Banishment of Hagar and Yishmael/2

Banishment of Hagar and Yishmael

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

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:ToseftaSotah 5:7About the Tosefta, R. Akiva, R. Elazar b. R. Yosi HaGelili, R. Yishmael, and R. Levi in ToseftaSotah 6:3About the Tosefta, Sifre Devarim6:4About Sifre Devarim, and Bereshit Rabbah53:11About Bereshit Rabbah, Shemot Rabbah1:1About Shemot Rabbah, TanchumaShemot 1About the Tanchuma, Targum Pseudo-JonathanBereshit 21:9-17About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer30About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, RashiBereshit 21:9-11,14-15,17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Avraham b. HaRambamBereshit 21:9-12Bereshit 21:14Bereshit 21:20About R. Avraham Maimonides, RambanBereshit 21:9-11Bereshit 21:15About R. Moshe b. Nachman, R. Yosef ibn KaspiTirat Kesef pp. 98-99Bereshit 21:9About 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

Sarah wanted to ensure that Yitzchak rather than Yishmael inherited

Sources:Rashbi's opinion in ToseftaSotah 6:3About the Tosefta, Sifre Devarim6:4About Sifre Devarim, and Bereshit Rabbah53:11About Bereshit Rabbah, ²² RadakBereshit 21:9-11,14About R. David Kimchi, RalbagBereshit Beur HaParashah 21:8-16About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelBereshit 21About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoBereshit 21:9-10Bereshit 21:14About R. Ovadyah Seforno, ShadalBereshit 21:9About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto,

"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 – According to this approach, Sarah had every right to claim Yitzchak as the sole heir,²⁸ since he was born to the full wife, while Yishmael was the son of a maidservant.²⁹  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.³⁰
• 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.

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 – It is also possible that Avraham did not actually expel Hagar and Yishmael, but simply released them from servitude.  See R. SaadiaTafsir Bereshit 21:9Tafsir Bereshit 21:14Commentary Bereshit 21:9About R. Saadia Gaon who translates "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"' as "released her".³²  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 Eastern parallels – The Code of Hammurabi 170-171 states that if a father refers to and treats the child of a maidservant as his own, that child has equal rights to the inheritance.  If not, the child would not inherit, but upon the death of his father, he and his mother are released from servitude.  It is possible that Sarah's actions are to be understood in light of these Ancient Near Eastern norms.  She asked Avraham to clarify, through Yishmael's expulsion, that he did not view him as a son, and thus that he had no rights to inherit.³⁵

"גָּרֵשׁ" versus "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"

Jealousy

Sources:

Jubilees17:6-18About Jubilees, Ibn EzraBereshit 21:9Bereshit 21:14About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, ChizkuniBereshit 21:9-14About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Bereshit 21:9,11About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor)

¹ See R. Akiva, the anonymous opinion in Tosefta, Tanchuma, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi. As evidence that the root "צחק" can be understood in this manner, R. Akiva points to Shemot 32:6, where the nation is "מצחק" before the Golden Calf.

² See R. Yishmael and Rashi. R. Levi in Bereshit Rabbah and Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer speak not just in general of spilling blood, but have Yishmael attempting to kill Yitzchak himself. Support for this meaning is brought from the deadly "משחק" set up between the soldiers of Yoav and Avner in Shemuel II 2:14.

³ See R. Eliezer the son of R. Yose HaGelili who points to the story of Mrs. Potiphar in Bereshit 39:17, where the root "צחק" suggests sexual behavior.

⁴ R. Shimon B. Yochai questions whether it is realistic that a son brought up in Avraham's household would engage in such actions.  After all Hashem says of Avraham, "כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט".

⁵ All three understand the word "מְצַחֵק" somewhat literally to refer to scornful laughter.

⁶ Most of the sources would probably suggest that though the Torah does not say so explicitly, Sarah shared with Avraham that it was Yishmael's behavior which motivated her to expel him.  It is possible that the Torah only omits her words because it assumes that the reader is aware of her motivation from the preceding verse.

⁷ See Tosefta Sota, Shemot Rabbah, R. Avraham b. HaRambam, and Ibn Kaspi.

⁸ Cf. R. Saadia below who asserts that Sarah had permission to banish her son, but not to keep him from getting a monetary inheritance.

⁹ See Midrash TannaimDevarim 14About Midrash Tannaim which already brings both approaches.

¹⁰ See also the first opinion brought by Rashi.

¹¹ This is supported by Hashem's response which uses the same language of "אַל יֵרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ עַל הַנַּעַר וְעַל אֲמָתֶךָ " but includes Hagar as well as Yishmael. Furthermore, Hashem reassures Avraham that Yishmael will be a great nation,  addressing Avraham's concerns over his son's welfare rather than his behavior.

¹² While the midrashic sources, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Rashi posit that Yishmael committed cardinal sins, Ramban maintains that he simply mocked Sarah.  As such, the varying interpretations of this verse are consistent with the exegetes' overall approaches.

¹³ Sarah had not wanted to hurt him by revealing it.

¹⁴ R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Ramban and Ibn Kaspi all portray Yishmael as much less wicked, and thus not so obviously deserving of expulsion.

