Difference between revisions of "Banishment of Hagar and Yishmael/2"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 12: Line 12:
 
<point><b>"מְצַחֵק"</b> – Though all these sources assume that Yishmael's behavior was reprehensible, they disagree regarding what action is referred to by the term "מְצַחֵק":<br/>
 
<point><b>"מְצַחֵק"</b> – Though all these sources assume that Yishmael's behavior was reprehensible, they disagree regarding what action is referred to by the term "מְצַחֵק":<br/>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li><b>Cardinal sins</b> – According to most of these commentators, the word refers either to idolatry,<fn>See R. Akiva, the anonymous opinion in Tosefta,&#160;Tanchuma, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi. As evidence that the root "צחק" can be understood in this manner, R. Akiva points to <a href="Shemot32-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 32:6</a>, where the nation is "מצחק" before the Golden Calf.</fn> murder,<fn>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 <a href="ShemuelII2-14" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 2:14</a>.</fn> or illicit relations,<fn>See R. Eliezer the son of R. Yose HaGelili who points to the story of Mrs. Potiphar in <a href="Bereshit39-17" data-aht="source">Bereshit 39:17</a>, where the root "צחק" suggests sexual behavior.</fn> the three cardinal sins in Judaism.</li>
+
<li><b>Cardinal sins</b> – According to most of these commentators, the word refers either to idolatry,<fn>See R. Akiva, the anonymous opinion in Tosefta,&#160;Tanchuma, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi. As evidence that the root "צחק" can be understood in this manner, R. Akiva points to <a href="Shemot32-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 32:6</a>, where the nation is "מצחק" before the Golden Calf.</fn> murder,<fn>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 <a href="ShemuelII2-14" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 2:14</a>.</fn> or illicit relations,<fn>See R. Eliezer the son of R. Yose HaGelili who points to the story of Mrs. Potiphar in <a href="Bereshit39-17" data-aht="source">Bereshit 39:17</a>, where the root "צחק" suggests sexual behavior.</fn> the three cardinal sins in Judaism.<fn>R. Shimon B. Yochai questions whether it is realistic that a son brought up in Avraham's household would engage in such actions.&#160; After all Hashem says of Avraham, "כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט".</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Sin of speech</b> – Ramban asserts that Yishmael was mocking Yitzchak and the party, while Ibn Kaspi posits that he was poking fun at Sarah.&#160; In contrast, R. Avraham b. HaRambam maintains that Yishmael was more generally fooling around and speaking with a foul mouth.<fn>All three understand the word "מְצַחֵק" somewhat literally to refer to scornful laughter.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Sin of speech</b> – Ramban asserts that Yishmael was mocking Yitzchak and the party, while Ibn Kaspi posits that he was poking fun at Sarah.&#160; In contrast, R. Avraham b. HaRambam maintains that Yishmael was more generally fooling around and speaking with a foul mouth.<fn>All three understand the word "מְצַחֵק" somewhat literally to refer to scornful laughter.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Gambling</b> – Ibn Kaspi also raises the possibility that Yishmael was gambling (משחק בקוביא)&#8206;.</li>
 
<li><b>Gambling</b> – Ibn Kaspi also raises the possibility that Yishmael was gambling (משחק בקוביא)&#8206;.</li>
Line 22: Line 22:
 
<li><b>Punishment</b> – In contrast to the above, Ramban views the banishment as a punishment to Yishmael.&#160; 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.</li>
 
<li><b>Punishment</b> – In contrast to the above, Ramban views the banishment as a punishment to Yishmael.&#160; 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.</li>
 
</ul></point>
 
</ul></point>
<point><b>Disinheritance</b><ul>
+
<point><b>Disinheritance</b> Most of these commentators would likely suggest that the disinheritance was simply a by-product of Yishmael's expulsion.&#160; R. Avraham b. HaRambam, in contrast, equates the banishment and disinheritance.&#160; He maintains that Sarah was not referring to a monetary inheritance<fn>Cf. R. Saadia who asserts that Sarah had permission to banish her son, but not to keep him from getting a monetary inheritance.</fn> but to a spiritual one.&#160; While Yitzchak was to be educated to religious perfection, Yishmael was to leave and not to join in such an upbringing.<fn>Thus, Sarah's words "לֹא יִירַשׁ" are another way of saying that Yishmael should not live with and be raised by the family, and is equivalent to the term "גָּרֵשׁ".</fn>&#160;</point>
<li>Most of these commentators would likely suggest that the disinheritance was simply a by-product of Yishmael's expulsion.</li>
 
