Sarai, Avram and Hagar

THE TROUBLING FAMILY TRIANGLE: SARAI, AVRAM AND HAGAR

Interdisciplinary Bible Study for Genesis 16 and 21 By Noam Zion and Steve Israel

Jean Lamb, Lady of Sorrows

TICHON Curriculum Project Shavuot 5764, 2004 The Shalom Hartman Institute POB 8029 Gedalia Alon 11, Jerusalem 93113 Tel. 972 2 5675320 [email protected]

Table of Contents –

THE TROUBLING FAMILY TRIANGLE: SARAI, AVRAM AND HAGAR1

User’s Introduction 5 The X-Rated Jewish Family Album From P'shat to Midrash, from Analysis to Creative Gap-Filling

Themed Introductions to the Characters: Sarai, Hagar and Avram

Introducing Sarai with Art - The Barren Woman 7 Introducing Hagar with a Narrative - The Servant 8 Introducing Avram with a Poem - The Man of Faith and Doubt 10

II. THE FIRST STORY: GENESIS 16 – The Formation of the Troubling Family Triangle – Solutions and Dissolutions.

Genesis 16:1 Exposition: Meeting the Characters 12

Genesis 16:2 Sarai’s Initiative Transforms the Family Triangle 15

Genesis 16:2 Avram's Reaction to Sarai’s Initiative 20

Genesis 16:3 The Second Marriage, The Second Wife – Hopes and Complications 24

Genesis 16:1-3 The Story So Far: Understanding and Judging Sarai 29

Genesis 16:4-6 The Plot Thickens: Enter Hagar and then Hagar Exits 33

Genesis 16 An Overview and Interlude: Analyzing Plot Structure 40

Genesis 16: 7-14 – Episode Two Hagar and the Angel: Changing Scenes, Changing Characters 44

Genesis 16: 1 and 15-16 Exposition and Summary: Opening and Closing the Story 48

Back to Genesis 16:7-14: Enter the Commentators 50

Who's at Fault, Hagar or Sarai? From Rachel Reich 61

1 Adapted and greatly expanded from a Hebrew unit by Noam Zion, Ayala Paz and Jo Milgrom 2

THE SECOND STORY: GENESIS 21- The Birth of Isaac and the Expulsion of Ishmael and Hagar

Genesis 21:1-10 – Episode Three The Birth of Isaac and the Power of Laughter 62

Genesis 21: 10 – Sarah’s Initiative: The Expulsion of Ishmael and Hagar Being Nameless and Faceless 72

Genesis 21:11- 13 - God Responds to the Initiative. 77

Genesis 21:11- 14 - Avraham's Response to the Initiative 81

Art and the Tanakh: The Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael 87

Genesis 21:14-19 - Episode Four Hagar and Tears 95

Art and the Tanakh: The Rescue of Hagar and Ishmael 99

Genesis 21:20-21 Leaving the Story with a Happy Ending? 106 Rabbinic Midrash Modern Feminist Midrash

APPENDIX: Parallel Scenes in Biblical Stories of the Barren Woman 121 Art as Parshanut: A Systematic Analysis of Art as Commentary 127 Text Study: Multiple Perspectives 129 SARAH AT STARBUCKS – "Anyone who hears will laugh [at me?]" By Jack Riemer 137 Leaving the Story with a Happy Ending? 151

User’s Introduction

The X-Rated Jewish Family Album

Genesis 11-50 invites us – the Jewish people – into the family therapist’s office to examine four generations of ancestors who gave birth and provided life patterns (maassei avot siman l’banim) not only to the Jewish people but to many of the nations who are children of Abraham. These brother nations are sometimes kissing cousins and sometimes bloody others but it is “all in the family.”

Within the family, the struggles are to win and to preserve the Divine calling and to root its seeds, its progeny in the land. The spiritual and the material survival and blessing are intertwined. Birth order and parental preference mix and match (or do not match) with Divine choices and tests of character. This album is X-rated and therefore it echoes reality, both familial and national, in a sophisticated way. The narrative is almost never one-sidedly biased but invites us to make our judgments only after examining multiple perspectives.

This album does not offer us easy models for emulation but it requires the hard work of interpretation and evaluation that lead to ethical insights into self and other. Literary skills of good reading, as Robert Alter teaches, become life skills for “reading” our complex relationships, achieving empathy with brother and other and uncovering hidden Divine destinies, as does Joseph, in our ups and downs. The way of Teshuvah lies through this difficult process of self-understanding of these paradigmatic narratives. While Socrates taught us to “know yourself” as an individual, Genesis teaches us to know ourselves as family members embedded in a web. Peaceful relationships – familial and national – are elusive but still possible. Love is not a universal solvent for problems but self-knowledge and courageous acts of reconciliation (Tikkun) can help. Our foundation is to remember that we are all in the family and we are all our brother’s keepers even as we struggle with and against one another for success and survival. .

From P'shat to Midrash, from Analysis to Creative Gap-Filling

"The Troubling Family Triangle" seeks to model an interdisciplinary literary and midrashic approach to the study of Torah narrative. While beginning with the literary "p'shat" of Genesis 16 and 21, using approaches pioneered by Robert Alter, we progress beyond the p'shat to the drash, the search for personal and generational meaning through creative interpretation, "gap-filling" and rewriting of the Biblical narrative. This Biblical text is surprisingly open and is not judgmental in one particular direction. Rather the text develops multiple perspectives which portray morally troubling behaviour and leaves gaps inviting the reader to actively construct new meanings and create larger coherences. The midrashic sensitivity discovers new parallels between the Biblical figures – Sarai, Hagar and Avram – and larger familial and interpersonal issues. In addition, relevance is also found in national, political and religious terms, especially in issues of conflict and group tension. In so doing, the historical gap of some 3000 years between us and the text of the Torah is closed, time

and time again, by a variety of artistic and literary texts and by medieval and contemporary midrash and commentary.

Ideally, this will lead the students to construct their own understandings and meanings out of the texts and to express these through their own midrashim in any number of forms and media.

Expanding Your Teaching Repertoire In pedagogic terms we provide a series of approaches that can be applied to almost any unit of Biblical narrative. It is clear that no teacher can, or should, use all the suggestions in relation to any single text, but we hope this will expand the kind of approaches you might consider: Do the techniques and approach suggested here suit the teacher? The Biblical narrative as a whole? The varied kinds of students? Are there ideas and techniques that the teacher has not explored previously?

Step by Step We begin our unit with an attempt at sensitivity to nuanced textual hints which will rapidly lead us to complex emotional and ethical issues. The general route through the unit progresses from (A) a thematic introductory piece to (B) the literary analysis of the Biblical text focusing on specific words, phrases and plot structures and (C) examination of the interpersonal relationships of the story before bringing in (D) a variety of extra-biblical literary and artistic commentaries including traditional and modern parshanut and midrash. We have tried to proceed clearly in the text adding in different emphases as we move through the stories. Educational footnotes alert the teacher to various pedagogic considerations.

Themed Introductions to the Characters: Sarai, Hagar and Avram2

We suggest that the teacher begin by sensitizing the students to main themes of the story before entering the actual text study, though we assume a very cursory knowledge of the plot of the story. This can be done in a number of ways which provide appropriate entrances into the story. To indicate this technique, we here show three examples, one for each of the three characters in the story, Sarai, Hagar and Avram. Each highlights one of the themes most connected with the character in question. We offer here three different techniques for "getting into" the text. The first is through art. The second is an imaginative written narrative paralleling the dilemma or the situation of the character. The third is a poem that brings up the themes that a teacher might wish to examine. We have brought here one for each of the three characters and have used a different one for each.

2 You might want to use one introduction for one character or two or three such introductions if you want to focus on more than one character at the outset. Alternatively, you might wish to use more than one technique for your one character. We approach Sarai through the first technique, Hagar through the second and Avram through the third.

Introducing Sarai with Art - The Barren Woman

“Our Lady of Sorrows” by Jean Lamb (See cover picture)  Look3 at this woodcarving by the English artist Jean Lamb. She has entitled it “Our Lady of Sorrows,” a title from the worship of Mary based on the New Testament describing a woman who is initially barren and suffers many sorrows in relationship to her child.4 This woman, as is typical of the whole New Testament, is meant to echo Biblical characters and plots. Let us look at the work of art as an example of an artistic embodiment of womanhood in general and barren womanhood in particular. The large hands grasping the empty womblike cavern, the engorged breasts, the closed face and the tight mouth all fit the idea of a barren woman lamenting her emptiness, with her would-be motherhood pushing through from the inside in the figure of her prominent breasts. 5

 Ask the students in pairs to look carefully at the picture and to create a title for it. In addition, they should try and work out what they think the sculptured woman is saying by her posture, position and appearance.

 List the titles on the board. In addition, let some of the students who are willing to share their interpretations do so. While they are sharing and explaining their positions, write up the major points they are making regarding how they see the figure, on the board to create a second list.

 Do any of the titles or explanations deal with barrenness? It is likely that they do. Whether or not they do, tell the group that this is the direction that you now wish to explore. Go down the list of words examining which of the words or phrases are now relevant in the opinion of the group to the definition of the sculpture as “The Barren Woman”. Why are they relevant? Why not?

 What would they like to say to the woman?

3 We use different symbols for different kinds of questions or tasks. Questions or tasks marked with a solid black centre (as here) are for the educator. Those marked with a white square are directly for the student.

4 Our Lady of Sorrows (Latin: Beata Maria Virgo Perdolens, or mater dolorosa, also known as the Sorrowful Mother, Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows and the Mother of Sorrows) is a devotion of the Catholic Church to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The feast is celebrated on September 15. The first altar to the mater dolorosa was set up in 1221 at the monastery of Schönau. The veneration of Our Lady of Sorrows on 15 September was initiated in 1239 by the Servite order in Florence, Italy. It was made universal by Pope Pius VII in 1814. She is the patron saint of Slovakia, the state of Mississippi, the Congregation of Holy Cross, and Mola di Bari, Italy 5 See below a page of guidance for artistic analysis entitled Art as Parshanut (page 121) that should be referred to at this point. 7

Michal Bat Sheva Rand plays “Mali” the barren woman in the Israeli Film Ushpizin, 2005

Introducing Hagar with a Narrative - The Servant

Hassana is young and attractive. She is also very lonely. Her life is hard. Of course it would be, working such long days in her job. Although she is only in her early twenties she has lived with the family for about seven years.

She wanted to climb out of the cycle of poverty that had afflicted her family for generations. She wanted a passport to the west and she wanted to learn English, figuring that it would be something that would stand her in good stead if she ever decided to go home. When a wealthy tourist came along and learnt from her parents of her ambitions, he decided to pay her way out of her town and country and take her to the west to work in his house. He made it clear that he expected this to be some kind of a long term investment. As such, Hassana’s father had to sign some kind of a form, releasing her over to her “new family”. She has been with them ever since.

Her actual employer, perhaps not legally, but in terms of the one to whom she is answerable, is the man’s wife. She works Hassana hard, not unfairly, perhaps, but hard. Her day starts at dawn and continues till late at night. She cleans and cooks and polishes and washes. There are no children in the house and if there were, her work load would probably grow, but she might have some lively company which would be compensation perhaps for the soul destroying loneliness which afflicts her.

Her employers are old and do not communicate with her other than to tell her what to do. She eats by herself every day and every night. She has few people to talk to other than the traders in the market because she is rarely allowed to take time off to socialize with the other servants. In any case, her English isn’t too good. Other women see her as a foreigner and that’s exactly how she feels. Her master and mistress talk to her in English, to be sure, but it is the English of orders and communication is almost always in one direction only. The words she knows she knows well, because they are the words that make up the phrases of her servitude. She misses her family, she misses her native tongue, she misses her friends, she misses her sights, her tastes, her smells.

Her master and mistress would be shocked to hear her say this. She hides her feelings well enough before them. They are not exactly cruel to her. She does not starve, and her material wants, which are little enough, are taken care of. But they are not considerate: they have no understanding of her other needs. From their perspective, she must be grateful for their mercy. They have lifted her up to a better place. And she must thank them, remembering her humble station. Where would she have got a uniform as nice as the one that she wears for them?

But in her room, she cries. She does not know how to read in any language, so her imagination has little enough to nourish her on. She only has her memories to feed her dreams. And so her life goes on. She takes it day to day, and just as well. The days all look about the same and to think of too many years of this, would almost cripple her. She has resilience but there seems so little chance of change. A soul alone.

ANALYSIS. Read the story out to the class and ask them for any responses.

Does anyone want to comment on the following literary aspects:

* Hassana's foreign origin and name * her relationship to her biological family and to her new “family” * the relationship of the women in the story * the lack of communication between parents/employers and the daughter/servant

CONTEXTUALIZING WITH THE TORAH. What do you know of the Hagar story? Does anything suggest a connection to Hassana’s story?

PERSONALIZING. What would you like to say to Hassana if you were to meet her? Do you know any "Hassanas"? What are your memories of her?

IMAGES of Women Alone:

We open up with three pictures of women who seem both sad and isolated. They all use different artistic media. The first is a photograph by the Serbian photographer D. Sinadinovic. The second is a painting by the famous early twentieth century Italian Jewish artist Amadeo Modigliani. We ask the students to look at them and to try and enter into their world.

 Ask the students in pairs to look carefully at the three pictures and to find the common definition or title that suits all three of them.

 List the definitions or titles on the board. Let the members of the whole group comment on the different common definitions and then try and decide which definition is most suitable to all three pictures.

 Do any of the definitions or titles deal with loneliness, the status of stranger or isolation? It is likely that they do. Whether or not they do, tell the group that this is the direction that you now wish to explore. Go down the list of words examining which of the words or phrases are now relevant in the opinion of the group. Why are they? Why not?

 What would they like to say to the women?

 Ask the group the following question: Have you ever felt like a total outsider? Have you ever felt that everything that you hoped would support you has vanished, leaving you to try and manage, by yourself, in total; isolation, without any support? When you were in that situation, if indeed you ever were, try and work out what was so difficult for you? What were the things that you missed most? Try and get as close as possible to your feelings at that time and define what it was that you were going through. Write all this down in a note for yourself, (nobody else will look at it), and put it inside an envelope addressed to yourself as a reminder of what you felt like at that time.

The Outsider

This song lyric was written by the Israeli poet/song lyricist Rachel Shapira in the mid 1970’s based on a novel by Naomi Frankel. The דודי ורעי as the theme song of a television drama melody was composed by Nachum Heiman, responsible for some of the most beautiful Israeli songs and the recorded version by Chava Alberstein has remained one of Israel’s favourite ballads to this day. The story, briefly, is of a girl who comes to a kibbutz (the symbol of the new collective Israeli culture) in the wake of her love for a Kibbutznik. However, as an outsider, she is never accepted. When her lover is killed in battle, she realizes that without him, the kibbutz is not her home and she prepares to leave. This is her song to the kibbutz prior to her leaving.

כמו צמח בר – חוה אלברשטין

מלים: רחל שפירא לחן: נחום היימן

מחר אני אהיה כה רחוקה, אל תחפשו אותי, מי שידע למחול ימחל לי על אהבתי, הזמן ישקיט הכל. אני הולכת לדרכי. זה שאהב אותי ישוב לשדותיכם

מן המדבר והוא יבין – אני חייתי ביניכם כמו צמח בר.

אני רוצה לפקוח את עיני לצמוח לאיטי. הרביתי לחלום החלומות טרפו אותי, רציתי לנחם אבל מרדה בי תשוקתי. היה מקסם ילדות, היתה גם סערה בזרועותי. אני יודעת שהדליקה אש זרה את לילותי.

היו, היו ערבי געגועים היו ימים טרופים. היה כאב חבוי ורגעים מכושפים. אני אזכור מבט מגע כתפיים בכתפי. אני אהיה לצל חולף בשדותיכם לסוד נסתר. היו שלום, אני חייתי ביניכם כמו צמח בר.

Tomorrow, I will be so far away, Don’t look for me Whoever knows how to forgive Will forgive me for my love. Time will silence everything. I go my own way The one that loved me will return to your fields From the desert He will understand – I lived among you Like a wild flower.

I want to open my eyes To flower slowly. I dreamed a lot My dreams crazed me I wanted to comfort But my desire rebelled in me. It was a magic childhood, there was also a storm In my arms. I know that a strange fire lit up My nights.

There were evenings of longing There were days of madness There was hidden pain And enchanted moments.

I will remember a glance The touch of hands on my shoulders. I will become a passing shadow in your fields. Be in peace, I lived among you Like a wildflower.

□ 6For all the obscurities of the language, try and understand what the girl narrator of the poem/song is saying. What is she going through? What is she feeling? Can you work out why?

□ Have you ever felt like a total outsider? Have you ever felt that everything that you hoped would support you has vanished, leaving you to try and manage, by yourself, in total; isolation, without any support? When you were in that situation, if indeed you ever were, try and work out what was so difficult for you? What were the things that you missed most? Try and get as close as possible to your feelings at that time and define what it was that you were going through. Write all this down in a note for yourself, (nobody else will look at it), and put it inside an envelope addressed to yourself as a reminder of what you felt like at that time.

6 To the educator: We suggest giving the poem “blind” without any context, for the first question. Let the students try and understand the feelings of the narrator without understanding the situation. After the first question, they should be given the context.

Introducing Avram with a Poem 7 - The Man of Faith and Doubt

We have presented Sarai as a barren woman and Hagar as a foreign house servant. These designations are natural and clear. Which designation is right for Avram to help enter the world of his mind and behaviour is, however, a real question. The decision here is to present him as a man who is caught between great faith and great doubt – faith in the promise he has been given starting with Lech Lecha, Genesis 12, and doubt and skepticism as the years go on and the promise remains unfulfilled. Thus the introduction to him here is through a poem about theological questioning.

מחבואים

דן פגיס

בחצר אחורית בעולם שחקנו, הוא ואני. כיסיתי עיני, התחבא: אחת שתיים, שלש, לא מלפני, לא מאחורי, לא בתוכי.

מאז אני מחפש כל כך הרבה שנים. אז מה אם אני לא מוצא אותך. צא כבר, צא, אתה רואה שנכנעתי.

Hide and Seek by Dan Pagis

In the backyard of the world We played, Him and I. I covered my eyes, He hid. One two three, Not in front of me, not behind me, Not inside me.

Since then, I’ve been looking For so many years. So what if I cannot find You? Come out already, come out, You can see that I’ve given in.

7 Dan Pagis (1930-1986) was a major Israeli poet and scholar of Hebrew literature. Born in a small town among the Carpathian mountains (Rumania of today) he spent several adolescent years in a Nazi camp, before making his way to Palestine in 1946. He was recognized as one of the most important Israeli poets of his generation and was also the Professor of Medieval Hebrew literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In the poem brought here, questions of faith and doubt are very succinctly brought.

ANALYSIS. What is the game of hide-and-seek that is being played here? Who is looking for whom? Why do you think that the poet uses the metaphor of a children’s game to address his real concern? What is his real concern? Doesn’t the metaphor of a children’s game, make the whole thing look superficial?

CONTEXTUALIZING WITH THE TORAH. What do you know about Avram’s relationship to God? Who is testing whom? On one hand the Rabbis thought of Goda s testing God ten times both before and after Isaac was born. On the other hand, Avram also had his doubts (See Genesis 17:17-18). How does this fit or not with the poem?

PERSONALIZING. Can you identify in any way with the poem? Have there been times when you too have looked for God, for faith, for certainty? Did you come any nearer than Dan Pagis to finding whatever it was that you were looking for? If you were to write a poem such as this, about your search for faith, would it be the same kind of search, would it be the same kind of faith, and would the metaphor be the same kind of game?

II. THE FIRST STORY: GENESIS 16 – The Formation of the Troubling Family Triangle – Solutions and Dissolutions.

Genesis 16:1 Exposition: Meeting the Characters

This story is a tight-weave of changing relationships. Three characters are introduced and a problem emerges that will soon generate a destabilizing change in which the foreign servant turns into a pregnant second wife. In such a highly charged triangular relationship every move and hence every word of this sparse introduction adds to the nuances to the developing story.

“Avraham and Sarah prepared a place of immersion for all, he for men and she for women.” Avraham and Sarah are the first and only equal couple. They are two spiritual lights (sun and moon). They are intellectual and prophetic equals." - Zohar 1:102b

James Tissot (1836-1902) France Abram giving counsel to Sarai

Literary Method: Examining the Words – One at a time8

One of the known literary features of the Torah is its terse textual style, using a minimum of words, in the narrative sections of the text, as opposed to its far more expansive style in the ritual sections. Without going into the question of the origin of the text, divine or human, it is clear that especially in the narrative sections, the traditional idea that every word and every letter has its place, needs to be taken there is no" – אין מילה יתרה בתורה seriously from a literary point of view. Rashi said superfluous word in the Torah" and we wish to agree with him, if from a different angle – a literary angle. The last few decades have seen increasing concentration on the literary style of the Torah and the Tanakh as a whole. We will open our examination of the text by concentrating on the literary devices used by the author. Chief amongst these is the examination of the text to see why all the details are seen as relevant. This technique focuses the students on the details of the text and show that each nuance adds to the story’s substantive message.

Let us take the first sentence of the story (Genesis 16:1).

ושרי אשת אברם לא ילדה לו ולה שפחה מצרית ושמה הגר. )בראשית, ט"ז, א(

Now Sarai, Avram's wife bore him no children and she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.

Let us examine the shortest possible way to write the essential plot information. It might be suggested that all of that information is contained if the sentence is shortened to

שרי לא ילדה ולה שפחה. Sarai bore no children and she had a maidservant.

This would seem to include all the basic information such that the extra words that we have taken out appear superfluous.

We have dropped the following pieces:

since it opens a new passage and therefore the "and" has ,ו The opening .1 no place.

.since we know that Sarai is Avram's wife ,אשת אברם The phrase .2

applied to Avram. Is this not obvious? Who else would be לו The word .3 relevant here?

8 In our opening few verses of the text itself, we put the emphasis principally, though not exclusively, on the use of language, and the need to examine the Hebrew text very carefully.

.the origins of the girl seem irrelevant :מצרית The word .4

.Similarly her name seems irrelevant :ושמה הגר The final words .5

All these details could be seen to be superfluous with the basic story line being maintained in the shortened version of the sentence above. The pieces we have taken out could be seen to be local colouring that might add to the atmosphere of the story at best, but which have no real significance in the story line.

Let us now defend the inclusion of all these pieces by the author and suggest how each of these five "omissions" actually contributes something significant.

vav” serves to connect the new story with the previous section in“ ו The opening .1 which the promise of offspring is given again. The tension is heightened when the vav” - with the fact of Sarai's“ ו promise of offspring is juxtaposed by the use of the barrenness in her old age. The last time her barrenness was mentioned, (in Gen. 11:30), there was no context to understand the meaning of the fact. Now, the barrenness comes against the background of the promise and serves to make us aware of her terrible frustration and confusion.

is not merely a descriptive phrase. Rather it אשת אברם ”The phrase “Avram’s wife .2 serves to accentuate Sarai's standing and the source of her importance within the family. In a story which will deal largely with shifting issues of standing and class within the family of Avram, this emphasizes at the outset of the story, Sarai's positions within the family. It is against this reality that the tensions of the story will explode.

is once again relational. In a society in which a wife's status לו The significance of .3 - ”to him“ לו was largely dependent upon her child-bearing ability, the word emphasises the tension between her barrenness and her role as wife to Avram. Possibly it comes to suggest the potential precariousness of her relationship with her husband, something that will become at the very least and under-the-surface theme in the story as it unfolds.

4 and 5. The significance of Hagar's name and origin has been suggested below in the section "Strangers and Outsiders in the Tanakh". Seen in this light, both her name and her origin can be suggested to have brought up a whole host of associations for the listener/reader and would have led him or her to bring a range of sensibilities to the listening or reading experience.

Thus all of these seemingly superfluous details can be seen to play a part in building up the tension in the story. In a dramatic story told in so few words, the teller would be aware of the need to give each detail maximum power in order to make a great impact on the audience.

EXERCISE: The Sense Behind the Words

 Write the whole sentence (in Hebrew) on the board, making sure that the meaning of all words is clear.

 Explain to the group that they are part of a project to write the Torah in half of its length. Out of the eleven words of the story, their challenge is to strike out at least five and a half! Singly or in pairs, ask all the students to write the sentence in the shortest possible terms without damaging the information that the sentence comes to convey.

 Together strike out any words that are seen to be superfluous and discuss whether all agree to the unnecessary character of the words chosen.

 When there is a list of words that have been chosen as relatively superfluous, turn the question around and tell them that they are part of a team that has been chosen to respond to the above initiative by justifying the suggested exclusions from the biblical text. Their task now, singly or in pairs, is to put forward potential reasons why those same omitted phrases are necessary.

 Pool the ideas, and supplement them if necessary with some of the above ideas regarding the importance of the words and phrases.

 Finish by discussing the traditional idea that every word and letter counts. Does this make sense from a modern literary point of view too?

Genesis 16: 2 Sarai’s Initiative Transforms the Family Triangle

We now continue our examination of language, using the tool that we have already started to employ, in order to try and gain insights regarding the characters in the story and their relationships with each other. In addition to the plain narrative of the story, there is what might be called a super narrative that is being developed by nuance and association, and the details of language are the tool through which this super- narrative is being conveyed. This nuance of language is necessitated by the sheer brevity of the story that forces the narrator to use extra tools to squeeze meaning from the story being told. The careful use of extra words, meant to convey to the listener/reader additional layers of meaning to colour the understanding of the narrative.

Let us look at the second verse of the story and see what we can learn from it.

Let us start by stating Sarah's suggestion to Avram in its simplest and shortest form.

בא אל שפחתי ואבנה ממנה

Come [in] to my maidservant and I will be built up through her.

We have dropped the following pieces: which don't appear to add ,הנה נא ,The opening words of Sarai .1 anything. which appears declarative. It is clear that in עצרני ה' מלדת The phrase .2 the society of the Tanakh, responsibility would be seen as God's. .which appear merely decorative אולי and נא The words .3

The basic unadorned sense of the sentence can be gained without the use of these words. Following the idea that all words have meaning, let us now examine what extra ideas we can understand from the use of these words.

1. The meaning of this phrase can be suggested by derivation from other scenes where the same formula is used. Look for example at Genesis 12:11 (Avram and Sarai in Egypt) or Shoftim 19:9 (the concubine in Gibeah) where exactly the same phrase is used. In all three contexts it comes before the description of a situation which demands a course of action. Therefore, it can be suggested that its literary use is to alert the audience to the fact that an action scene is about to develop which will push the story along. It is there to prepare the audience and cause anticipation.

2. The theological formula is interesting here in that it avoids any suggestion of blame on the part of one of the two partners. It can be suggested that in a story where

the status of the characters is so important, and where Sarai is about to do something which unquestionably involves a fair amount of humiliation on her part, she would be anxious to avoid extra loss of status by the acceptance of responsibility. Similarly, since she is about to ask Avram to do an action which is to say the least controversial, but where his compliance is essential to the success of her plan, she would be careful not to throw any responsibility at him, thus causing potential resentment which could spoil the plan.

please” and “perhaps” are interesting, especially when“ – אולי and נא The words .3 compared with the similar scene which we shall soon examine from the life of Rachel. They suggest a certain reserve or hesitation or perhaps subservience. They clearly indicate that Sarai's approach to Avram is put in the most careful terms. It is a delicate matter and Sarai is clearly aware of the delicacy of the matter. She needs Avram's compliance and she sounds a little uncertain of herself, and here we see her at her most deferential.

EXERCISE: Word Detecting!

Ask the students to do a similar exercise to that that they did for the first sentence of the story. How short can they make it? What words would they leave out and why?

Now reverse things and ask them to justify the inclusion of the terms. What would the use of each term add to the audience's understanding of the story?

Background for the Teacher: Barrenness in the Tanakh.9

Since we have opened with Sarai and the theme of barrenness, we offer you, the teacher a broader look at the theme in biblical terms, in case you wish to introduce any of the following ideas into your classroom as you are discussing the theme as it relates to Sarai. The theme of the barren woman is a major theme in the Tanakh, especially though not exclusively in Genesis. This is extraordinary in a book whose major subject is the passing on of the line of the covenant with God within a family. A book that deals with children as the vehicle of transmission for the divine promise is full of women who have major difficulties in conceiving. Sarah, Rivkah and Rachel all have major problems in this department. It is as if the book is hinting at the difficulties and the frustrations of the covenantal relationship by using the birth problems of its central women as a metaphor.

The very first detail we hear about Sarai is that “she was barren: she had no child”, (Berashit 11:30). It is as if the author wishes to view the whole story of Sarai/Sarah through the prism of her childlessness. In contrast, the first thing we hear about

9 This piece addressed to the teacher is there simply to put the figure of Sarai as a barren woman in a larger Biblical context. Many of the points are clear and familiar but what we have tried to do here is to remind the teacher of a number of relevant aspects that she or he might want to point out to the students. The teacher does not need to read this nor to relate to it. However, there is always the possibility that a short overview such as this might be valuable for the students. 22

Rivkah is that she “was very fair to look upon, a virgin. Neither had any man known her” (Genesis 24:16). Only later are we told that she was barren, (Genesis 25:21). Similarly, the first personal characteristic that we are given regarding Rachel, is that she “was beautiful and well favoured”, (Genesis 29:17). Only fourteen verses later do we hear that Rachel is barren. Thus the theme of barrenness and infertility is carried through the stories of all of these women, but only in Sarah’s case has it the prismatic quality that singles it out as an essential lens for understanding the whole of her story.

The issue of barrenness is extremely serious in the world of the Bible in general and Genesis in particular. Apart from the meta-theme of the need to pass over the covenant agreement with God, which, as mentioned, is an overriding theme of the biblical book, the problems of infertile women in the Biblical world would be very complicated and serious. It can be suggested that the problems would take several major expressions.

Child bearing was seen as the major role of the woman in Biblical society and indeed in ancient society as a whole. A woman who failed to produce children was seen as not fulfilling her destined role in life. In the Bible, we see this very clearly in the fact that the first commandment to Adam and Eve regards procreation, while the curse of Eve relates to the pains and difficulty of childbirth although the curse of Adam relates to economic difficulties in farming and tilling the ground. Children and procreation were the responsibility of both partners but role differences emphasized the woman’s part far more than the man’s. In Genesis 3, Adam renames his wife “mother of all and this makes the point very clear. Problems of fertility and חווה, אם כל חי - ”life barrenness are presented essentially as the woman’s problem and the woman’s responsibility. There is almost no reference in the whole of the Bible to infertile men. The woman was seen as having the problem in the eyes of society.

This leads us to the second issue. Woman lived inside her society. If the society saw the woman as an agent of child bearing, women clearly tended to internalize that idea. If the raison d’etre of a woman in her own eyes was to bear children, then it is clear that the lack of (perceived) ability to bear children would lead to a feeling of inadequacy in many women. A feeling of meaninglessness, of having missed their calling and their “destiny” in life, would be sure to follow in many cases. Is it any wonder in these circumstances that Rachel cries out “Give me children or else I die”? (Gen. 30:1) Whether she means by this that she would prefer death to barrenness, or that she feels that she is living a state of “death-in-life” or that she will consider taking her own life if she has no children, her desperation is clear. Her life has no value. As such it is insufferable.

To all this we must add an additional theological component. Fertility is seen as being dependent on the blessing of God. It was not only the man and the woman who are responsible for conception through the biological sexual act. God is an active partner in the process. Without the divine blessing there would be no conception. If fertility is a sign of God’s approval, infertility is a sign of God’s curse. Thus in addition to a feeling of personal failure, a barren woman (or, a woman who was seen as barren, which, as we have suggested, was not necessarily the same thing at all) would have to contend with the feeling – both the society’s and her own – that she was out of favour with God. We see this expression in a number of places.

In the case of the barrenness of Rivkah we are told: And Yitzchak entreated God for his wife, because she was barren. God answered his prayer, and Rivkah conceived. (Genesis 25: 21).

In the case of Rachel, we are told “And when Rachel saw that she bore Ya’akov no children, Rachel envied her sister and said: “Give me children, or else I die”. And Ya’akov’s anger burned against Rachel and he said: “Am I in the place of God who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (Genesis 30:.1-2) In addition, after she finally has her first child (Yosef), her immediate response is theological as well as emotional/psychological. “God has taken away my shame.” (Genesis 30 :23)

In the case of Chanah, the mother of Shmuel, we are told twice that “God had shut up her womb” (I Sam.1:5-6). In the second case, we are told, that “her rival (Penina) provoked her, to make her upset, because God had shut up her womb”, a hint of the ridicule and scorn that the married woman without children would encounter.

Sarai herself also gives expression to this idea when she says in the introduction to the Hagar story, as the explanation for her infertility, “God has stopped me from bearing children” (Genesis 16:2).

Thus we see that in a world conceived in terms of direct relationships between people and God, there was an extremely dominant theological dimension to barrenness.

In addition to all of these factors, there was another set of practical factors, legal and economic, that would also play a major role in the problems of the barren woman. In a world in which the woman was always seen as someone’s property, either her father’s or her husband’s, the state of barrenness would include within it, the real possibility of reduced status within the husband’s house. Since childbearing was seen as something so crucial in ancient society and childlessness was blamed on the woman, many societies, including the ancient Hebrew society, allowed the man to take a second wife to bear children. In the case of the second wife having children, there would almost inevitably be some shifting of status within the family.

In addition Biblical society made divorce fairly easy, with the initiative lying principally with the husband. In Rabbinic law we hear that the inability of the wife to produce children gave specific grounds for divorce. It is reasonable to assume that this was the case in the Biblical period since the initiative of the husband was much freer than in the later period. A woman, essentially dependent on her husband financially, would have little choice in such a case other than returning to her father’s house, to another dependent position. Thus, there must always have been the fear in the mind of the woman of the husband initiating divorce in the case of childlessness. If the husband died, it seems that the second wife (the mother of the children) would gain an especially dominant position in the family, which might make the position of the “barren wife” especially vulnerable. There were clearly cases where the father’s children (by the second wife) would be the direct heirs in which case they would be in a position to make the first wife’s position in the family non-viable and impossible.

All of these factors must be taken into account to understand the desperation of Sarai at this advanced stage of her life, vulnerable and disappointed. As she comes to her last years, the safety and security of her position in the household and family, must

have seemed very shaky indeed. We suggest that we need to understand this dimension of Sarai in order to understand the story.

Coming to the story without such an awareness, can cause us to misread the story on an emotional level and to misunderstand the motives and feelings of one of the main characters.

Michal Bat Sheva Rand plays “Mali” the barren woman in the Israeli Film Ushpizin,

Genesis 16: 2 Avram's Reaction to Sarai’s Initiative

And Avram) וישמע אברם לקול שרי The next phrase we come to is a puzzling one listened to the voice of Sarai).

Even in a biblical text that studiously avoids direct explanation of emotional feelings or inner voices regarding those feelings, this is short and strangely abrupt. Just four words to indicate what must have been a complex reaction by Avram. This is the sort of gap in the text that has allowed the Midrashic masters to celebrate with a wealth of possibility. We will not enter into the world of midrash at this point, but we will invite the students to suggest their own understandings of the text.

Firstly, let us consider the possible reactions that Avram could have chosen in the circumstances. Here are eleven possibilities.

To refuse politely. To tell Sarai off for a most ridiculous idea. To become angry with her either for her lack of faith or because the idea is humiliating to her or to both of them. To comfort Sarai in the way that Elkana comforts Chana, saying that she has a good life and she should not be bothered by the absence of a child. To strengthen Sarai's faith that God would provide her with a child. To propose that the two of them turn to God and ask for a child for Sarai. To suggest that the two of them should think about it some more and talk again tomorrow. To accept the offer on principle but to delay or postpone acting on it. To agree with the suggestion showing his pleasure. To agree with the suggestion without showing any pleasure. To agree with the suggestion while showing displeasure.

You may ask the students to pick the five reactions they most recommend and to number their preference. Which is the least appropriate response in their judgment and why?

EXERCISE: Avram - A Reasonable Reaction?

Before looking at the text, ask the students to suggest as many possible reactions as possible that Avram could have had to Sarai's offer. Add to the list that they come out with any extra suggestions from the above list that they have not mentioned.

Let the class copy down all the suggestions, numbered, and then divide the class up into small groups. They have to eliminate the three least reasonable suggestions in their opinion, and then explain their choices to the entire group. Let them do the exercise twice, each time taking three items off the list (if the total number of items is eleven – if it is more, take off enough items to take the total number down to five).

Take all the least popular or reasonable items off the list (i.e. those that have been chosen a number of times in the two rounds) and leave a group of no more than five or six items on the board. These represent the most likely or reasonable reactions of Avram in the opinion of the group.

Now divide the class up into groups according to the number of reactions that are left. Give each group one of the reactions. Let each group create a dramatic sketch which has the three characters involved in showing their particular reaction, and let them perform them one after another.

Ask the students why they think .וישמע אברם לקול שרי Now go to the text the description in the text is so short. This gives an opportunity to explain that the Torah rarely shows emotion or inner feeling. Explain that this gives us an opportunity to go underneath the text and think things out for ourselves.