¹⁵ According to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, a mere flask of water would have sufficed due to Avraham's merits.

¹⁶ They renders the phrase "וַתֵּתַע בְּמִדְבַּר" metaphorically to mean that Hagar wandered after idolatry.

¹⁷ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan relates how both Hagar and Yishmael worshiped idols on their trek in the wilderness.  It appears from the Targum that, as a punishment for this action, Yishmael came down with a fever which depleted their water supply.  Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, in contrast, presents only Hagar as worshiping idolatry (and this is what causes their water to run out), while Yishmael himself prays to Hashem, the God of his father Avraham (again in contrast to Targum Pseudo Jonathan which has Hagar praying to the idolatrous god of her father). Numerous scholars have noted that this likely reflects Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer's identification of Yishmael as the father of Islam, which he viewed as a monotheistic religion.

¹⁸ He points out that had Sarah told Avraham to jump into a fiery furnace, obviously he would not be obligated to do so.  The Divine directive referred only to Sarah's request of banishment; when Hashem said "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלֶיךָ שָׂרָה שְׁמַע בְּקֹלָהּ" He had not meant to listen to literally "all" her requests.

¹⁹ Rashi is somewhat inconsistent in his understanding as he points to the Midrash which claims that Hashem saved Yishmael on his own merits, for his present righteous state ("בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא שָׁם"). Yet, according to Rashi, Yishmael's present spiritual state was one of wickedness.

²⁰ It tells of Avraham visiting his son and checking on his wives.  When he finds one wife not up to par, he lets Yishmael know and Yishmael acts on his advice to choose a new one.

²¹ See also Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Bereshit Rabbah, Tanchuma, and Rashi.  They all associate Keturah with Hagar.  For a full discussion of the issue, see Avraham's Many Wives.

²² R. Saadia is not explicit and simply says that Yishmael was laughing and saying that Yitzchak would die before him. This might suggest that Yishmael was laughing because he believed that Yitzchak would never live to inherit.

²³ R. Shimon b. Yochai presents Yishmael as confident in his status as first-born.  In the version in the Sifre Devarim, he depicts Yishmael as not just laughing, but rather actively arguing with Yitzchak over the inheritance. Ramban questions this variation, arguing that it does not fit with the chronology of the verses, since the chapter assumes a very young Yitzchak. A toddler would not be arguing with his older brother over such matters. See, though, Shadal who raises the possibility that the mockery/fighting was not on the day of the party itself but at some point afterwards when Yitzchak was a little older.

²⁴ Radak portrays Yishmael as mocking Yitzchak, a child of elderly parents.  Sarah understood this mockery to stem from the fact that Yishmael viewed himself as on equal footing with Yitzchak, thinking that he had the same rights to inherit.  It is not clear from Radak, though, if this is really what motivated Yishmael's actions.

²⁵ Shadal presents Yiדhmael as mocking all the pomp and ceremony surrounding Yitzchak, thinking that Avraham and Sarah would die before he grew up, leaving Yishmael to inherit all. Cf. R. SaadiaTafsir Bereshit 21:9Tafsir Bereshit 21:14Commentary Bereshit 21:9About R. Saadia Gaon who has Yishmael taunt that Yitzchak would never survive to adulthood.

²⁶ According to this approach, Sarah's words "כׇּל הַשֹּׁמֵעַ יִצְחַק לִי" are understandable.

²⁷ Abarbanel contends that even before the incident Sarah feared that Yishmael would claim rights to the inheritance. Seeing him being the center of attention simply confirmed her suspicions that the longer he stayed, the more difficult disinheriting him would become.

²⁸ Cf. R. SaadiaTafsir Bereshit 21:9Tafsir Bereshit 21:14Commentary Bereshit 21:9About R. Saadia Gaon who claims, in contrast, that Sarah had no authority to disinherit Yishmael, only to distance him from home. He, thus, reinterprets "לֹא יִירַשׁ" to mean "will not dwell", pointing to Yeshayahu 34:11, "וִירֵשׁוּהָ קָאַת וְקִפּוֹד וְיַנְשׁוֹף וְעֹרֵב יִשְׁכְּנוּ בָהּ", where the word is parallel to "יִשְׁכְּנוּ".  See R. Avraham b. HaRambam above who also equates the disinheritance and banishment.

²⁹ 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.

³⁰

³¹ 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 have been asking Avraham to do a deed which made it explicit that he did not view Yishmael as a son, thereby clarifying to all that he had no rights to inherit.

³² The piel form of "שלח"  means to release or free.  See this usage in the context of freeing slaves in Devarim 15.

³³ See E. Samet, 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 freedom 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 Shemot 6:1 where the word is parallel to the root "שלח" and both refer to Paroh's freeing of the Nation of Israel.

³⁴ 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.

³⁵ Many have discussed the relationship between Sarah's actiona and the laws of teh Ancient near East.  For example, see Y. Roth-Rothem articles, סיפור גירוש ישמעאל - בראשית כ"א 21-9, and R"E. Samet, סיפור גירוש ישמעאל - בראשית כ"א 21-9סיפור גירוש ישמעאל - בראשית כ"א 21-9