<li>R. Avraham b. HaRambam, in contrast, equates the banishment and disinheritance.&#160; He maintains that Sarah was not referring to a monetary inheritance<fn>Cf. R. Saadia who asserts that Sarah had permission to banish her son, but not to keep him from getting a monetary inheritance.</fn> but to a spiritual one.&#160; While Yitzchak was to be educated to religious perfection, Yishmael was to leave and not to join in such an upbringing.<fn>Thus, Sarah's words "לֹא יִירַשׁ" are another way of saying that Yishmael should not to live with and be raised by the family, and is equivalent to the term "גָּרֵשׁ".</fn>&#160; </li>
 
</ul></point>
 
 
<point><b>Why is Avraham "upset about his son"?</b> These commentators disagree on this point:<fn>See&#160;<multilink><a href="MidrashTannaimDevarim14" data-aht="source">Midrash Tannaim</a><a href="MidrashTannaimDevarim14" data-aht="source">Devarim 14</a><a href="Midrash Tannaim" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Tannaim</a></multilink> which already brings both approaches.</fn><br/>
 
<point><b>Why is Avraham "upset about his son"?</b> These commentators disagree on this point:<fn>See&#160;<multilink><a href="MidrashTannaimDevarim14" data-aht="source">Midrash Tannaim</a><a href="MidrashTannaimDevarim14" data-aht="source">Devarim 14</a><a href="Midrash Tannaim" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Tannaim</a></multilink> which already brings both approaches.</fn><br/>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
Line 32: Line 29:
 
</ul></point>
 
</ul></point>
 
<point><b>Why is Hagar also expelled?</b> 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.</point>
 
<point><b>Why is Hagar also expelled?</b> 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.</point>
<point><b>Why does Hashem side with Sarah?</b> For most of these commentators who claim that Yishmael was guilty of heinous crimes, Hashem's words are not surprising.&#160; The others<fn>R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Ramban and Ibn Kaspi all portray Yishmael as much less wicked, and thus not so obviously deserving of expulsion.</fn> would likely posit, as does R. Avraham b. HaRambam, that Hashem agreed with Sarah that Yishmael would be a negative influence on Yitzchak.</point>
+
<point><b>Why does Hashem side with Sarah?</b> For most of these commentators, who claim that Yishmael was guilty of heinous crimes, Hashem's words are not surprising.&#160; The others<fn>R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Ramban and Ibn Kaspi all portray Yishmael as much less wicked, and thus not so obviously deserving of expulsion.</fn> would likely posit, as does R. Avraham b. HaRambam, that Hashem agreed with Sarah that Yishmael would be a negative influence on Yitzchak.</point>
 
<point><b>"לֶחֶם וְחֵמַת מַיִם" – were there sufficient provisions?</b><ul>
 
<point><b>"לֶחֶם וְחֵמַת מַיִם" – were there sufficient provisions?</b><ul>
 
<li><b>Meager Provisions</b> – Many of these commentators assume that Avraham only scantily provided for Yishmael, but still maintain that the lack of water was not his fault:</li>
 
<li><b>Meager Provisions</b> – Many of these commentators assume that Avraham only scantily provided for Yishmael, but still maintain that the lack of water was not his fault:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li><b>Yishamel got sick</b> – According to Shemot Rababah and Rashi, Avraham intentionally sent Yishmael away without any gold or silver since he was upset at his sinful ways.&#160; Rashi claims that, nonetheless, he had provided Hagar with ample food and drink.&#160; The water ran out only because Yishmael got sick and drank more than expected.</li>
+
<li><b>Yishmael got sick</b> – According to Shemot Rabbah and Rashi, Avraham intentionally sent Yishmael away without any gold or silver since he was upset at his sinful ways.&#160; Rashi claims that, nonetheless, he had provided Hagar with ample food and drink.&#160; The water ran out only because Yishmael got sick and drank more than expected.</li>
 
<li><b>Yishmael/Hagar punished</b> – According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, too, the water supply should have been sufficient<fn>According to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, a mere flask of water would have sufficed due to Avraham's merits.</fn> but as soon as Hagar entered the wilderness, she strayed after idolatry<fn>They renders the phrase "וַתֵּתַע בְּמִדְבַּר" metaphorically to mean that Hagar wandered after idolatry.</fn> and was punished.<fn>Targum Pseudo-Jonathan relates how both Hagar and Yishmael worshiped idols on their trek in the wilderness.&#160; It appears from the Targum that, as a punishment for this action, Yishmael came down with a fever which depleted their water supply.&#160; 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.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Yishmael/Hagar punished</b> – According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, too, the water supply should have been sufficient<fn>According to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, a mere flask of water would have sufficed due to Avraham's merits.</fn> but as soon as Hagar entered the wilderness, she strayed after idolatry<fn>They renders the phrase "וַתֵּתַע בְּמִדְבַּר" metaphorically to mean that Hagar wandered after idolatry.</fn> and was punished.<fn>Targum Pseudo-Jonathan relates how both Hagar and Yishmael worshiped idols on their trek in the wilderness.&#160; It appears from the Targum that, as a punishment for this action, Yishmael came down with a fever which depleted their water supply.&#160; 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.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Avraham obeyed Hashem</b> – 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.&#160; Moreover, Avraham trusted in Hashem's promise that he would not forsake Yishmael.</li>
 
<li><b>Avraham obeyed Hashem</b> – 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.&#160; Moreover, Avraham trusted in Hashem's promise that he would not forsake Yishmael.</li>
Line 44: Line 41:
 
<point><b>Why does Hashem save Yishmael?</b> Targum Pseudo-Jonathan emphasizes that Hashem saved Yishmael only for the sake of Avraham and his merits.<fn>Rashi is somewhat inconsistent in his understanding as he points to the&#160;<a href="BavliRoshHaShanah16b" data-aht="source">Midrash</a> 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.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Why does Hashem save Yishmael?</b> Targum Pseudo-Jonathan emphasizes that Hashem saved Yishmael only for the sake of Avraham and his merits.<fn>Rashi is somewhat inconsistent in his understanding as he points to the&#160;<a href="BavliRoshHaShanah16b" data-aht="source">Midrash</a> 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.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Was Sarah justified?</b> 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.&#160; Others do so by highlighting the threat he presented to Yitzchak's upbringing.</point>
 
<point><b>Was Sarah justified?</b> 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.&#160; Others do so by highlighting the threat he presented to Yitzchak's upbringing.</point>
<point><b>Aftermath</b> – Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer presents Avraham as still concerned about Yishmael's spiritual well-being even after the banishment,<fn>It tells of Avraham visiting his son and checking on his wives.&#160; When he finds one wife not up to par, he lets Yishmael know and Yishmael acts on his advice to choose a new one.</fn> and has him remarry Hagar after Sarah's death.<fn>See also Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Bereshit Rabbah, Tanchuma, and Rashi.&#160; They all associate Keturah with Hagar.&#160; For a full discussion of the issue, see <a href="Avraham's Many Wives" data-aht="page">Avraham's Many Wives</a>.</fn> Rashi also presents Yishmael as repenting later in life.</point>
+
<point><b>Aftermath</b> – Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer presents Avraham as concerned about Yishmael's spiritual well-being even after the banishment,<fn>It tells of Avraham visiting his son and checking on his wives.&#160; When he finds one wife not up to par, he lets Yishmael know and Yishmael acts on his advice to choose a new one.</fn> and has him remarry Hagar after Sarah's death.<fn>See also Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Bereshit Rabbah, Tanchuma, and Rashi.&#160; They all associate Keturah with Hagar.&#160; For a full discussion of the issue, see <a href="Avraham's Many Wives" data-aht="page">Avraham's Many Wives</a>.</fn> Rashi also presents Yishmael as repenting later in life.</point>
 
<point><b>Hagar's status</b></point>
 
<point><b>Hagar's status</b></point>
 
<point><b>When does the story take place?</b></point>
 
<point><b>When does the story take place?</b></point>
Line 53: Line 50:
 
<point><b>"מְצַחֵק"</b> – Most of these commentators relate Yishmael's "צחוק" to his desire or likelihood to inherit.&#160;
 
<point><b>"מְצַחֵק"</b> – Most of these commentators relate Yishmael's "צחוק" to his desire or likelihood to inherit.&#160;
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>Mockery –R. Shimon b. Yochai,<fn>&#160;In the version in the Sifre Devarim, R. Shimon b. Yochai presents 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.</fn> Ralbag and Shadal<fn>Shadal presents Yihmael 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. Shadal who has Yishmael taunt that Yitzchak would never survive to adulthood.</fn> all portray Yishmael as laughing at the concept of Yiztchak inheriting.&#160; Seforno, instead, depicts Yishmael as spreading rumors that Yitzchak was born of Avimelekh which would thereby disqualify him from inheriting.</li>
+
<li><b>Mockery</b> – R. Shimon b. Yochai,<fn>R. Shimon b. Yochai&#160;presents Yishmael as confident in his status as first-born.&#160; 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.</fn> Radak,<fn>Radak portrays Yishmael as mocking Yitzchak, a child of elderly parents.&#160; 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.&#160; It is not clear from Radak, though, if this is really what motivated Yishmael's actions.</fn> Ralbag and Shadal<fn>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. Saadia who has Yishmael taunt that Yitzchak would never survive to adulthood.</fn> all portray Yishmael as scorning the concept of Yitzchak alone inheriting.&#160; Seforno, instead, depicts Yishmael laughing and spreading rumors that Yitzchak was born of Avimelekh which would thereby disqualify him from inheriting.</li>
<li>Playing – Abarbanel, in contrast, understands "מְצַחֵק" to mean "play" and presents Yishmael as happily playing while those around him tried to please and serve him. Sarah saw this as setting a precedent that he was equal in status to Yitzchak, and equally qualified to inherit.</li>
+
<li><b>Playing</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn>&#160; According to him, though, in this incident Yishmael himself made no such claims.</li>
 +
</ul></point>
 +
<point><b>Disinheritance</b><ul>
 +
<li>According to most of these commentators, 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.&#160; Moreover, Hashem had told Avraham, "וְאֶת בְּרִיתִי אָקִים אֶת יִצְחָק אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד לְךָ שָׂרָה", marking Yitzchak as the chosen son.&#160; 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.</li>
 +
<li>R. Saadia, in contrast,&#160; claims that Sarah had no authority to disinherit Yishmael, only to distance him from home.&#160; He, thus, reinterprets "" to mean "will not live"</li>
 +
</ul></point>
 +
<point><b>Banishment</b> – It is not clear why the disinheritance needed to be accompanied by banishment:. <br/>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>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, Abrbanel who claims that the longer Yishmael remained in teh house, being treated as a full son, the harder it would be to clarify that he had no rights to the inheritance.</fn>&#160;</li>
 +
<li>R. Saadia translates "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"' as "freed her", suggesting that one view the action not as an expulsion but a freeing of Hagar and Yishmael from slave status.&#160; He does not explain if this was also Sarah's intention when saying "גָּרֵשׁ הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת בְּנָהּ", 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>Sending away sons of concubines</b></point>
 
<point><b>Sending away sons of concubines</b></point>

Version as of 23:19, 28 October 2015

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.

"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 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 – Most of these commentators would likely suggest that the disinheritance was simply a by-product of Yishmael's expulsion.  R. Avraham b. HaRambam, in contrast, equates the banishment and disinheritance.  He maintains that Sarah was not referring to a monetary inheritance8 but to a spiritual one.  While Yitzchak was to be educated to religious perfection, Yishmael was to leave and not to join in such an upbringing.9 
Why is Avraham "upset about his son"? These commentators disagree on this point:10
  • Yishmael's behavior – Shemot Rabbah and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan11 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.12 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.13 R. Avraham b. HaRambam instead claims that Avraham was unaware of Yishmael's true nature.14
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 others15 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 sufficient16 but as soon as Hagar entered the wilderness, she strayed after idolatry17 and was punished.18
    • 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.19
Why does Hashem save Yishmael? Targum Pseudo-Jonathan emphasizes that Hashem saved Yishmael only for the sake of Avraham and his merits.20
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,21 and has him remarry Hagar after Sarah's death.22 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

"מְצַחֵק" – Most of these commentators relate Yishmael's "צחוק" to his desire or likelihood to inherit. 
  • Mockery – R. Shimon b. Yochai,24 Radak,25 Ralbag and Shadal26 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.
  • 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
  • According to most of these commentators, 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.  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.
  • R. Saadia, in contrast,  claims that Sarah had no authority to disinherit Yishmael, only to distance him from home.  He, thus, reinterprets "" to mean "will not live"
Banishment – It is not clear why the disinheritance needed to be accompanied by banishment:.
  • Most of these sources might suggest that this was simply the clearest way of ensuring that there be no contest after death.28 
  • R. Saadia translates "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"' as "freed her", suggesting that one view 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", or if Avraham freed the two on his own, thus abiding by Sarah's wish that they leave, but without the harshness of banishment.
Sending away sons of concubines
"גָּרֵשׁ" versus "וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ"

Jealousy