Ask them which possibilities from the original list are now left open? (9 or 10 in our list with a possible 8 or 11). Are these the same ones that the group chose?

Now discuss: looking at the four words of the text, and thinking of their understanding of the situation, which of the remaining possibilities do they think most fits the situation as it is reported. Why?

Background for the teacher: Faith and Doubt in the Torah10

As we now arrive at the end of verse two, we bring in the character of Avram. Avram is a man whose reactions in this situation are presumably affected by the tension between his theological belief in the divine promise on the one hand and his doubt regarding the realization of that promise. This tension will clearly increase, as time goes on without the promise being realized. At this point we offer you, the teacher, a broader look at the theme in biblical terms, in case you wish to introduce any of the following ideas into your classroom as you are discussing the theme as it relates to Avram.

When we talk about the Torah, it is clear that faith in God must be one of the central human subjects in a work like this. But the truth is that the subject rarely, if ever, appears on the surface of the text. In a work which takes God’s creation, presence and omnipotence as its starting point, the basic human question is one of response to the Divine reality. Time and again, the subject is treated in terms of human obedience and disobedience, but rarely is the question of faith and its potential corollary, doubt in the Divine, brought up. Once God is presented as an authoritative and powerful

10 This piece addressed to the teacher is there simply to put the figure of Avram as a man of faith and doubt in a larger Biblical context. Many of the points are clear and familiar but what we have tried to do here is to remind the teacher of a number of relevant aspects that she or he might want to point out to the students. The teacher does not need to read this nor to relate to it. However, there is always the possibility that a short overview such as this might be valuable for the students. 27

presence, it seems that the only real question from the Biblical point of view is the issue of obedience.

When Moshe is told of God’s intended plans for him as the saviour of the Hebrews from their Egyptian slavery, (Shemot ch. 3), he questions his ability to persuade the people of his divine connection. God then gives him three miraculous, physical signs by which to persuade the people; the staff becomes a snake, the hand becomes diseased and the river turns to blood. These, God assures Moshe, will be sufficient to convince even the greatest skeptics. That is the Biblical way: since we are talking, in the Torah, of generations who are seen as capable of experiencing God directly, any questions of belief can be immediately closed with reference to people’s experience of the Divine presence. From then on, whether they want to obey or disobey God’s directives is very much up to them, and it is this latter subject which furnishes much of the material for the Torah’s story as well as the story of many other Tanakhic books.

However, there are two aspects of doubt which do appear either on or under the surface of the Torah text. One relates to the question whether God indeed lies behind certain events. For example in the above mentioned story where God provides Moshe with proofs to convince the Hebrews, the question that prompts this action is not “What if they do not believe in You, God?” but rather “ if they do not believe me and say “The Lord did not appear to you”... Similarly, in the story of the rebels against Moshe (Numbers 16), Moshe initiates punitive action against the rebels by saying, “This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these things”. The issue here is not connected to faith in God. Rather the issue is whether or not Moshe is the authorized agent of God. The question of faith concerns Moshe not God.

The other aspect of doubt that is present, is doubt concerning God’s willingness (or perhaps even ability) to follow through on the Divine promises. This is the one that concerns us here in this portion of the Torah. The question that Avram faces is whether the promise that has been unequivocally made to him regarding his seed, Lech Lcha is actually going to come about. The tension is clear. God לך לך already in has made a promise. Avram will have a direct heir who will be the bearer of the promise. But Avram is growing old, and the feasibility of this happening appears to become more and more remote. As far as an heir is concerned, there appear in these chapters to be three possible candidates. Eliezer, the servant, who according to the practice of the time (as witnessed in near contemporary documents from the archive at Nuzi), will be a legitimate heir if there is no direct heir, but who is “disqualified” directly by God’s explanation in Genesis 15: Ishmael, who after chapter sixteen is the legitimate heir of Avram, but who Avram is directly told (Genesis.17) will not be the bearer of the promise: and another child, yet to be born. Avram (now Avraham) falls on his face and laughs when he understands that it is through Sarah that the covenant will be realized. Sarah herself laughs in disbelief (Genesis.18:12) when she hears the news that she will bear a child, and in relation to her laughter we are directly told God’s response.

And the Lord said to Avraham: 'Why did 13 יג וַיֹּאמֶ ר יְהוָה, אֶ ל-ַאבְרָ הָ ם: לָמָ ה זֶה ,Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I really bear a child צָחֲקָ השָרָ הלֵאמֹּר, הַ ַאף אֻמְ נָם אֵ לֵד--וַאֲנִי זָקַ נְתִ י.

I who am old? ?Is any thing too hard for the Lord 14 יד הֲיִפָלֵא מֵ יְהוָה, דָ בָ ר;

This is the tension into which the Biblical story plunges us at this point. The promise has been made but shows no signs of coming true. Not only that: as time goes on it appears increasingly unlikely that it will come about. On the other hand, Avram is a man of faith. He implicitly believes God’s promise and according to the story, he has based his entire adult life on his belief that God’s promise will be realized directly through him. We are told expressly (Gen. 15:6) that after God disqualifies Eliezer and explains that the heir will come directly from Avram’s own body:

And he believed in the Lord; and God counted it to him 6 ו וְהֶאֱמִ ן, בַ יהוָה; וַיַחְשְ בֶהָ ּלוֹּ, .for righteousness צְדָקָ ה.

The tension between strong life-changing faith on the one hand, and the rational limitations on that faith is, certainly one of the key issues in this entire saga of Avraham’s heir, which starts most directly at the beginning of chapter fifteen and continues to half way through chapter eighteen, picking up again in chapters twenty one and twenty two with the continuation of the Hagar story and the Akedah. The tension builds throughout this section, coming to a climax for the man of faith (and for the reader) with the near sacrifice of Isaac. According to the Midrash, Sarah’s death, reported in the next chapter, was brought about by the tension of the Akedah. We are told nothing directly about the tension in which Avraham finds himself through this entire set of stories, climaxing in the Akedah. However, it is clear that the strain must be almost overwhelming. Even for the man of absolute faith, the issue of doubt must be a major issue indeed. Thus we see that when we come to examine the story of Avram, we must bring an awareness of all this tension in order to understand the position of Avram in the story. Coming to the story without such an awareness, can cause us to misread the story on an emotional level and to misunderstand the motives and feelings of one of the main characters. Matthias Stommer, Sarah presenting Hagar to Abraham

Genesis 16:3 The Second Marriage, The Second Wife – Hopes and Complications

Let us turn now to verse three and examine the words there, performing the same exercise that we have already done in the case of the first two verses. It should be easier and clearer the third time around.

ותקח שרי אשת אברם את הגר המצרית שפחתה מקץ עשר שנים לשבת אברם בארץ כנען ותתן אותה לאברם אישה לו לאשה. ... )בראשית ט"ז, ג(

And Sarai, Avram's wife took Hagar, her maid, the Egyptian, after Avram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband for a wife.

Let us examine the shortest possible way to write the essential information. It might be suggested that all of that information is contained if the sentence is shortened to

?What has been taken out and why ותקח שרי את הגר ותתן אותה לאברם

we all ready know this and we have in any case been – אשת אברם told the exact same information in verse one.

.irrelevant. Adds nothing – המצרית שפחתה

.Irrelevant .מקץ עשר שנים לשבת אברם בארץ כנען

.Once again repetition .אישה ]איש שלה[

?is this not obvious - לאשה

The answer by now is clear. The details are there to emphasise a number of subtexts. The reasons that we suggest for their presence are:

To indicate the centrality of Sarai. Whatever happens next, Sarai will continue to be number one. This is important both in terms of status and law. We have already talked from Near East documents as to how such a procedure is common. The new wife does not displace the existing one.

Presumably one of two reasons. If the author is pro-Hagar, the phrase comes to remind the listeners to be sensitive to strangers as we suggested earlier. If the author's sympathies are with Sarai, the intention is probably to remind the listeners of Hagar's lowly status and thus strengthen the case for Sarai's right to do what she

Presumably to strengthen the effect of the idea how long the two have been waiting for the fulfillment of the promise. Maybe, in that light, it serves to explain and vindicate Sarai from any charge of acting badly. Also, the use of the name Avram serves to suggest perhaps that he is the significant factor in the passing down of the heritage.

The same as 1.

Presumably to indicate one of a number of things. We have seen that the substitution of a slave girl was normative in the area but in none of the three cases which we examined from the literature of the area is it clear that the slave becomes a wife. In the second one we were explicitly told that she becomes a concubine. In the first and the third text, the legal status of the girl is simply not mentioned. Thus this can be there to show either Sarai's humanity in doing more than was demanded by the standards of the time or, more likely, in view of the stories of Bilhah and Zilpa, to show that Hebrew norms were different and "more civilized" than the norms of the surrounding society. As in other cases where biblical law is based on Hammurabi and other codes but has transferred it to a higher ethical plane, so here the text might be doing the same thing. It might be a way of pointing out superiority over the surrounding peoples and thus scoring moral points for the collective. A third possibility is that it might be there to focus extra attention on the relationship between Sarai and Hagar. Both are now wives (which might hint at later tension), or both are now wives (but Sarai is the real wife and "don't you forget it" – addressed both to the audience and to the character at the end of the sentence אשה and אישה of Hagar)! The juxtaposition of the two words makes it likely that the reason is the last one, since the similarity in the two words, especially for a listening audience rather than a reading one, would force attention to those very words.

 Ask the students to do a similar exercise to that that they did for the first and second sentences of the story. How short can they make it? What words would they leave out and why?

 Now reverse things and ask them to justify the inclusion of the terms. What would the use of each term add to the audience's understanding of the story?

Background for the Teacher: Strangers and Outsiders in the Tanakh11

At this point Hagar enters into the action as an active character. Hagar is the stranger, the outsider. Let us offer you, the teacher, a broader look at the theme in biblical terms, in case you wish to introduce any of the following ideas into your classroom as you are discussing the theme as it relates to Hagar. The theme of the treatment of strangers is a major theme in the Tanakh. The necessity to be considerate to strangers in the world of the Mikra is well known and we will only touch on a few of the main points here, as we begin to make the connection with the story of Hagar.

Strictly speaking it can certainly be argued that since the stories of Avraham’s family precede the giving of the Torah, there is no point in examining the role of the stranger in pre-Mosaic terms, when all the relevant legislation is post-Mosaic. Technically,

11 This piece addressed to the teacher is there simply to put the figure of Avram as a man of faith and doubt in a larger Biblical context. Many of the points are clear and familiar but what we have tried to do here is to remind the teacher of a number of relevant aspects that she or he might want to point out to the students. The teacher does not need to read this nor to relate to it. However, there is always the possibility that a short overview such as this might be valuable for the students.

that is correct. However, there is no question that many of the ideas turned later into legal demands indeed reflect social tendencies that were there in the earlier periods. When we examine the situation of the stranger, specifically, it would seem that we can indeed learn something about the attitudes of the earlier period by examining the norms and the rules of the later period.

The whole background of the stories of Avraham reflects the codes of hospitality that would later be enshrined in custom and law. The famous hospitality scene of Genesis ch. 18, where Avraham spares no trouble to welcome the (angelic) guests is almost a paradigm of the codes of hospitality passed down in Jewish culture and tradition. The consideration for non-Jews which is a central theme of Biblical legislation is of course underlined constantly by reference to the later sojourn in Egypt and the experience of slavery there but it should be noted that only some ten verses before the Hagar story, in the Berit bein HaBetarim, that very theme is emphasized in a thoroughly unexpected context.

The subject of the berit is Avram’s concern that he will not have children of his own despite the divine promise and therefore the promise to inherit the land is in doubt. God responds in a vision, addressing this concern of Avram by directing him to perform a binding ceremony of agreement as a witness to God’s seriousness regarding the promise of future children. At the ceremony one would expect God to keep the proceedings very much to the point by declaring straight away the promise of children in a very direct way. But this is not what happens. The first words that God expresses (Ch. 15 vv.13-14) at the height of the ceremony are these:

And He said unto Abram: 'Know of a surety that 13 יג וַיֹּאמֶ רלְַאבְרָ ם, יָדֹּעַ תֵדַ ע כִ י-גֵר ,thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs יִהְ יֶה זַרְ עֲָך ץ בְאֶרֶ ֹלא לָהֶ ם, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four וַעֲבָדּום, וְעִ ּנּו אֹּתָ ם--ַארְ בַע מֵ אוֹּת, שָ נָה. hundred years;

and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I 14 יד וְ גַם אֶ ת הַ - ּגוֹּי אֲשֶ ר יַעֲבֹּדּו, דָ ן judge; and afterward shall they come out with great ָאנֹּכִ י; וְַאחֲרֵ י-כֵן יֵצְ אּו, בִרְ כֻש ּגָדוֹּל. substance.

It seems fascinating that instead of talking directly about heirs and inheritance, the direct subject, God chooses to emphasise the future character of the Egypt experience and Israel’s status there as strangers, something that is - on the face of it – absolutely unnecessary to the character of the promise being given.

One can only suggest that this is a deliberate foreshadowing put there in this generation to make a point that is necessary for Avram himself to hear.

Thus it can certainly be suggested that the Torah means to suggest that the codes of consideration and hospitality which are so common in the last books of the Torah are indeed in operation at least in spirit in the early patriarchal period and Avram is expected to internalize them.

As is well known the Torah adds to a great deal of its social legislation the reasoning that the need to be considerate is linked back to the experience of slavery in Egypt. However we were treated, suggests the Torah, we know how to do it differently and we must bear our negative experience in mind as we turn it into a positive learning experience in our treatment of the unfortunate. And it is in addition noteworthy that typically, the stranger, the orphan and the widow are linked together as three vulnerable groups who can easily be abused, as we hear in the following piece taken from Deuteronomy Ch. 24 vv. 17 - 22.

You shall not pervert the justice due to the 17 יז ֹלא תַטֶ ה,מִשְ פַט ּגֵר יָתוֹּם; וְ ֹלא stranger, or to the orphan; nor take the widow's תַחֲבֹּל, בֶגֶד ַאלְמָ נָה. clothes as a pledge. But you shall remember that you were a slave in 18 יח וְזָכַרְ תָ , כִ י עֶבֶד הָ יִיתָ בְמִצְרַ יִם, Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed you from וַיִפְדְ ָך יְהוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך, מִשָ ם; עַל-כֵן .there; therefore I command you to do this thing ָאנֹּכִ י מְ צַּוְ ָך, לַעֲשוֹּת, אֶ ת-הַדָ בָ ר, הַ זֶה. When you reap your harvest in your field, and 19 יט יכִ תִקְ צֹּר קְ צִירְ ָך בְשָדֶ ָך וְשָ כַחְתָ have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go עֹּמֶ רבַשָדֶ ה, ֹלא תָ שּוב לְקַחְ תוֹּ --לַּגֵר back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the לַיָתוֹּם וְ לַָאלְמָ נָה, יִהְ יֶה: לְמַ עַן יְבָרֶ כְ ָך יְהוָה אֱֹלהֶ יָך, בְ כֹּל מַ עֲשֵ ה orphan and for the widow; so that the Lord your God יָדֶ יָך. may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat your olive-tree, you shall not go 20 כ כִי תַחְ בֹּט זֵיתְ ָך, ֹלא תְ פַאֵ ר over the boughs again; it shall be for the stranger, for ַאחֲרֶ יָך: לַּגֵר לַיָתוֹּם וְ לַָאלְ מָ נָה, .the orphan, and for the widow יִהְ יֶה. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you 21 כא כִי תִבְ צֹּר כַרְמְ ָך, ֹלא תְ עוֹּלֵל shall not glean it after you [have finished]; it shall be ַאחֲרֶ יָך: לַּגֵר לַיָתוֹּם וְ לַָאלְמָ נָה, .for the stranger, for the orphan, and for the widow יִהְ יֶה. And you shall remember that you were a slave in 22 כב וְזָכַרְ תָ , כִ י-עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְאֶרֶ ץ the land of Egypt; therefore I command you to do מִצְרָ יִם; עַל-כֵן יָאנֹּכִ מְ צַּוְ ָך, לַעֲשוֹּת, .this thing אֶ ת-הַדָ בָ ר, הַ זֶה.

.The stranger – HaGer .גר, יתום ואלמנה – The stranger, the orphan and the widow The stranger – Hagar.

The experts still argue about the probable etymology of the name Hagar. The majority opinion at the moment is that it means something like “wandering” or “fleeing”. However, one can certainly suggest that whatever the possible roots of the name, its use here is extremely purposeful and is intended to ring in the ears of its Hebrew listeners with all the associations of Ger, the stranger. Since, as we have already mentioned, just ten or so verses previously, the word is used for the very first time in the Torah, when the context does not necessitate it, it would be strange indeed if this were coincidental.

We might suggest that the intention is to remind the reader/listener that when we talk and a ,גר about the woman called Hagar, we are talking about a stranger in the land, a

stranger, it must always be remembered has rights. In addition one can suggest that the fact that in the story, as we shall see, the very first thing we hear about Hagar after shifcha /concubine is that she comes from Egypt, could be שפחה the opening noun suggested as an extra hint to the reader/listener that there is a theme of bad and good treatment that is about to be addressed, and so some serious listening needs to be done.

We can suggest that Hagar had every reason to expect good treatment at the hand of Avram and his family. Those were the norms of the society, they were familiar to all and Hagar would, we suggest, have been aware of these norms as the situation that we are soon to examine starts to unfold.

Thus we see that when we come to examine the story of Sarai and Hagar, we must bring an awareness of all these aspects, in order to understand the position of Hagar in the story. Coming to the story without such an awareness, can cause us to misread the story on an emotional level and to misunderstand the motives and feelings of one of the main characters.

Genesis 16:1-3 The Story So Far: Understanding and Judging Sarai

Let us now examine the reactions of the characters as we see them over the course of the first three verses. 12 The offer has been made and accepted. So far Sarai is the dominant character, with Avram in a secondary role. Hagar is central to the action but her role has been totally passive up to now.

EXERCISE: Sarai So Far…

Divide up the class into three sub-groups. Each sub-group receives one of the three main characters, Sarai, Avram and Hagar. Within the sub- group, in ones or twos, the students write their analysis of what the character is feeling, either in the first or third person. Then the whole sub-group should sit and talk about their character's reactions.

The class divides into threes with one representative of each sub-group in each group, so that there is one "Sarai", one "Avram" and one "Hagar" sitting together. They should talk about how they (their character) is feeling after Sarai has made her offer to Avram. They are allowed to question and should be encouraged to do so but they must not argue. Rather they should listen and try and understand most deeply the points of view of the other two characters.

Now as a whole group, they should discuss the following questions.

□ How do you feel about Sarai's offer to Avram?

□ What, if any, difficulties do you have with the offer?

□ How do you relate to Sarai's control of Hagar's body, so that she feels justified in giving her to him, without Hagar's permission and without prior consultation with Hagar?

Does the fact that Hagar is a slave, influence you in one way or another?

How do you respond to the reasons that Sarai would put forward justifying her action?

12 As we progress in the story, we ease off the language component and put more emphasis on the relationships between the characters as revealed by the text.

Sarai's Right or Sarai's Wrong? A Double Perspective from History.13

A. The Biblical Perspective

Up to now we have assessed Sarai's actions from our own contemporary point of view. We have critiqued her actions from the standpoint of our modern value system (which does for example, not accept slavery as a moral action).

But how would have the society of Sarai's time assessed this action. Let us examine this question through two sets of lenses, those of biblical society on the one hand and those of Near Eastern societies in the Biblical and pre-Biblical age. In the Torah, we have a number of references that can help us.

In Genesis 29: 24 and 29, we hear that Lavan gives his slave girls Zilpah to Leah, and Bilhah to Rachel. In the next chapter, (Gen. 30: 3 and 9), we hear not just that Rachel gives Bilhah as a wife to Ya'akov as we have seen, but that Leah gives Zilpah as a wife to Ya'akov after she herself has produced a number of children but can produce no more. This is at least indirectly connected with the law that appears in Shemot 21:4, when we hear the following.

If [a slave's] master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to the master and only the man shall go free.

From this last piece it seems clear that children of a slave marriage belong to the master. In other words, the cases of Bilhah, Zilpah and Hagar are all examples of a normative accepted situation in biblical society. Within the conventions of slave society, with all the Bible's "liberal" treatment of slaves, nothing problematic is seen in the case in question where Sarai makes her offer to Avram in many ways at the expense of Hagar.

Code of laws of Hammurabi Louvre museum, Middle East antiques.

13 We now briefly use another lens, that of historical context and we use additional texts, both Biblical and non-Biblical to supply that perspective. The use of non-biblical ancient texts from other roughly contemporary societies in the area can often illuminate many of the actions that appear in the text of the Tanakh. It should be remembered that many of those who heard the original stories thousands of years ago would have been familiar with societal norms which therefore would not have had to be spelled to by the narrator. We, deprived of that context, need, perhaps to take this into account.

B. The Ancient Near East Perspective

Now let us move to a larger circle of context, that of the ancient near-east. Here a similar picture emerges. There are a number of extant texts that have been discovered from the region which have strong parallels to the situation in the Hagar and Sarai story. Let us see the three closest examples.

In the famous Hamurrabi law code of the early second millennium B.C.E., we find the following case.

If a man marries a priestess [who is not allowed to have children] and she gave a female slave to her husband and she [the slave] has then borne children, if later that female slave has claimed equality with her mistress because she has borne children, her mistress may not sell her, but she may mark her with the slave mark and count her among the slaves. If she did not bear children, her mistress may sell her.

It might be argued that this is a special case since the priestess is not allowed to have children and therefore the case in Hamurrabi is not relevant to the Sarai case. Nevertheless, it is extremely revealing regarding the potential tensions that can develop between the two women after the birth, which of course parallels the later part of the Hagar story that we have not yet examined. There is a still closer parallel in the Nuzi documents dating to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries B.C.E. Unlike the Hamurabbi document which is based on a general idea from a law code, this tells of an actual legal agreement from local case law.

If Gilimninu [the wife] bears children, Shenima [the husband] will not take another wife. But if Gilimninu fails to bear children, Gilimninu shall get for Shenima a woman from the Lulu country [i.e. a slave girl] as a concubine. In that case Gilimninu herself will have authority over the offspring.

Similarly, a document of about seven centuries later in the later Assyrian period tells of the marriage between two people from Tyre in Lebanon.

Tzuvito is given to Malkiram as a wife. If Tzuvito does not get pregnant or give birth, she will take a slave girl in her place. The slave girl's children will be considered her [Tzuvito's] children…if she [Tzuvito] hates her [the slave girl after the birth] she can sell her.

What is clear from all of these documents is that not only can we assume that Sarai was within her legal rights to do what she did, but that she was acting according to the socially acceptable norms of her own society (the Biblical examples) and the region as a whole. These documents enable us to see the society of the early Hebrews against the background of the times which produced them. The question that we must now deal with together with the students is whether or not such a historical perspective affects – or should affect – the way that we read the story.

EXERCISE: Gaining Perspective – Sarai on Trial

Begin by asking the group to vote regarding whether they think that Sarai has treated Hagar wrongly by making the offer to Avram at her (Hagar's) expense. Recall the various points that were brought up in condemnation of Sarai's action or in her defence at the end of the last activity. Vote. Tell each person to write themselves a one or two sentence note explaining the reasons for their vote.

Now let Sarai be put on trial. The charge against her is that she was cruel in her treatment of Hagar and she had no right to make the offer to Avram at Hagar's expense without consulting with her or getting permission from her.

Sarai (who has prepared her part beforehand) denies the charges against her and defends herself saying that she was well within her rights. She calls two expert defence witnesses to support her argument. One of the two experts (both of whom have also been prepared in advance) should defend her from the standpoint of the biblical norms of the Torah as expressed above. The other should defend her from the point of view of the general Near East social norms as expressed in the documents brought above. The cases should be pointed out for everybody.

Other students (not prepared) should of course join in but the only ones who can speak in Sarai's favour are those who voted for her in the earlier vote. Those who voted against her can only speak against her here.

At the end of the trial (which should not be too long) a vote should be taken regarding the condemnation of Sarai for her behaviour, by the jury (the class excluding the main participants).

The issue to be examined is whether any people changed their vote based on the perspectives of Biblical and extra-Biblical norms. If anyone is found that has indeed changed their vote (presumably in favour of Sarai – it's hard to imagine that the opposite can happen!) ask them to explain why.

Let this lead into a concluding discussion regarding the weight to be given to historical context as we assess the actions of Biblical characters.

Sarai, Hagar and Avram on the Oprah Show

Your Task Simulate an episode of the Oprah show navigating the relationship between Avraham, Sarah and Hagar.

Possible questions for panelists and members of the audience □ Ask Sarai how she feels about her name change to Sarah. □ How do you feel about Sarai's offer to Avram? □ What, if any, difficulties do you have with the offer? □ How do you relate to Sarai's control of Hagar's body, so that she feels justified in giving her to him, without Hagar's permission and without prior consultation with Hagar? □ Does the fact that Hagar is a slave influence you in one way or another? □ How do you respond to the reasons that Sarai would put forward justifying her action?

Genesis 16:4-6 The Plot Thickens: Enter Hagar and then Hagar Exits

ויבא אל הגר ותהר ותרא כי הרתה ותקל גבירתה בעיניה. ותאמר שרי אל אברם, חמסי עליך, אנכי נתתי שפחתי בחיקך ותרא כי הרתה ואקל בעיניה. ישפט ה' ביני וביניך. ויאמר אברם אל שרי, הנה שפחתך בידך, עשי לה הטוב בעיניך. ותענה שרי ותברח מפניה. ... )בראשית ט"ז, ד-ו(

And he went into Hagar and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. And Sarai said to Avram, you are responsible for my suffering: I have given my maid into your lap and when she saw that she had conceived I was despised in her eyes. May the Lord judge between me and you. But Avram said to Sarai, look, your maid is in your hand, do with her as you think best. And when Sarai mistreated her she fled from her.

These three verses are full of some extremely highly charged emotional dialogue between the three characters. Some of the dialogue surfaces in words and phrases spoken by one character to another but most of it is indicated in the form of dynamic tensions below the surface. At almost every turn, the passions and feelings between the characters shift and flow and we, the listeners or readers are tossed this way and that from phrase to phrase in a maelstrom of feeling till we get to the concluding action of this part with Hagar's escape at the end of verse six.

Analyzing Genesis 16:4-6 – Phrase by Phrase

We will examine some of the more telling moments in the process and then bring things together with an exercise before proceeding into the second part of the story, with Hagar's flight into the desert. Here are some suggestions regarding the dynamics that lie underneath the surface of these charged moments.

1. And he went in to Hagar and she conceived. This once again is described in the tersest phrase. This central occurrence, around which the whole story hinges, is told in such brevity that we are tempted to think that the occurrence was of interest to the narrator mainly because it provided the opportunity to indicate the shifts in relationships that lay at the heart of this story. For Sarai, this meant victory, but inside of her she must have been aware that on one level at least, it indicated her failure and her downfall as a woman. She had failed where another woman had succeeded, and despite the fact that things had gone according to plan, she must have felt a measure of humiliation especially at the apparent ease of the conception. What woman would be able to withstand such feelings? This, we might suggest, hurt Sarai in her most vulnerable place as a woman. In a society where, as we indicated earlier, a woman's value was largely measured by her ability to bring children, this must in one way be a bitter blow. But think of the ambivalence. Sarai wanted the child. The price was agreeing to let her husband sleep with another woman. She presumably would not want to see a protracted relationship developing over years with them sleeping together without a resulting pregnancy, but on the other hand, did it have to come quite so soon?

2. Her mistress was despised in her eyes.

Sarai's vulnerability must have been stretched to the limit by the pregnancy itself, but the worst of her fears must have been realized when Hagar began to flaunt her own womanly superiority. She, the lowly slave girl, a mere vessel in the eyes of her mistress, had succeeded very quickly where Sarai had failed for years. Can we blame Hagar for reacting like this? Remember that Sarai had not even pronounced her name when giving her to Avram. A slave girl far from her Egyptian home, she had suffered loneliness, isolation from her family and friends and, it seems, humiliation at the hands of her mistress. Now, unbelievably, a chance had presented itself to revenge herself on that same mistress, to hit her in the one spot where Hagar, as a woman would know that Sarai was most vulnerable. Can we blame her for humiliating Sarai?

The sensitivity and potential problematics of the situation were clear. We have mentioned earlier the more or less exact same problem after the birth being foreseen in an impersonal law in the Hammurabi code.

A society that allows and normalizes the idea of the surrogate mother, must be aware of the chance that explosive emotions will rise to the surface at the time of pregnancy and birth. We have examples of this in today's world. Agreements between surrogate mother and the couple with whom the agreement has been made are broken because of the emotional power of birth and what it does to all of the partners. And in the ancient world, as here, when one of the partners to the agreement is a slave and the other her mistress, how could it not be potentially problematic?

3. You are responsible for my suffering. The response of Sarai breaks out at Avram. Why? Maybe because as the husband of Hagar, he has now the legal responsibility and control over her. Maybe in elevating Hagar to the status of wife, Sarai has inadvertently put her out of reach. Hagar is no longer in her power. Or maybe, she now suspects Avram of having sexually enjoyed with its sexual connotations might suggest חיק his time with Hagar (the word something of the sort), and she sees this as a breech of his loyalty to her and her unwritten bargain with him. Or possibly, in her blind frustration she lashes out at the person with whom this controlled woman is most comfortable at expressing her emotions for many years. Maybe a woman who keeps herself in check all the time before the world – unlike Rachel for example – explodes, when she needs to, only in the safest place, before her husband, where it will not necessarily exact too high a price.

4. Do with her as you think best. How did Abram respond to Sarai's outburst towards him? We do not know, but these are the next words that he utters in the text. It is a complete non sequitur. She has not asked him to do anything. She has simply vented her frustration. The natural thing for him to do in some way or another would be to respond to her outburst. Either he could try and assuage her pain (a la Elkanah) or he could protest and rebut her, or put her in her place. But he does none of these things. He simply tells her to do whatever

she wants and seemingly washes his hands of the whole affair! And it is not as though he has not been involved until now. He has been central to the creation of the emotional turmoil and now he appears to take no responsibility for the situation that has developed.

Perhaps this is evidence of the typical man from Mars who responds to an emotional plea by suggesting a plan of action rather than spending time empathizing with the pain before proceeding onwards. But if so, the action that he suggests is such that it very much gets him off the hook of potential involvement in an unpleasant scene. He could have spoken to Hagar himself. Indeed he is the ideal intercessor to explain one woman's feelings to another. Or perhaps there is something dislocated in this relationship. This is the second time that he has not responded as we might have expected an involved and committed family man to have responded. This Avram is passive and non-responsive. He does not want involvement or at least that is what appears from his reactions in the story. Maybe he doesn't care. Maybe he is so involved in his own spiritual experiments that he has not time for the apparent trivialities of human relationships. Maybe he believes in strict spheres of influence and he has no wish or intention to get involved with mere domestic quarrels. Or maybe there is another possibility. Sarai is the power in the relationship and he basically goes ahead with whatever she wants. That interpretation sounds unlikely in the light of the Akedah story, but it cannot be totally discounted.

5. Sarai mistreated her. Has Avram failed Sarai by not coming to her aid more directly, or has he played right into her hands? Is the sole responsibility that she now has for deciding on the outcome, the situation she would choose or would she prefer to be working it out together with Avram, and perhaps through Avram. From one point of view, she is probably happy. She has gained her control back over the situation. Legally she had been restricted since Hagar had become Avram's wife and thus his responsibility. Now that obstacle, at least, has been removed. We have suggested previously that she is a woman who likes to be – or perhaps needs to be in control. She is usually not ruled by her emotions but is free coolly to plan a strategy for living. From that point of view she is back on home turf. On the other hand, this is seemingly a new situation. She is in control but not in the normal situation where she governs her own feelings. Here, her feelings are in control of her, and yet she has the power to pull the strings and to make decisions, not just for herself but for the woman she now presumably hates.

va-ta-aneha / “persecute her” is ותענה Should she have mistreated Hagar? The word not particularly clear. It seems that it can cover a continuum of meanings. If "mistreat" is intended, it sounds on the face of it, mild enough. If it is a meaning closer to "torture", then a quite different meaning is implied. Another thing: was it mistreatment in the subjective interpretation of Hagar (which could include simply treating her as she had been treated previously, disregarding her temporary higher status) or was it objective treatment according to anyone's standards, in the which case it must have been a double blow for the girl who had presumably seen herself rising to high station?

Can we understand the "mistreatment"? In many ways, perhaps, yes. Humiliation, insult, and power make a heady brew indeed and many good and even saintly people

have succumbed to their worst sides in far less difficult circumstances. Sarai has been humiliated in her most vulnerable place by a young woman (a girl?) over whom, up till recently, she had had absolute rights and absolute control. She is old and perhaps wants nothing more than to retain her favoured status in Avram's family until her death. Now all this is threatened. She is undone by the plan and the person that was .(אבנה ממנה) ”meant “to build her up

it is difficult to ,ותענה ”Without knowing the precise details of “she persecuted her evaluate the story here. What is clear is that we have a tangle of characters living at the top of their emotions.

6. She fled from her. And it could be that Sarai was not upset about it. It could be, in fact, that in greater control than we have supposed up till now, Sarai deliberately taunts Hagar to breaking-point. After all, what woman wants to have her rival, who reminds her of her deepest humiliation, taunting her continually through her very presence, if not through more active means? Hagar's escape might well have suited Sarai very well.

In theory at least, it must have suited Hagar as well. She had had her taste of relative freedom in her new wifely status and now she was, in what is perhaps the best scenario from her point of view, back to her previous status. That probably was unbearable for now. Tasks which she had done perhaps for years, words that she had simply accepted as her lot in life, now seemed unbearable. She had seen her promised land and been unable to step inside and enjoy it.

It was an extreme act to escape, of course, and dangerous too. But maybe for Hagar it was an attempt to regain the freedom that she had lost? Maybe it was a desperate bid to stop her future slipping through her hands? Maybe it was a chance to take control of her own destiny. Maybe there are even parallels between this act and Sarai's desperate act at the beginning of the story. Two cases of women who sense something they value slipping away and decide on extreme action to help them retain or regain what it is they fear to lose, or what they hope to get back?

EXERCISE: Analysing the Emotional Triangle in Genesis 16:4-6

Read through the three verses all together, to understand the basic narrative structure.

Divide the class up into three sections, a Hagar section, a Sarai section and an Avram section. The whole class is given the six phrases and asked to do two things by themselves. Firstly, each person must try to give some kind of general analysis regarding what is happening at each of these pregnant moments (on the lines above but shorter). Secondly, each person has to write a first person piece reflecting their character's feelings at each one of the six emotional "stations" mentioned.

Now in class, you should take the moments one by one (if there are too many you can leave one or more out totally or partially) and start by analyzing the moment emotionally with the help of the third person

accounts. Then after a specific moment has been analysed and discussed, divide the class into threes (the same three people together each time) with one representative for each character. Let each person explain to the other two people in the sub group, the emotional position of their character at each of these major junctures, and when they have all heard the position, they must prepare a "frozen tableau" representing the moment.

The frozen tableau should work as follows. They have to range themselves into a scene which represents the phrase but they are not meant to represent the moment physically but rather emotionally. In other words they are to represent the characters' relationship to each other at the moment in question. For example, in the first moment (And he went in to Hagar and she conceived) there is no simulation of the act of love but some kind of a statue in which presumably, in some way, Hagar and Avram stand together and Sarai is locked out of all intimacy or communication. Similarly, in the last moment (She fled from her), the idea is not to show a person physically fleeing but to show where each character stands towards the others in the moment. Sarai might be represented pushing Hagar away with one hand and restraining Avram from intervening with the other. Or maybe Avram is disinterested and has turned his back on the whole affair. This is a difficult technique to understand since it is emotional drama rather than physical drama representing an actual scene but it can be very rewarding since the students really have to analyse what they think is happening emotionally and find a creative way of representing it.

When they have prepared their tableaux, each trio presents in turn, showing their statue with each figure explaining his or her physical position in the statue and what feelings it represents.

A good and valuable thing to do, if the environment is supportive, is to ask at the end of each scene, whether any of the class have ever felt like the characters in the scene. One person relating to scene one, for example, might recall a moment like Hagar when she or he was suddenly lifted up into the centre of attention after years of feeling unwelcome, (Hagar) while another remembers a moment where he or she, who had been very much at the centre, suddenly felt left out and unwelcome, losing social status (Sarai).

When you have done as many scenes as you want, close the activity with some reflections on the intensity of the piece, and how so much emotion was present in a scene told briefly in only three verses! Perhaps suggest that reading the Tanakh means slowing down one's normal pace of reading by several thousand per cent! Maybe one can suggest that the prose of the Tanakh needs to be read like we normally read a poem!

