was sent away due to no fault of her own but out of mercy to Yishmael who would not survive without his mother.
Why does Hashem side with Sarah? For most of these commentators, who claim that Yishmael was guilty of heinous crimes, Hashem's words are not surprising. The others14 would likely posit, as does R. Avraham b. HaRambam, that Hashem agreed with Sarah that Yishmael would be a negative influence on Yitzchak.
"לֶחֶם וְחֵמַת מַיִם" – were there sufficient provisions?
- Meager Provisions – Many of these commentators assume that Avraham only scantily provided for Yishmael, but still maintain that the lack of water was not his fault:
- Yishmael got sick – According to Shemot Rabbah and Rashi, Avraham intentionally sent Yishmael away without any gold or silver since he was upset at his sinful ways. Rashi claims that, nonetheless, he had provided Hagar with ample food and drink. The water ran out only because Yishmael got sick and drank more than expected.
- Yishmael/Hagar punished – According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, too, the water supply should have been sufficient15 but as soon as Hagar entered the wilderness, she strayed after idolatry16 and was punished.17
- Avraham obeyed Hashem – R. Avraham b. HaRambam asserts that Avraham's apparent stinginess should not be viewed as such but rather as obedience to the Divine command to listen to his wife. Moreover, Avraham trusted in Hashem's promise that he would not forsake Yishmael.
- Properly provided for – In contrast to the above, Ibn Kaspi maintains that Avraham gave Hagar and Yishmael not only food, but also gold and silver. He disagrees that Hashem's directive to heed Sarah's words need refer to leaving Yishmael empty-handed.18
Why does Hashem save Yishmael? Targum Pseudo-Jonathan emphasizes that Hashem saved Yishmael only for the sake of Avraham and his merits.19
Was Sarah justified? Many of these sources justify Sarah's decision by painting a much blacker picture of Yishmael than a simple reading of the text would imply. Others do so by highlighting the threat he presented to Yitzchak's upbringing.
Aftermath – Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer presents Avraham as concerned about Yishmael's spiritual well-being even after the banishment,20 and has him remarry Hagar after Sarah's death.21 Rashi also presents Yishmael as repenting later in life.
Hagar's status
When does the story take place?
Gifts to sons of concubines
Ensuring Yitzchak's Inheritance
Sources:Rashbi's opinion in Tosefta, Sifre Devarim, and Bereshit Rabbah, R. Saadia Gaon,22 Radak, Ralbag, Abarbanel, Seforno, Shadal,
"מְצַחֵק" – All of these commentators relate Yishmael's "צחוק" to his desire or likelihood to inherit, but differ in their interpretations of the word "מְצַחֵק" and the specifics of the incident:
- Mockery – R. Shimon b. Yochai,23 Radak,24 Ralbag and Shadal25 all portray Yishmael as scorning the concept of Yitzchak alone inheriting. Seforno, instead, depicts Yishmael laughing and spreading rumors that Yitzchak was born of Avimelekh which would thereby disqualify him from inheriting.26
- Playing – Abarbanel, in contrast, understands "מְצַחֵק" to mean "play" (משחק) and presents Yishmael as happily playing while those around him try to please and serve him. This made Sarah realize that others treated him as equal in status to Yitzchak, and equally qualified to inherit.27 According to him, though, in this incident Yishmael himself made no such claims.
Disinheritance
- Legal right – Most of these commentators likely maintain that Sarah had every right to claim Yitzchak as the sole heir, since he was born to the full wife, while Yishmael was the son of a maidservant.28 Moreover, Hashem had told Avraham, "וְאֶת בְּרִיתִי אָקִים אֶת יִצְחָק אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד לְךָ שָׂרָה", marking Yitzchak as the chosen son. Thus, Sarah was not punishing Yishmael in stating that he would not inherit, but rather clarifying, while she was still alive, who the true heir was.29
- Measure for measure punishment – According to Seforno, Sarah might be reacting to Yishmael's deeds measure for measure. Yishmael libeled Yitzchak in an attempt to inherit everything, so Sarah ensured that he himself did not inherit at all.
- No monetary loss – In contrast to these opinions, R. Saadia claims that Sarah had no authority to disinherit Yishmael, only to distance him from home. He, thus, reinterprets "לֹא יִירַשׁ" to mean "will not dwell".30
Banishment – It is not clear why the disinheritance needed to be accompanied by banishment:
- Necessary clarification – Most of these sources might suggest that this was simply the clearest way of ensuring that there be no contest after death.31
- Freedom not expulsion – R. Saadia, in contrast, translates "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"' as "released her",32 suggesting that he views the action not as an expulsion but a freeing of Hagar (and Yishmael) from slave status. He does not explain if this was also Sarah's intention when saying "גָּרֵשׁ הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת בְּנָהּ",33 or if Avraham freed the two on his own, thus abiding by Sarah's wish that they leave, but without the harshness of banishment.
Biblical Parallels – The disinheritance and expulsion of Yishamel and Hagar can be viewed as parallel to Avraham's later sending away of the sons of his concubines in Bereshit 25. There, too, the context relates to the inheritance of Yitzchak34 and it is possible that in both stories, Avraham is simply acting to confirm Yitzchak's status as sole heir.
Ancient Near Easter Parallels
"גָּרֵשׁ" versus "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"
Jealousy
Sources: