|
The Expulsion of Yishmael Chapter 21 of Bereshit portrays the complex interaction of family dynamics with religious and national aspirations. What’s in a Name? |
|
The Flight of Hagar and the Expulsion of Yishmael Yishmael’s status in the house of Avraham came into question even before his birth. The controversy depicted in our story has a parallel in chapter 16.
In order to fully understand the differences between these two stories, we must examine the precipitating factors in each case. In the first case, the Torah tells us that Hagar’s pregnancy resulted in a change in the relationship between Sarah and Hagar. Although Sarah had engineered the plan for Avraham to take Hagar as a wife, she was not prepared to deal with its unanticipated psychological impact. Two Perspectives on Yishmael’s Behavior It is more difficult to understand the motivation behind the expulsion of Yishmael in chapter 21. The expulsion is clearly the result of some behavior exhibited by Yishmael. Yet, the exact nature of the behavior is unclear due to the ambiguity of the word “מצחק” that is used to describe it. Most of the commentators who try to explain the meaning of “מצחק” fall into two categories: 1) Those who view it as a negative character trait that could influence Yitzchak’s behavior. 2) Those who view it as a challenge to Yitzchak’s right of inheritance. Rashi sets the paradigm for commentators who fall into the first category. Based on parallel uses of the term מצחק, he claims that Yishmael was involved in the three cardinal sins of idolatry, promiscuity, and murder. רש"י: מצחק - לשון עבודה זרה כמו שנאמר (שמות לב:ו) ויקומו לצחק. דבר אחר לשון גלוי עריות כמה דתימא (בראשית לט:יז) לצחק בי. דבר אחר לשון רציחה כמו (שמואל ב ב:יד) יקומו נא הנערים וישחקו לפנינו. Rashi: מצחק- The language of idolatry, as it says (Shemot 32:6) “And they rose up to make merry” (in relation to the golden calf). Another interpretation: the language of promiscuity as it says (Bereshit 39:17) “(the Hebrew servant came) to make sport with me” (said by the wife of Potiphar). Another interpretation: the language of murder as (Samuel II, 2:14) “Let the young men now rise and play before us” (said before the murder of the followers of Ish-Boshet). The supercommentaries on Rashi question this approach. If Yishmael was in fact involved in such criminal behavior, why didn’t Avraham react more strongly to it? How could such a righteous man allow such behavior in his home, reluctantly agreeing to send Yishmael away only after God’s intervention? Some suggest that Avraham believed that he would succeed in convincing Yishmael to repent. By sending him away, he would be writing off any chance of bringing his son back to the fold. This analysis reflects a common blindness that a father has for a wayward son, failing to perceive the seriousness of his behavior and its potential impact on others. The same dynamics are at work in chapter 27 of Bereshit which portrays the relationship between Yitzchak and his sons. Just as Rivkah is more realistic in assessing Esav’s behavior than is Yitzchak, so too in our story, Sarah is more objective and realistic about Yishmael’s behavior than is Avraham. Rashi’s analysis depicts a very human reaction to an ethical dilemma. While Avraham permitted Sarah to drive Hagar away prior to Yishmael’s birth, he cannot easily bring himself to expel the son that he has come to love, even though the act seems justified. This portrayal of Avraham is not accepted by many of the commentators who favor an explanation that hinges on the issue of inheritance. Rashi himself offers an alternative explanation to the term מצחק, a phenomenon which usually indicates a weakness in the first answer. The following is Rashi’s second interpretation, and the explanations of two other commentators who focus on the inheritance issue. רש"י: עם בני - מתשובת שרה כי לא יירש בן האמה הזאת עם בני אתה למד שהיה מריב עם יצחק על הירושה ואומר אני בכור ונוטל פי שניים… Rashi: with my son - From Sarah’s answer: “For the son of this handmaid will not inherit with my son”, you can deduce that he was quarrelling with Yitzchak over the inheritance, saying: “I am the first born, and I will take a double portion.”… ספורנו: מצחק - מלעיג על המשתה שנעשה בבית אברהם באמרו שנתעברה מאבימלך…. גרש את האמה הזאת ואת בנה - כי בעצתה עשה הבן שהוציא דיבה למען יירש הכל. לפיכך גרש מפני שאינו דין שירש אפילו קצת. Sforno: Laughing - He mocked the feast that was made in the house of Avraham by saying that she (Sarah) became pregnant by Avimelech…. Expel this handmaid and her son - Because on her advice the child spread rumors so that he would inherit everything. Therefore, expel him from before me, for according to the law, he should not inherit anything. שד"ל: כי שרה בחכמתה כראותה את ישמעאל מצחק ידעה והכירה בו כי הוא יהיה פרא אדם… והבינה כי אם יגדל בבית אברהם גם את הכל יקח ולא יניח דבר קטן ודבר גדול ליצחק בנה.[1] Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzato): For Sarah saw in her wisdom that Yishmael was “מצחק” and she recognized that he would be wild…And she understood that if he would grow up in the house of Avraham, he would take everything and would not leave anything big or small for her son Yitzchak. The Significance of the Inheritance Shadal and Sforno both frame the controversy as a struggle for complete control of Avraham’s inheritance. According to Sforno, Yishmael’s mockery of Sarah was designed to delegitimize Yitzchak’s claim to the inheritance by suggesting that he was not the son of Avraham. Shadal interprets Yishmael’s behavior as violent, consistent with the Torah’s description of him as: “a wild man – his hand will be against every man and every man’s hand will be against him” (פרא אדם, ידו בכל ויד כל בו). His approach is based on the premise that the term “יורש” refers to a complete inheritance, while the term “נחלה” indicates a division of property. Rashi’s second interpretation also deals with the issue of inheritance, but from a legal perspective relating to the birthright and the double portion attached to it. Does the birthright go to Avraham’s first child or to his first child with Sarah. This issue repeats itself throughout the book of Bereshit in the conflicts between Ya’akov and Esav and between Yosef and his brothers. In our case, the Torah gives a clear answer – “for through Yitzchak shall your seed be called” - the inheritance and birthright belong rightly to Yitzchak. Although these three commentators discuss the inheritance of property, the issue clearly relates as well to the spiritual and political leadership of the Jewish people. Da’at Mikra indicates that Sarah was insistent that Yitzchak receive the ירושהbecause it represented the “blessing of Avraham” as described in Yitzchak’s blessing of Ya’akov (Bereshit 28:4): ויתן לך את בברכת אברהם לך ולזרעך אתך לרשתך את ארץ מגורך שאר נתן אלקים לאברהם. And He will give to you the blessing of Avraham, to you and your seed with you, that you may inherit the land in which you sojourn, which God gave to Avraham. As such, the ירושהrelates to the leadership of the Jewish people and the inheritance of the Land of Israel. In chapter 16, Sarah was reacting to an uncomfortable domestic situation. In that case, the Torah judges her treatment of Hagar to be unjust. In chapter 21, however, Sarah is dealing with an issue that impacts on the destiny of the Jewish people and their relationship to the Land of Israel. According to the various commentators that we cited, Yishmael presents a threat - be it through legal means, through violence, or through delegitimization - to Yitzchak’s right of inheritance. Here the Torah endorses strong action in the face of challenges to the rightful religious and national aspirations of the Jewish people.
[1] Shadal refers in his commentary to בכורי עתים, תקפ"ז, pg. 190 |
||||
| The above image originally appeared on the jacket of the Nehama Leibowitz printed series © WZO/JAFI and is reproduced here with permission from the online series © The Pedagogic Center, The Department for Jewish Zionist Education, JAFI. |