EXERCISE: Midrashic Gap-Filling 14

 Introduce the idea of Midrash as a technique and as a literary layer. Explain the fact that different midrashim are written by different people but that often certain themes and tendencies tend to repeat themselves in the way that midrashim tend to read - or reread – a story. Explain too, the fact that midrashim are connected to specific words or phrases in the text of the Torah or the Tanakh.

 Now give the following midrashim to the students.

R. Yossi said: He hearkened to the voice of the Holy Spirit within her; this is similar to the verse, Now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord (1 Sam. 15:1) Genesis Raba, 45,2

She persuaded [took] her with words, urging her, you are fortunate to unite with this holy man. Genesis Raba, 45,3

She jeered: Barrenness has no place beside pregnancy, nor old age beside youth. A woman is only for child-bearing, whereas you are a sterile mule, a useless vessel! He [Avraham] does not desire you. Midrash Or HaAfelah

[She said]: "It is you who are doing me wrong. You hear the words of Hagar, and you say nothing against them. And I hoped that you would take my side. For your sake, I left my native land and my father's house and I followed you into a strange land with trust in God. In Egypt, I pretended to be your sister, so that no harm would come to you. When I saw that I would have no children, I took the Egyptian woman, my slave Hagar, and gave her to you for a wife, contenting myself with the thought that I would rear the children she would bear. Now she treats me with disdain in your presence. I hope that God sees the injustice that has been done to me and judges between you and me and has mercy upon us, restoring peace to our home and granting us children so that we have no need of children from Hagar. H.L. Ginsburg, Legends of the Jews

14 We now introduce briefly and not extensively, the layer of classic Midrash. It is an opportunity to examine some of the ways that Midrash tends to reshape a story. We use it here to close this particular part of the first Hagar story. The midrashim that we bring here defend Sarai which is one of the principal trends in the classic Midrashic readings of the story. There are those who say that to use such midrashim at a time when the students' feelings are almost certainly tending more to Hagar, is likely to turn students off to Midrash as a genre. There are others who say that by adding a question regarding the Rabbis' motivations for reading the text in this way, we gain a fascinating insight into the Rabbinic mind precisely at a point when the students will be emotionally involved with the test. According to this school of thought, this is likely to bring a stronger engagement with the process of midrash, whether or not the students agree or disagree with the conclusions.

Singly or in pairs, they are asked the following questions.

What words or phrases do each of these midrashim come to explain?

Can you see a general tendency that all these four midrashim tend to follow? If so, what is it? Why do you think that many Rabbis felt it important to follow this line?

What is your response to this reading of the text?

Turn your response into a midrash and write your own midrash for one of the four phrases that the Rabbis have dealt with here.

Genesis 16 An Overview and Interlude: Analyzing Plot Structure15

Since the students are well into the text of the chapter, let us now take a step back from the details of the text and take an overall view of the whole chapter. One of the important skills it is good to develop is an understanding of the underlying structure of a narrative text. The assumption is that underlying each different unit or major episode of text (usually a chapter, or part of a chapter) there is an internal structure that can aid the student to study that text. We could have examined this at the very beginning of the chapter but it is – despite being helpful and important – relatively dry and technical so it seemed worthwhile getting students into the text before doing this analysis.

The usual division of a narrative text unit into sub-units is relatively standard. It is composed of three parts:

Introduction or exposition. The role of this piece is to set the scene, introduce the characters and perhaps to indicate the theme before the action is set in motion. It sets the framework for the plot that is about to unfold. It is short.

The scenes of the plot. This part is usually divided into a number of different sections, separated off from each other, by shifts in location, character or occasionally genre (verse instead of prose etc.). This section represents the bulk of the text.

The summary. The role of this piece is to close the whole unit after the plot has drawn to a close, and to relate any other information that might be needed that comes after the end of the action, in order to understand the significance of what has been related up till now. Once again, this piece is short.

Since the central part represents the majority of the text and might be divided up into a number of constituent units, a text unit might is likely to be divided up into anything between three and five or six parts or even more. Let us now proceed to our chapter.

Our chapter represents one narrative unit. The previous chapter dealt with the "covenant of the pieces" and the next chapter deals with circumcision, so it is easy to identify it as a separate unit. Even a fairly cursory glance will reveal the internal division of the chapter according to the above division.

15 Before we move back to the detail of the text, we will take time for an overview. We now move on to an overall view of the chapter, dividing up the chapter into its constituent parts. This attempt to understand the underlying structure of a literary text is extremely important, and is an important tool and skill. If this is not relevant, jump over the next two sections. 47

1. The Exposition is Genesis 16:1, and it perfectly fills this role. It introduces us to the three human characters of the story and indicates the main theme - Sarai's barren status.

2. The plot is Gen. 16: 2-14 and here the characters propel the action. However, if we go further and look at internal divisions, we see that there is indeed an internal division between two more or less equal scenes, differentiated from each other by characters and setting. We should note a this point, that very often although scenes can be differentiated from one another by such clear objective criteria as characters and setting, very often there is a subtle internal dynamic that suggests that more than plot and character has changed between scene and scene. Characters or situations often develop from scene to scene quite subtly. We will see this later in our internal examination of the different scenes. For the moment, we concentrate on the more formal objective divisions. The point of division between scenes here is clearly at the end of verse six. At that point, both characters and setting changes.

3. Summary. Gen. 16:15-16. This is, once again, straightforward. The characters have stopped their interaction. The narrator gives us some extra information felt to be significant and tidies up the story for us, before proceeding on to another chapter and another unit.

EXERCISE: Searching for Structure in Genesis 16

Explain the idea of narrative structure and organization of a text. Ask the students to read the whole chapter and to divide the chapter into its constituent units, explaining their division and showing the criteria for their choices, indicating too, the purpose of each of the three kinds of unit in reference to this specific chapter.

To make it a little more interesting and memorable, suggest to the students that they have to make up a four line verse indicating the role and substance of each part. It could be in a given style, for example, mock Shakespearian.

For instance:

Exposition's my name and to open's my fate, I present all the characters as if on a plate, There's Avram, Sarai, Hagar too About to present their devious plot to you!

Sub-dividing! Analysing the structure of a given scene16

So far we have talked about the structure of a chapter or unit. Sometimes, however, the structure can be broken up even more and such is the case with the first of our two plot scenes, namely verses two to six. Once again, we can see the sub-division of a piece in a logical and coherent way, which works to move the plot along in a structured manner.

There are five pieces in this scene. The first two pieces and the last two pieces are each composed of two parts, a particular action and the reaction to that action. The third piece, however, represents a turning point in the scene which separates the first two verses from the last two. We suggest it looks like this.

Subscene one ותאמר שרי אל אברם הנה נא עצרני ה' מלדת בא נא אל שפחתי אולי . .Genesis 16:2a represents the action . אבנה ממנה ...

.Genesis 16:2b represents the reaction וישמע אברם לקול שרי

Subscene two ותקח שרי אשת אברם את הגר המצרית שפחתה מקץ עשר שנים לשבת אברם בארץ כנען ותתן אותה לאברם אישה לו לאשה. ... )בראשית ט"ז, ג( Genesis 16: 3 represents the action.

ויבא אל הגר ותהר .Genesis 16:4a represents the reaction

Subscene three ותרא כי הרתה ותקל גבירתה בעיניה Genesis 16:4b represents the turning point

Subscene four

ותאמר שרי אל אברם, חמסי עליך, אנכי נתתי שפחתי בחיקך ותרא כי הרתה ואקל בעיניה. ישפט ה' ביני וביניך. .Genesis 16:5 represents the action

ויאמר אברם אל שרי, הנה שפחתך בידך, עשי לה הטוב בעיניך. Genesis 16:6a represents the reaction.

Subscene five

ותענה שרי Genesis 16:6b represents the action

ותברח מפניה. Genesis 16:6c represents the reaction

Thus we see a very neat and symmetrical structure in the whole passage. Two action- reaction pieces lie on both sides of the central turning point. Moreover there are

16 Here we go a little further in our analysis of structure, taking one of the scenes in our chapter and doing an internal division. This cannot always be done, but it's rather neat when it does work, so we take the opportunity of bringing it here. If this piece is not relevant, go on to the next piece. 49

additional parallels in the scene. The language of the first and the fourth piece is similar (the opening is identical). Both of these pieces represent a conversation between Avram and Sarai, which the latter initiates. Pieces two and four are also parallel, not in terms of language but in terms of theme. Both of these pieces are action pieces in which Sarai does something to Hagar.

However there is a major difference between the first two pieces and the last two pieces. The turning point has created an imbalance. The tone of Sarai, the consistent factor throughout the scene as a whole, changes strongly. In the first part her speech and action are measured and controlled, proceeding according to a pre-arranged plan. After the turning point, the control that she has exhibited vanishes. She behaves emotionally and impulsively. The plan has gone horribly wrong (in the turning point sentence).

We suggest here that we see a beautifully controlled and structured narrative scene in which the narrator has worked very carefully to create a miniature masterpiece of a scene. It is possible to miss the beautiful symmetry and balance on the one hand, and the development and imbalance on the other. But a careful examination can reveal true artistry at work. Examination of structure can definitely increase appreciation for the work in question.

EXERCISE: Searching for Sub-Structure!

 Explain to the students that there are scenes that divide up into neatly structured pieces, put together as if by a master craftsman. You are going to give them such a scene and they have to work out the structure underneath the text. Give them verses two to six, in Hebrew and English.

 To start with simply ask them to examine the text in pairs, and to see if they can find the logical structure underneath. If they cannot do it or they cannot understand the idea of structure or find it, tell them that the verses divide up into five subsections, not necessarily according to the idea of one verse per piece.

 Take their findings and respond to them. If no-one has found the structure suggested above, present it and go through the piece explaining how the structure underlies the piece and how the central piece in Gen. 16:4, “she saw that she was pregnant and now her ותרא כי הרתה ותקל גבירתה בעיניה - ”mistress seemed light in her eyes changes the balance of the whole scene.

 Ask them what they think of the analysis and how this influences their opinion of the writing of the scene.

Genesis 16: 7-14 – Episode Two Hagar and the Angel: Changing scenes, Changing characters

)ז(וַיִּמְ צָאָ ּהמַ לְאְַך יְהֹוָה עַל עֵיןהַמַ יִּם בַמִּדְ בָרעַ ל הָעַיִּן בְדֶרֶ ְךׁשּור: )ח( וַיֹאמַר הָ גָרׁשִּ פְחַ ת שָרַ י: אֵימִּזֶה בָ את וְָאנָה תֵ לֵכִּ י וַתֹאמֶרמִּפְ נֵי שָרַ יגְבִּרְתִּ יָאנֹכִּ י בֹרַ חַ ת: )ט( וַיֹאמֶ ר לָּה מַ לְאְַך יְהֹוָה: ׁשּובִּ י אֶל גְבִּרְתֵ ְךוְהִּתְ עַנִּי תַ חַ ת יָדֶ יהָ : )י( וַיֹאמֶ רלָּה מַ לְאַ ְך יְהֹוָה: הַרְ הבָ ַארְ הבֶ אֶ ת זַרְ עְֵךוְֹלא יִּסָ פֵ ר מֵ רֹב: )יא( וַיֹאמֶ רלָּה מַ לְאְַך יְהֹוָה: הִּ נְָך ההָרָ וְיֹלַדְתְ בֵן וְקָרָאת ׁשְ מוֹ יִּׁשְ מָ עֵאל כִּי עׁשָמַ יְהֹוָה אֶל עָנְיְֵך: )יב( וְהּוא יִּהְ יֶהפֶרֶ א ָאדָ ם יָדוֹ בַ כֹל וְיַד כֹל בוֹ וְעַל פְ נֵי כָלאֶחָ יו יִּׁשְ כֹן: )יג( וַתִּקְרָא םׁשֵ יְהֹוָה הַ דֹבֵר אֵ לֶיהָ האַתָ לאֵ רֳאִּ י כִּי ָאמְרָ ה הֲ גַם הֲ ֹלם רָאִּיתִּ י יַאחֲרֵ רֹאִּ י: )יד( עַל כֵן קָרָ א לַבְאֵ ר - רבְאֵ ילַחַ רֹאִּ י - הִּ נֵהבֵין קָדֵ ׁש ּובֵין בָרֶ ד:

And an angel of the Lord found her by a fountain in the wilderness, by the fountain on the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, where did you come from? And where will you go to? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said to her, Return to your mistress, and submit youself to her hand. And the angel of the Lord said to her, I will multiply your seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the Lord said to her, Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Ishmael because the Lord has heard your affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the Lord that spoke to her, You God see me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that sees me? Therefore the well was called Be'er-Lahay-Ro'i: behold, it is between Qadesh and Bered. Genesis 16, 7-14

We now come to the second of the two narrative plot scenes, which constitutes the continuation of the story but in a very different way, and with a change of cast. If the first part of the story was populated by Sarai, Avram and a silent and fairly passive Hagar, in the second part, Hagar is an active participant together with an angel, a divine representative of God. The scene is also changed. Avram and Sarai's house and household was the location of the first scenes. Here, the location becomes the desert, the location so favoured by the Tanakh for revelations and divine interventions.

Despite the difference between the two parts of the story, the connections between the two parts are clear. We see this both in terms of theme and language. Let us point out a number of connections between the two parts.

1. It will be seen that a major and significant word in the early dialogue between used by Hagar in verse 8 and by the angel in גבירה Hagar and the angel is the word 51

verse 9. It is an important word because it defines the legal relationship of the main characters (as opposed to the emotional relationship). It appeared in an equally significant place (verse 4) in the first part of the story. All three places relate to the same basic issue, the tension between that legal relationship and the emotional relationship (tension, resentment, inferiority, superiority) that plays havoc with the legal one. There is a difference in context, however. If in the first part, despite the tension, the relationship has been basically accepted by both sides, here in part two, the relationship has been contested and ultimately thrown over by Hagar's escape. The angel comes to restore the original relationship but this needs to be done because the equilibrium of the initial relationship has been destroyed.

וישמע אברם לקול שרי ,appears in both parts. In Gen. 16:2 שמע The root-word .2 “Avram listened to the voice of his wife” and in Gen. 16:11, there is a great emphasis on the same root with reference to the name Ishmael, since, we are told, “for God has In both cases, there is a similarity of כי שמע ה אל עניך - ”heard your suffering context. The verb implies action as response to the words of a desperate woman. There is however, once again, a contrast between the two uses. Avram responds, but passively. He agrees, but does nothing. His action is merely in his not dismissing the idea and allowing Sarai to remain the active one as she puts her plan into practice. God's response is active. God's representative unfolds the plan.

ותענה שרי ,persecute / answer” appears both in Gen. 16: 6“ ענה The root-word .3 והתעני תחת ”.Sarah persecuted her” and Gen. 16:9,”suffer under your mistress’ hand“ .Both refer to the hardships of the situation of Hagar at the hands of Sarai .ידיה Whereas in the first instance, we understand the logic of Hagar's flight, here, we fail to understand, at least at first glance, the divine justification of that hardship. Nevertheless, the parallel is clear. However, the contrast between the two situations is clear. Hagar, as an independent being, albeit legally still the property of Sarai, is no longer under the control of Sarai. She must be made or persuaded to return. She will not do it of her own volition. She is out of Sarai's power.

in Gen. 16:11. But הרה appears in Gen. 16: 4 and once again, as ותהר The word .4 the difference in the two uses is clear. In the first part of the story, Hagar appears as anonymous, passive and secondary. In the second part of the story, she has gained individuality and significance in her own right. Thus, if in the first part, the word appears without any significance to Hagar. There is no detail. The significance is clearly regarding Avram and Sarai. In the second instance, however, there is great significance for Hagar the woman, and a whole discussion ensues regarding the name of the child and the results of the birth.

5. In Gen. 16:6 Sarai requests divine intervention. “Let God judge between you and God should clarify who is in the right. God should take .ישפוט ה ביני וביניך ”me Sarai's side and vindicate her, legitimizing her position. That indeed occurs in the second part of the story. The angel takes Sarai's side in the specific dispute, informing Hagar that she should go back. However, this is done in a way which while formally justifying Sarai, in fact uses a subtle form of irony to make it clear that things are not so simple. Hagar is promised a great future and receives a prophecy about her son. She is the one who has received the divine presence. It is as if the idea is that legally Sarai is correct but Hagar is the one who is honoured.

Thus we see clearly that the second part of the story is from one point of view the direct continuation of the story. However, the relationships have all changed. Hagar has moved on. Her escape has moved her into a different position. She is now at the centre of the action, a full individual rather than the insignificant passive shadow figure that moved through the first part of the story. It's as if the text is saying: The same words might be used in both parts of the story, but the characters have changed. In part one, Sarai is active and Hagar passive. Now the opposite is true. Hagar is empowered. She is an individual. She is in charge of her own decisions.

EXERCISE: Chapter 16 - One Story or Two?

Let the students read the second part of the story, down to the end of verse fourteen. Tell them that there are scholars (there are) that believe that this second part of the story was not originally part of the story but that somehow it got stuck on to the "real story" as a Hagar tradition whose origin is the much more developed God, Hagar and desert story that appears in Gen. 21. Their task is to try and prove that the story was composed as one integrated story, and that it needs to be read as one unit. Tell them that their work-tool is language.

Discuss, all together, how words and language might help to "prove" the unity of the story. If the idea does not come from them, bring them towards the idea that texts have "key words" and that if these significant words appear throughout a story, it seems likely that the story was created as one unit. Remind them of what they have already learned earlier in the unit, namely that narrative language in the Tanakh is terse and very deliberate. Words used to tell a story in the original Hebrew, are not accidental or random. They are carefully chosen by master(ful) narrators or storytellers

They need to look very carefully for words that appear in the two parts of the story and examine their context and use, comparing and contrasting these two textual characteristic.

When they have done this, write up their conclusions and ask whether, in their opinion, the evidence is for one integrated story or one story with an almost random second part, fitted on by a later editor who had a Hagar tradition that needed to be placed somewhere.

After doing this (presumably emphasizing the comparisons and similarities rather than the contrasts – the former are much easier to see), examine the contrasts as we have suggested them in the five points above. Examine how the story has developed and the characters shifted in the emphasis which the text gives them.

Perhaps, in conclusion, ask the students to take the three central human characters and to try and represent in visual form, how each one has developed, positively or negatively, as the story has progressed to this point.

EXERCISE: Hagar – An Angelic Response

The encounter with the angel is unquestionably a complex one for Hagar. The angel informs her of a number of momentous bits of news. They refer to some very central aspects. It is possible to assume that Hagar is thrown into emotional turmoil by the news that she receives. In order to examine the nuances of her reaction, so that none of her reactions fail to be noticed and examined, we suggest the following exercise.

Ask the students to do the following, perhaps as a homework exercise.

They should divide a sheet of paper (or perhaps a double sheet) into three broad columns. In the left hand column, they should write the words of the angel to Hagar starting from verse nine. They should divide the speech of the angel (only direct speech) into separate phrases, and leave several lines of space between each new piece of information.

In the central column, they should write in the first person, Hagar's reaction as each new idea hits her.

In the right hand column, they should write in the third person, the significance of the specific piece of information for Hagar, as they see it. They should comment on her reactions.

They should then take the reactions listed in the middle column and turn them into a monologue, emphasizing the aspects that seem to them to be most important.

Back in class, take some sample monologues and compare the students' take on Hagar's reactions. What did each student see as the most significant piece of news that Hagar received? Why? Were there things that were relatively insignificant? Which? Why?

Genesis 16: 1 and 15-16 Exposition and Summary: Opening and Closing the Story

We now come to the end of the story and it is time that we re-examine the structure of the story, this time focusing on the exposition and the summary of the story. We will see here how the two parts relate to each other and illuminate the story and its themes.

As mentioned, the exposition is contained in verse one.

ושרי אשת אברם לא ילדה לו ולה שפחה מצרית ושמה הגר. )בראשית, ט"ז, א(

Now Sarai, Avram's wife bore him no children and she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.

The summary is contained in Gen. 16: 15 and 16.

טו(וַתֵ לֶד הָ גָר לְַאבְרָ םבֵן וַיִּקְרָ אַאבְרָם ׁשֶ ם בְ נוֹ ראֲׁשֶ יָלְדָה הָ גָריִּׁשְ מָ עֵאל: טז( וְַאבְרָם בֶן ׁשְ מֹנִּים ׁשָ נָהוְׁשֵ ׁש ׁשָ נִּיםבְ לֶדֶתהָ גָר אֶ ת יִּׁשְ מָ עֵאל לְַאבְרָ ם:

And Hagar bore Avram a son and Avram called his son's name, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. And Avram was eighty six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Avram.

A comparison between the two verses brings forth a number of perspectives that the verses themselves, taken independently, do not yield. Separately, functioning as the opening and closing of the story, they give us information regarding the characters that is significant and important for understanding the story. However, when brought into a relationship with each other, the verses in their similarities and contrasts reveal fresh perspectives on what the story is telling us. We mention three points here.

1. The opening Sarai, Avram's wife bore him no children and the closing Hagar bore Avram a son both emphasise that the story is really about Avram and the issue of childbirth. Both women and their childbirth issues are related to Avram. In three of the four places where Avram is mentioned in the summary, the relationship with his son Ishmael is emphasised.

2. The opening Sarai, Avram's wife bore him no children shows us the problem that informs the whole story. The closing Hagar bore Avram a son shows that the problem has been solved. We see that the problem has been solved and the story's circle has now been closed.

3. Sarai is at the centre of the opening sentence and will remain at the centre till near the end of the story. But it is Hagar who is mentioned three times in the summary. Sarai is not mentioned at all. From her point of view it is a humiliating end to the story and she does not even merit a mention despite the fact that the whole thing stems from her initiative. Very graphically, the absence of Sarai from the summary of the story, shows how the events have marginalized her. Her fears appear to have been realized. She has lost her position at the centre of the family. The very step which we

have suggested was put into motion in order to ensure her continued centrality in the family, has in fact backfired.

EXERCISE: Opening and Closing – Connecting Exposition and Summary

Ask the students to write down what they think the aims of the exposition and the summary are. It seems certain that they will mention the two in isolation from each other. Make a full list of the things that they mention.

Now suggest that there is another aim that can only be arrived at when they bring the two parts together and place them in relationship one to the other. Ask them to do so and to make a list if what they find when they compare and contrast the two parts with each other.

Make a list of the points that they find. Ask them what it tells them about the meaning of the story. What is the story really about? What has happened to the story's three characters? How are they situated at the beginning and the end of the story? What does this tell us about what is happening to the characters in the story? Who is going up and who is going down?

Back to Genesis 16:7-14 Enter The Commentators17

Let us now turn to traditional parshanut – commentary – and try and understand something about the approach of traditional commentators to the text. We will use three traditional commentators in our examination of Gen.16:7-14. The three commentators are Rashi (Shlomo ben Yitzchak, [1040-1105] emphasis on derash and p'shat, France/Ashkenaz), Ramban, (Moshe ben Nachman [1194- c1270], rational p'shat with kabbalistic additions, Spain/Eretz Israel) and Malbim (Meir Leibush Malbim, [1809-1879] traditional derash orientated Eastern European). We choose them as examples of commonly quoted parshanim who have their own directions and inclinations.

Let us enter the world of commentary through the following introduction written by the American/Israeli scholar Edward Greenstein. The following piece is taken from his excellent introduction to medieval Bible interpretation in the well known book Back to the Sources (ed. Barry Holtz 1984).

It is only in the Middle Ages that the genre of the running, direct commentary on the biblical text comes into its own as a major phenomenon. The great medieval commentaries continue to serve as the major companions to the Bible for those who study the text in the original Hebrew. The most distinctive personalities among the medieval commentators virtually sit in the room and share their opinions with the serious student. One encounters something odd or perplexing, and one turns to Rashi, to Ibn Ezra, to see what this or that one has to say about it. One becomes familiar with them, allowing for their idiosyncracies and obsessions, learning when to consult this one and when to consult the other. Even when one understands, or thinks one understand the text, one often doesn't wish to proceed too far without checking in on the sensibilities of one or another of the medievals. Even where we may differ from them in our philosophical orientation, their commentaries function on the one hand as lenses through which we can see the facets of the text more sharply, and on the other as windows on some of the most interesting minds of medieval Jewry.

The label "medieval" often connotes the cloistered and reactionary, but in Jewish literature, for which there is no "Dark Ages", the Middle Ages symbolize a peak of scholarship, creativity, philosophy, and writing. Ed Greenstein

17 We decide now to bring in the issue of commentary. This of course could have been brought in at any and every point up to now but we will concentrate our examination of parshanut, traditional and modern at this point, dealing with the second scene of the first Hagar story, the encounter with the angel in the desert. 57

An additional insight into the experience of the traditional study experience comes from this piece by Rav Joseph Soloveitchik.

Whenever I enter the classroom I ask myself, can there be a dialogue between young students and an old teacher? Between a rebbe in Indian Summer and boys enjoying the spring of their lives? Whenever I start the shiur, the door opens up and another old man comes in and sits down. He is older than I am. He is my grandfather – his name is Reb Chayim Brisker. Without him I cannot say my shiur. Then more visitors show up. Some of the visitors lived in the eleventh century and some lived in the twelfth century. Some lived in the thirteenth century and some even lived in antiquity: Rashi, Rabeinu Tam, Rashba …

What do I do? I introduce them to my pupils and the dialogue commences. The Rambam says something and Rabeinu Tam disagrees. A boy jumps up – he has another idea. The Rashba smiles gently. I try to analyze what the young boy meant – another boy intervenes. We call upon Rashi to express his opinion and suddenly a symposium of generations comes into existence. We all speak one language. We all chat. We speak together. We discuss. We enjoy each others company. We all pursue one goal. We are all committed to a common vision and we all operate under the same categories. There is a collegiality, friendship, a comradeship between young and old, between antiquity and Middle Ages and modern times. Rabbi Joseph Soloveichik.

Let us begin with some interesting comments made by our three commentators on a number of different phrases in the piece we are examining18.

Rashi:

Verse 8. – מהיכן באת (literally, where is from this you have come: this means) – אי מזה באת אלא ,(the angel) knew (where she came from) – יודע היה ?from where have you come לכנס to give her an opening – ליתן לה פתח (but (he asked the question nevertheless – and – ולשון אי מזה .by which he could enter into conversation with her – עמה בדברים - שתאמר עליו,where is the place – איה המקום the meaning of "where is from this…" is ?I come – אני באה (From this (place – מזה ,about which you say

Verse 9 for every – על כל אמירה .And an angel of God said to her, etc - ויאמר לה מלאך ה לכך נאמר ,another angel – מלאך אחר there was sent to her – היה שלוח לה statement That is why it states "an angel" at each statement (four – מלאך בכל אמירה ואמירה separate times the text says, "And an angel of God said to her" rather than simply saying "he said to her" every time apart from the first).

18 We bring every comment of the three commentators on the relevant texts, apart from one or two comments of Rashi's which are more marginal. However we have taken out from all three which we deal with separately in the פרא אדם commentators, the comments pertaining to the phrase next piece. 58

Verse 11 is a command in the ) וקראת( - צווי הוא .And you shall call his name - וקראת שמו "וקראת את ,as you say for a man, i.e., in the masculine כמו שאומר לזכר - ,feminine as a masculine וקראת And you shall call his name Isaac, using שמו יצחק" – imperative.

Verse 13 is vowelized with a chataf (ראי You are the God of vision. (The word אתה אל ראי – .because it is a noun מפני שהוא שם דבר - kamatz for He sees the affront שרואה בעלבון – ,the God of Vision אלוה הראיה - means אל ראי .of the affronted של עלובים - ומשמע שהוא רואה ",You are the God of Vision – "אתה אל ראי" ,Alternatively – דבר אחר but nothing ואין שום דבר רואה אותו – and this implies that He sees everything - הכל - sees Him. This is an expression of astonishment. Hagar was לשון תימה. .Even here הגם הלם - that even - שאף הלם במדברות ,Was I under the impression" וכי סבורה הייתי – ,saying I would have seen the messenger of the –ראיתי שלוחו של מקום ,here in the deserts in the - בביתו של אברם ,after my having seen them - אחרי רואי אותם ,Omnipresent I was accustomed to -הייתי רגילה לראות מלאכים ,For there - ששם ?house of Abram that she was – שהיתה רגילה לראותם (You can know (with certainty– ותדע ".see angels for see that Manoah saw the – שהרי מנוח ראה את המלאך ,accustomed to see them – "מות נמות" ,and said - ואמר ,one time – פעם אחת (angel (in the story in Shoftim 13 זה saw four angels - ראתה ארבעה ,(but this one, (Hagar - וזו ".We will surely die" .yet she did not tremble with fear - ולא חרדה ,one after the other – אחר זה

Verse 14 The well of the living One appearing to me. This is to be understood - באר חי לראי the well at which a - דמלאך קימא אתחזי עלה :as Targum Onkelos renders it - כתרגומו living angel appeared.

Ramban:

Gen. 16: 9. RETURN TO YOUR MISTRESS, AND SUBMIT YOURSELF UNDER HER HANDS. The angel commanded her to return and accept upon herself the authority of her mistress. This implies that she will not go out free from her, as Sarah's children will ever rule over her children.

Gen 16:11. AND YOU SHALL CALL HIS NAME ISHMAEL. The angel informed Hagar that his name will be Ishmael…and he told her that she should so call him, and thus remember that God heard her affliction. Now Avraham either called him by this name on his own, with the intent that God hear him and answer him, or the Holy Spirit rested upon him, as Rashi has it, and he called him Ishmael because God had heard his mother's affliction, as the angel had said.

The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the angel commanded Hagar that she call him so, but she, being a concubine, was afraid to give a name to her master's son, so she revealed the matter to him, and Abram fulfilled the word of God. Scripture, however, did not need to delve at length into this matter.

12. HIS HAND SHALL BE AGAINST EVERY MAN. This means that he will be a highway man. AND EVERY MAN'S HAND AGAINST HIM. Everyone will hate him and attack him.

[RAMBAN on Gen. 16:6, where Avraham told Sarai to do whatever she felt was good in her eyes to Hagar and then Sarai persecuted he, wrote: Our ancestor mother [Sarai] sinned in this persecution and Avraham sinned in letting her her do it, so God heard his persecution and gave her a son who would be a wild man persecuting the seed of Abraham and Sarah with all sorts of persecution.19

Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra said: HIS HAND SHALL BE AGAINST EVERY MAN in that he will be victorious at first over all nations, and afterwards, AND EVERY MAN'S HAND AGAINST HIM, meaning that he will be vanquished in the end.

Malbim:

Gen. 16:8. HAGAR, SLAVE OF SARAI. He (the angel) reminded her that she was still Sarah's maidservant, as Sarah had not set her free. Consequently, take heed "where have you come from": so distinguished (kadosh – sanctified) a place (as that of Avraham's home) – and "where are you going"? To Mizraim, a place of defilement (tummah) and debauchery (zimah). His purpose was to stir her into returning by focusing on that which is good for her soul. But she did not respond to this, replying, "I am running away from my mistress Sarai"; (she answers) that the suffering she endured was sufficient reason for her having run away, and never mind the welfare of her soul.

9-11. AND THE ANGEL OF THE LORD SAID TO HER. He then approached her with three other arguments. First – in the name of what is just and right: "return to your mistress, and submit to her affliction", since by law and justice you are obligated to work and to suffer. It was an attempt to move her by appealing in the name of goodness and fairness.

But when he saw that she took no heed of this, he tried a utilitarian argument: He said to her further, "(If you return) I will greatly increase your offspring and they shall be too many to count." Since a human being will acquiesce to suffering and troubles if thereby benefits will accrue to him in the future, the angel promised to increase her offspring, should she return.

And when she did not take this to heart either, he assured her that she would no longer be afflicted. He "said to her further …"you shall call him Ishmael for the Lord listened to your suffering"" – and He will put it into Sarah's heart to afflict you no

19 Yeshayah Leibovitz writes in Seven Years of Sichot on Parshat Hashavua, p 61: "Recall that when Ramban wrote this Eretz Yisrael was in the Arabs sons of Ishmael. In that era most of the Jewish people were ruled by Moslem rule of Yishmael. Yet Ramban did not hesitate these pointed words that God has placed Israel under Yishmael's rule because of the sin of Sarah to Yishmael's mother. In Ramban's judgment we the Jews were expelled from our place in this land and the descendants of Yishmael son of Avraham took our place because Yishmael was expelled from his home. There is a place for drawing many consequences for generations right up to the present from what he wrote." 60

more… Because she did not heed the voice of the angel and return – neither out of consideration for the welfare of her soul, nor in the name of justice, nor out of self – interest – (these aspects of her behavior will be reflected, correspondingly, in her offspring).

13. AND SHE CALLED. It was then she understood that not through her personal merit and abilities had she deserved to be addressed by an envoy of the Lord. Rather, "she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "You are Elroi"": seeing this vision was not within my (Hagar's) personal power or deserts; it happened through the grace of El alone, without any qualifying preparation or merit on my part. For she said – and this on two counts, as she now proceeded to explain; 1) Had it happened while I was part of Avraham's house, I would have said that it was due to my being in the home of a man of Elohim. Yet how did I nevertheless come to see this vision here in the desert where I am far removed from the house of Avraham? 2) Had it been but one brief encounter, I might have ascribed it to my own power. But how is it that I have "seen after I saw" – that I saw the vision four times, one after another? As this could not have been due to my own power, it surely came through the grace of El who is El-roi – El (the Almighty) who was the cause of my seeing (ro-i) the malakh.

EXERCISE: Commenting on Commentators – Examining Parshanut

If the students are relatively unfamiliar with parshanut as a discipline, we suggest that you open up with a discussion of commentary using perhaps the quotes from Greenstein and Soloveichik. Emphasise the point that both make about the richness of the traditional study experience as a conversation across time with familiar companions. Introduce the concept of p'shat and derash as different styles and modes of interpretation, and explain that different commentators at different times have been influenced by one mode or other. Mention also the idea of the comments as responding to questions that the commentator brings both to and from the text.

Read carefully the text from verse 7 to verse 14. Compose three questions that you bring to or take out from the text. At least one question, if possible, should be related to the meaning of one of the words or phrases in the text.

We suggest now giving the above pieces from the three commentators to the students with the following questions. The questions should subsequently serve as the basis of a classroom discussion.

Now take the three pieces of parshanut. Look up and note some biographical details regarding each of the three commentators. Read all the comments, by all three commentators. Now choose one of the three and go through the comments brought here. Choose the most interesting comment from your point of view. Explain what makes it interesting? Which question do you think lies behind the comment that the scholar is making here? What conclusion does he arrive at? Can you work out how he arrives at that conclusion? Can you tell whether this comment is more midrashically influenced

(derash) or more literal and rational (p'shat)? Do you like the answer or conclusion that the commentator has arrived at? Why? Why not? Did reading the story with the comments open up anything for you? Did it in any way change the experience of looking at the text? If so, how?

Look at the comments of the three commentators. According to what you see, do the commentators tend to read each other? How do they relate to each other? What would be the cumulative effect of a thousand years of reading the same texts in this way?

Were any of the three questions that you yourself brought to the text, answered by the text? If any or all of them were, how do you feel about the answers you received?

EXERCISE: Brainstorming - A Scholarly Discussion: Is Ishmael the “Wild Man” a Blessing or a Curse?

1. In our consideration of the value of parshanut, let us now turn to a focus which is at once wider and narrower, the focus of a number of scholars on one question or phrase. Ed Greenstein gives us the following description of a studying experience.

Let us imagine (a discussion regarding) for example, an enigma in Genesis 37:15. Jacob had sent Joseph, his younger, favored son, to find his brothers as they herded their flocks in the hills. Joseph was to locate them and bring back a report to their father. Dutifully, and perhaps naively, Joseph embarks on this mission, even though his brothers hate him and could conceivably take advantage of the opportunity to do him in. When Joseph doesn't find the brothers in Shechem, as his father had predicted, he began to meander. Suddenly, the text says, "A man found him". We might say: A man? Where did he come from? Who is he?

Rashi: He is the angel Gabriel

Ibn Ezra: What? Where'd you get that from?

Rashi: From Midrash Tanhuma. This is the tradition that our sages have handed down to us.

Ibn Ezra: Wait a second. Where does the text say anything about angels?

Rashi: You see, the verse says, "a man found him", and, as everyone knows, in the book of Daniel, Gabriel is referred to as "the man." Same word.

Ibn Ezra: You go to the Book of Daniel to explain this verse in Genesis? The p'shat meaning is clearly: he was just an ordinary wayfarer, just what the text says, a man.

Rashbam: I'm afraid you gentlemen are getting bogged down in the wrong, or at least a trivial, question. The interesting angle is: why does the text divert us from Joseph's inevitable confrontation with his brothers by introducing this episode about the man giving directions?

We: Yeah, we were wondering the same thing. It creates suspense, doesn't it?

Rashbam: You moderns are too obsessed with technique. The episode teaches us the magnitude of Joseph's filial responsibility. Don't you think Joseph knew his brothers hated him?

We: Well ..

Rashbam: Of course he knew. Yet, even after Joseph failed to find his brothers in Shechem, he made use of the wayfarer and asked him of his brothers' whereabouts. He persisted in fulfilling his father's request.

Ramban: Quite right, Rashbam. Joseph had good reason to give up the search, but he went out of his way to honor his father's wish. I don't think we should so glibly abandon the idea of the angel, however.

We: You're a philosopher, and you take angels seriously? Ramban: Don't be simpleminded. Angels aren't fairies with wings. They are human agents of God, "messengers" of God, as the Hebrew puts it. By elaborating on this episode of the strange wayfarer the Torah calls attention to this fellow. Obviously God has provided him to guide Joseph on his journey. The episode shows how human affairs are orchestrated behind the scenes by God.

We: Oh. That does make sense. That guy couldn't have just flown out of the blue. So why didn't Rashi say all that?

Ramban: Rashi is very concise. You often have to reflect on what he's saying. It may sound simple, even silly at first, but don't be deceived. I assure you there's usually something profound behind our teacher's remarks. Ed Greenstein

פרא אדם

.פרא אדם We now bring the comments of several traditional parshanim on the phrase We begin with the three commentators whom we have already met and add two more for extra variety.

Rashi A WILD MAN. One who loves deserts (and) hunts wild animals, as it is written, (in the later episode regarding Hagar and Ishmael in chapter 21), "And he dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer." (Chapter 21:20). HIS HAND IN EVERYTHING. This means he will be a bandit. AND EVERYONE'S HAND AGAINST HIM. All will hate him – and attack him. AND HE WILL DWELL IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BROTHERS. This means that his offspring shall be great.

Ramban Rashi comments: "One who loves the deserts (and) hunts wild animals, as it is written, (in the later episode regarding Hagar and Ishmael in chapter 21) "And he dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer" (Chapter 21:20)". The correct interpretation is that pere adam is a construct form, meaning that he will be a wild- ass-man accustomed to the wilderness, going forth to his work, seeking for food, devouring all and being devoured by all. The subject concerns his children who increase, and they will have wars with all the nations.

Avraham Ibn Ezra (11th-12th century, born Spain) A free man as is referred to in the phrase "Who has sent the wild ass free?" (Job ch. 39:5). And the meaning is that no stranger shall rule over his family. And there are and) missing (and it should be written wild ass and a) ו those who say that there is a man) – in that he is a wild ass "his hand will be against every man" and in that he is a man, "every man's hand will be against him". In my mind, it is correct to say that he

will be between a man and a wild ass in that he will be victorious against everyone through his strength, and afterwards he will be vanquished.

Hizzkuni (Hezekiah ben Manoah, mid 13th century, France (?)) Wandering peddlar who goes with his goods to great distances where no man knows him since it is written (in Genesis37:25) "And behold, a company of Ishmaelim from Gilad with their camels, bearing gum, balm and laudanum going to carry it down to Egypt"… "his hand will be against every man" (should be literally understood) his hand will be in everything – all kinds of commerce, and "every man's hand will be against him" (should be literally understood) everyman's hand with his or in his, through negotiating over the price of goods. "And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brothers" – his lands will spread out throughout the whole area, through the greatness of his riches.

Choose at least three of the commentators and try and create the same kind of conversation that Greenstein has developed for the phrase from Genesis 37, for the phrase in our story. Please put yourself in as one of the participants in the discussion in exactly the way that Greenstein has done.

Modern Commentators – New Questions?20 God’s Role in Hagar’s Oppression

If we say that each commentator brings their own questions both to and from the text, it is clear that although certain kinds of questions can remain the concern of commentators in every generation, others will be likely to be influenced by the sensibilities of specific generations. Nowhere is this more evident, for example in the development of feminist commentary and midrash over the last generation. 21

But feminist concerns are only one example of new perspectives that modern times have brought to the study of the Biblical narratives. A loosening of the traditional perspectives regarding God and God's natural beneficence has also made its way into the stories' examination, leading to critical questions regarding God's role in specific stories. There is more of a willingness to bring God to account and to demand answers to questions regarding divine behaviour. These questions have been asked before. They are, to be sure, not entirely new. Nevertheless, what is new is the ability to ask these questions in a truly open way. All answers are now possible: this makes the pursuit of such questions, and the study of the insights offered, particularly rewarding. It is to one such question that we turn to now.

In order to examine this idea, let us bring to the text a question that very few of the traditional commentators have asked, but which to the modern mind seems so clear. Why does God – through the angel – send Hagar back to Sarah's jurisdiction although it is clear that things are going to be extremely difficult for her? Even the angel recognizes and conveys to her that she will return to a life of suffering and hardship, but nowhere is there any explanation given for this suggestion or command. Interestingly, the medieval commentators almost ignored this question. Those who asked it appear to have done so more to explain something that was self evident rather than to explore in an open manner, a truly problematic question. Radak (David Kimche, 12th/13th century, Narbonne, Provence) for example responds that the angel instructed Hagar to return because only through the merits of Avraham would she become the mother of a great people. Of our three commentators, Ramban, as we have seen, merely comments that this shows that Sarah's children will forever rule over Hagar's children, while Malbim takes as self-evident the fact that "by law and justice, you are obligated to work and suffer" and therefore the demand was "just and right". Rashi does not even see a question here that is worth relating to.

20 We now make the natural progression from traditional to modern commentators. It is not necessary to make a separation as we have done here and an argument can be made for mixing up the contributions of medieval and modern commentators in one section. This can have the effect of creating a seamless garment of timelessness and preventing the students from over-developing the concept that "the more modern the opinion, the more relevant it is" a message that they are likely to derive from the world around them. However, in spite of this, for purposes of clear didactics, we have decided to make a separation here. It might be that you would want to reverse this decision.

21 Such commentary, arising out of a new woman's consciousness applied to what was traditionally, primarily a male oriented text, has yielded both new questions and new answers, new insights and ways of looking at the text. This consciousness, of course, while perhaps originating with women, is by no means restricted to them. The great thing about perspectives that develop among one sector of the population is that they often become part of the communal property of the people. It seems that this is what is happening to feminist perspectives in Torah study.

For modern commentators, this is precisely the kind of question that needs to be addressed. Whatever the answer arrived at, one that criticizes or vindicates the Divine action, modern commentators will more commonly recognize that this is indeed a real question, and an answer needs to be found. Here we bring three different responses to the question.

1. Hagar having caught a glimpse of self-autonomy, is not willing to return to her former status. She runs away into the wilderness. Just as she had threatened Sarai's importance in the family, Hagar now temporarily usurps her place in the narrative's spotlight. We follow Hagar to a spring of water where an angel of God finds her and instructs her to return.

God's message is both good and evil. "Hagar, maid servant of Sarai", he calls her, in seeming collusion to put her in her place, "go back and suffer further abuse under the hand of your mistress." (God has much to learn about liberation!)

But although she is told to return to an oppressive mistress and an indifferent master, she is also given a promise. Avram is not the only one destined to have a mighty lineage. God has heard of her humiliation and she will be recompensed for it. She will bear a son and name him, "God hears". Indeed, when the time comes, she does bear a son to Avram, who names him Ishmael, "God hears".

The promise to Hagar is an ambivalent one. "The Divine promise of Ishmael means life at the boundary of consolation and desolation". Dana Fewell and David Gunn22

2. The angel of the Lord counsels Hagar to return and subject herself to Sarai, her old mistress from whom she has been liberated. Indeed! Counsel of the Lord! God on the side of the oppressors, she might think, and so might we. Understood in this manner, it simply doesn't go with the text. God's plans are not for Hagar to return to the oppression…What God wants is that she and her child should be saved, and at the moment, the only way to accomplish that is not in the desert, but by returning to the house of Avram. Ishmael hasn't been born. The first three years of life are crucial. Hagar simply must wait a little longer, because Ishmael must be born into the house of Avram to prove that he is the first-born (Devarim ch. 21, vv 15-17) and to enter into the household through the rite of circumcision (Genesis 17). This will guarantee him participation in the history of salvation, and will give him rights of inheritance in the house of Avram. Elsa Tamez23

3. Why does the angel send Hagar back to Sarai, when it is clear what will happen to her there? In the Bible, suffering under a tyrant…is not always a punishment. Sometimes it represents a kind of birth-pang prior to the exodus towards liberation and redemption. Sometimes we are witnessing cleansing

22 From "Gender, Power and Promise". p. 47 23 From "Helpmates, Harlots and Heroes" p. 76 67

torments for which the sufferer will receive the great Divine blessing. The angel of God explains to Hagar explicitly how she will win the divine blessing in exchange for her suffering. Perhaps there is something in the experience (of suffering and torment), an important message that can only be internalized through experience. This is the way of Divine education – descent in order to ascend, suffering in order to flower…According to the Divine plan in the Bible, suffering is a necessary step in the natural process of the evolution of the human fate. Noam Zion

Who's at Fault in the Struggle between Hagar and Sarai? Summarized from Rachel Reich, "The Woman whom you gave to be with me" Women as a trigger for conflict and war in the Bible ( Hebrew, HaKibbutz HaMeuhad, p. 40ff)

On one hand, Hagar is the cause of the conflict with Sarai and between Sarai and Avraham. She threatens the social hierarchy and so she provokes the legal reaction reflective of ANE and Biblical justice. On the other hand, the Bible is itself a reverser of hierarchies that educates Israel to identify with the slave wanting freedom.

Hagar's Revolutionary Initiative: An Assertion of Self Gen. 16:1 and 3 emphasize the social distance and subordination of the servant to the mistress. Sarai's name comes first with the honorific title "wife of Avram," while Hagar's name trails passively as the last word in sentence that emphasizes her slave status and her foreign status – as an Egyptian. Neither Sarai nor Avram ever call Hagar by her names. No one speaks to her, let alone with her, until the angel calls her by name. Based on barren Rachel's relation to her own servant Bilha (Gen. 30), it is legally and socially accepted that the servant's womb is at the disposal of the mistress who will name the child and use it to strengthen her own status with her husband without any concern for the will of the servant.

Yet the surprise that turns the whole plot around is Hagar becoming a subject who sees her pregnancy as her own and hence decreases her esteem for her mistress' asymmetrical authority over her (Gen. 16:4). The change in perspective, in point if view, is the central power of the narrative that uses the words "eyes" conflated with sound alike words like "spring" = ayin and suffering = t'aneha and place name synonyms like shur = see and Be'er Lakhi Roi = well of seeing life. Srai has the law on her side as she says to Avram: "Let God judge between you and me." In Hammurabi code "when a servant gives birth to the master and then acts as if equal to the mistress, then mistress may not sell her off because she has borne children [to the master] but she should mark her with the brand of a slave and treat her as servant." Again to our surprise Hagar does not accept the mistreatment at the hands of Sarai. She runs away even though or because she is pregnant even though the desert almost becomes her grave. Her name Hagar may means migrant as in resident alien but it is also refugee (borachat) who takes initiative to change her destiny and her status by running away to the desert where civilized hierarchies and oppression cannot reach. Here she is promised a son who will be wild and free and whose "hands" (Gen. 16; 12) will not accept subordination, while Hagar was "handed" over to Sarai's "hand" (Gen. 16:6and 9) to persecute her "under her hand.". The angel brings Hagar recognition using her name, promising her a healthy birth and a great genealogy. While the angel and Hagar acknowledge the legal power of Sarai the mistress to persecute her, Hagar still calls herself "Anokhi" = I (Gen. 16; just as Sarai emphasized Anokhi (Gen. 16: 3) as her self-assertion. In the larger narrative Hagar is the prototype of Israel in fruitfulness, in being persecuted unjustly (Exodus 1), in escaping (Exodus 14:5) and in passing through the desert of Shur (Exodus ) on the way back from being persecuted in Egypt by the Egyptians as Hagar the Egyptian was persecuted by Abraham's family. The angel that sees Hagar's suffering and calls her and rescues her is the prototype for God's sensibility to Israel's suffering (Exodus 3: 8-9).

Thus God (in Gen. 16 and Exodus) and Hagar are allied in the cause of liberation from enslavement, from sensitivity to gratuitous suffering, from the theft or destruction of the foreign, underclass' fruit of the womb and in the assertion of Anokhi and a demand to be recognized.

EXERCISE: Returning to Oppression – A Theological Assessment

Raise the question: Why does the angel tell Hagar to return to the harshness of Sarai. Ask whether any students had it in their list of questions. If they did, why? If they didn't, why not? Is it an issue or not? (Don't take substantive suggestions of answers to the question just yet).

Ask every student to take a few minutes to revisit the text and to answer the question for her or himself, writing their own response.

Now let the students pair up and share their responses. They are allowed (encouraged!) to challenge the other's formulation, but they must respect each other's opinion. If possible, they should try and see if they can arrive at a common response. If not, they have two separate responses, that they can rewrite under the influence of the other's comments if they so wish.

Now give them a sheet with all the three suggestions of the modern critics brought above. They have to read the sheet carefully, and write an explanation and a response to each of the three commentators. In other words, they have to explain each of the three pieces and in addition, they must give their response to the particular commentator.

As a pair, they must now re-examine their former response and decide if they wish to adjust anything under the influence of any of the three comments, either as a pair or as individuals.

As a whole group, go briefly through the three positions, making sure the meaning is clear, and getting some responses from the group to each of the three.

Ask how many of the group, if any, were influenced in their final formulation of their own position, by the comments. Now let the members of the group share their own comments. Discuss the positions taken.

Finally, introduce the idea of modern commentators, highlighting some of the new directions that modern commentators tend to suggest, reflecting the outlook of the period in which we live.

THE SECOND STORY: GENESIS 21- The Birth of Isaac and the Expulsion of Ishmael

We now come to the next part of the story in chapter 21. This chapter, which tells of the story of the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael at Sarah's instigation (Sarai and Avram's names have by now been changed), their near death in the desert and the Divine saving of the pair, is one of the harder stories about the behaviour of the members of the patriarchal family. Sarah's, and to a lesser extent, Avraham's behaviour is difficult to understand and has caused a great deal of puzzlement and discussion through the ages. In addition to trying to understand the harsh behaviour of Sarah in particular, parshanim have had to struggle with the story from a moral viewpoint. It is not just a question of how to understand the behaviour, it is at least as much a question of what to do with it once an understanding has been reached!

These questions are extremely important because they are seen, like all the patriarchal and matriarchal stories as archetypal. They are archetypal in the sense that the patriarchs and matriarch are viewed as models – not perfect models, always, to be sure, but models nevertheless – for Jewish behaviour and self-understanding down the ages. We pride ourselves on the fact that our heroes are not necessarily perfect like some of the mythological heroes of other traditions but are flawed in their very humanity, and it is in this that we find the possibility of relating to them as people. Nevertheless, there are certain stories that are particularly difficult precisely because the flaw seems too great. This is one of them. This is one reason for an intense examination of the story.

There is another aspect too that has to be noted in its archetypal significance. There is a political meaning to the text. It is, after all, about the expulsion of Ishmael, seen as the father of the Arab nation. Here we confront a moral issue with deep political ramifications. Was the expulsion a politically right thing to do? Does it explain – or have something to tell us about – the rivalry and sometime hatred that besets Jewish Arab relations in the world today? There are scholars who see the Biblical story as an attempt to explain the relations of Hebrew and Arabs at the time when the text was composed. We need to examine it as a comment that can shed light and cause thought about the relationship between Jews and Arabs today. More than one book about the contemporary relationship between Jews and Arabs has sported a title such as "Children of Avraham"! This, too, is a reason that the chapter must be examined.

We will divide the Genesis 21:1-21 into four different initial parts, in each of which another character is central, and a fifth summary part.

Sarah and laughter. (Verses 1–10). God responds to the initiative. (Verses 11-13). Avraham's response to the initiative.(Verses 11,14). Hagar and tears. (Verses 14-19). Leaving the story. (Verses 20-21).

Genesis 21:1-10 – Episode Three The Birth of Isaac and the Power of Laughter24

)א( וַיהֹּוָה פָקַד אֶתשָרָ ה כַאֲשֶרָאמָ רץ וַיַעַש יְהֹּוָה לְשָרָ ה כַאֲשֶר דִ בֵר: )ב( וַתַהַ רוַתֵ לֶדשָרָ הלְַאבְרָ הָם בֵן לִזְקֻ נָיו לַמוֹּעֵד אֲ שֶר דִ בֶר אֹּתוֹּאֱֹלהִ ים: )ג( וַיִקְרָאַאבְרָ הָם אֶת שֶם בְ נוֹּ הַ ּנוֹּלַד לוֹּ אֲשֶ ריָלְדָ הּלוֹּ שָרָ ה יִצְחָ ק: )ד( וַיָמָל ַאבְרָ הָםאֶ תיִצְחָ קבְ נוֹּ בֶןשְ מֹּנַתיָמִ ים כַאֲשֶ רצִ ּוָה אֹּתוֹּאֱ ֹלהִ ים: )ה( וְַאבְרָ הָם בֶן מְ ַאת שָ נָה בְהִ ּוָ לֶד לוֹּ תאֵ קיִצְחָ בְ נוֹּ : )ו( וַתֹּאמֶרשָרָ ה: צְ חֹּקעָשָ ה לִיאֱֹלהִ ים כָל הַ שֹּמֵ עַ יִצֲחַ ק לִ י: )ז( וַתֹּאמֶ ר: מִי מִ ּלֵל לְַאבְרָ הָ ם הֵ ינִיקָ ה בָנִים שָרָ ה כִ י יָלַדְתִ י בֵן לִזְקֻ נָיו: )ח( וַיִגְדַ להַ יֶלֶדוַיִּגָמַ לץ וַיַעַש ַאבְ רָ הָם המִשְתֶ גָדוֹּלבְ יוֹּם הִ ּגָמֵל אֶ ת יִצְחָ ק: )ט( וַתֵרֶא שָרָה אֶת ןבֶ הָ גָר הַמִצְרִ ית ראֲשֶ היָלְדָ לְַאבְרָ הָ ם מְ צַחֵ ק: )י(וַתֹּאמֶ ר לְַאבְרָ הָ ם: ּגָרֵ ש הָָאמָ ה הַ זֹּאתוְאֶ ת בְ נָה, יכִ ֹלא יִירַ ש בֶן ההָָאמָ הַ זֹּאת עִ ם בְ נִי עִ ם יִצְחָ ק:

And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did to Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bore Avraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Avraham called the name of his son that was born to him, who Sarah bore to him, Yitzchak. And Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchak being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Avraham was a hundred years old, when his son Yitzchak was born to him. And Sarah said, God has made laughter for me, so that all that hear will laugh with me. And she said, Who would have said to Avraham, that Sarah should give children suck? For I have born him a son in his old age. And the child grew, and was weaned. And Avraham made a great feast on the same day that Yitzchak was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had born to Avraham, playing/mocking/laughing. So she said to Avraham, Cast out your bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, with Yitzchak.

Sarah and Laughter

One of the key motifs of this whole story of the Divine promise of a son to Avraham and Sarah is "laughter". We have been introduced to the theme of laughter in Genesis 17 and 18 and laughter plays a crucial part in the first part of our story here. The very name of Yitzchak, "he will laugh", is of course extremely telling in this regard and indeed points us to the importance of the motif. But the laughter in the story is somewhat deceiving. Underneath the laughter are many voices and tones. The theme

24 At this point we continue with the idea of commentary and midrash that has already been introduced but we begin to increase the process, just begun, of adding modern commentary and midrash, thickening the layer of commentary. This will continue to the end of our text. 71

might be laughter but this is hardly a funny or a joyful story although joy, as we shall see indeed appears. In the whole Tanakh laughter is attributed only to two characters – Avraham and Sarah. Our story, here, in Gen. 21 opens with laughter, but it will end in tears. In fact, in examining the themes of laughter and tears, we will pass through some of the most elemental and direct of human emotions and we will see that, where people are concerned, things are not always as simple as they appear to be. Laughter and tears are closer on the human scale than they might be thought to be.

The First and Second Laugh

Laughter appears four times in the large story. The first time is when Avraham laughs after hearing the divine promise (Gen. 17: 17).

Rashi : Avraham fell on his face and laughed - This one the word "va'yitzacheck" Onkelos translates, happiness and rejoicing, whereas [the word "va 'yitzackeck" concerning Sarah he interprets as laughter, You may learn [from this] that Avraham believed [the prophecy] and rejoiced but Sarah did not believe, and ridiculed. That is why G-d was angry with Sarah but was not angry with Avraham. There are expressions of astonishment that [mean to] affirm [what was said] as in "Did I reveal myself?" [or] "Do you see?" Here, too, it is an affirmation, and this is what he thought to himself: "Would this favor be done to another that which G-d is doing for me?" (Gen. 17: 17).

Ramban - Vayitzchak (and he laughed) - Onkelos translated: "and he rejoiced." This is correct since the word tzachak can be used intermittently for sporting or rejoicing, just as in the verses: 'Masahet' -"Sporting in His habitable earth", 'mesahkim' -"rejoiced before the Eternal."

In my opinion the intent of this expression is to convey the thought that whoever sees a favorable unusual even in one's life rejoices to the point where 'his mouth is filled with laughter. "It is this thought which Sarah expressed: "G-d hath made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh on account of me," just as the verse, "Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing." And this is what Abraham did. When this good tiding was related to him he rejoiced and his mouth was filled with laughter, and he said in his heart that this is an occasion for rejoicing as it is a very wonderful matter. Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? And shall Sarah that is ninety years old bear? And will this matter not give cause for rejoicing and happiness? Only, Scripture speaks summarily of his wonderment, as it is connected with the word vayitzchak.

רש"י בראשית פרק יז פסוק יז ויפל אברהם על פניו ויצחק - זה תירגם אנקלוס וחדי, לשון שמחה, ושל שרה לשון מחוך. למדת שאברהם האמין ושמח, ושרה לא האמינה ולגלגה. וזהו שהקפיד הקב"ה על שרה ולא הקפיד על אברהם: הלבן - יש תמיהות שהן קיימות כמו )ש"א ב כז( הנגלה נגליתי, )ש"ב טו כז( הרואה אתה, אף זו היא קיימת, וכך אמר בלבו הנעשה חסד זה לאחר מה שהקב"ה עושה לי:

רמב"ן בראשית פרק יז פסוק יז ויצחק - תרגם אונקלוס "וחדי". וכן הדבר, כי הצחוק פעם יאמר ללעג ופעם לשמחה, כמו משחקת בתבל ארצו )משלי ח לא(, משחקים לפני ה' )ש"ב ו ה(: ולפי דעתי שהכונה בלשון הזה, כי כל רואה ענין נפלא באדם לטוב לו ישמח עד ימלא שחוק פיו, והוא מה שאמרה שרה )להלן כא ו( צחוק עשה לי אלקים כל השומע יצחק לי. כענין אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה )תהלים קכו ב(. וכן עשה אברהם כאשר נאמר לו זה שמח ומלא שחוק פיו,

ויאמר בלבו - ראוי זה לשחוק כי הוא ענין נפלא מאד, הלבן מאה שנה יולד ואם שרה בת תשעים תלד - ולא יהיה זה לשחוק ולשמחה. ויקצר הכתוב בתמיהה כי היא נקשרת במה שאמר ויצחק:

The second time is when Sarah laughs after hearing the promise at the time of the visit of Divine messengers (Gen. 18:12-15). The laughter in both cases is a laughter of bitterness, or skepticism or disbelief. It is the laughter of those who are promised a miracle but have not the ability to believe wholeheartedly that the miracle will be real. In Sarah's case, especially, there is perhaps, the understandable resentment of someone who thinks that her most inward shame has been revealed and made a mockery. This is not a laughter of whole hearted happiness, of joy. This aspect was well captured by the Christian academic and theologian, Walter Brueggemann.

The story is constructed to present the tension between [the] inscrutable speech of God (that comes as promise) and the resistance and mockery of Avraham and Sarah who doubt the word and cannot believe the promise…Avraham and Sarah are not offered here as models of faith, but ass models of disbelief. For them, the powerful promise of God outdistances their ability to receive it. Walter Brueggemann

The opening of the chapter gives the decisive answer in the contest between promise and skepticism. The first words tell us that the contest is over. The promise has been fulfilled. But it is not just the fact of the fulfillment that is important here, it is the decisive response to all who would doubt God's word. An examination of the first two verses makes this very clear.

More than this. The first five verses as a whole emphasize, in another way, the narrator's response to the idea of Avraham and Sarah's doubt. Time and time again, the text emphasizes with the swift repetition of hammer blows, the fact that the miraculous son was born to Avraham, the initial doubter. Verse one emphasizes Sarah, but by verse two, Sarah has been effectively sidestepped and Avraham is firmly the object of the text's attention and emphasis.

Ari Elon in Ba el HaKodesh that God seems prejudiced against Sarah. God hears Avraham's incredulous laughter (Gen. 17:17) at the good news about the future birth of son to Avraham and Sarah passes without comment by God, while Sarah's secret laughter (Gen. 18:12) evokes God's rebuke to her husband and God's insistence that

she did laugh when Sarah seeks to deny it. That put down is God's only direct communication with Sarah in the whole story.

Rashi following Onkelos justifies God's reaction by distinguishing between these two seemingly identical laughters –Avraham's laughter is of joy, while Sarah's is mocking, hence God was angry with Sarah but not with Avraham.

The Third Laugh

Our chapter gives us two more examples of laughter, and once again each of these is more complex than the idea of laughter would ordinarily suggest. Genesis 21:6 is the first case when Sarah refers to laughter. The second case appears in verse 9 and refers to Ishmael's laughter. This is so problematic that the English translation, following countless parshanim, refers to the action as "mocking" rather than laughing, although it is the same word as has been used throughout. Let us take the first example.

ותאמר שרה צחק עשה לי אלהים כל השמע יצחק לי

The meaning of the verse is not clear. Let us illustrate this by bringing two different translations of the verse.

The Jerusalem (Koren) Bible translated by Harold Fisch, says:

And Sarah said: God has made laughter for me, so that all who hear will laugh with me.

But the "Pentateuch with Rashi's Commentary" translates the verse as follows.

And Sarah said: God has made me a person to be laughed at. All that hear it will laugh at me.

Both translations can be derived from the ambiguous Hebrew text, and of course they send us in very different directions. In the first version, the reading is in accordance with the general celebratory atmosphere of the feast which will continue the story. A son has been born. There is celebration. The blight that has marked Sarah's entire adult life has been removed. Of course she is happy! Those who hear about her happiness will be happy with her. Thus laughter here is whole hearted, healthy and enthusiastic.

In the second version, however, Sarah is captured in a much more ambivalent mood. In spite of her presumed happiness, she is revealed as a person whose preoccupation is with the mockery that she will now encounter as a woman who is essentially a freak. She will be laughed at not laughed with. A lifetime of building up a reputation can be brought down in one moment.

The ambiguity of the text caused a large amount of discussion in the classic sources.

Rashi reads it in a positive light.

means] rejoice on my account. The Midrash states (Genesis] יצחק לי Rabbah 53) Many barren women were remembered together with her: many sick were healed on that day: many prayers were answered together with hers and there was great rejoicing in the world.

Another Midrash takes the other line and reveals the reasons for Sarah's fears as expressed in that sentence.

On the day that Avraham weaned his son Yitzchak, he made great feast and the nations of the world were talking and saying "Look at this old couple! They brought a foundling from the market and said "He is our son", and to make their statement believable they arrange a feast in his honour. What did Avraham, our father, do? He went and invited all the great ones of the generation and Sarah, our mother invited all of their wives. Each of them brought their child but they did not bring their nursemaid and a miracle happened and the breasts of Sarah our mother were opened like two springs and she fed all [of the unweaned babies]. T.B. Baba Metzia 87 a

Perhaps the narrator wanted to capture the complexity of the moment and did this by giving a deliberately ambiguous formulation that could be understood in more than one way. If true, this would suggest indeed the psychological and emotional whirlpool into which Sarah had been hurled by the birth of Yitzchak. On the one hand, she had received all that she had wanted and desired for many years and in so doing a deep and age old shame had been removed from her. But at the same time she was open to a new sense of embarrassment. It was precisely the divine gift that had closed up one wound for her, that had opened up another one. Both were connected to the same emotion – shame. It was this shame that prevented her from participating with wholehearted joy in that same moment which should have been the highpoint of her life.

The Last Laugh

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had born to Avraham, mocking. So she said to Avraham, Cast out your bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, with Yitzchak.

The fourth laugh is perhaps the most complex of all. It is the "laughter" of Ishmael at the time of the great feast, following the weaning of Yitzchak. And, in some way, for reasons unspecified in the text, it is a laughter of such power that it causes Sarah to decide that Ishmael and his mother must be banished.

This is a terrible moment in our story. How on earth are we to read a scene like this? We have no direct indication of anything that could possibly have such consequences? laughing", a word normally associated" מצחק All we know is that the crucial word with playfulness and innocence, has here become a word of menace and a harbinger of ultimate tragedy. Here we must ponder together with the commentators, the meaning of the laughter and ask the following questions.

What is Ishmael's "crime" that brings forth the terrible wrath of a grown woman?

Is Sarah's act of banishment of the second wife and the first son whose birth she herself freely initiated, a moral and defensible act?

Is this "jealous woman" really a worthy model for the "mother of the Jewish people"?

Maybe it would be easier to accept Sarah's act if she was still bereft of children and in the same situation that she was in during the earlier scene when she causes Hagar to flee through her harsh treatment. But she is not only the possessor of a son herself now. She had received divine favour in the miraculous birth. What could possibly have caused such anger or bitterness at this point in her life? How can we understand the whole scene?

The classic sources and parshanim offer up a number of possibilities, making the most of the silence of the text. Some are aided by hints in the text and others project their general concerns and preoccupations on the text.

1. Various commentaries suggest the idea of idolatry and paganism as the cause of Sarah's anger. We hear this, for example in the Zohar.

"And Sarah saw the son of Hagar", and not the son of Avraham, because she saw that he (Ishmael) had returned to the ways of his mother, who had and it is to Sarah's credit that she did )עבודה זרה) taught him pagan ways not banish him out of jealousy but rather for this reason. If it had been from jealousy, God would never have agreed with her. Adam never saw this, and therefore "the thing was very grievous in Avraham's eyes because of his son.” Zohar I 118

2. The Ramban saw things differently. He reverts to the idea of mockery of the kind that characterized the Hagar/Sarah confrontation in chapter 16.

It seems to me that it was on the day that Yitzchak was weaned that she saw him (Ishmael) mocking Yitzchak or mocking the great feast. That is why it is written "the son of Hagar the Egyptian" rather than "Ishmael laughed". Similarly she said "cast out this bondwoman and her son" because she said, the slave that mocks his master must die or be whipped, and I don't want him merely to be banished but he should not inherit your properties at all with my son who is the son of a lady. His mother should also be banished because if the youth were to leave his mother he would certainly die. Ramban

3. Radak, Rav David Kimche, had a variation on this idea – laughter reveals Sarah's procreative insecurity and sensitivity regarding her age at the time of birth.

As if he was mocking the fact that Isaac was born from parents who were very old. Rabbi David Kimche

4. Sforno suggested the issue of inheritance, something which would cause Sarah such alarm that she would decide to get rid of the "competition" as soon as possible in the only way she knew how. (Ramban also offers this as a possibility.)

He used to argue with Yitzchak over the question of inheritance, and say: I am the elder and I am taking twice as much as you from our father's inheritance Rabbi Ovadiah Sforno, Italy 16th-17th century

It is not laughter that is spoken of here but rather the issue of inheritance, while everyone was happy at the time of Yitzchak's birth. Ishmael said to them "Fools! I am the first born and I take twice the amount [of the inheritance that Yitzchak will receive]". (Quoting the Tosefta). We learn this from the answer that Sarah gave to Avraham ("For the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son"). Ramban

5. Ibn Ezra saw Ishmael’s behavior in more natural and less conspiratorial terms as child’s play.

[Laughing and playing] is what all boys do. But Sarah was jealous because [Ishmael] was older than her son. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra

6. Rashi gave many of the possibilities already mentioned, but added sexual misconduct between the boys as well as murder under the guise of play.

[Laughing] means worshipping idols as it is said [in reference to the golden calf episode] (Exodus 32:6) "And they rose up and made merry Another explanation is that it refers to sexual misconduct, as it is ."(לצחק) said [in reference to the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife] (Genesis .")לצחק בי) He came in to me to have sport with me" (39:17

Another explanation is that it refers to murder as it is said [in the story of the battle between Avner and the sons of Zeruya] (2 Samuel 2 v14) "Let Sarah's reply "For ."(ישחקו) the young men now arise and play before us the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son", [we might infer that] he [Ishmael] was quarreling with Yitzchak about the inheritance, saying "I am the first born and I take twice the amount". They went out into the field and he [Ishmael] took his bow and shot arrows at him [Yitzchak] as it is said (Proverbs, 26 v 19) "As a madman who .)הלא משחק אני) 'throws…arrows…and says 'I was only joking Rashi

So many possibilities, so many different interpretations, all relating to the same fateful moment! Some seem more logical and some rather more far fetched. Some justify Sarah's conduct, seeing it as a rational reaction to a dangerous situation, while others, at least by inference, see Sarah's reaction as an unforgivable over-reaction.

Yaakov ben Asher (Ba'al haTurim, Spain 13th-14th century) believed that none of the explanations of the laughter of Ishmael justified Sarah's reaction and the sin of the banishment of Hagar and her son. He believed that God paid back the Israelites for Sarah's sin through their experience in Egypt, the land of Hagar. He saw the banishment from Egypt and the desert experience as a parallel to the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael to the desert. In both cases, Pharaoh and Sarah attempted to defend their first-born sons against the danger posed by the sons of slave, but sinned in the way that they treated the person or people that they saw as a threat.

Erotic Laughter By Rachel Adler, Engendering Judaism, p. 105-106

Our foremother Sarah has in misunderstanding with an angel about sex. Three divine messengers appear before Sarah and Abraham's tent by the terebinths of Mamre, as we are told: Then one said, "I will return to you when life is due, and your wife Sarah shall have a son." Sarah was listening at the entrance of the tent, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years; Sarah had stopped having the periods of women. And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment [ednah] with my husband so old?" And YHWH said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, `Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?' Is anything too wondrous for YHWH? I will return to you at the time when life is due, and Sarah shall have a son." Sarah dissembled, saying, "I did not laugh," for she was frightened. He replied, "But you did laugh." (Gen. 18:10-15)

This story exemplifies what Robert Alter has called a "type-scene," in this case, an annunciation scene, in which, through a series of conventional narrative motifs, it is announced that a previously barren woman will miraculously bear a son. Usually, in the Bible, the woman herself is the recipient of the news. Sarah's situation is atypical and even comical: she eavesdrops on her own annunciation scene. Moreover, her reaction to the announcement is less than demure. Instead of being properly awed by this miraculous gift of fertility, Sarah's imagination moves immediately to the act by which the child will be begotten, and she laughs at the prospect of again having ednah. Now the word ednah is from the same root as the word Eden. It means not simply pleasure, but physical pleasure, erotic pleasure? "So the old man and I are going to do it again!" she thinks to herself. And the picture of their fragile old bodies shaken by fierce young pleasures evokes from her a bawdy and delighted guffaw.

"Why did Sarah laugh?" the divine messenger asks.' But he does not wait for an answer, nor does Sarah offer one. The angel's attention is riveted upon the necessary outcome: the divine plan requires that Abraham have an heir, and Sarah is slated to bear him. The mechanics by which this is to be accomplished are of no interest to the angel. Laughter, moreover, is a physical spasm as mysterious to him as sex. Indeed, laughter, from the Hebrew root tzahak, is sometimes associated with biblical sex. The king of the Philistines sees Isaac mitzahel; "playing" with his wife (Gen. 8). Potiphar's wife accuses, "That Hebrew slave, whom you brought into our house came to me l'tzahek

bi [to dally with me]" (Gen. 39:17). Its use in Exodus 32:6 in connection with the feast for the Golden Calf where the people "sat down to eat and drink and then rose l'tzahek, "to make merry," leads the classical commentators to envision an orgy. Laughter is erotic, spontaneous, and anarchic, a powerful disturber of plans and no respecter of persons.

How then do you go about explaining to an angelic herald that you were laughing about getting laid? Sarah does not even attempt it. Intimidated and alarmed, she denies her laughter and swallows the angel's theology lecture. The encounter is never resolved. "You did laugh," the angel insists. But Sarah is silent and will not explain. (Rachel Adler, Engendering Judaism, p. 105-106)

EXERCISE25: Looking for Laughs – What's So Funny?

DISCUSS with the students whether laughter is always a response to something funny? Is it always happy? (Clearly the answer is no).

LIST as a group as many kinds of laughter as they can think of.

EXPLAIN that a key motif in the story is laughter. Ask them how the story makes that clear (for example, by giving the child the name Yitzchak!).

REVIEW four examples of laughter in the text and ask the students in pairs to characterise each kind of laughter by words from the list that the class has compiled together. If there are kinds of laughter that do not appear in the list, add them in.

DISCUSS the four cases. Do you agree that the first two are basically the same kind of laughter? Perhaps read Brueggemann’s comment.

In Genesis 21:6 show the potential ambiguity in the Hebrew text, perhaps bringing in the two translations above. COMPARE Rashi and other readings of the texts and identify the textual basis of each view. Which readings seem closest to the p'shat? Farthest from the p'shat?

In the “last laugh” Ishmael’s behavior is open to multiple interpretations. Make a list, examine each commentator. Can the list be divided up according to two categories? By what distinction?

Discuss with them their results. What were the possible criteria for division? See what they have suggested, and hear their reasons, but ultimately focus on the question of whether any of the explanations of the Parshanim justify Sarah's subsequent conduct (Ishmael's sexual immorality? pagan practices?). Discuss with them which of the explanations they find most convincing according to the text and the context.

What explanations most disturb you, perhaps the ones justifying Sarah? Why might the commentators use such extreme explanations? Perhaps Sarah's behaviour is problematic as an archetype or model figure for the entire people.

In conclusion RECREATE a dramatic scene between Ishmael and Yitzchak inspired by one of the parshanim, thus giving your parshanut to the parshanim.

25 We now offer a longish exercise with a number of different stages. Needless to say, you might want to concentrate on only part of the exercise and survey the other issues briefly. 80

ALTERNATIVE EXERCISE: Yitzchak's Name – Laughter Or Tears?

DISCUSS the multi-dimensional nature of the laughter that echoes through the whole text. Make a class list of the different kinds of laughter, and use it in examining the four cases of laughter in the text.

In the light of the multiple dimensions of laughter what lies behind the naming of the new child “Yitzchak” (he will laugh)?

Discuss the name’s meaning from three angles: God’s, Avraham’s or an anonymous narrator?

Given the birth circumstances or the subsequent biography of Yitzchak, can anyone think of a more suitable name?

Finally consider the response of the great modern Hebrew poet, Yehuda Amichai, in a poem written close to the end of his life, about the sad story of Avraham's family both in the Torah and in an Israeli reality where the children of Ishmael and Yitzchak are warring with one another. . We bring just the opening and the closing lines here.

שלושה בנים היו לאברהם ולא רק שניים. שלשה בנים היו לאברהם, ישמעאל, ויצחק ויבכה. אף אחד לא שמע על יבכה כי הוא היה קטן והאהוב...

...שלושה בנים היו לאברהם, ישמע ,יצחק, יבכה, ישמעאל, יצחקאל, יבכה-אל.

Avraham had three sons and not just two. Avraham had three sons, Yishma'el,[God will hear] Yitzchak [he will laugh] and Yivkeh [he will weep]. No one ever hear of Yivkeh…he was the smallest and most loved… Avraham had three sons, Yishma, Yitzchak, Yivkeh [He will hear, he will laugh, he will weep]. Yishma-el, Yitzchak-el, Yivkeh-el. [God will hear, God will laugh, God will weep]. Yehudah Amichai

What is Amichai suggesting here? Would Yivkeh be a more suitable name for his younger son that Yitzchak?

Genesis 21: 10 Sarah’s Initiative: The Explusion of Ishmael and Hagar Being Nameless and Faceless

י( רוַתֹּאמֶ לְַאבְרָ הָ ם: ּגָרֵש הָָאמָ ה הַ זֹּאתוְאֶת בְ נָּהכִ י ֹלא יִירַ ש בֶ ן ההָָאמָ הַ זֹּאת עִם בְ נִי עִ ם יִצְחָ ק

So she [Sarah] said to Avraham. "Cast out this bondwoman and her son for the heir of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, with Yitzchak".

One of the obvious things that confronts us as we read this sentence carefully is that Sarah avoids the use of the names of Hagar and Ishmael while emphasizing the name of Yitzchak. At the time of the request for expulsion, Sarah has taken away the names of her two adversaries and reduced them to a nameless dehumanized status, from which point, banishment is an easy step, like getting rid of a nuisance. Without a name, people are disposable. If we take away their name, we feel free to dispose of them.

The Torah consistently makes us aware of the power and the importance of naming. In Genesis 1 God names every creation and in Genesis. 2 Adam names the animals and later his spouse. In Genesis 17 we have significant name changes for Avram and Sarai as part of the direct promise of the birth of a son to Avram and Sarai. However in Genesis 16, what we have called the first Hagar story, Hagar is never dignified with a name by Sarai. The only ones who use Hagar's name in that first story are the narrator and the angel. In Genesis. 21 Sarah is already aware of the significance of her name that became a harbinger of fertility, yet she studiously avoids the use of the names of those she seeks to cast out. Two feminist commentators note:

The "slave woman" and "her son" are conceded no names. Sarah's labels keep them in their place, a place without identity, worth or privilege. Dana Fewell and David Gunn26

God (in Genesis 21:12) echoes the impersonal language of Sara in Genesis 21:10, (using lad and bondwoman, in the same way as verse 10's bondwoman and son, while naming only Yitzchak directly). However, once again it will be God's angel alone among the characters who will grace Hagar with a name (Gen. 21:17), thus restoring personality and humanity to the nameless woman. In this way, we are reminded by God /the narrator of the importance of the personalization of people.

26 From "Gender, Power and Promise"

EXERCISE: Losing Face

EXAMINE and compare Gen. 21:10 in two different versions.

So she [Sarah] said to Avraham. "Cast out this bondwoman and her son for the heir of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, with Yitzchak".

So she [Sarah] said to Avraham. "Cast out Hagar and Ishmael for the heir of Hagar shall not be heir with my son, with Yitzchak".

COMMENT on the difference between the two versions. Would the story look at all different if the second version were used by the narrator instead of the first?

DISCUSS the answers and if relevant, introduce the comment of Fewell and Gunn.

The "slave woman" and "her son" are conceded no names. Sarah's labels keep them in their place, a place without identity, worth or privilege. Dana Fewell and David Gunn

Why do you think Sarah depersonalizes Hagar and Ishmael? What does she "gain" from doing this?

DISCUSS how important our names are to us and read the popular midrash from Midrash Tanchuma.

There are three names by which a person is called: One which his father and mother call him, And one which people call him, And one which he earns for himself. The best of all is the one that he earns for himself. Midrash Tanchuma.

How do we feel when people (for example teachers) call us by our name as opposed to when they don't? Are there times we prefer not to be named? What would have been preferable to Hagar at this time?

EXERCISE: Faceless Pictures, Faceless People?

VIEW these pictures and ask students to choose one and WRITE a third- person reflection about how the faceless person is feeling at the moment and what made him/her lose face.

RECALL a moment in time when you have felt nameless and faceless. Perhaps write a reflection in the first person about how you felt at that time about yourself and about those around you. What does this recollection and these drawings add to your understanding of Hagar?

Genesis 21: 11- 13 God Responds to the Initiative.

)יא( עוַיֵרַ הַדָ בָר מְ אֹּדבְ עֵינֵי ַאבְרָ םהָ עַל אוֹּדֹּת בְ נוֹּ : )יב( וַיֹּאמֶר אֱֹלהִ ים אֶלַאבְרָ הָ ם:ַאל יֵרַעבְ עֵינֶיָךעַל הַ ּנַעַר וְעַל אֲמָתֶ ָך כֹּל ראֲשֶ תֹּאמַ ר אֵ לֶיָך שָרָהשְ מַעבְ קֹּלָּה כִי בְ קיִצְחָ איִקָרֵ לְָך זָרַ ע: )יג(וְ גַם אֶתבֶ ן הָָאמָ הלְגוֹּי אֲשִימֶ ּנּו כִיזַרְ עֲָך הּוא:

And the thing was very grievous in Avraham's eyes because of his son. And God said to Avraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the lad, and because of your bondwoman. In all that Sarah has said to you, hearken to her voice, for in Yitzchak shall your seed be called. And also for the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is your seed.

God's part in the story is very disturbing for once again, as in Gen. Ch.16, God appears to side with Sarah. In Gen. Ch.16, God’s intervention in the desert is mediated by an angel telling Hagar to return to the oppression of Sarai, while in Gen. Ch.21 God speaks directly. When Avraham is caught in a difficult position and hesitates about how to respond to Sarah's demand, God (uncalled, unrequested) tells Avraham to listen to Sarah and to do as she said. And Avraham does.

We will shortly examine first God’s and then Avraham’s reaction to Sarah’s harsh initiative. The major questions are:

How can we understand God's role in this story? This is the same God who responded positively to Avraham's begging for mercy for the righteous in the case of אל מלא ) ,Sodom, and to his people’s outcry in Egypt. But here the God of Mercy silences the voice of conscience of Avraham the father, hesitant to banish his (רחמים son and wife into exile and possible death.

Three major explanations may illuminate God's behaviour.

1. God backs Sarah for God accepts the logic of Sarah's position because it is clear that circumstances justify her. Her concerns (pagan practices, inheritance, sexual immorality – each commentator and his own preferred interpretation) are correct and thus, even if the tone is questionable, her decision was justified. God assuages Avraham's doubts and confirms the essential rightness of Sarah's decision. The similarities in tone between God's words in Gen. 21:12 and Sarah's words in Gen. 21:10, can certainly back up this point of view. Moreover, according to ANE law Sarah had every legal right to do what she now does.

2. God appears to back Sarah's solution, yet God has no intention of letting Hagar and Ishmael going to their death. Sarah has thoroughly depersonalized Hagar and Ishmael; she cares not about their death. They are problems and must be got rid of in one way or another. However God is the force that personalizes the exiles and responds to their suffering. God does care and God is working according to a certain logic and a definite plan. God has already promised (in Gen. 16) that 86

Hagar will be the mother of a great multitude of people, so there is no intention of letting mother and child starve. Rather the Divine perspective demands that people and peoples are strengthened by trial. The parallel moment in the life of Am Yisrael is God’s decision to allow the Jewish people to go down to slavery. Before redemption comes suffering and this stage of the Hagar story is the time of pre- redemptive suffering.

3. The story needs to be understood not so much in personal terms but rather, in national terms. There is a message here about conflict and the way to deal with it. The resolution of conflicts in Genesis is connected with the idea of separation. People and peoples need to be separated in order for conflict to be controlled. In Genesis we see this time after time: Cain and Hevel (the ultimate archetypal descent into violence and murder) is ultimately resolved by the Divine sentence of expulsion and wandering. There will be no more violence within that family. Cain will wander and settle, east of Eden. Avram and Lot parted from each other at Avram's initiative (Genesis 13: 8-9) אל נא תהי מריבה ביני ובינך...כי אנשים אחים אנחנו...הפרד נא מעלי) creating a major paradigm of conflict management. Avraham sent the sons of Ketura, his other wife, to the east, to avoid conflict with Yitzchak (Genesis 25: 1-6). The story of Ya'akov and Esav likewise shows the same pattern with Ya'akov escaping eastwards to avoid conflict and Esav subsequently settling in the land of Edom rather than in Canaan Genesis 36: 6-7).

This recurring pattern is a positive recipe for normative non-violent relationships between individuals or peoples, especially recommended where there is clear danger of strife and warfare. From this perspective, the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael can be seen as another example of managing the potential conflict between peoples, in this case the Hebrew and the Ishmaelites. Both Sarah and Hagar will have produce great and powerful nations whose period of power will be preceded by educational suffering. However to forward this goal God takes precautions to avoid future tension and potential violence between two groups. Preemptive separation and the creation of borders between peoples may be the best way of dealing with national conflicts.

EXERCISE: A Godly Response?

 READ Gen. 11-13 in pairs and analyze God's response to Sarah’s initiative. LIST three adjectives that describe God's behaviour and include them in a written description of God’s behaviour.

 REACT and evaluate as a group God's actions? How many have serious reservations about God’s role?

 DEBATE the proposition:

THIS HOUSE CONDEMNS GOD'S BEHAVIOUR IN THE CASE OF THE BANISHMENT OF HAGAR AND ISHMAEL.

 Choose two students from among the most critical to speak for the motion and against God's conduct. Choose two others to speak against the motion and to explain/defend God's conduct. Give the latter two students the three suggestions above and allow them to choose their defence. They must use at least two of the three suggestions.

 The rest of the students should begin the debate seated between the two debating positions which should be at different sides of the room. Before the first debater (for the motion) begins to speak, students are allowed to move towards one of the two sides of the room, according to their sympathies. After the conclusion of every major speech and afterwards at regular intervals once the debate is opened to the floor, there is a chance for students to change their seating to express their opinion.

VOTE and then discuss the crucial points that swayed your opinion.

ADDITIONAL EXERCISE: Dealing With Conflict? Two Scenarios

 Divide the students into two groups. In one group each student must think of three situations where separation and creations of clear borders and lines of demarcation is a reasonable way of dealing with conflict.

 In the second group each student must think of situations where attempting to work things out by consensus building, compromise and conflict resolution without separation and creation of borders and clear lines of demarcation is a reasonable way of dealing with conflict.

1. The first situation must be a domestic situation within a family where tensions are running high between different individuals.

2. The second situation must be a school situation where tensions are running high between different individuals.

3. The third situation must be a national situation, past or present, where tensions are running high between different national or ethnic groups living in one country.

After completing the tasks, the students should form pairs or foursomes (one or two from each of the two large groups) and discuss their situations. What you recommend as the best way of trying to deal with conflicts. What are the pros and cons of these two directions of conflict solving?

SUMMARIZE by preparing a poster with a slogan.

Now revisit God's behaviour in the Hagar story and assess it in light of all that has been explored in conflict resolution both in domestic an national contexts.

Genesis 21:11- 14 Avraham's Response to the Initiative

עוַיֵרַ הַדָ בָר מְ אֹּדבְ עֵינֵי ַאבְרָ םהָ עַל אוֹּדֹּת בְ נוֹּ : )יב( וַיֹּאמֶר אֱֹלהִ יםאֶל ַאבְרָ הָ ם: ַאל יֵרַע בְ עֵינֶיָך עַל הַ ּנַעַר וְעַל אֲמָתֶ ך ָכֹּל ראֲשֶ תֹּאמַ ראֵ לֶיָך שָרָהשְ מַעבְ קֹּלָּה כִי בְ קיִצְחָ איִקָרֵ לְָך זָרַ ע: )יג( וְ גַם אֶ ת בֶן הָָאמָ הלְגוֹּי אֲשִימֶ ּנּו כִיזַרְ עֲָך הּוא: )יד( וַיַשְ כֵםַאבְרָ הָם בַבֹּקֶ ר וַיִקַ ח לֶחֶ ם וְחֵמַ ת מַ יִם וַיִתֵןאֶ ל הָ גָרשָ ם עַל שִ כְמָ ּה תוְאֶ הַ יֶלֶדוַיְשַ ּלְחֶהָ וַתֵ לְֶך וַתֵתַע בְמִדְ בַר בְאֵר שָ בַע:

And the thing was very grievous in Avraham's eyes because of his son. And God said to Avraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the lad, and because for your bondwoman. In all that Sarah has said to you, hearken to her voice, for in Yitzchak shall your seed be called. And also for the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is your seed. And Avraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and set her away; and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Be'er Sheva.

How should we assess the behaviour of Avraham? We are more inclined to sympathy towards Avraham, certainly at first glance, because he doesn't initiate the idea of banishment and indeed is clearly against. We hear that he didn't like Sarah's in his eyes. He dislikes intensely the (רע) "request or demand. It was "grievous demand that Sarah has made of him. He might be truly fed up with the whole rivalry between his two wives which has unquestionably caused him to regret his involvement in the whole story. But Ishmael is his son! And Hagar is the mother of his son and a woman with whom he has had intimate relations! Does he really want them out of the way? Clearly not. We are therefore not surprised that he is not happy with the request.

However, he acquiesces He doesn't argue with Sarah or try to persuade her to change her attitude or to moderate her request even though legally there is no mistake about it, he is the one with the power. Ultimately it is his choice and his decision. We know that clearly not just from our general knowledge about the way that things worked in this patriarchal society but because of the way in which Sarah presents her case to him in both of the Hagar stories. In Genesis 16, she only treats Hagar harshly after she has received authority to do so from Avram. And here too, she funnels her wishes through Avraham. If he had disagreed with her, wouldn’t that have been the end of the story?

One might point out that Sarah's proposal is backed by God, and if we were dealing with a normal person and a normal story we might be inclined to understand Avraham's acquiescence. Who can say no to God? But Avraham of course, is known as one of the few people who has dared to argue with God's judgment for example regarding the lives of the people of Sodom. Here however, in responding to Sarah, 90

we hear no word of remonstrance. Why is this man who is prepared to argue with God about the righteous of Sodom is not prepared to raise a finger in defence of his own wife and son when confronted by the demand for exile?

At least Genesis 21:14 describes Abraham’s act of concern in giving bread and a water jar and to give Hagar and Ishmael, the exiles, before sending them off to their possible death. We hear of no affection, no tears, no apologies or explanations. Indeed the text has him stand silent before them. Certainly, at a number of different moments, Avraham seems disappointing. His behaviour indeed, could be said to be "grievous in our eyes"!

ENTER THE COMMENTATORS: How are we to respond to his behaviour? Let us examine Avraham’s response to Sarah, to God and to Hagar and Ishmael, through the eyes of commentators old and new.

We bring nine readings of Avraham's experience, through a system of different prisms. Three represent rabbinic midrash, three, medieval classical commentators and three, modern observers and commentators. 27

Midrash Exodus Rabbah as quoted by Rashi:

1- LISTEN TO HER VOICE: From this we learn that Avraham's prophetic powers were inferior to Sarah's [and therefore he needed to submit unquestionably to her because her demand was backed by God as the next verse proves.] Exodus Rabbah

2- LISTEN TO HER VOICE: Some people listened to their wives and in this way profited. Avraham is a prime example. He was told "In all that Sarah has said to you, hearken to her voice". He did indeed obey her. His profit was that his people is named after [the line of] Yitzchak. Exodus Rabbah

3- Of all the trials that Avraham had to go through, none was as hard for him to bear as this one, for it was very difficult for him to separate himself from his son. God appeared to him…and said to him: "Avraham, do you not know that Sarah was appointed to be your wife when she was still in her mother's womb? She is your companion and the wife of your youth and I did not name Hagar as your wife…What Sarah said to you was the truth and don't worry on account of the boy and the servant…" Pirkei deRab Eliezer.

Medieval commentators argue: Ibn Ezra explained Avraham's deference simply as Avraham’s obedience to God.

27 We have taken the liberty of rewriting some in modern English. The whole question of the pro's and con's of giving modern or archaic English when using translations of classic Jewish texts is complicated and we do not more than make mention of it here. However, it is something that needs to be considered.

4- Many are astonished at Avraham. How could he banish his son and send his son away with his mother empty handed? …But Avraham did everything that God commanded him. And if had given money to Hagar against Sarah's wishes, it would have been against God's express command. R. Avraham Ibn Ezra

Sforno defended Avraham's conduct simply because Sarah’s analysis was correct..

5- LISTEN TO HER VOICE: Because she was right in telling him to do this since "in Yitzchak shall thy seed be called", and Ishmael and his sons will be his slaves since "in Yitzchak shall thy seed be called", and not in his…And you should not worry about expelling the son, because you are expelling "the son of the bondwoman" and not "your son". In any case "I will make him a nation, because he is your seed", not that he deserves it. R. Ovadiah Sforno

Radak emphasizes Avraham’s attempt to be peacemaker or maybe an appeaser:

6 - He was extremely sad that he needed to banish Ishmael from his house, but he did not argue with his wife [Sarah] because of the duty to preserve He suffered whenever he argued with his .(שלום בית) peace in the house wife…[And talking of the exile itself he added] [And Avraham] "rose up early" to do God's commandment. "and took bread and a bottle of water"- He gave her food for a day or two because she could not carry more, and he gave her water too, because she had to go through the desert to return to Egypt or thereabouts back to her family since she was an Egyptian. And silver and gold he gave her too although it is not mentioned in the text, because he would never have send her or the youth empty-handed. R. David Kimche

A modern psychologically-oriented commentator, Naomi Rosenblatt,echoes Kimche.

7- Avraham wasn't one to avoid thorny problems – except where the relationship [with Sarah] was concerned. He would go to war to protect his kinsmen or set forth from the ease of his father's house to forge a new life in the wilderness. But when it came to his wife's wishes, he avoided a confrontation at any cost. He feared that any argument might unearth old wounds and quickly lead to recrimination. Naomi Rosenblatt

Marsha Pravder Mirkin, a practicing psychotherapist, gives a feminist reading.

8- God intervened and told Avraham to listen or hearken to Sarah's voice, Traditional interpretation takes these verses to imply that… שמע בקולה God meant Avraham to obey Sarah and expel Ishmael. Such traditional interpretations often hear language through a patriarchal sensibility. However, a feminist understanding of this language creates a world of difference between "listening to her voice" and "obeying". Sarah was distraught. She was lonely. She was frightened. She needed Avraham to empathise with her feelings, to listen to her feelings. As I often tell the couples that I see in psychotherapy, there is a maxim that men tend to say

– "Don't just sit there, do something!" whereas women tend to say , "Don't just do something, sit there!" Sarah needed Avraham to sit there in empathy. She did not need him to take action, nor do we need to hear God's words as a request that Avraham take action.

Many parents who have more than one child can relate to a conversation that parallels the one between Sarah and Avraham. How many older siblings have told their parents, "I don't want this baby brother anymore. Bring him back to the hospital!" I hope that we could listen to that child, even though we are not planning to obey her words. In listening, we try to hear empathetically the jealousy and pain that are behind the words of the elder child. We try to make that child feel fully loved and appreciated within the expanded family. I don't think it would have dawned on many of us to wrap the newborn baby in a blanket and return him to the hospital! Is that really what God wanted from Avraham?

I believe God was saying, "Listen to Sarah, hear her feelings, be empathetic with Sarah. Then, let her know there's no reason to compete. There's room enough for both boys to grow up my blessings." Avraham, instead, acted. He didn't listen or question, but simply turned his son into the wilderness, where he could die. Marsha Pravder Mirkin

Finally we might think of this difficult situation for Avraham as another of his trials. What however is expected?

It is possible to view the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael as part of a great trial of Avraham that starts with Lech Lecha and ends with Akedat Yitzchak. All along the way he is asked to give up someone important to him and to content himself with his belief in God. Renouncing what he most loves is an active part of the affirmation of belief beyond rational understanding. Avraham proves himself, both in accepting the Divine commandment to exile Hagar and Ishmael and in the Divine commandment to sacrifice Yitzchak. It is precisely Avraham's love for both of his two sons that forms the background for the test of belief in the way of God, a way that compels preparedness to suffer along the path to realization of God's promises. Noam Zion

It is fascinating to see the contrasts between the different commentators. Some are more accepting of Avraham, and others, more critical of him. Some see his acceptance of Sarah's words in a positive light, while others criticize his behaviour in this respect. Some praise his considerateness in the way that he took leave of Hagar and Ishmael while others are far less impressed. Perhaps, we can suggest, that as in so many respects, commentary tends to reveal more about the commentator than the situation being commented upon.

Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that by expanding the text way beyond the boundaries of the p'shat, these commentaries enable us to think things through for ourselves, exploring a range of different possibilities as we struggle to make our own sense of the story.

EXERCISE: Assessing Avraham? The Expulsion of Hagar

 Let the students, in pairs, READ Genesis 21:10-21 and FORMULATE a question about which they are really curious regarding Avraham's reactions and behaviour. (It can relate to something the text tells us or to something about which the question is silent). Whatever the question, they should write it down and add why that question is such a question for you.

Before trying to rationally address the questions posed, let them first IMAGINE themselves in Avraham's position.

Let them CONSULT some of the nine commentators. Which ones did they find illuminating? Did they lead them to reconsider their previous questions?

LIST as a group all the questions that students wished to raise (Reduce to a short list of the issues - taking out "doubles" or small nuances).

ANSWER the questions one by one, asking whoever has a written response to open up, and then asking others to make oral comments.

After hearing all the responses and the explanations, go back briefly to the story and ask the class whether they now see things in a richer light.

IN SUMMARY the group have turned themselves into Parshanim and, (as we suggested in an earlier exercise) while doing the exercise they have hopefully been enriched both by the other comments that they came across, either the written comments or the comments of their classmates.

ADDITIONAL EXERCISE: The Spider's Web: Avraham's Complicated Feelings of Farewell

Make a group list of all the feelings that could have affected Avraham in his relationships with Sarah, Ishmael and Hagar as he said goodbye to the latter two. These might include things like:

LOVE FOR ISHMAEL ANGER WITH ISHMAEL FEAR OF SARAH RESPECT FOR SARAH ANGER WITH HAGAR EMBARASSMENT OVER HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HAGAR

Choose four people to represent Avraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael. Stand them in four predetermined places that are fairly near each other. Place Avraham between Sarah on the one hand and the other two.

Prepare a number of pieces of string of equal length and put one of the list of feelings on a card attached to each piece of string so that if, for example, there are ten feelings altogether, there are ten pieces of string with a card attached to each of them.

Now give one of the strings to one or two students and they have to colour the string according to the strength of the feeling attached to the string. For example if a couple of people get RESPECT FOR SARAH they have to decide if in their opinion Avraham felt this at all at the moment of leaving. If they feel that he felt a lot of respect for Sarah they should choose a deep and rich colour to express that. If they feel that he felt only a little respect for her at that moment, the colour should be paler. If they feel that he would have felt no respect for her at that moment they should leave the string blank and unpainted. If they feel that he would have felt a great lack of respect for her at that moment, they should indicate this by making some "dotted lines" along the string.

When all are ready, each person or pair should put one end of the string into Avraham's hand and the other into the hand of the other person mentioned on the note attached to the string. They should explain why they have coloured the string as they have and explain how they believe that Avraham must have felt at that moment.

When all the pieces of string have been attached, ask Avraham to explain how he feels towards the other three characters according to the pieces of string that he holds.

Ask observers whether they agree that this is what he would have been going through.

Finally ask the other three characters how they feel about the way that Avraham feels for them according to the strings that he holds.

Art and the Tanakh: The Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael

We have introduced the idea of classic midrash, and we have seen moreover how the line between medieval p'shat commentary and midrash is often very blurred. Through both routes we arrive at many different takes on the story, where each individual commentator or the narrators of midrash fills in the gaps in the text of the story arriving at an interpretation of the characters thoughts, feelings and actions which are left unclear or ambiguous text.

Similarly we have introduced a number of modern commentators, who essentially do the same thing, stressing different ways of reading the story, its characters and its messages, each one from her or his own perspective.

Art too may be a sophisticated midrash and implicitly a p'shat reading. Many Christian European artists have been drawn to biblical stories both as religious subjects and as paradigms for contemporary political and personal struggles and have converted them into artistic representation. Naturally, just like the commentators that we have seen, each artist has had his own reading of the story and inevitably, that reading comes into the portrayal of the characters and the situation.

There are many ways of using art in an educational context of textual examination.28 One of them is to take a number of portrayals of the same scene by different artists and compare the "takes" by looking carefully at the details of the pictures and trying to surmise what each artist was trying to do. Using this technique we have chosen to explore the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael by Avraham. Soon we will bring another scene for a similar exercise.

We bring six versions of the scene. Four of them are by Dutch painters and two are by Italians. There are those who suggest that the Dutch felt a particular affinity for the scene because they struggled for so long with the tyranny of Spain and thus identified strongly with the downtrodden who were maltreated by those with power. Whether or not this is the reason, they certainly created some powerful works on the subject. Let us begin by examining each picture and suggesting an interpretation of our own.29

28 See below a page of guidance for artistic analysis entitled Art as Parshanut (page 121) that should be referred to at this point.

29 Much of the background work for this section was done by Dr. Jo Milgram who has been a pioneering Jewish educator in her use of art to explore the biblical text. Thank you!!! 96

1. REMBRANDT VAN RIJN. Dutch painter and etcher. (1606-69)

Rembrandt was fascinated by the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible, and he painted many scenes from the Torah, some of them several times. One of the scenes which he painted repeatedly was the scene in question, the expulsion of Hagar. We have at least five different portrayals of the scene that come from his hand, four sketches and one full painting. Each of them is different in detail and some are very singular in their treatment of the theme. We choose here one of the etchings, which represents the most famous version of the scene by Rembrandt.

Here all five characters in the story are represented, Hagar, Ishmael, Avraham, Sarah and Yitzchak. Avraham is the central figure but he is not in control of the situation. His hands are outstretched in what looks like an attempt to explain himself to Hagar and perhaps (a young) Ishmael, but it is clear that they (Hagar especially) have turned their backs on him and are not interested in his explanations, or his self-justifications which will clearly not change the basic tragic situation. Hagar is weeping profusely. The one who is controlling the situation is clearly Sarah, who appears to be enjoying the scene from behind the wall of her house. She will remain in domestic comfort, with her house, her dog, her husband and her son. She clearly has no concern for the woman and child that she has cast out to an unknown fate and possible death. Sarah here is cruel and strong. Avraham is perhaps well meaning but ultimately impotent. Isaac is young and uninvolved. Hagar is the mortified victim and Esau accompanies his mother into exile. The bow on his back is a hint of his future status as an archer and perhaps a symbol of his new role as protector of his mother.

2. ADRIAN VAN DER WERFT. Dutch painter. (1654-1722)

This picture, by a younger contemporary of Rembrandt, has some similarities with the previous picture. Once again Avraham is gesturing with both hands in some kind of placatory gesture, towards the boy and the young mother. Once again the powerful figure is Sarah, here portrayed with a bitter mouth rather than the smile of her previous picture and she stands, again, behind a pillar - a physical barrier between her and the emotions played out in the main scene.

Hagar is portrayed as a young sensuous woman (in Greek classical dress – it has been suggested that this is the dress of the goddess Diana, the goddess of the hunt, able to manage in the wild). However, her scanty clothes and those of Ishmael seem to represent a vulnerability which heightens the poignancy of the scene. Neither she or Ishmael have turned their back on Avraham. She goes forward (accepting fate?) but she turns towards Avraham, perhaps to make him feel his guilt more strongly, or possibly in a gesture of affection and even love, to which he might well be responding (she is young and attractive!)

The most interesting thing here perhaps is the seeming ambivalence of the two youngsters. Ishmael is clearly reluctant to go despite the fact that he is accompanying Hagar. He looks back (towards Yitzchak? towards his home?), and one foot and hand clearly express his reluctance to go. Yitzchak smilingly grasps his father's cloak, either out of a sense that his father is staying with him (victory?), or in a gesture of offering it towards the departing Ishmael as a gesture of contact and communication (peacemaking?).

3. GEO GUERCINO. Italian artist of the Bolognese school. (1599-1666)

In this picture we have four characters, with Avraham, once again, as the central figure. Once again we see the use of the two hands to express a position but here the hands have a very different role to the last two pictures. Avraham is resolute and firm. His hands are employed here to make a clear statement of rejection towards the two outcasts. He is strong and seemingly at peace with his decision. One hand points a finger away into the world while the other serves as a barrier. Behind him, Sarah has turned her back on the scene. The story is finished from her point of view although it seems that she has one eye surveying the scene behind her to make sure that there is no last minute weakening. It is clear there will not be.

Hagar is sad but proud and is able to look Avraham right in the eye. She seems to be saying, through her eyes, that she can't believe the cruelty that Avraham is displaying towards his son. The boy is weeping hard and Avraham ignores him totally. She on the other hand displays proper motherly concern for her son. She is dressed simply, as a servant while Avraham is a great man of power. She looks as though she has shed tears earlier. Avraham is dry eyed.

4. JAN VICTORS. Dutch painter. (1619-1676)

Victors was a student of Rembrandt and shared his attraction for biblical subjects. His Avraham is not totally unlike Rembrandt's own version in the print that we saw. Once again there is a hesitation and uncertainty about Avraham's actions. One hand hovers in the air, above the head of Ishmael, perhaps in a gesture of blessing and there is a distinct look of a man who is not at one with his action. His eyes look vaguely into space unseeingly as if he is in fact looking inwards. They do not appear to see the scene in front of him.

His Hagar is distinct. She appears to be hoping for a change of heart. Her hands are held together in a gesture of supplication and her eyes plead with the unseeing man, looking up at the man who holds the power and who, she thinks, controls her fate. In reality Sarah is that person and perhaps Hagar knows that but she knows that her only hope lies with Avraham, and it might be that in this picture, she is right. Sarah watches carefully, but she looks less certain than in some of the other pictures and her finger is outstretched as if to steel the resolve of her husband, who has one ear stretched towards her. Ishmael too has not yet accepted his fate. He is turned towards Avraham and his hand is held up towards the man from whom he still hopes to get affection and a positive conclusion. He too, holds on his back the arrows of his future. There is a halo of light on the top of his head and it is noteworthy that the light (God's blessing?) encompasses the three figures of Hagar, Ishmael and Avraham, carefully omitting Sarah.

100

5. GIOVANNI CASTIGLIONE. Italian painter and engraver. (1616-70)

Castiglione has given us a very different picture indeed. His oil sketch, seemingly conceived as a finished picture in its own right is a composed as a classical frieze. Echoing the influence of Renaissance art, he places his figures neatly balanced carefully along the foreground while behind them is typical classical architectural backdrop.

His Avraham has the body of a Greek god. He seems all powerful but appears here as a tragic figure who for reasons that the sketch itself does not make clear - Sarah does not appear, the figures on the left appear as bystanders included to give balance to the scene on the right – resignedly accepts the fate dealt out to Hagar and Ishmael. He feels great affection for Sarah and places his hand gently on her shoulder in a gesture of comfort. If only things could be different, he seems to suggest, but they can't.

Both Hagar and the little Ishmael figure are weeping. They make no attempt to stay the sentence. Ishmael especially is bent towards the fate that takes them forward to the world of the wilderness. He is naked, perhaps suggesting his vulnerability although his cherub light figure might here denote almost a godly character. Most interesting, to the right of Hagar, behind her and out of her vision, there is the figure of an angel who will clearly accompany Hagar and Ishmael into their exile. This is a scene of enormous power.

101

6. PIETER VERHAGEN. Dutch painter. (1728-1811)

This picture of Verhagen's has a totally different view of the scene. At the centre of this scene is the figure of Hagar. She seems to be in control and all the rest of the figures are ranged round her trying to solve the problem that she clearly represents to them. It is unclear whether they will succeed. Avraham, on the right, clearly, is asking her – begging her, perhaps – to leave. He and Sarah are clearly working together on this. Note that Hagar looks haughtily down towards Sarah who is making eye contact with Avraham from an almost submissive position below Hagar. This is the proud and haughty Hagar from chapter 16, who clearly looks down (literally!) on Sarah and perhaps on Avraham as well. If she deigns to leave, it will be on her own terms.

Ishmael and Yitzchak look at each other. They are around the same age here and are presumably used to playing together. They hardly look like potential rivals. Ishmael looks more ready to go than his mother. One foot is forward and he holds his stick with resolution. His mother too holds her provisions at the ready, but she will choose her time.

102

EXERCISE: The Art of Expulsion

We suggest the following idea:

 Divide the group into pairs. Give each group a copy of the six pictures (or some of them). Let them study them and try and put the pictures in order according to the strength, power and certainty showed by Avraham. Let them write a sentence or two of dialogue for Avraham and Hagar in each of the six pictures, expressing the relationship suggested by each specific picture.

 They should now choose one of the pictures apart from number three and number five (where only three characters are present) and construct a dialogue where each of the four or five characters is voicing his or her thoughts.

 Get together and examine each picture discussing and incorporating what they have written and getting the students to explain how they have arrived at their conclusions regarding the dynamics of the particular scene.

 As an additional possibility to end things off, divide the group into fours or fives and let each group create a "tableau" of the scene as they believe it has to be played. They should pay attention, just as the artists have done to details like stance of each of the characters, facial expressions, who is facing whom, who is making eye contact with whom, and let them give a meaningful and expressive title to their tableau. Go round the room and let each group present itself, explaining why they chose to interpret the scene in that way. In the case of some of the groups, you can ask each character what they are feeling at that point in time, or you can ask some of the characters how they feel at that moment towards one or two of the other characters.

 An extra variation on this last suggestion is to give each group a different character who must be the central person in their tableau. In one group the scene must be arranged so that Avraham is the central point, while in another group the scene must focus on Hagar or Sarah. Possibly one can think of a scene where Ishmael is the focal point while another can arrange the group so that it focuses around the figure of Yitzchak. The last two characters are more complicated, but it is an interesting challenge. Alternatively ask each group to prepare two or three tableaux with a different character at the focus of each scene.

103

Genesis 21:14-19 - Episode Four Hagar and Tears

וַיַשְ כֵםַאבְרָ םהָ בַבֹּקֶ ר וַיִקַ ח לֶחֶ ם וְחֵמַ ת מַ יִם וַיִתֵן אֶ ל הָ גָר שָם עַל שִ כְמָ ּה תוְאֶ הַ יֶלֶדוַיְשַ ּלְחֶהָ וַתֵ לְֶך וַ תֵתַ ע בְמִדְ בַר בְאֵר שָ בַע: )טו( וַיִכְ לּוהַמַ יִם מִ ןהַחֶמֶ תוַתַשְ לְֵך תאֶ הַ יֶלֶד תתַחַ ַאחַ ד הַשִיחִ ם: )טז( וַתֵ לְֶך בוַתֵשֶ לָּה מִ ּנֶגֶד הַרְ קחֵ כִמְטַ חֲוֵי תקֶשֶ כִ י ָאמְרָ הַאל אֶרְ האֶ בְ מוֹּת הַ יָלֶד וַתֵשֶב מִ ּנֶגֶד וַתִ שָ א אֶ תקֹּלָּה וַתֵבְ ךְ : )יז( וַיִשְ עמַ אֱֹלהִ ים אֶ ת קוֹּל הַ ּנַעַר אוַיִקְרָ מַ לְאַ ְך אֱֹלהִ ים אֶ ל הָ גָר מִ ן הַשָמַ יִם רוַיֹּאמֶ לָה: מַ ה ּלְָך הָ גָר? ַאל תִירְאִ י! כִי שָמַע אֱֹלהִ ים אֶ ל קוֹּל הַ ּנַעַר רבַאֲשֶ הּוא שָ ם: )יח( קּומִי, שְאִ יאֶתהַ ּנַעַר,וְהַחֲזִ יקִ יאֶ ת יָדֵ ְך בוֹּ כִ ילְגוֹּי ּגָדוֹּלאֲשִ ימֶ ּנּו: )יט( וַיִפְקַ חאֱֹלהִ יםאֶ ת עֵ ינֶיהָ וַתֵרֶ א בְאֵ ר מָ יִםוַתֵ לְֶך וַתְ מַ ּלֵא אֶ ת הַחֵמֶ ת מַ יִם וַתַשְקְ תאֶ הַ ּנָעַר:

And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat down a good way off from him, as it were a bowshot; for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat down a good way off from him, and lifted up her voice, and wept.

104

And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, What ails you, Hagar? Fear not: for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in your hand; for I will make him a great nation.

And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

Hagar's tragic story moves now to the desert for the second time. However, whereas in Genesis 16 her decision was her own, this time she has no choice. She moves from an uncompromising human situation to an uncompromising geographical situation, from a "wilderness of the heart" to a natural wilderness. The water that she has been given, it seems will get her far enough, out of sight and out of mind, for Avraham's conscience to be stilled, but it will get her no further. Despite the attempts of Radak to suggest that Avraham did everything he could to supply her adequately for her journey to Egypt - (He gave her food for a day or two because she could not carry more, and he gave her water too, because she had to go through the desert to return to Egypt or thereabouts back to her family since she was an Egyptian) – the objective situation was impossible. The wilderness around Beersheva is inhospitable in the extreme and almost totally dry. Any thoughts of arriving in Egypt on the strength of a single water bottle, were ludicrously unrealistic. Short of a miracle there was now only one possible resolution to the terrible tensions that had beset the triangular relationship since chapter 16 of our story – Hagar must die together with Ishmael, and the Divine promise of a glorious future for Ishmael must be left unfulfilled.

Within a matter of days presumably, we arrive at the misery described in Gen. 21:15- 16. This is her logical and physical dead end, so she gives up and prepares herself for her own death and the death of her child. She “throws” the child under a bush – a gesture of terrible inhumanity in and of itself – she doesn't "place" or "put" Ishmael a word that must have echoed in its oral – ותשלך under the tree. The word used is form of transmission to a "live" audience the differently spelled but aurally similar with its associations of Avraham's inhuman ,וישלחה ,previous verb of verse 14 sending away of the two exiles. Moreover in the text, she does not cast "her" child the ,הילד under the tree or wait to see "her" child die; the word used is the impersonal child. It is as if she has become dehumanized. She acts like her oppressors and starts the process of depersonalization that will culminate in the ultimate form of depersonalization – death. Her treatment of her child echoes her own depersonalization by Avraham and Sarah that preceded their own sending of her to inevitable death.

Moreover, the narrator describes the way she distances herself from her dying son at the distance of approximately a“ ,הרחק כמטחוי קשת using the ironic phrase bowshot.” Ishmael was to have been a wild man of the desert, a man of power. In a few sentences we will hear that the key to his power will be his skill as an archer. Now, the reference to a bowshot comes to describe the absolute powerlessness of his mother and himself.

It is at this moment of total despair that she starts to weep. And this is the signal for the angel to respond to her. Now, in one sense, of course this is described as a

105

miraculous occurrence, but it is worth considering that the turning point seems to be occasioned by Hagar's tears. In other words there seems to have been some kind of triggering effect whereby the earthly response of Hagar is seen to have brought about התעוררות a Divine response. Maybe this is an example of what the Kabbalists call where an earthly reaction on the part of a suffering person triggers off a – דלתתא chain of cause and effect in heaven which leads to redemption. A parallel can be drawn with events told in Exodus 2:. 23-24, where we hear that the groaning and crying of the enslaved Hebrews causes God to remember the Divine covenant with the patriarchs. Midrash Tanchuma suggests a similar scenario.

She protested to God and said to Him, "Lord of the Universe, it is as if You behave exactly like human beings who promise things and then go back on their promise. Did you not say to me 'I will multiply thy seed greatly', and now he is dying of thirst"? Midrash Tanchuma Vayetze 5

According to this interpretation, it was the same courage, pride and precociousness that Hagar had previously shown to Sarai that now became her saving grace as she challenged God and caused God to intervene to maintain the Divine promise to her. This story suggests that God responds to human suffering and it is this which causes the turnaround in the story. Seforno (Gen. 16:13) already wrote about Hagar's first escape to the desert that Hagar initiated her own prayer to God who hears victims the voice of unjust suffering. "She cried out God's name who spoke to her and said 'You are the God who sees me.'" (Gen. 16:13) – Calling out in the name of God is prayer…All the gates of Heaven are closed – except for the gates of onaah = unjust persecution." Onaat devarim is a way of insulting others by recalling their most emotionally vulnerable past. Women a reputed by the Talmud to be especially close to tears and easily hurt by such verbal barbs and God is know to react in their defense, so beware of causing women to shed tears.

If we try and understand the nature of the turnaround, some interesting and perhaps surprising things reveal themselves. The first thing to notice is that this is clearly not a major miracle in biblical terms. Nothing supernatural is mentioned here. Hagar's suggests that the (ויפקח אלהים את עיניה) eyes are opened by God. The use of this term narrator is suggesting that the well was there all along. The miracle was not in the creation of the well from nothing but rather the strengthening of Hagar and the bringing of her to a state where she could see the water which was there all along. This sounds more like a psychological and emotional strengthening rather than what we normally take for a miracle. Two other things point in this direction.

Firstly, this is the first time in this chapter that Hagar herself has spoken. Up to this point she has been the object of the action rather than its subject, which parallels exactly the story's development in chapter 16. There, once again her voice expressed itself for the first time at the time of the angelic intervention. It was at this precise parallel point in the story that her transition from object to subject manifested itself. This is certainly intentional. There is however a difference. In chapter 16 she found her voice after the angel appeared and questioned her. Here her voice anticipates and precedes the appearance of the angelic voice. Her transformation from an object to a subject takes place out of her own will and that seems to arouse the Divine

106

response to this. First she has to find the inner strength, then the healing can begin. At the point of greatest weakness she finds her voice and then a strengthening process takes place inside her which enables her to open her eyes and discover the potential of the reality around her.

In addition, we get the second development: as we have mentioned, she has passed through a process of great depersonalization. She has been reduced to a dehumanized status to the point at which she even starts to dehumanize her own son. But now, just as in the first story, the first words she hears from the angel include her own name. It is a process of rehumanization that is an integral part of her inner strengthening pulling back towards life. She regains her name.

Perhaps this is how God works to help heal and strengthen individuals in trouble. Rabbi Debra Orenstein comments on Hagar:

The grace God offers is not primarily the provision of "more". Rather, Divine grace affords the vision to discover, to create, and sometimes merely to notice sufficiency. "And God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water". So often, I find that what we request of God is already before us, within our grasp, granted long ago and with surfeit.

EXERCISE: A Miraculous Miracle? Hagar and the Angel

Ask each person to write down for themselves what the idea of a miracle says to them. What is a miracle for them? Can they think of an example from the Bible? Open up a discussion including biblical examples that they bring. Write up criteria defining what a miracle is: Does a miracle have to be supernatural – a violation of the laws of nature? Some miracles are proofs that God is on my side like Moshe turning his staff into a snake before Pharaoh and others are acts of rescue especially when all hope seems lost such at the Red Sea. Have either kind of miracle ever happened to you? Listen to what others report. Do you have to acknowledge these as miracles? Why would one want to call them miracles?

Examine the text of Hagar and Ishmael in the desert very carefully and then ask them whether they see this as a miracle, and if so is it a supernatural miracle? Does this miracle reflect human passivity (as in the case of the red Sea where Moshe tells the people to be silent and to let God work wonders)?

What might trigger a sudden turnabout called a miracle? Does this change take place essentially inside Hagar, a result of her own outcry at a moment of supreme weakness or outside of Hagar? What was the nature of that miraculous change in her circumstances? Can we learn anything by a comparison with the similar encounter at the well in Genesis 16?

Read Debra Orenstein:

107

Have any of the students ever encountered a miracle of inner strengthening at a time of an incredible low (like Hagar’s)? If so, how do they think that that works?

108

Art and the Tanakh: The Rescue of Hagar and Ishmael

For our second art exercise we go for a very different style, restricting ourselves to the modern art of the last few generations rather than the classical styles that characterized our treatment of the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael. Here, examining Hagar and Ishmael in the desert, the treatments of the subject are often quite different according to period. The more classical (Dutch, French, Italian sixteenth to eighteenth century) pictures invariably portray the two figures together with an angel. The angel usually floats above the characters either immediately prior to the saving scene or helps administer water to the dying child. Angels are far rarer in the modern treatments of the subject and in the five versions of the scene that we bring here, only one, that of Marc Chagall, includes an angelic figure. Another distinction of modern art is that it gives us a chance to include Jewish and Israeli painters. Jewish art (as opposed to ornamentation, illumination and ritual art) does not precede the nineteenth century. Of the five artists that we bring here, three are Jewish.

The scene is in many ways a much simpler scene than the one involving the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael. Here, only two figures are involved and therefore we present only a brief description of each picture.30

30 See below a page of guidance for artistic analysis entitled Art as Parshanut (page 121) that should be referred to at this point.

109

1. ABEL PANN. Israeli artist. (1883-1963)

Abel Pann was the first Jewish illustrator of the Bible. His scenes were informed by a romantic feeling for the land and its inhabitants, many of whom, Bedouins and Yemenites alike, he took as the models for his illustrations of biblical women who especially enchanted him.

This picture of Hagar and Ishmael in the desert, shows the two characters against the stark yellows of the wilderness. It seems like the beginning of the journey, because Hagar is standing straight, proud and confident, wit the water jar on her shoulder. Ishmael, too seems physically fine, despite the fact that the angle of his head and general posture shows him as a far more reluctant migrant than his mother. The holding of the hands becomes the central point of the picture and makes Ishmael seem vulnerable and childlike. It has been suggested that the angle of vision and the posture of the two characters might well represent what Avraham was seeing as he said goodbye to the pair.

110

2. MARC CHAGALL. Russian-French-Jewish artist. (1887- 1985)

Chagall was of course well known for the folk-like quality of so much of his art and that comes through very clearly in his portrayal of Hagar and Ishmael as the angel prepares to descend towards them. Here, Chagall departs from the biblical text, since his Hagar holds her son tenderly. She looks like a Russian grandmother, hardly on the point of leaving life. Her body is full and her breasts are well rounded. Ishmael too, looks like a mischievous grandson, struggling to escape to his games. The dominant colour is grey-brown representing the desert while the red that splashes might represent blood but could more conceivably represent the rising sun or God's glory.

111

3. YAAKOV STEINHARDT. Israeli artist and printmaker. (1887-1968)

The artist Yaakov Steinhardt was well known for his prints, lithographs and wood-cuts. He made a couple of versions of this scene, and this one, his more traditional version, shows an enormously tender Hagar, perhaps prior to the final scene of despair. She cradles Ishmael's head and the angle of her mouth suggests a rueful smile for the son for whom she has perhaps not yet lost hope. The harshness of he background is clear and the light behind them, illuminating the scene is ambiguous. Either it is a sunrise or sunset scene, or the light represents the beneficence of God, looking down on the two wanderers.

112

4. GUSTAVE DORE. France, Painter, etcher and sculptor. (1832 – 1883)

Dore's famous illustrations framed the imagination of many 19th century Christian bible readers. Almost always, his scenes carry a strong dramatic (melodramatic) flavour and we see this clearly in the present scene. Hagar is presumably praying, with Ishmael's body near here in the open (a clear departure from the account on two counts). There are those who seek to make a parallel between the angle and shape of Hagar's arms and body and the water-bottle thrown down in its emptiness. If so, the metaphor is clear. Both vessels, traditionally seen as providers of life, are empty and can give no sustenance. The desert could hardly be portrayed in a less hospitable story. In her despair Hagar seems to be praying, something that the text itself does not give us but which was understood by many commentators, who saw her crying out to God before her own death and the death of her child. They saw her cry as representing the cry of the mother in prayer to God.

113

5. VIRGINIE DEMONT-BRETON. French artist. (1858-1935)

A generation after Dore, another French artist gives us a different take on the scene. It might be interesting to mote that this is the only woman among our artists. We here encounter the mother pouring the last of the water into the mouth of her son. The boy is at the end of his strength but the angle of the bottle tends to suggest that there is still water and the mother herself looks strong and determined. She also seems collected and not hysterical. The desert once again is blindingly hot and totally inhospitable. There are not bushes here for shade of any kind. It is not yet the end but it is clear that for the boy at least, the end is only a matter of time.

114

EXERCISE: Painting the Bible

Give the five pictures to small groups and let them put them into chronological order, indicating which phrase or verse from the text they most associate with each picture. Let them put a caption or a sentence of description to each picture indicating especially the emotional and physical situation of each character as they see them.

Which of the pictures speaks to them most deeply and which do they think best captures the biblical account best. Why?

Divide this part of the story into separate scenes. Give each individual or pair, one of the scenes and let them try and portray in a drawing , picture or some kind of plastic art form, the scene that they have been given. Put all the results up around the walls of the room, according to the scene portrayed.

ADDITIONAL EXERCISE: Personal Research, Personal Parshanut

On the internet or in books of art of poetry, each individual should now search for one picture or poem that represents one part or other of the story that we have been examining in chapter 16 or 21. Let them research the artist or writer, try and work out whether there is anything in the artist/writer's biography that might explain why they had chosen the subject. They should then analyse the work, both in its own aesthetic terms and in terms of the light that it sheds on the story from the artist's/author's point of view. Is it a successful picture? Does it give personal parshanut to the story? Why? In which way?

115

Genesis 21:20-21 Leaving the Story with a Happy Ending?

יוַיְהִ אֱֹלהִים אֶ ת הַ ּנַעַר לוַיִגְדָ בוַיֵשֶ בַמִדְ רבָ יוַיְהִ רֹּבֶה קַשָ ת: בוַיֵשֶ בְמִדְ רבַ פָארָ ןוַתִקַ ח לוֹּאִ מוֹּ אִשָ ה מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָ יִם:

The question that is worth asking as we come to the end of our story is whether or not the story has a happy end. Is this a successful end for the various characters concerned, and for us as readers and as descendants of Abraham and Sarah?

As we have seen the story of our founding ancestors in their relationship to our cousins, the neighboring nations, reveals enormous pain, passivity, jealousy, and harshness. There is little moral grandeur and God is also implicated in problematic ways. We may be tempted either to condemn and distance ourselves from this sordid story or to apologize and to justify these people caught in difficult situations. Yet perhaps we have judged the characters and the Biblical narrator too quickly before we have reached the end of the story. How things cone out in the end totally changes our perspective? Are we so sure this is necessarily a story of tragic exile? Are all the relationships broken ones? What other hints does the Torah give us? What gaps in the story did modern and contemporary midrash fill to make meaning of this difficult tale? We may yearn for a more hopeful ending since we see it as did the Torah as a paradigmatic model of human relations and of relations between peoples – including Arabs and Jews today.

Let us begin with the Biblical facts:

We have finished the main part of the story, but, as so often the last verse or two give us some extra information which acts as a kind of aftermath, pointing us into the characters' fates in the future.

And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Mizrayim. Genesis 21: 20-21

This extra information focuses on the fate of Ishmael, and what we are told with the extra information is fundamentally that Ishmael did have a future and that God's promises regarding Ishmael's fate from both of the relevant chapters were indeed realized. It seems pertinent here to add the two extra pieces of information regarding Ishmael that are inserted into chapter 25.

Then Avraham expired, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Yitzchak and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Makhpela, in the field of Efron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre. Genesis 25: 8-9

116

Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Avraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sara's handmaid, bore to Avraham; and these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nevayot; and Qedar, and Abde'el, and Mivsam, and Mishma, and Duma, and Massa, Hadad and Tema, Yetur, Nafish,and Qedema. These are the son of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their encampments; twelve princes according to their nations. And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty seven years; and he expired and died; and was gathered to his people. And they dwelt from Havila to Shur, that is before Mizrayim, as you go toward Asshur; and he dwelt in the presence of all his brothers. Genesis 25:12-18

We now have the full picture of Ishmael supplied by the Bible. Hagar, alas, has vanished from the pages of the Bible. We hear no more about her. Sarah will come back to the story only for her death. Avraham and Yitzchak will continue to bear the burden of the main plot, with the Akedah, the purchase of the cave of Machpelah, the renewal of the promise, the marriage of Yitzchak to Rivkah, and the taking of Keturah, another wife for Avraham, constituting the main parts of the narrative until Avraham's death in Gen. 25.

Chapter 21 has held much tragedy. Opening as it did on a greatly optimistic note with birth and laughter, as a fulfillment of God's promise to Avraham, it ends with the beginning of the fulfillment of another promise (to Avraham and Hagar) but the characters have been scarred and marred by cruelty and bitterness. Is the end of the chapter, with its fulfillment of promise enough to wipe out the bitter memories of banishment and treachery that have preceded it?

From one point of view, the story's end undoubtedly closes over the rifts and tensions that have been revealed. Not only has the promise been fulfilled, but Hagar has guided Ishmael's future in the place of the absent father, the desert, that place of death, has proved to be the place of life for Ishmael, the arrow has proved to be the symbol of life instead of the measure of death, the forced migration to an inhospitable land has been replaced by a natural and voluntary desert life. Ishmael manages without his father and his casting out from the family of Avraham now becomes the basis of his renewed life as father of a great desert nation, detailed in chapter 25. All (bad) things have passed. And yet the jagged hole of the broken relationship with all its sharp and jagged edges still open and bloody, has not been resolved. So, we return to the question. Is this a happy end?

The only hint that we have about the family issue is the one contained in chapter 25, where we are told that the two sons come together to bury their father. What this signifies is left open by the text.31

31 Appendix: Isaacs in Search of his Lost Brother by Henry Abramovitch in Brothers Keepers (2004, unpublished)

117

Rabbinic Midrash: Tikkun

Hazal explore a three-pronged attempt to reframe the family story with a happier, more uplifting end. Let us examine their attempt.

A. Did Abraham Forget his Expelled First Born? Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer.

Ishmael settled in the wilderness of Paran and took for himself a wife from the plains of Moav – her name was Aissa. At the end of three years, Avraham went to see his son Ishmael in the wilderness of Paran, after swearing to his wife Sara that he would not dismount from his camel at the place where Ishmael was living.

Avraham reached there at midday, found Ishmael's wife, and asked her "Where is Ishmael?" She replied, "He and his mother went to bring some fruits… from the wilderness." Avraham said, "Give me a little water and a little bread, for I am weary from the journey through the wilderness." She replied, "No bread, no water."

Two key events in Isaac’s life take place at a certain waterhole, ‘the Well of the Living-One Who-Sees- Me’. There, he first meets his bride-to-be. After his father’s death, ‘the Well of the Living-One Who- Sees-Me’ becomes his place of residence. This Well is the only place in Scripture intimately associated with his brother’s origins. It is where God’s messenger announced the birth and name to his mother: “Here, you are pregnant, you will bear a son; call his name: Yishmael/God Hearkens, for God has hearkened to your being afflicted… What drew Isaac to this very place? I suspect that the attraction was its special connection to his brother. Places associated with special persons or events, such as childhood haunts, place of pilgrimage or locales of unique physical beauty, may carry highly charged emotion. In most cultures, visits to a grave or site of a disaster or its commemoration site serve to connect the living with the dead. Such places serve as a symbolic link, or to the absent loved one. My conjecture is that Isaac’s returning to live at Well of the Living-One Who-Sees-Me, served as a ‘sibling linking object’. It expressed an unconscious yearning to reconnect with his lost brother. I suggest he felt most “at home” there, because he could symbolically reconnect with the experience of having and being a brother.

Scripture does record one final encounter between Ishmael and Isaac, when they join together at their father’s funeral. The Text states “Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him…”Note the birth order. The biological birth order is reversed, as it was for Cain and Abel. Isaac is given priority in the order of eminence. The Text decisively adds the phrase ‘his sons’. This phrase implies that although Isaac was the main heir, Ishmael was recognized as legitimate son. These brothers are able to come together for one last rite of passage, as “Ritual Siblings”. Ritual siblings have a solid kinship bond but meet almost exclusively at funerals, wedding and other rites of passage. Ritual siblings, often, share a rich past but may have little in common in the present, beyond serving as symbolic representatives of “family”. The kinship libido is often strong and mutual, but finds little expression outside of these ritual occasions.

The death of a parent even for adults often has a profound impact serving as a transition to a new adult identity. It may also have long reaching effect on the sibling connection. It may bring siblings much closer together. In the case, of Ishmael and Isaac, the death of Abraham (and Sarah!) removed the source of the split between the brothers. Once the cause of the parental discrimination is gone, brothers and sisters can once again became friends and keepers on their own terms. A twin described the dramatic impact of the death of her mother: “Suddenly, after my mother died - my father had died long before - the animosity and rivalry evaporated and we are very close and concerned about each other, truly loving and at peace. I have always known that my relationship with my twin was the central psychological element in my life.... I would never have guessed in a million years how my relationship to my sister would change made all the difference in the relationship.”

118

Avraham said, "When your husband Ishmael returns, tell him, 'An old man from the land of Canaan came to see you and said to tell you that the household of this house is not in good repair'". When Ishmael returned, his wife gave him the message – whereupon he divorced her. Then his mother sent for a woman from her father's house in the land of Egypt. Her name was Fatima and Ishmael took her as his wife.

At the end of another three years, Avraham went again to see his son Ishmael, after once more swearing to Sarah that he would not dismount from the camel at the place where Ishmael lived. He reached there at midday, found Ishmael's wife, and asked her, "Where is Ishmael?" She replied "He and his mother have gone to graze the camels in the wilderness." He said "Give me a little bread and a little water for I am weary from the journey in the wilderness." She brought these out and gave them to him. Then Avraham entreated the Holy One on his son's behalf, and Ishmael's house was filled with all manner of good things. When Ishmael came back, his wife told him what had happened. Then Ishmael realized that his father still loved him. (Sefer HaAgada), Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 30.

This rather wonderful story tells us that while Sarah's resentment and anger never abated, nor did Avraham's love for his son. In order to develop this theme, a whole new story of a first Moabite wife for Ishmael is built up by the Rabbis. Avraham is also seen to be at least indirectly concerned and involved with the right choice of wife for Ishmael. The last words of the Midrash point clearly to the direction that the Rabbis are encouraging – a partial resolution of the story on the personal level.

119

Did Abraham Forget his exiled Second Wife?

Rashi quotes the tradition that Keturah, Avraham's third wife is really Hagar. On Gen. 25:1 he writes:

KETURAH: This is Hagar. She was named Keturah because her deeds were beautiful as incense (Ketoreth). Rashi

According to this tradition, Avraham had waited until the death of Sarah before renewing the relationship with his real love, Hagar. This forms a second part of the resolution.

Rashi develops this reconciliation to even greater psychological depth when he cites the midrash on Genesis 24:62: "Yitzchak came from Beer L'hai Roi." Beer L'hai Roi was named by Hagar when God revealed to her the well in the desert that saved her from death when she first escaped from Sarai's persecution when Hagar was pregnant with Yishmael (Gen. 16:16:7 -14). Yitzchak goes to this well soon after his mother's reported death (Gen. 23). Rashi comments: "Yitzchak went to fetch Hagar to Avraham his father so he would marry her." Here Yitzchak has not continued the rivalry of Hagar and Sarah into the next generation but he seeks to patch up the separation of his father from his brother's mother. Perhaps Yitzchak who mourned inconsolably for Sarah until he was comforted by the marriage to Rivka (Genesis 24:67) understood that his father's mourning needed the comfort of a wife. Hagar was already beloved and Avraham had felt bad about her expulsion, so this heals two pains – the loss of Hagar and the loss of Sarah and also makes amends for his guilt over the divorce.

C. Brotherly Reconciliation at their Father’s Funeral

The Rabbis also seize, quite logically, on the biblical hint of reconciliation between the brothers at Avraham's funeral. They see this as proof that Ishmael had undergone a total changed of heart and had repented in relation to his father. Rashi, for example, makes the comment on Chapter 25 verse 9.

עשה ) ISAAC AND ISHMAEL: From this we see that Ishmael repented and yielded the precedence to Yitzchak. This is what is meant by (תשובה the words "a good old age" [applied in the verse to Avraham]. Rashi

This is the third part of the Rabbinic strategy to close the story of chapter 21 as neatly as possible on the personal level to provide the story with as much of a happy end as they possibly can. Clearly it was important for them to try and heal the ugly rift between Avraham, the "father of nations" and his elder son.

120

Modern Feminist Midrash

Modern midrashim also rewrite the end of the story or its aftermath, in an attempt to right the wrong either on a personal or national level. We bring three examples here32. Not surprisingly, all three are written by women, who lament the human damage resulting from the rivalry and tensions generated by one woman for another. By this logic, the damage women have caused must be repaired primarily by women themselves. Three examples of women in the service of Tikkun.

Modern Midrash by ELINOR WILNER

This shows Sarah, in repentance for her sin towards Hagar when she was "drunk on pride, God's promises, the seed of Avraham in my own late-blooming loins", seeking the needed reconciliation, also instructing Yitzchak how to conduct himself towards his brother, in order to avoid future bloodshed.

Sarah's Choice: Some Advice on Brotherhood for my son Isaac by Elinor Wilner (a selection)

"But mother," said Isaac, "if we were not God's chosen people, what then should we be? I am afraid of being nothing:" And Sarah laughed.

Then she reached out her hand. “Isaac, I am going now, before Abraham awakes, before the sun, to find Hagar the Egyptian and her son whom I cast out, drunk on pride, God's promises, the seed of Abraham in my own late-blooming loins."

"But Ishmael," said Isaac, "how should I greet him?" "As you greet yourself," she said, "when you bend over the well to draw water and see your image, not knowing it reversed. You must know your brother now, or you will see your own face looking back the day you're at each other's throats.": ..

32 In so doing, we introduce the last technique that we are bringing in, namely the idea of the modern literary midrash in which modern messages (often, though not exclusively, feminist) are read into and through the traditional biblical texts. Many impressive collections of modern midrashim have been published. Some are in prose and others are in poetic form. We start introducing these midrashim here and will continue. They are a wonderful source of new contemporary ideas and since this is one of the things that we think it important for students to encounter – and ultimately to produce – it is time ot look at them. 121

Modern Midrash Two: "ACHTI," by Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb

The introduction to Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb's piece / prayer says it all. It is a liturgical response of atonement for the sin of woman against woman in the past and a call for women to come together to overcome the rifts of history and ideology (portrayed as male sins) to create a better future.

Achti by Lynn Gottlieb (from She Who Dwells Within, p. 89)

Achti, I am pained I did not call you By the name your mother gave you. I cast you aside, Cursed you with my barrenness and rage, Called you “stranger”/ Ha-ger, As if it were a sin to be from another place.

Achti They used me to steal your womb, Claim your child, As if I owned your body and your labor. I, whom they call “See Far Woman” / Sarah, Could not witness my own blindness. But you, my sister, You beheld angels, Made miracles in the desert, Received divine blessings from a god, Who stopped talking to me.

Only at the end, When I witnessed my young son screaming under his father's knife, Only then Did I realize our common suffering. And I called out, “Avraham, Avraham, hold back your knife!” My voice trumpeted into the silence of my sin.

Forgive me, Achti For the sin of neglect For the sin of abuse For the sin of arrogance Forgive me, Achti, For the sin of not knowing your name.

122

Rashi's comment on Genesis 23:3: "The death of Sarah was placed next to the Binding of Isaac, for through the announcement of the Binding, that her son had been prepared for slaughter and had almost been slaughtered, her soul fled from her and she died.”

Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer. When Abraham came from Mount Moriah, Samael (Satan) was furious that he had failed to realize his lust to abort Abraham's sacrifice. What did he do? He went off and told Sarah, "Ah, Sarah, have you not heard what's been happening in the world?" She replied, "No." He said, "Your old husband has taken the boy Isaac and sacrificed him as a burnt offering, while the boy cried and wailed in his helplessness [lit., for he could not be saved]." Immediately she began to cry and wail. She cried three sobs, corresponding to the three Tek'iah notes of the Shofar, and she wailed (Yelalot) three times, corresponding to the Yevava, staccato notes of the Shofar. Then she gave up the ghost and died. Abraham came and found her dead, as it is said, "And Abraham came [literal translation] to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her."

Itzik Manger – Hagar

The scene opens with Hagar in the kitchen-her combined prison and refuge-with the shadows cast by a lamp playing a cat-and-mouse game on the walls. She is the mouse; Sarah, the high and mighty pushhe-gabete (charity collector), is the cat. Only hours before, Abraham cast her out of his heart and home, with such callousness and venom that Hagar must spend whatever time she has left to recall the world she knew

Hagar, the servant, sits in the kitchen, A smoking oil lamp spills The shapes of shadowy cats and dogs To flicker on the walls.

She weeps because her master Fired her today. "Beat it, you bitch," he told her; "Can't you let me be?"

It was Sarah who egged him on. That proper deaconess Saying, "Either get rid of the girl Or give me a divorce."

It is time (in act 2) to recapitulate the love affair itself. Hagar opens her hope chest to rummage through the gifts Abraham gave her, when he dolled her up for their trysts by the railroad right-of-way. The kitchen's oppressive smoke is transformed in this act into the smoke of a train, a ready-made and consoling image for the fleeting love of men.

Hagar takes out her trunk A summer hat of straw; She takes her green silk apron And her blood-red beads of coral.

123

These were the gifts he gave her Once upon a day When they strolled the meadow By the railroad right-of-way.

"How like the smoke of a chimney, How like the smoke of a train Is the love of a man, dear mother, The love of any man."

God knows where we shall run to, Myself and his bastard child, Unless in some alien kitchen We are allowed to hide.

Though she is merely a servant-and a shiksa at that-Abraham's house has been her home. In a few hours she will be driven into exile, perhaps on that same train. As the folk wisdom about smoke and men's love console her in her moment of greatest grief, she returns to it while scouring s cleaning. Fortified by her memories-and her righteous indignation uses the routine of physical labor to work through the trauma and to of as a sign of her own abiding love.

She takes the kitchen broom, She sweeps the kitchen floor. Under her blouse something still says She loves him-and sweeps some more. Again, she does the dishes, And scours the copper pan. "How like the smoke from a chimney Is the love of any man."

124

Modern Midrash by ROSELLEN BROWN

This complete rewriting of the story posits love and mutual respect between the two women and sees this as the key to healthy relationships, between individuals and peoples. There is potential for disharmony says the story. It can come from both men and women, but there is also the potential for harmonious relationship and here, the key is women.

We have seen here three examples of an attempted healing through text. It follows the rabbinic tradition, although it brings in new emphases and sensibilities. Let us now challenge the students with the same ideas.

Hagar and Sarah, Sarah and Hagar Rewriting the Biblical Story by Rosellen Brown (Beginning Anew edited by Gail Riemer etc, p. 32-34)

“Everyone, real or imagined, deserves the open destiny of life.” By Grace Paley, A Conversation with my Father

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children; and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram: "Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing; go in, I pray thee, unto my handmaid; it may be that I shall be built up through her." And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was overcome with sorrow admixed with joy, for her husband's house was thereby strengthened without her.

Now Sarai would not make free with her pain, but Hagar came before her and said "How is it with you? Was it not your wish that your house and your husband's house wax with my waxing7" And Sarai wept that her handmaid should supplant her in the eyes of her husband and become the mother of generations by the hand of the Lord. But Hagar embraced her mistress and swore loyalty to her house, saying, "You also shall be as a mother to this child." ' And the angel of the Lord, seeing that Hagar dealt kindly with her mistress, said unto her, "I will greatly multiply thy seed that it shall not be numbered for multitude:" And the angel of the Lord said unto her: "Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael. And he shall be a gentle deer of a man; his hand shall be joined in friendship with every man, and every man's with his; and he shall dwell in the heart of all his brethren:" And Ha gar invited the empty hand of her mistress to lie upon the round of her flesh as she labored to bring forth the son of Abram.

And Abram, now Abraham by the grace of the Lord, was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old,

125

when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him.

And the Lord remembered Sarai, now Sarah, and she conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age. And Abraham was a hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him. And Sarah said: “God has made laughter for me; every one that hears will laugh on account of me:' And she said: "Who would have said to Abraham,that Sarah should give children suck? for I have borne him a son in his old age." And the child grew, and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham with Sarah's blessing, making sport. Wherefore she upbraided Hagar that she did naught to make him heed. And Hagar said once more, as she had said at the time of his birth, "Let him do no thing that is grievous ;in your sight. Thou also shall be as 'a mother to this child. Go thou and reprove him and he shall pay heed to thee as to a mother." So Sarah spoke words to Ishmael as if he were of her own making, now speaking hard words, now gentle. And in his trust Ishmael became as the Lord had promised, a man who loved goodness and hated injustice.

And they were supple as he-goats running and sporting together, Isaac and Ishmael. And if one called for help, the other heeded his cry. When this one pulled on his bow, the other held the arrows. Whosoever found favor in the sight of one was loved by both. And it came to pass that a stranger, seeing Isaac, asked after Ishmael, for he was tall and strong, well-favored of face. The stranger said: "Is this Egyptian not a slave for sale to another man's house? Behold, here is a sack of shekels for his purchase:" And Isaac refused him, saying: "Go and buy some other soul. This is my brother."

Now Hagar and Sarah had seen the love of Isaac and Ishmael and together they rejoiced, but Abraham favored Isaac, who was the seed of Sarah's fathers and her fathers' fathers. But Sarah rebuked him, saying: "There shall be no peace in our house if thou dividest thy love as a loaf of bread, in unequal portions. Forasmuch as God hath opened our wombs together to thee, neither son shalt thou put above the other. Flesh is flesh and blood, blood and the sinew that binds us one to one is nothing but the breath of life."

And all their days their sons were not divided, but as if under covenant they shared their portion and lived as brothers who stood before but a single mother. And each in time was father to a multitude which lived in harmony according to their wishes, Ishmael and Isaac, the sons of Abraham borne by two stars in the firmament who, in this prayer to what might have been, held them close and loved them equally.

126

Midrash

Sarah's Teshuva by Marsha Pravder Mirkin (Beginning Anew, p. 68-69)

But what about Sarah? What was her experience of teshuva?

After Sarah tells Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, we never hear another word from her. I imagine a lonely, jealous, loving, wise, and sometimes shortsighted woman waking up the next morning and discovering that Hagar and Ishmael are gone, that Abraham took literally the words she meant figuratively. I imagine her horror. when she realized that her words led to the abandonment and possible death of the boy she had wanted for a son and the woman who served her for so many years. I imagine that she felt so guilty that her words ...wronged others so severely, she vowed never again to hurt another with her words. Then she silenced herself. Tragically, her silence precluded a final movement toward teshuva, toward speaking words that by authentically reflecting our inner experience allow us to move , closer to each other and to God.

127

Modern Midrash Four:

HAGAR'S BIRTHING

I am empty. Outside, the moon brightens. Through the open flap of the tent,

I hear the occasional cry of an owl. Far off, among the dunes, a woman's laughter. My battle's waged.

My voice scraped inside my throat. Sticky, the blood between my legs.

I was the fire in which the meat is seared; the ember, blazing; the bottom of a blackened pot.

I broke.

Crying out, I arched against my breaking. But I did not falter. If there was a place to hide, to steal away, I could not find it.

This is what women know: We inhabit ourselves. We are used - but also shape ourselves to use.

Sa'rai, those mornings when you slapped the dough into loaves, your longing pressing through your palms, I'd walk past you, my hands smoothing my belly. Cruelty's in the small gesture. My smile.

The gully fills with moonlight. The sand drifts, revealing pathways. My old angers rise transparent; the steam of soup, its odor gone.

Only this remains: his small damp head, his mouth at my breast, his tiny hand.

Forgive me Sa'rai. From A Bell Buried Deep by Veronica Golos

128

Hagar and Sarah

by Linda Hirschorn, cantor from San Francisco on an album by Vocalot

HAGAR:

I am calling you, O Sarah, this is your sister, Hagar. Calling through the centuries to reach you from afar.

Here is my son, Ishmael, your sister’s son alive. We share the sons of Abraham, two peoples, one tribe.

SARAH:

Oh, yes, I am your Sarah, I remember you, Hagar. Your voice comes though the distance, a cry upon my heart.

It was I who cast you out in fear and jealousy. Yet your vision survived the wilderness, to reach your destiny.

But it wasn’t till my Isaac lay under the knife, that I recognized your peril, the danger to your life.

I tremble now, Hagar, our peril is still the same. We will not survive as strangers We must speak each other’s names.

We must tell each other’s stories, make each other strong. And sing the dream of ancient lands where both of us belong. Let us hear the prayers where Spirit first was song, That all our children may call this land their own.

129

EXERCISE: Creating a Happy End

 READ Genesis 21:20-21; Gen. 25: 8-9; 11-18 and answer the following question: Has this story got a happy end? If you think there are elements of a happy end in the story, what has been resolved and what is still unresolved?"

 Discuss the answers, and suggest to the group that there are two levels in the ending. One level is more fully resolved than the other. Ishmael seems content and the promise is in the process of fulfillment but the personal family (and thus ultimately the national) story is still basically unresolved.

 Introduce the three Rabbinic strategies for suggesting some form of closure on the personal level. Why do the students think it was important to the Rabbis to do this?

 Now introduce the students to the idea of modern midrash. Divide the students up into working groups and give each group a package of the three modern texts we bring above. They should read the stories between themselves and analyse what each story is trying to say and what goals its authors have given themselves. Perhaps give "Achti" without the introduction, just mentioning the author's comment that "achti" is the Arabic for my sister.

 Discuss the groups' conclusions. Once again, ask why it was important for modern authors to do this? Introducing the idea of Tikkun through the rewriting of texts.

 Now ask each individual to produce their own modern midrash. We suggest using any medium, writing, art, music, drama (either monologue or joining up with others to create a group scene). Share the results.

130

And the Moral of the Story is…

Now that we have reached the end of the story's plot it is time to review the question whether the story has a moral and if so what it was. Why was the story put in to the Torah? The answer "because it happened" is clearly inadequate. Most of the stories of our characters' lives, throughout the Torah, are very partial. We do not know most of the details of the lives of any of our characters. We have been given the "bits and pieces" of their lives that seem relevant from the perspective of the writer or storyteller, Divine or human. Each story about a character is clearly chosen for a reason and here we have two chapters given over to the story of Avraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael. The question must thus be asked: what is the point of it all? It is to this question that we now turn with the students.

EXERCISE: Moralising! What's the Point Of The Story?

Ask the students to list in pairs three main "ideas" or "morals" that they think the text comes to suggest.

Collect all the ideas on the board. Check with all the students that they agree that the idea should be listed. If there are any reservations, ask one of the people who proposed the idea to explain the idea. If that is not satisfactory to the person who demurred, let them explain why they don't think that the idea should be included and then immediately vote. Majority acceptance keeps the idea in.

,sequence "דיינו" Now get the students in small groups to put all the ideas in a such that the least important ideas in their opinions are at the beginning and the most important are at the end. They should include all of the ideas listed on the board whether they agree with them or not.

Had the story taught us AAA and not taught us BBB It would have been worthy of inclusion in the Tanakh

Had the story taught us BBB and not taught us CCC It would have been worthy of inclusion in the Tanakh…

 Now each group must take their list and create a cut off point, above which they do NOT think that the ideas warrant the story's inclusion in the story. In other words, if the story had only taught us the things "above this line", it would not have been justified in their opinion to include it in the Biblical record.

 Ask the different groups to show the positions they have taken and to explain both the order of, for example, the first three points, and the cut off point.

 Discuss the idea that the narrative biblical stories come to put over a point of some kind and that if they have nothing to teach us, they have not been passed down to us. Do the students agree? Can they bring examples, for or against, in order to illustrate or to oppose the idea?

Appendix: Parallel Scenes in Biblical Stories of the Barren Woman

131

Now, we introduce a new tool that can be employed in the study of parts of this story, a comparative tool which seeks to extract meaning by comparing the precise phrasing of the story with other similar parallel stories that are found in the Tanakh. The significance of these parallel scenes has been long debated by textual scholars. Historians of the text have suggested the idea that the recurrence of parallel scenes is often due to their origin in multiple sources which have often handed down different versions of the same scene. Whatever the virtues of such a thesis, literary scholars of the text have looked at the same phenomena from a very different point of view. One of the most interesting ways of viewing these recurring motifs comes from the American scholar Robert Alter who developed the following idea.

In biblical narrative more or less the same story often seems to be told two or three or more times about different characters, or sometimes even about the same character in different sets of circumstances…

I should like to propose that there is a series of recurrent narrative episodes attached to the careers of biblical heroes that are…dependent on the manipulation of a fixed constellation of predetermined motifs. Since biblical narrative characteristically catches its protagonists only at the critical and revealing points in their lives, the biblical type-scene occurs not in the rituals of daily existence but at the crucial juncture in the lives of the heroes, from conception and birth to betrothal to deathbed. Not every type-scene will occur for every major hero, though often the absence of a particular type-scene may itself be significant…

What I am suggesting is that the contemporary audiences of these tales, being perfectly familiar with the convention, took particular pleasure in seeing how in each instance the convention could be, through the narrator's art, both faithfully followed and renewed for the specific needs of the hero under consideration. In some cases, moreover, the biblical authors, counting on their audience's familiarity with the features and function of the type-scene, could merely allude to the type-scene or present a transfigured version of it…

Reading any body of literature involves a specialized mode of perception in which every culture trains its members from childhood. As modern readers of the Bible, we need to relearn something of this mode of perception that was second nature to the original audiences. Instead of relegating every perceived recurrence in the text to the limbo of duplicated sources or fixed folkloric archetypes, we may begin to see that the resurgence of certain pronounced patterns at certain narrative junctures was conventionally anticipated, even counted on, and that against that ground of anticipation the biblical authors set words, motifs, themes, personages, and actions into an elaborate dance of significant innovation. For much of art lies in the shifting aperture between the shadowy fore-image in the anticipating mind of the observer and the realized revelatory image in the work itself, and that is what we must learn to perceive more finely in the Bible33.

Alter here suggests that audiences would have been tuned in to the nuances in the way that specific familiar scenes were presented by a narrator and that part of the narrator's art lay in

33 This is taken from Alter's pioneering work, "The Art of Biblical Narrative".

132

the slight manipulations of familiar language to create variations on familiar themes and scenes. If this is so, it suggests that part of the meaning of specific scenes can only be regained if we see the scenes in a comparative fashion against the backdrop of similar scenes in other biblical contexts. We will now employ Alter's idea to see what meaning we can gain from comparing the next scene, relating to Sarai's reaction to her barrenness with other parallel scenes in the stories of Rachel and Chana reacting to their own barrenness.

Comparing Similar Scenes: Sarai (and Hagar), Rachel (and Leah) And Chana (and Peninah)

Let us now take the three scenes mentioned above and compare them in the way that Robert Alter was suggesting. What can we learn from the similarities and differences and how does a comparative reading help us to understand the story that we are here examining? Rachel's story can be found in Genesis ch. 30 vv. 1-8. Chana's story can be found in 1 Shmuel ch. 1 vv. 1-11.

We suggest three questions that should accompany our reading of the texts.

How does the barren woman react emotionally her barren state? What action the barren woman regarding her state? How does the barren woman relate to other characters in the scene?

1. How does the barren woman react emotionally her barren state? The comparison between the three women is instructive. Both Rachel and Chana exhibit deeply emotional behaviour. Chana's deep grief is exacerbated by Penina's cruel exploitation of her plight. Rachel is clearly deeply hurt by her own situation to the point of desperation where she threatens death. She clearly feels that her life is not worth living without children. Her entire behaviour is both impulsive and emotional. She complains to Ya'akov about her plight clearly implying (at least according to his reaction) that he is at fault. In addition, we find in the story of Rachel, a thick motif of jealousy for Leah. Her natural sadness has been boiled up to near madness by the sight of her fertile sister. She is the loved one and she it is who should reap the rewards and fruits of love. Instead, once again, she has to stand aside and see herself bested in this most vital of all female values by her unloved sister.

Chana is in a very different situation. She, like Rachel knows that she is the favoured wife (which perhaps explains Penina's behaviour), but she never blames Elhana and we do not hear that she acts out of any jealousy towards Peninah. Elhana for his part tries to be supportive but his support is clumsy and fails to make an impression on Chana's grief. She is bitter of heart and weeps constantly.

Sarah's behaviour is utterly different. We hear no hint of real emotion in the story (although there must have been some) until the continuation when she finds herself "despised" by Hagar. She acts coolly and with careful calculation according to a preconceived plan and as we have suggested, her whole way of speaking as she puts her request to Avram, speaks of such planning. She, unlike Rachel, does not imply blame for her husband. She, as we have seen, invokes God, and it is perhaps instructive that in the other two cases, God's responsibility is mentioned but not directly by the women themselves. In Rachel's case, Yaakov mentions it in his own defence and in Chana's case, it is the narrator who directly mentions it, although Chana clearly works under the supposition that she is in God's hands.

133

The impression here is that Sarai is bereft of emotion here. She has a plan and she will carry it through in a considered and deliberate fashion. There is no room for spontaneity here. Too much emotion could upset things. She will get exactly what she wants.

2. What action the barren woman regarding her state? All three women respond with an initiative of their own. Despite the fact that they all live in a society where, as we have seen, God is seen as having control over women's wombs, not one of the three women is prepared simply to sit back passively and let God act. The nearest to it is of course Chana who tries to avert God's judgment and to change her own fate by praying in the shrine at Shilo, and promising her future son to the service of God. But even so, the radical and non-conventional nature of her initiative is indicated by the fact of Eli's non-recognition of her action.

However, the other two stories, appear, to our ears at least to be the more surprising initiatives. Both women resort to the same strategy, that their husband should take their servant girl as a wife whose children should be considered their (i.e. the original wife's) property. We will examine soon to what extent the strategy really is surprising in the context of the times, but let us say at this point that although the strategy is basically identical, the specifics of the two cases are actually very different. In other words, they go about the same act in a very different way. We have already indicated Sarai's rather hesitant and careful strategy. There is not a hint of insult to Avram and she is very careful to put the whole story in terms which allow Avram the possibility of withdrawing if the scheme is not to his favour. Rachel, on the other hand, is direct and somewhat rude. She talks to her husband in a far less respectful way than Sarai and she basically demands of him that he does what she wants! Sarai walks on tip toes with her suggestion while Rachel basically throws it in Yaakov's face with no suggestion that she is prepared to take no for an answer.

What does the difference between the two stories suggest? One can hypothesise a number of different possibilities.

(a) The first difference may be the husband’ love for his barren wife. In story of Ya'akov and Rachel we know of the former's great love for the latter, but do we know of Avraham's feelings for Sarai.? Maybe Rachel is simply much more confident of Ya'akov's love for her. She doesn't need to beat about the bush. She has the measure of her man!

(b) Another difference may be the personality of the two women. Rachel comes through as an impulsive and spontaneous woman who lives at a high emotional pitch. She says what she means and she means what she says. She does not censor her words in what might be called politically correct terms. She knows what she wants and she goes for it. Sarai is very different. We get a less clear picture of her personality in general in the stories, perhaps because the focus is so clearly on Avram, but she comes across as a person who lives an inner life that she is not prepared to reveal to those who surround her. For example, in the famous story of her laughter, she is not prepared to admit that she laughed. In the story of the Akeda, she is completely "absent" leaving plenty of room for the midrash to supply the missing links. She certainly appears in general as different form Rachel. This could be the explanation of her different approach in this story.

(c ) Motivation may also be the difference in Sarai and Rachel concerning the reason for initiating this whole episode. In Rachel, the reason is clear. She is distraught by her failure to conceive, and she fells that her life is hardly worth living. In Sarai's case, things seem very

134

different. We have already remarked on her unemotional approach to the whole episode, so far as we can glimpse things from the text. But let us now suggest that what lies behind the story is a mix of two factors, confusion and fear.

Sarai, no less than Avram, must be perplexed by the promises she believes have been made to Avram. So many years have passed and both of them are so old. Can it possibly happen? But in addition, she must be feeling threatened by the promise. The promise has after all been made to Avram. It has not been made to her. The promise has mentioned that the nation of the future will come from Avram. She has not been mentioned. In addition it is still possible biologically for Avram as an old man, to have a child. It would perhaps be highly unusual. But for Sarai it would take a miracle. The most likely explanation from her point of view is that if indeed such a thing is likely to happen, it will happen by Avram taking another wife, at her expense and her place in the family as Avram's wife will in that case, almost certainly change. This perhaps, is not so much about theology as it is about status. At the end of her life she is worried that her place will be usurped, and all that she has worked so hard for during her long life, in terms of status, will be lost to her.

We have no indication how she felt throughout her life, about her failure to have children. Perhaps, in emotional terms, it had not been a great inner need, or maybe it had been, but she had suppressed it and now in old age, it had faded into a regret of the past. But we can suggest that she felt deeply threatened and the more that time went on, and she and Avram thought of the offspring that had been promised to Avram, the more she worried about the possibility of being usurped. This would explain the careful nature of her address to Avram. This is the carefully conceived speech of a woman who has been planning a scenario for a long time.

How extraordinary that so much of the contrast between Rachel and Sarai could be conveyed in a few carefully chosen words!

135

3. How does the barren woman relate to other characters in the scene? Chana is the model of the long suffering woman. She internalizes her suffering and does not complain. Her internalization of her suffering is so painful that it brings her to the situation where she cannot eat. When her husband questions her, he does not come out by accusing Peninah of provoking her suffering. Rather she does not respond to his questions. She weeps silently. In fact, in the text as we have it she does not utter a single word before she talks to God at Shilo. She is badly treated but she is anything but vindictive. She seeks respite, she does not seek revenge.

We have already discussed the difference in Rachel's tone to Ya'akov and Sarai's tone to Avram. But one thing should be mentioned here that we have not yet touched, and that is the attitude between the two women and their maidservants. In both stories, at first glance, the maidservants, Bilha and Hagar, are completely ignored. They are passive, vehicles for the consummation of the plan: they have no word in this, they are not to be consulted. But a careful look at the story shows a difference of one word in the way the two are treated by their mistresses. Rachel, spontaneous and so human, gives Bilhah to Yaakov and in so doing, But Sarai, remote and at least .הנה אמתי בלהה, בא אליה .she introduces Bilhah by her name in this story, unemotional and ungiving, sees the girl only as an instrument in the plan that She has no need for .בא נא אל שפחתי .she has hatched. She never mentions Hagar's name humanity towards the girl. Her full attentions are focused elsewhere. This is cold and calculating. It lacks the warmth of even the perfunctory mention of Bilhah's name by Rachel. This is a business transaction, pure and simple. In business, there is no room for sentiment.

Thus we suggest that below the surface of the story of Sarai, Hagar and Avram, there are some very complex things that are happening despite the brevity and the surface simplicity of the text. The full richness of the story only comes out when attention is drawn to details in the text that might, at first glance, appear superfluous or when careful comparisons are made between parallel stories. It can be suggested, with Alter, that a contemporary audience, much more tuned on than we are to the nuances of language and to the keys needed to decode the art of the narrator, would be as attuned to the small narrative details as to the broad sweeps of surface plot.

EXERCISE: Similar Stories?

Explore with the students the idea of parallel or similar stories or motifs in the Tanakh. See if they can make a list of such stories or scenes that they are aware of.

Ask them if they think there is any connection between such parallel scenes and if the parallels or similarities between stories can help interpret such a scene when it occurs? If they say yes, ask how this could work. Discuss possibilities.

Introduce them to the ideas of Robert Alter mentioned above. If appropriate, use excerpts from his book from the pieces that we have brought above or the article that appears in the appendix.

Explain that they are going to be given two extra stories, one of which (Chana) has certain features in common with the Sarai/Hagar scene under discussion

136

and one of which (Rachel/Bilhah) is almost identical. In small groups they are asked to compare the three stories and to answer the questions that were asked above.

How does the barren woman react emotionally her barren state? What action the barren woman regarding her state? How does the barren woman relate to other characters in the scene?

Pool all the various answers as the basis for a discussion on the three questions.

Now sum up with the questions (for homework?)

□ What can we learn about the story that we are examining from our comparison with the other two stories?

□ Have you gained any insights into the character of Sarai and what makes her "tick" by examining the comparative stories?

□ Explain and analyse the process that you have just gone through. How does it work? What are the suppositions on which this mode of learning is based? Do you agree with them?

137

APPENDIX: Art as Parshanut: A Systematic Analysis of Art as Commentary

We bring here a systematic pedagogic suggestion for examining works of art that are based on texts.

According to this suggestion, there are five stages of examination that can be made into a work-page or can be asked in the classroom. We suggest, for each stage, a number of questions that can be asked.

1. First reactions. 2. Identification of the subject – between the story and the picture. 3. Artistic fashioning – describing what the artist has done. 4. Examining the meaning. 5. Connecting back with the text.

1. First reactions

- What catches your eye in the picture? What feeling or atmosphere does the picture evoke?

- At first glance, what do you like or dislike in the picture?

- Does the picture remind you of anything or make you think of anything specific?

2. Identification of the subject – between the story and the picture.

- What is shown from the p'shat of the biblical story? (Characters, events, ideas, values).

- What if anything, did the artist leave out?

- What did the artist add to the text as he or she came to express his or her version of the text?

- Give a title to the painting and sum up what is the main emphasis of the picture.

3. Artistic fashioning – describing what the artist has done.

- What means has the artist used to portray the story? Note the colours (warm, cold, realistic, imaginative etc.), technique (oil, water, brushstrokes etc), the use of light and shade, the lines (broad, delicate, clear, unclear etc.), the organization of the subject (composition, location of figures and objects, size of objects and people, accentuation and emphasis etc.).

- How do the artistic means focus the main emphasis and the message of the picture?

- Which of the techniques of the artist had the most effect on you? .

- Compare the artistic means used to those that appear in other pictures in this series?

4. Examining the meaning.

138

- What is the meaning of the choice of figures and subjects that the artist has put in the picture or those that the artist has left out?

- What human problems was the artist attempting to address in the picture?

- What lies behind the artistic choices that the artist has made in terms of how the scene is portrayed?

- What is the personal meaning of this picture to you when compared to other pictures in the series being viewed?

5. Connecting back with the text.

- Looking back now on the text, what were the gaps or the questions opened up by the text, that the artist attempted to address?

- What contribution did the culture and the period of the artist make to the picture?

- Compare the picture as a midrash of the text with classic Rabbinic midrashim (brought in the booklet) and with other pictures in the series. What are the central questions that both the Rabbis and the artists attempt to answer? How are the answers they give similar or different?

- In your opinion, to what extent did the artist succeed in listening to the messages and the problems of the biblical texts and succeed in creating a novel point of view in understanding the story?

- To what extent does the picture succeed in speaking to you and your generation, in relation to the other pictures in this series?

139

APPENDIX: Text Study: Multiple Perspectives

The Troubling Family Triangle: Sarah, Abraham and Hagar – Taking in Three Perspectives

By Noam Zion, Shalom Hartman Institute

THE BARREN ONE: Perspectives on Sarah

TORAH: "Now Sarai was barren, she had no child"(Gen. 11:30)

This is how the Torah introduces Sarah even before Abraham was called to be the father of a great nation. How does this biological fact come to dominate Sarah's self understanding?

1. I am Sarah

I am a princess, that's my name Sarah / ruler - my important husband's first and only wife. Yet I am cursed, not blessed. Barren from the moment of marriage. Each time we moved there were new hopes, even divine promises, but I am still an empty vessel and a laughing stock.

2. Sarah Goes Ballistic from Genesis: A Living Conversations edited by Bill Moyers

Liz Swados: Sarah, as a woman, is supposed to be in charge of the future. She is the mother, but she's barren. So she brings in Hagar. But at a certain moment Hagar gives Sarah a look, a kind of smirk, and Sarah goes ballistic. It seems like a little thing-- but I can understand it. I don't have children, and I have no intention of having any, which is not easy. It's a choice. But I've worked with kids ever since I was twenty-six. Every now and then I get the illusion one of them is mine, especially when I've been working with them for ten or fifteen years. Then their real mother comes into the picture. And that's a kind of smirk, right? That look.

I think of territorial possessiveness. Something happened to Sarah when her territory, Abraham, was encroached upon and when it looked as if the promise might be fulfilled through another woman. Suddenly, the animal in her is not just betrayed, but freaked.

Bharati: Right! So something happens in bed between Abraham and Hagar, which is not about sex. Sarah could have accepted a mixed race child if she hadn't felt jealous of an emotional connection between the two.

Eugene Rivers: Folks can resonate to the basic funkiness of a human relationshiplike this. "I'm a failure as a mother", or, "I'm a failure as a wife, and there's this younger thing that's going to upstage me."

140

Burt Wissotzky: Sarah's response is violent. She physically abuses this woman.

Eugene Rivers: Does that surprise you? Here's this woman who upstages me and upsets my home. Sure I'm going to be pissed. Why is that surprising?

3. "Hope Springs Eternal in the Female Breast"

Lewis Smedes: There's a dimension of the story that gives it universal appeal, and that is the absolute necessity of living by hope. Everybody has to hope. Sarah and Abraham were given a promise. Everything was in the future-- the land wasn't theirs, the people weren't theirs, and apparently the blessing wasn't theirs. So all they had was hope. Hope always has anxiety attached to it, and a sense of discontent. There's nothing more cruel than hope given and taken away. That helps me understand Sarah even though it doesn't excuse her. Sarah hopes for a child. The promise has been given, but it hasn't been fulfilled, and time is running out. She's got to do something, but she does something wrong and dumb. It's a mess.

4. "He is Mine" said Sarah the Princess

Azizah al-Hibri: It's the opposite, I think. Sarah is a very possessive, exclusive person. At that time, it was not unusual for a man to take many wives. Here's Abraham, who's busy with his God. He has no children. For most of his life, despite the promise, he has no urge to marry another woman. We don't hear him complaining in the Bible, "Let me marry another woman. Let me have a child. God promised certain things for my offspring".

Neither does Sarah give him her slave until she's hopeless both about herself and him. That is an example of her possessiveness. She wants Abraham for herself, and she wants the promise for herself, and if she can't get it through herself, he won't get it at all. But then at a certain moment, she says, "No, maybe I should let go a little bit." When she lets go, when she lets Abraham have a child with Hagar, then God rewards her by giving her Isaac.

5. How Could I be so Obtuse? by Naomi Rosenblatt, Wrestling with Angels What a fool she'd been to trust Abram not to get attached to the girl. Men were perfectly pragmatic in the management of herds and the conduct of war. But when it came, to sex, they were so easily taken in. She'd seen it happen before with other women's men. Particularly when they were feeling their age and their mortality. Once that slave girl got hold of Abram's heart, she would never relinquish it. Sarai couldn't stand the sight of her. Every feature of her swollen body proclaimed her intimacy with her husband.

Eugene Rivers: Folks can resonate to the basic funkiness of a human relationship like this. "I'm a failure as a mother", or, "I'm a failure as a wife, and there's this younger thing that's going to upstage me."

141

6. The Emotional Pitfalls of Selfless Acts by Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Bereshit

Ramban: Sarah our mother sinned in dealing harshly with her handmaid and Abraham, too by allowing her to do so. God heard her affliction and gave her a son who was destined to be a lawless person who would bring suffering on Abraham and Sarah.

No appraisal of Sarah's character could condone the sin of "Sarah dealt harshly with her:" Perhaps the Torah wished to teach us that before one undertakes a mission that will tax all his moral and spiritual powers he should ask himself first whether he can maintain those same high standards to the bitter end. Otherwise one is liable to descend from the pinnacle of altruism and selflessness into much deeper depths than would ordinarily have been the case.

7. The Fear of Being Laughed At by Tamara Cohen, Beginning Anew

The Sarah we meet in the reading for Rosh Hashana is this defeated Sarah, only now pregnant. While this late pregnancy might serve to help Sarah regain her self- image, I think it does not. She remains a bitter woman who feels that God is laughing at her in his fulfillment of a promise she didn't even ask for. I read Sarah's continued aggression toward Hagar in this portion as further indication of her distance from herself. A woman whose last words in the Torah are words of casting out is not a woman at peace with herself. She might be a woman who has "made it" in a world where only one mother can be the chosen one, but she is not a model of integration or Teshuva within oneself.

142

TORAH: Genesis 16: 1- 4 The Surrogate Mother

1 Now Sarai, Avram's wife, had not borne him (children). She had an Egyptian maid-her name was Hagar.

2 Sarai said to Avram: Now here, YHWH has obstructed me from bearing; pray come in to my maid, perhaps I may be built-up-with-sons through her! Avram hearkened to Sarai's voice.

3 Sarai, Avram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian-woman, her maid, at the end of ten years of Avram's being settled in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Avram as a wife for him.

4 He came in to Hagar, and she became pregnant. But when she saw that she was pregnant, her mistress became of light worth in her eyes.

5 Sarai said to Avram: The wrong done me is upon you! I myself gave my maid into your bosom, but now that she sees that she is pregnant, I have become of light worth in her eyes. May YHWH see-justice-done between me and you!

6 Avram said to Sarai: Here, your maid is in your hand, deal with her however seems good in your eyes. Sarai afflicted her, so that she had to flee from her.

Perspectives on Hagar

1. A Symbol of the Oppressed by Phyllis Trible

As a symbol of the oppressed, Hagar becomes many things to many people. Most especially, all sorts of rejected women find their stories in her. She is the faithful maid exploited, the black woman used by the male and abused by the female of the ruling class, the surrogate mother, the resident alien without legal recourse, the other woman, the runaway youth, the religious fleeing from affliction, the pregnant young woman alone, the expelled wife, the divorced mother with child, the shopping bag lady carrying bread and water, the homeless woman, the indigent relying upon handouts from the powerful structures, the welfare mother and the-self- effacing female whose own identity shrinks in service to others.

2. Who am I?

143

I am despised, foreign, an underclass, a nameless faceless vessel of reproduction, used and abused. I am single, poor and powerless. But I am younger, more vital, and my fertility is my future hope, my rising star

3. The Surrogate Womb Burt Wissotsky : You know, nobody actually asked Hagar whether she was happy with any of this. Abraham is an old man and she's a young woman.

Robert Alter : But it's a great career move, isn't it?

144

Who Do You Identify With? Sarah or Hagar? Why?

1. Karen Armstrong: My heart goes out to Hagar all the way. The arrangement was for Sarah's benefit. In the ancient Near East, if a sterile woman gave her husband a concubine for childbearing purposes, he was forbidden, by law, to take a mistress of his own. The system gave the wife a measure of control - and Sarah suggested it. Poor Hagar is caught up in some divine drarna and then jettisoned, when she's played her part--chucked out into the wilderness' with woefully inadequate provisions. In sending them away, Abraham. sacrifices Ishmael as later he will almost sacrifice Isaac. Both children are brought to the point of death - though the Lord steps in at the eleventh hour:

2. Renita J. Weems: For black women, the story of Hagar is a haunting one. It is a story of exploitation and persecution suffered .by an Egyptian slave woman at the hands of her Hebrew mistress.. Even if it is not our individual. story, it is a story we have read in our mothers' eyes those afternoons when we greeted them at the front door after a hard day of work as a domestic: And if not our mothers', story, then it is certainly most of our grandmothers' story: For black women, Hagar's story is peculiarly familiar. It is as if we know it by heart ...

At some times in our lives, whether we are black or white, we are all Hagar's daughters. When our backs are up against a wall; when we feel abandoned, abused, betrayed, and banished; when we find ourselves in need of another woman's help ... we, like Hagar, are in need of a woman who will "sister" us, not exploit us.

3. Rebecca Goldstein: I identify with both Hagar and Sarah, although the sympathy for the maidservant comes more effortlessly. How can the reader not empathize with Hagar, especially .as she's seen awaiting Ishmael's death in tile wilderness? The text zooms in so closely on her in these verses, providing such a startlingly intimate picture of her hopelessness and sorrow.

In contrast to Hagar's tragic passivity, Sarah acts, and what compels her actions is the fierceness of her passions surrounding' motherhood. What makes Sarah a tragic figure is her desperation to control the future, and she becomes, to a certain extent and in true tragic fashion, the agent of her own downfall. She precipitates the birth of that very Ishmael whose existence she will come to feel threatens her own miracle-child Isaac - an unforeseen complication that might already have suggested to her the uncertainty of trying to force the future.

But she's still at it when she banishes Hagar and Ishmael. She's a mother obsessed, seeking all and any possible dangers to her child so that she can remove them, childproof the future like a good parent childproofs the home. In the fierceness of her love she imagines that this is really possible. Soon after this comes Abraham's binding of Isaac, and with it Sarah learns - with a despair that's fatal, according to rabbinic tradition - the futility of her life's project.

145

Jakob Steinhardt, Hagar Prays

Perspectives on Abraham

A Minor Patriarch by Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror

"Abram obeyed the voice of Sarai " (Gen 16:2). "No mighty patriarch is Abram, but rather the silent, acquiescent and minor figure, in a drama between two women. Sarai has spoken, Abram has agreed. Sarai has acted, Abram has obeyed.

"Poor Abraham" By Burt Wissotsky Poor Abraham! I feel terribly sympathetic to Abraham. He's in the classic position of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sarah says, "Go sleep with the cleaning girl." He says, "Okay", and then he says; "She's yours. You take :care of it. I'm out of here. I will not deal with this." But Sarah doesn't let it go: She says, "No; God has to judge between you and me." Sarah thinks Abraham is to blame here. Something happened between Hagar and him. Sarah won't let go of that.

"No excuses!" by Ramban

146

Sarah our Mother sinned in dealing harshly with her hand maid and Abraham sinned too by allowing her to do "whatever is good in your eyes".

“Abraham Rolls His Eyes Heavenward and mutters: Women! by Julius Lester, "Where is Sarah?", New Traditions Magazine

Why does Sarai take out her anger on her husband? What did he do to he?

Imagine Avram, if you will. He comes home after a hard day with the sheep and the cattle, not to mention having had to settle disputes among his servants. He's dusty, hot and tired, and is looking forward to getting out of his work clothes, taking a hot shower, and then settling down in his easy chair.

He barely gets one foot in the tent and his wife yells, "My violence is upon you?!

Lighten up, Sarai! Give the man a break! He hasn't been home long enough to do anything wrong, but Sarai couldn't care less: "I gave my handmaid into your bosom, and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes. May the Lord judge between me and you. "

What has gotten into this woman? After all, it was her idea for Avram to have a child with another woman. Is it his fault if Hagar now looks down on Sarai? If Sarai is jealous, it's Sarai's own fault. Can't you see Avram looking up toward heaven, rolling his eyes, and muttering, "Women!" But all he says is: "Do her the good in your eyes. "

Now, what does Avram do? He is ambivalent, caught between two women, one to whom he's been married for ten years, and one who is carrying the child he desperately wants. So, in typical male fashion, he ignores the situation - or he would like to think he does. Actually, by doing nothing he sides with Hagar, and by so doing, he and Sarai cease to he "male and female together."

Sarai's loneliness must have been terrible when she heard his words. She comes to Avram for understanding and love, and he self-righteously dismisses her. This too is typically male, this refusal to meet a woman on that level where she is angered and hurting, to receive her anger and hurt, not as a criticism or a rebuke, but as a gift in the service of male and female together.

147

APPENDIX: SARAH AT STARBUCKS – "Anyone who hears will laugh [at me?]" Parshat Vayera Rabbi Jack Riemer

Shira Dicker, who is a well known writer and publicist, had a column entitled: “Seeing Sarah Outside Starbucks”.(2007) What’s the connection between Mother Sarah, who lived so many centuries ago, and Starbucks—the place where the elite meet to eat, or at least to drink, today?

Shira Dicker writes: “I saw Sarah again today through the window of Starbucks---the one on the corner of Broadway and 75th Street, which I frequent for its free wireless service and for its proximity to the JCC in Manhattan, where I exercise.

This time, Sarah was wearing a short-sleeved baby-doll top, her swollen feet encased in sandals, her salt-and-pepper hair blown by the breeze. She was walking more slowly than the other pedestrians, who were happy to be outdoors in summer clothes in late October.

Watching Sarah amble down Broadway, it was clear that she was in the final stretches of pregnancy—if you can use the word ‘stretch and the word ‘pregnancy’ in one sentence. A petite woman, she was led by her stomach. This child---her first---seemed to be taking forever to gestate. Still, the sense of the miraculous was not lost on this Sarah, who was pushing 47. When the doctor confirmed her pregnancy, she actually laughed. Her husband, who was already in his 50s, suggested that maybe they should name their child Isaac.”

So here you have it: a woman named Sarah who is up in years and who has a husband who is even older are having a baby like Sarah and Avraham. The only question is: how should they respond to this? Should they look upon pregnancy as a long awaited, long delayed, or long postponed event to rejoice in?

Shira Dicker continues: “On the streets of today’s Upper West Side, the Sarah whom I see going by Starbucks, is in good company. All around her, women with crow’s feet and deep laugh lines walk with bulging bellies, or hand-in-hand with tiny tots. Some have wedding bands; others are boldly single. Approaching middle-age, these women are so numerous that the rest of us, who bore our children in our early twenties, seem out of step with the times.

Indeed, with the exception of my haredi cousins and my best friends in Israel, it is rare to meet urban, white, college-educated women my age with children who are now in their twenties. With my first child born when I was 23, I was the youngest woman in the waiting room at the OBs office, the youngest mother at parent-teacher events, and the youngest mom in the playground.

When I became pregnant four years later, at the grand old age of 27, I was still a novelty. And then, even after a hiatus of seven years, my third pregnancy at 34 still marked me as a young mom---at least compared to the Sarahs whom I see walking by Starbucks.

148

I wish I could say that people were supportive—or even tolerant—of my decision to start my family early. Instead, my youthful pregnancy evoked horror, rebuke, ridicule, and just plain insensitivity from many of my friends and acquaintances.

‘Omigod!’ gasped one of my childhood friends when we met for lunch in Midtown. ‘If I got pregnant now, I’d have an abortion!’

‘Well,’ smirked a friend of my husband’s, standing next to me at Fischer Bros and Leslie on West 72nd Street. ‘There goes your career!’

‘Frankly my dear’, said the New York Times columnist whose advice about combining parent and writing I had solicited. ‘I would never have been able to get into journalism if I had a child when I was 23’.

‘Um…I guess you don’t believe in birth control,’ said a total stranger to me at a cocktail party.

On an island populated by Sarahs, I was made to feel like Hagar, banished and cast out. At 46, I am a walking anomaly in Manhattan nowadays---a professional woman with (mostly) grown children.”

These are Shira Dicker’s reactions to seeing Mother Sarahs going by, women in their late thirties and even in their mid forties who are pregnant, and comparing their world with the world in which she had her children, some twenty years ago.

And then, after describing how wide spread the custom of women having children much later in life than they used to has become, Shira Dicker asks herself the question that I want to ask you today: How should she feel about this trend?

“Although it was my choice to have my children while I was in my twenties, and although I think it is fairly obvious that women are biologically meant to bear children earlier than later, I am not a ‘young mom supremacist’. I celebrate childbirth at any age and I applaud any woman—and man too—whether single or married, whether gay or straight---who has the courage to have a child at an age that challenges the biological clock.

I am grateful for the technology that enables my sisters who have searched for their mates for years to have a child, even when they cannot find a proper mate. I know too many good women who have remained single not by their choice to know that delayed childbearing is not always by choice. And I know too many couples who have had to struggle for years in order to have a child to be judgmental. And I would like to believe that Sarah’s baby will have a different set of benefits to provide to their children than those that we who gave birth to our children in our twenties were able to provide”

That is Shira Dicker’s tribute to the Mother Sarahs whom she sees walking by, or waddling by, Starbucks so often these days. If Mother Sarah and Father Abraham could have Isaac when they were both way, way up in years, why can’t they?

Do you agree with her? And if not, what would you say in response to her argument?

149

I think that I would say two things: one personal and one social.

The personal thing that I would say is that I understand the thinking of those women who want to build a career first and then go on the Mommy track. I understand and I respect their decision for I know how fiercely competitive the business world is, and how difficult a woman who wants to take years off to have and to raise a family will have it when the children are grown and she wants to come back. By then, the whole industry may have changed, and there may be a whole new technology that she will have to learn, and, no matter how bright she is, there will be many firms that will not want to hire her.

But, still, having said that, I have to ask what our priorities should be. Is it really more important and more beneficial to the world to have a career than it is to raise a human being, to transform a squalling infant into a mentsch? I can’t answer that question for anyone else, but let me at least raise the question: what in the long run will be the greatest contribution a person can make to the world: a successful career on Wall Street or the education of a worthwhile human being?

And one more personal question I must ask. I realize that there are many women—and men too—who are having children in their thirties and forties and even later because they were not able to find the right mate when they were younger. And I am surely not meaning to say that we are simply breeding machines, whose worth is to be determined by how many children we have. God forbid, I do not mean to say that. But let me ask this question: does a person have the same energy and the same ability to raise a child at forty five than she and he have at twenty five? Can you keep up as well with your child on the Jungle Jim in the playground at forty five as at twenty five? And, though nothing in this world is certain, will you be as able to guide your child through the travails of selecting and living in a college world when you are seventy as when you are forty five?

Forgive me for raising these questions for I know how painful they must be to some of us who are sitting here today, but are these not issues that need to be thought through at some time in our lives?

And one more question I must raise. I am a rabbi, and so I care about the future of the Jewish people. And therefore I am concerned about the pattern where people are having fewer children, and are having them later in life. The truth is that intermarriage is a small problem in Jewish life. From intermarriage we gain some as well as lose some. And some of the ones we gain are marvelous additions to Jewish life. But if we have our children a decade or more later, we are literally ‘halving ourselves to death’ and that is a real problem for the Jewish people. I realize that no one decides when or whether to have children in terms of what is good for the Jewish people. I realize that this is one of the most intimate and personal decisions that anyone can ever make, and yet, I have to say that, as a rabbi, I have to feel some concern over this tendency to have less children and this tendency to have them later in life. I really do.

Shira Dicker ends her column with these words:

“I am not a social scientist, and so I can’t deal with whether this tendency is good for the Jews or not. But as I sit at my sunny perch near the window at Starbucks and watch the Upper West Side go by, I smile when I see Sarah. Sometimes Sarah has dark hair,

150

sometimes she is blond, sometimes she is tall, sometimes petite, sometimes she is professionally attired, and sometimes she is wearing sweatpants---it does not really matter. She is around my age and she is pregnant, perhaps for the first time, perhaps for the second. Her feet are swollen, and, every so often, she rubs her belly. She can’t wait to give birth already.

And Sarah is smiling.”

To which I can only say: God bless this Sarah. May she have good pregnancy, a good birth and much, much naches. I might have wishes for her to have a child when she was younger--- but that is not for me to decide. I might have wished for her to have more than two children— for the sake of the Jewish people---but that too is not for me to decide. And so, given the givens, given that for whatever reason---whether because it took her a long time to find her beshert or whether she wanted to establish her career before she had a child or whether whatever---I am pleased that Sarah is pregnant, and I wish her very well.

What wish, what bracha, should we say for the Sarahs of this new world in which we live?

You are supposed to say: “bisha-ah tovah”. May the baby come at a good time.

I guess that means: not so early as to be premature and not so late as to be a heavy burden. But when I say it, when I say ‘bisha-ah tova’, what I mean by that wish is: at whatever age you are choosing to have your baby, may you have a good and a safe delivery and may you have much naches from this child, and, may you be like Mother Sarah and Father Abraham, who had their first child together at an age when they were already so old that everyone who heard about it laughed, and yet, who ended up with a child who continued the covenant and brought great blessing to the world.

‘Bisha-ah tova’---may this be said of all the Sarahs whom we meet, whether they are walking by Starbucks or wherever else they may be. Amen.

151

Hagar, Sarah and Abraham Gen 16 and 21

ושרי אשת אברם לא ילדה לו ולה שפחה מצרית ושמה הגר. )בראשית, ט"ז, א(

Gen. 16:1 Now Sarai, Avram's wife bore him no children and she had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.

ותאמר שרי אל אברם הנה נא עצרני ה' מלדת בא נא אל שפחתי אולי אבנה ממנה ... )בראשית ט"ז, ב( And Sarai said to Avram, Look now, God has stopped me from giving birth. I pray you, come[ in]to my maid-servant. Perhaps I will be built up through her. ותקח שרי אשת אברם את הגר המצרית שפחתה מקץ עשר שנים לשבת אברם בארץ כנען ותתן אותה לאברם אישה לו לאשה. ... )בראשית ט"ז, ג(

And Sarai, Avram's wife took Hagar, her maid, the Egyptian, after Avram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband for a wife.34

34 Gen. 16:3 as a wife. Most English versions, following the logic of the context, render this as "concubine." (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses)

152

)ז(וַיִּמְ צָאָ ּהמַ לְאְַך יְהֹוָה עַל עֵיןהַמַ יִּם בַמִּדְ בָרעַ ל הָעַיִּן בְדֶרֶ ְךׁשּור: )ח( וַיֹאמַר הָ גָרׁשִּ פְחַ ת שָרַ י: אֵימִּזֶה בָ את וְָאנָה תֵ לֵכִּ י וַתֹאמֶרמִּפְ נֵי שָרַ יגְבִּרְתִּ יָאנֹכִּ י בֹרַ חַ ת: )ט( וַיֹאמֶ רלָּה מַ לְאְַך יְהֹוָה: ׁשּובִּ י אֶל גְבִּרְתֵ ְךוְהִּתְ עַנִּי תַ חַ ת יָדֶ יהָ : )י( וַיֹאמֶ רלָּה מַ לְאַ ְך יְהֹוָה: הַרְ הבָ ַארְ הבֶ אֶ ת זַרְ עְֵךוְֹלא יִּסָ פֵ ר מֵ רֹב: )יא( וַיֹאמֶ רלָּה מַ לְאְַך יְהֹוָה: הִּנְָך הָרָ ה וְיֹלַדְתְ בֵן וְקָרָאת ׁשְ מוֹיִּׁשְ מָ עֵאל כִּי ׁשָמַ ע יְהֹוָה אֶל עָנְיְֵך: )יב( וְהּוא יִּהְ יֶהפֶרֶ א ָאדָ ם יָדוֹ בַ כֹל וְיַד כֹל בוֹ וְעַל פְ נֵי כָלאֶחָ יו יִּׁשְ כֹן: )יג( וַתִּקְרָא םׁשֵ יְהֹוָה הַ דֹבֵר אֵ לֶיהָ האַתָ לאֵ רֳאִּ י כִּי ָאמְרָ ה הֲ גַם הֲ ֹלם רָאִּיתִּ י יַאחֲרֵ רֹאִּ י: )יד( עַל כֵן קָרָ א לַבְ אֵ ר - רבְאֵ ילַחַ רֹאִּ י - הִּ נֵהבֵין קָדֵ ׁש ּובֵין בָרֶ ד:

And an angel of 35the Lord found her by a fountain in the wilderness, by the fountain on the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, where did you come from? And where will you go to? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord said to her, Return to your mistress, and submit youself to her hand. And the angel of the Lord said to her, I will multiply your seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the Lord said to her, Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Ishmael because the Lord has heard your affliction. And he will be a wild man36; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the Lord that spoke to her, You God see me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that sees me? Therefore the well was called Be'er-Lahay-Ro'I37 : behold, it is between Qadesh and Bered. Genesis 16, 7-14 Gen. 14: 13 And He said unto Abram: 'Know of a surety that יג וַיֹּאמֶ ר לְַאבְרָ ם, יָדֹּעַ תֵדַ ע כִ י- thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall גֵר יִהְ יֶה זַרְ עֲָך ץ בְאֶרֶ ֹלא לָהֶ ם, ;serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years וַעֲבָדּום, וְעִ ּנּו אֹּתָ ם--ַארְ בַע מֵ אוֹּת, שָ נָה.

;and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge 14 יד וְ גַם אֶ ת הַ - ּגוֹּיאֲשֶ ר יַעֲבֹּדּו, דָ ן .and afterward shall they come out with great substance ָאנֹּכִ י; וְַאחֲרֵ י-כֵן יֵצְ אּו, בִרְ כֻש ּגָדוֹּל.

35 Gen. 16:7. the messenger. This is the first occurrence of an "angel" (Hebrew, mal'akh, Greek, angelos) in Genesis. Messenger, or one who carries out a designated task, is the primary meaning of the Hebrew term, and there are abundant biblical instances of malakhim who are strictly human emissaries. One assumes that the divine messenger in these stories is supposed to look just like a human being, and all postbiblical associations with wings, halos, and glorious raiment must be firmly excluded. One should note that the divine speaker here begins as an angel but ends up (verse 13) being referred to as though he were God Himself. (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses) Gen. 16:7 Shur means wall as in the wall of Egyptian fortifications in Sinai desert to keep out Asiatics, but it is also the poetic parallel of “to see,” as in Yeshurun. “Seeing” is central to Hagar story. It foreshadows the desert where Israel will seek water (Nahum Sarna, JPS) 36 Gen. 16:12 a wild ass of a man or a fruitful man. The wild ass recalls the Syrian ass that is wild, study, fearless, and hard to domesticate. Jeremiah 2:24 speaks of that ass as “snuffing the wind in her eagerness, whose passion none can restrain.’ Ishmael will settle in desert of Paran (Gen. 21:21), punning on pere-adam Nahum Sarna, JPS) 37 Gen 16: 8, 13-14 El Roi. “all seeing God,” the “God who sees me” or “God of my seeing” whom I saw and yet survived. Ambiguity whether it is a b’eer, a well, man made, or an aiyn, maayan, a natural spring, which also means “eye.” In old English well can mean spring as in the phrase, the water “welled up.” (Nahum Sarna, JPS)

153

Deut 22: 17 You shall not pervert the justice יז ֹלא תַטֶ ה, מִשְ פַט ּגֵר יָתוֹּם; due to the stranger, or to the orphan; nor take וְֹלא תַחֲ בֹּל, בֶגֶד ַאלְמָ נָה. the widow's clothes as a pledge. But you shall remember that you were a 18 יח וְזָכַרְ תָ , כִ י עֶבֶד הָ יִיתָ slave in Egypt, and the LORD thy God בְמִצְרַ יִם, וַיִפְדְ ָך יְהוָה אֱ ֹלהֶ יָך, redeemed you from there; therefore I מִשָ ם; עַל כֵן - י ָאנֹּכִ מְ צַּוְ ָך, לַעֲשוֹּת, אֶ ת-הַדָ בָ ר, הַ זֶה. command you to do this thing. ,When you reap your harvest in your field 19 יט כִי תִקְ צֹּר קְ צִירְ ָך בְשָדֶ ָך and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you וְשָ כַחְתָ עֹּמֶ רבַשָדֶ ה, ֹלא תָ שּוב shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for לְקַחְ תוֹּ -- לַּגֵר לַיָתוֹּם וְ לַָאלְמָ נָה, יִהְ יֶה: לְמַ עַן יְבָרֶ כְ ָך יְהוָה the stranger, for the orphan and for the אֱֹלהֶיָך, בְ כֹּל מַ העֲשֵ יָדֶ יָך. widow; so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat your olive-tree, you shall 20 כ כִי תַחְ בֹּט זֵיתְ ָך, ֹלא תְ פַאֵ ר not go over the boughs again; it shall be for ַאחֲרֶ יָך: לַּגֵר לַיָתוֹּם וְ לַָאלְמָ נָה, the stranger, for the orphan, and for the יִהְ יֶה. widow. When you gather the grapes of your 21 כא כִי תִבְ צֹּר כַרְמְ ָך, ֹלא תְ עוֹּלֵל vineyard, you shall not glean it after you ַאחֲרֶ יָך: לַּגֵר לַיָתוֹּם וְ לַָאלְמָ נָה, ,have finished]; it shall be for the stranger] יִהְ יֶה. for the orphan, and for the widow. And you shall remember that you were a 22 כב וְזָכַרְ תָ , כִ י-עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְאֶרֶ ץ slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I מִ צְרָ יִם; עַל כֵן - י ָאנֹּכִ מְ צַּוְ ָך, .command you to do this thing לַעֲשוֹּת, אֶ ת-הַדָ בָ ר, הַ זֶה. Genesis 21:1-10 – Episode Three The Birth of Isaac and the Power of Laughter38

)א( וַיהֹּוָה פָקַד אֶתשָרָ ה כַאֲשֶרָאמָ רץ וַיַעַש יְהֹּוָה לְשָרָ ה כַאֲשֶר דִ בֵר: )ב( וַתַהַ רוַתֵ לֶדשָרָ ה לְַאבְרָ הָם בֵן לִזְקֻ נָיו לַמוֹּעֵד אֲשֶרדִ בֶר אֹּתוֹּאֱֹלהִ ים: )ג( וַיִקְרָאַאבְרָ הָםאֶת שֶם בְ נוֹּ הַ ּנוֹּלַד לוֹּ אֲשֶ ריָלְדָ הּלוֹּ שָרָ ה יִצְחָ ק: )ד( וַיָמָל ַאבְרָ הָםאֶ תיִצְחָ קבְ נוֹּ בֶןשְ מֹּנַתיָמִ ים כַאֲשֶ רצִ ּוָה אֹּתוֹּאֱ ֹלהִ ים: )ה( וְַאבְרָ הָם בֶן מְ ַאת שָ נָה בְהִ ּוָלֶד לוֹּ תאֵ קיִצְחָ בְ נוֹּ : )ו( וַתֹּאמֶר שָרָ ה: צְ חֹּק העָשָ לִי אֱֹלהִ ים כָ ל הַ שֹּמֵ עַ יִצֲחַ ק לִ י: )ז( וַתֹּאמֶ ר: מִי מִ ּלֵל לְַאבְרָ הָ ם הֵ ינִיקָ ה בָנִים שָרָ ה כִ י יָלַדְתִ י בֵן לִזְקֻ נָיו: )ח( לוַיִגְדַ הַ יֶלֶד וַיִּגָמַ לץ וַיַעַשַאבְרָ הָם המִשְתֶ גָדוֹּלבְ יוֹּם הִ ּגָמֵל אֶ ת יִצְחָ ק: )ט( וַתֵרֶא שָרָה אֶת בֶ ן הָ גָר הַמִצְרִ ית ראֲשֶ היָלְדָ לְַאבְרָ הָ ם מְ צַחֵ ק: )י(וַתֹּאמֶ ר לְַאבְרָ הָ ם: ּגָרֵ ש הָָאמָ ה הַ זֹּאתוְאֶ ת בְ נָה, יכִ ֹלא יִירַ ש בֶן ההָָאמָ הַ זֹּאת עִ ם בְ נִי עִ ם יִצְחָ ק:

And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said,

38 At this point we continue with the idea of commentary and midrash that has already been introduced but we begin to increase the process, just begun, of adding modern commentary and midrash, thickening the layer of commentary. This will continue to the end of our text.

154

and the Lord did to Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bore Avraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Avraham called the name of his son that was born to him, who Sarah bore to him, Yitzchak. And Avraham circumcised his son Yitzchak being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Avraham was a hundred years old, when his son Yitzchak was born to him. And Sarah said, God has made laughter for me, so that all that hear will laugh with me. And she said, Who would have said to Avraham, that Sarah should give children suck? For I have born him a son in his old age. And the child grew, and was weaned. And Avraham made a great feast on the same day that Yitzchak was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had born to Avraham, playing/mocking/laughing. So she said to Avraham, Cast out your bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, with Yitzchak.

Gen 18:13 And the Lord said to Avraham: 'Why did יג וַיֹּאמֶ ר יְהוָה, אֶ ל-ַאבְרָ הָ ם: לָמָ ה זֶה Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I really bear a child, I צָחֲקָ השָרָ ה לֵאמֹּר, הַ ַאף אֻמְ נָם אֵ לֵד--וַאֲנִי ?who am old זָקַ נְתִ י. ?Is any thing too hard for the Lord 14 יד הֲיִפָלֵא מֵ יְהוָה, דָ בָ ר;

Genesis 21:11- 14 Avraham's Response to the Initiative

155

Genesis 21:14-19 - Episode Four Hagar and Tears

וַיַשְ כֵםַאבְרָ םהָ בַבֹּקֶ ר וַיִקַ ח לֶחֶ ם וְחֵמַ ת מַ יִם וַיִתֵן אֶ ל הָ גָר םשָ עַל שִ כְמָ ּה וְאֶ ת הַ יֶלֶד וַיְשַ ּלְחֶהָ וַתֵ לְֶך וַתֵתַ ע בְמִדְ בַר בְאֵר שָ בַע: )טו( וַיִכְ לּוהַמַ יִם מִ ןהַחֶמֶ תוַתַשְ לְֵך תאֶ הַ יֶלֶד תתַחַ ַאחַ ד הַשִיחִ ם: )טז( וַתֵ לְֶך בוַתֵשֶ לָּה מִ ּנֶגֶד הַרְ קחֵ כִמְטַ חֲוֵי תקֶשֶ כִ י ָאמְרָ הַאל אֶרְ האֶ בְ מוֹּת הַ יָלֶד וַתֵ שֶב מִ ּנֶגֶד וַתִ אשָ אֶ תקֹּלָּה וַתֵבְ ךְ : )יז( וַיִשְ עמַ אֱ ֹלהִ ים אֶ ת קוֹּל הַ ּנַעַר אוַיִקְרָ מַ לְאַ ְךאֱֹלהִ ים לאֶ הָ גָר ןמִ הַשָמַ יִם וַיֹּאמֶ ר לָה: מַ ה ּלְָך הָ גָר? ַאל תִירְאִ י! כִי שָמַע אֱֹלהִ ים אֶ ל קוֹּל הַ ּנַעַר רבַאֲשֶ הּוא שָ ם: )יח( קּומִי, שְאִיאֶ תהַ ּנַעַר,וְהַחֲזִ יקִ יאֶ ת יָדֵ ְך בוֹּ כִ ילְגוֹּי ּגָדוֹּלאֲשִ ימֶ ּנּו: )יט( חוַיִפְקַ אֱ ֹלהִים אֶ ת עֵינֶיהָ וַתֵרֶ אבְאֵ רמָ יִםוַתֵ לְֶך וַתְ מַ ּלֵא אֶ ת הַחֵמֶת מַ יִם וַתַשְקְ תאֶ הַ ּנָעַר:

And God heard the voice39 of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, What ails you, Hagar? Fear not: for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in your hand; for I will make him a great nation.

And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

39 Gen. 21:17 God heard the cry of the boy, though no cries are recorded. Mendel of Worka says from this we learn that God hears the silent cries of the anguished heart even when no words are uttered (Etz Hayim)

156

157

Leaving the Story with a Happy Ending? Or with Poetic Justice?

How might we handle our problems with the story: emotional, ethical, political , and theological?

1. "No excuses!" by Ramban Sarah our Mother sinned in dealing harshly with her hand maid and Abraham sinned too by allowing her to do "whatever is good in your eyes."

2 . To be Seen, To be Recognized: Hagar is Seen and Heard!

Genesis 16: 7-14 Hagar's Chosen People

An angel of the Lord found her by a well in the wilderness, by the fountain on the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar: "Sarai's maid, where did you come from? And where will you go to?" And she said: " I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai." And the angel of the Lord said to her: "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her hand …… I will multiply your seed exceedingly, so it will innumerable…Look, you are with child, and you will bear a son, and you will call his name Ishmael because the Lord has heard your affliction. He will be a wild man [or fruitful man]; his hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he will dwell alongside all his brothers.

And she called the name of the Adonai who was speaking to her: " El Ro-I You are the God who sees me for she thought: I have seen God after God saw me. Therefore the well was called Be'er-Lahay-Ro'i.

Jakob Steinhardt, Hagar Prays

158

3. Ishmael the Survivor And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Mizrayim. Genesis 21: 20-21

4. The Original Twelve tribes

5. Avraham's Remarriage

Abraham took another wife whose name was Keturah. Gen. 25:1

Rashi quotes the tradition that Keturah, Avraham's third wife is really Hagar. This is Hagar. She was named Keturah because her deeds were beautiful as incense (Ketoreth).

6. Brotherly Reconciliation at their Father’s Funeral

Rashi comments on "ISAAC AND ISHMAEL." (Gen. 25:9) From this we see that Ishmael repented and yielded the precedence to Yitzchak. This is what is meant by the words "a good old age" [applied in the verse to Avraham].

159

7. The Missing Brother – Poem by Yehudah Amichai

THE PLACE WHERE WE ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT Yehuda Amichai

From the place where we are absolutely right flowers will never grow in the spring. The place where we are absolutely right is trampled, hardened like a courtyard.

However doubts and loves make the world rise like dough like an molehill, like a plow. And a whisper will be heard in the place where a home was destroyed (where the bayit/bet hamikdash was destroyed)

160

8. A Happy Ending for Competing Religions? Hagar’s and Sarah’s Heirs40

1. Rabbi Yochanan says: "Ishmael repented during his father's lifetime, as it is said [Gen. 2:9] : `His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him." (Gen. 25:9) (TB Baba Batra 16b)

2. St. Paul presents the total polarization between the Church and Israel as Sarah and Hagar: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written (Isaiah. 54:1), "Rejoice, O barren one that does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the desolate has more children than she who has a husband." Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But, at that time, he who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Letter to Galatians 4:21-31)

3. Maimonides spoke of Christianity and Judaism as follows: “All these [teachings] of Jesus of Nazareth and of the Ishmaelite [i.e., Muhammad] who followed him are only to pave the way for the Messiah, the anointed king, and to reform the entire world to worship the Lord together, as it is said (Zeph. 3:9) "For then I will make the peoples pure of speech, so that they all invoke the Lord by name and serve Him with one accord. (Mishne Torah, Kings 11:10)

4. Rabbi Abraham son of Maimonides in his commentary on Genesis: “What is stated here: These were the years of the life of Ishmael, thereby teaches you of the affection for Ishmael, with the consequent definition of the years of his life. Its stating: and he was gathered to his kin, teaches that he reached a high level in the World to Come.”

R. Abraham provides a spiritual explanation of Sarah's demand of Abraham (Gen. 21:10): "Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac" :

“It seems to me that [Sarah} hereby alluded to her prophetic knowledge that [the Lord,] may God be exalted, later revealed to her that the offspring of Ishmael would not participate together with the offspring of Abraham in the religious perfection [i.e., their high religious level] that was promised to the offspring of Abraham, nor would they inherit this perfection with Isaac in complete partnership. This is so because the offspring of Ishmael was not commanded [to observe] the Torah, and even though they believed in it, they violated it with the claim of its abrogation, and they depleted it with the claim of its alteration and replacement. Even though they believed in the unity of the Creator, this [their belief] was not together with the offspring of Isaac, but only at a time of decline for the offspring of Isaac. In consequence, [Ishmael] did not inherit the perfection together with Isaac.”41

40 Admiel Kosman, “Giving Birth between Horizontal and the Vertical.” 41 God's promise to Abraham concerning his son Ishmael : “This is an allusion to the revelation of [the religion of] Islam, [the religion of] the believers in the unity of the Creator [who come forth] from him. And how great is God’s wisdom saying: "As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed" (Gen. 21:13). Finally, after the revelation of the Israelite religion and at the time of their slackness by reason of their iniquities, "I foretell the end from the beginning" [Isa. 46:10]. If the Israelites had constantly maintained a high spiritual level, and had never descended from their standing due to their sins, there would never have been any place for the prophecy of Muhammad. This came to the world only when slackness seized the Israelites, and then the children of Ishmael rose to the level of rulers since, spiritually, there was now room in the world for their belief, just as in the past there had been an intimate place with Abraham for the handmaiden Hagar, "the mother of the Muslims."

161

9. Political Contemporarizing Readings of Hagar and Sarah from Righteous Gentiles In the Hebrew Bible: Ancient Role Models for Sacred Relationships by Jeffrey K. Salkin (Jewish lights 2008)

Some African American "Womanists" on Hagar A biblical scholar named Pamela Tamarkin Reis writes about a feminist conference in which participants referred to the story of Hagar as an example of everything that is bad about the Jews and Judaism. One black womanist scholar accuses Sarah of representing all the wealthy well-educated white Jews and Hagar, the downtrodden black woman. Then, a nun arose to talk about all the “Sarahs” in her life and how each one had oppressed her. It is hard to escape the fact that this story has not been “good for the Jews.”

Jewish readings of Ishmael and Islam The Zohar, the cardinal text of Jewish mysticism, says: “The exile under Ishmael is the hardest of all exiles”

Ishmael as the Model of Prayer God heard Yishmael's cries ba-asher hu sham, “where he is.” RASHI, the great medieval French commentator, relates that the angels cried out to God: “Master of the Universe! Let him die! Don’t You see that in days to come it will be the sons of Ishmael who will wage wars in the Holy Land and ravage its cities? (and bomb buses, we might add)? “No,” says God. “I hear the cries of the child where he is now, at this moment, in crisis.” God sees us in our present state, judging us only on our merits at the moment.

There is a meditation for the Jewish prayer shawl (the tallit) in the Mishnah Berurah, a commentary on a section of the Shulchan Aruch, written by Israel Meir Hakohen Kagan (1894-1907), the Hafetz Hayim. The teaching says that when a Jew puts on the tallit, he or she should let the tallit wrap around one’s head for just a few seconds. Why? So that one’s temporary head covering resembles traditional Arab headdress -- atifat Yishmaelim, as Arabs protect themselves from wind-driven sand.42 This is amazing. Polish Jews are telling themselves to adorn themselves in their prayer shawls so that it looks like they are wearing Arab kaffiyehs. Even more amazing -- they were teaching this to themselves decades before the making and the release of the classic epic film “Lawrence of Arabia.” Let us wonder aloud: how did they know about Arab garments? Had they ever seen Arabs? And what does it mean that one must deliberately resemble an Arab as part of the preparation for prayer? Not just “Arabs;” the meditation specifies Yishmaelim – literally, “Ishmaelites.” Imagine – Abraham and Sarah may have exiled Ishmael into the wilderness, but when Jews pray, they actually invite him back. Isaac is there (symbolically and metaphorically) when Jews pray; but Abraham’s “other” son also has an open invitation into the Jewish prayer experience.

Hagar's Firsts Hagar is a pivotal figure in the biblical story. Her biography is a collection of famous firsts. She is the first person in history to weep (and how telling that she weeps for her child). She is the first woman in the Bible to hear a divine voice telling her that she will bear a child. She begins that sacred pattern that will continue through Sarah, and through the mother of Samson, and ultimately to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

42 Lawrence Kushner and Nehemia Polen for teaching this in their book Filling Words

With Light: Hasidic and Mystical Reflections On Jewish Prayer,

162

She is the first person to be visited by an angel. In this, she becomes a role model. Generations later, says the Talmud, in the midst of great agony, Rabbi Simeon would cry out: “Hagar, handmaiden of my ancestor Abraham’s house, had the privilege of meeting an angel three times. When will I be worthy of meeting one even once?” (Me’ilah 17 a-b)

Moslem Readings and Ritualizing of Hagar In Muslim lore, Hajarah is an Egyptian, but she is no ordinary Egyptian; she is actually the daughter of Pharaoh. When Hajarah and Ismail go into the wilderness, the angel Gabriel watched over them – except in Islam the angel’s name is Gibril. Hajarah tried to find water for Ishmael, over and over again. In the Muslim tradition, she ran back and forth between the hills named Safa and Marwa, which are said to be located in Mecca. To this day, this is a Muslim ritual called the sa`i. When Muslims make the hajj, the pilgrimage (haj) to Mecca they have to run between those two hills seven times in memory of Hajarah.43

We Cannot Tell The Jewish Story Without Hagar: The Origin of Jewish Ethics

The medieval biblical commentator and mystic, Nachmanides, asks the rhetorical but necessary question: why did the ancient Israelites have to experience persecution and torment as migrant workers in Egypt? Precisely, he teaches us, because Abraham and Sarah persecuted and tormented an Egyptian migrant worker named Hagar. And so, the story of Hagar lives and breathes. It even re-emerges in the Ten Commandments. The commandment about the Sabbath states that Jews must abstain from work, but not only Jews: “You shall not do any work – you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave (amatcha), or your cattle, or the stranger who is within your settlements” (Exodus 20: 10). Once again, there’s Hagar. She is amatcha, “your female slave,” for so she was called in the story. She, and by implication, Ishmael, make a “guest appearance” in the Ten Commandments. The tragedy of her story cannot remain as simply a story; it must become a commandment. The way Jews observe the Sabbath serves as a necessary corrective to the pain of the story of Hagar. Imagine that every time the Bible speaks of ha-ger, the stranger (thirty six times, according to a traditional accounting), that it is not talking about ha-ger, but rather making a delicious pun. Imagine that the text is really talking about Hagar. Imagine that every law in the Bible about the stranger that mentions the term ha-ger, the stranger, is in fact, a midrash on this story. That is why as much as we might want to, we cannot leave Hagar behind. She’s an Egyptian slave woman. Jews were slaves in Egypt. Jews wandered out of Egypt. She wanders back to Egypt. The Jews been in exile. She was in exile. Like Moses, she flees into the wilderness and has an encounter with God. Like Moses, she must return to her place of servitude and submit – if only for the time being.

43 Muhammed's exile from Mecca to Medina when persecuted in Mecca is called hegira or hejira from same word as Hagar – exile, migration.

163

10. John Calvin and Martin Luther on Hagar's Happy Ending44

For John Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis, none of the actors in this drama come away untarnished. Sarah is blamed for having instigated Abraham's polygamy, and her "womanly jealousy" and intemperance twice make matters at home even worse. Abraham is upbraided by Calvin for the fickleness of his affection for Hagar. In the episode where Ishmael "plays" with his younger brother, Ishmael's offense was purely verbal, consisting of malignant derision, contempt, impious mockery, canine and profane laughter, and petulance." But this is no trivial or "playful" matter, Calvin warns," because what Ishmael insulted in the person of his brother was God himself, God's grace and God's word, as well as the faith of his father. Ishmael was a blasphemer. Like son, like mother? Yes: Hagar is not merely ungrateful but also positively unbridled, of "indomitable ferocity."" "Hagar, who had always been wild and rebellious, and who had, at length, entirely shaken off the yoke.” "God willed that the banishment of Ishmael should be so harsh and sorrowful, so that his example might strike terror into the proud, who ... trample under foot the very grace to which they are indebted for all things. Therefore, he led them both to a miserable end."'

However for Martin Luther in his Commentaries on Genesis offers a very empathetic reading of Hagar. Luther seems to find faith and faithfulness, along with nobility tempered by suffering, wherever he turns. Luther opines that Hagar's flight represented her attempt to force Abraham to declare his affection for her and his expected firstborn - a sort of countercoup to revenge herself against Sarah.

But what Hagar had to learn was that her "affliction" (that is, her subordination to Sarah) was not a sign of God's wrath or neglect, however much it felt like that, but rather something pleasing to God. ... What seems like tragedy and divine abandonment is in fact God's way of teaching people to trust in God alone. This is Luther's well-known doctrine of the Deus absconditus - the God whose presence is far nearer than we expect, albeit revealed only under a humble guise. Accordingly, one may expect Hagar and Ishmael to learn valuable lessons about faith and trust and humility through their exile, and so they do.

In the actual eviction of Hagar at Gen 21:14. Luther introduces a degree of pathos and poignancy which is simply astonishing: “This is surely a sad story if you consider it carefully, although Moses relates it very briefly. After Abraham is sure about God's will, he hastens to obey. . . . He simply sends away his very dear wife, who was the first to make him a father, along with his firstborn son, and gives them nothing but ein sack mlit brott, und ein krug mit wasser., a sack of bread and a jug of water . . . But does it not seem to be cruelty for a mother who is burdened with a child to be sent away so wretchedly, and to an unfamiliar place at that -yes, into a vast and arid desert?” "If someone wanted to rant against Abraham at this point, he could make him the murderer of his son and wife.... Who would believe this if Moses had not recorded it?"" But Abraham is actually no less anguished than Hagar here. “It is surely a piteous description, which I can hardly read with dry eyes, that the mother and her son bear their expulsion with such patience and go away into exile. Therefore! Father Abraham either stood there with tears in his eyes and followed them with his blessings and prayers as they went away, or he hid himself somewhere in a nook, where he wept in solitude over his own misfortune and that of the exiles.”Within a few pages Luther has everyone in the narrative weeping, and the readers of the text as well. "Trial follows upon trial, and tears force out other tears."

Abraham and Sarah are acting not according to their natural feelings but in obedience to the divine command. And so Abraham and Sarah urged Hagar and Ishmael "to bear this expulsion patiently; for, as they said, it was God's will expressed by a definite word that Ishmael should leave home and ... wait for God's blessing in another place." That Hagar should have to forsake her pride and presumption is understandable, but that she should be driven away from Abraham also suggests for Luther a terror, a trial, and a temptation far more horrible. To leave Abraham was, for Hagar, to leave the church of her day, indeed, to leave the kingdom of God. What else could

44 John Thompson, THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 59, #2, 1997, pp. 220-229

164

this mean but that God was abandoning her unto reprobation? In short, why should Hagar not believe that God hated her?”

Having raised this problem, Luther faces it head-on. Truly, it was God's intention to kill Hagar, spiritually, that he might raise her up. But here Luther sees Satan at work, too; Satan typically stirs up lies and "very sad thoughts" in the afflicted, and Hagar wandered aimlessly in the desert, having fallen into a deep stupor. Consequently, to comfort and correct Hagar a divine remedy was required, namely, an angelic visitation. "And here we are also warned about the purpose: it is not because God hates Ishmael and Hagar that he allows them to be cast out so pitifully. That phony explanation is the fabrication of the devil! God's plan is that they should be humbled and should learn to trust in God's grace alone, not in merits or some carnal prestige." God did not hate Hagar, Luther proclaims, but all those who have had their faith tested will understand perfectly why she might have thought he did."

God imposed a similar course of renunciation and mortification on Abraham, and Luther explicitly likens the effect of Hagar's banishment on Abraham to the near sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. But it is clear that both Hagar and Ishmael also endured a crisis of faith no less dramatic than the one which Kierkegaard, in his Fear and Remhling, attributes to Abraham.

“After this revelation (Gen. 16), Hagar, who had been rebellious and impatient of the yoke, has become an entirely different person." Once Hagar learned to trust God, everything changed; indeed, she became an example for us. As Luther writes, "most of us are like Hagar," not only in displaying pride towards our perceived inferiors but also insofar as we, too, have been led to faith and repentance. The confession of faith whereby Hagar "names" God is, therefore, also "the hymn of the whole church," "a hymn for the instruction of every •one of us," and an act of "true worship" on the part of "saintly Hagar." “I certainly conclude that Hagar should be counted among the saintly women.”

“Because the Word of God is never proclaimed in vain, Hagar, too, is first awakened from death, as it were, by the angel's voice. Then she is enlightened with ... the Holy Spirit, and from a slave woman she also becomes a mother of the 'church, who later on instructed her descendants and warned them by her own example not to act proudly.

Luther thinks that after Hagar's chastisement she returned to live not merely near Abraham but with him, "for the opinion of the Jews that Keturah is Hagar pleases me."

All this sadness, then, is not without purpose. Hagar and Ishmael were guilty not only of pride but also of presumption - the presumption that Ishmael's being born first automatically gave him sole rights to what God promised Abraham. The purpose of Ishmael's exile, Luther writes, "is to let him know that the kingdom of God is not owed to him by reason of a natural right but comes out of pure grace.... Ishmael and his mother must learn this lesson, since both wanted to proceed against Isaac on the strength of a right."45

"The expulsion does not mean that Ishmael should be utterly excluded from the kingdom of God." Indeed, the contrite Ishmael is "a true son of the promise." He “undoubtedly developed into a well-informed and learned preacher who, after he had been taught by his own example, preached that God is the God of those who have been humbled.... After Ishmael had become a husband, he [brought] ... his wife and her relatives and parents to the knowledge of God. Among the uncircumcised heathen he established a church like Abraham's church.... God caused him to become great ... in the word and spiritual gifts; for, says Moses, God was with him."

45 Luther makes many anti-Jewish asides in this context for the Jews claim first born rights over the Christian Church which is comes later.

165

11. Sisterhood: Hagar and Sarah? Two Feminist Midrashim

Sarah's Silence – A Tragic Ending by Marsha Pravder Mirkin (Beginning Anew, p. 68-69)

But what about Sarah? What was her experience of teshuva?

Achti by Lyn Gottlieb (from She Who Dwells Within, p. 89)

Achti, Only at the end, I am pained I did not call you When I witnessed my young son screaming By the name your mother gave you. under his father's knife, I cast you aside, Only then Cursed you with my barrenness and rage, Did I realize our common suffering. Called you “stranger”/ Ha-ger, And I called out, “Avraham, Avraham, hold As if it were a sin to be from another place. back your knife!” My voice trumpeted into the silence Achti of my sin. They used me to steal your womb, Claim your child, Forgive me, Achti As if I owned your body and your labor. For the sin of neglect I, whom they call “See Far Woman” / Sarah, For the sin of abuse Could not witness my own blindness. For the sin of arrogance But you, my sister, Forgive me, Achti, You beheld angels, For the sin of not knowing your name. Made miracles in the desert, Received divine blessings from a god, Who stopped talking to me.

166

Sarah's Death She is the only woman in the Bible whose life span is recorded: And Sarah's life was a hundred years and twenty years and seven years: the years of Sarah. (Genesis 23:1) .

167