1 Ishmael and Esau: Marginalized Men of the Bible As for Ishmael, I have heeded you. I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and exceedingly numerous. He shall be the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation. —Genesis 17:20 And Esau said to his father, “Bless me too, Father!” And Esau wept aloud. And his father Isaac answered, saying to him, “See, your abode shall enjoy the fat of the earth. And the dew of heaven above. Yet by your sword you shall live and you shall serve your brother; but when you grow restive, you shall break his yoke from your neck.” —Genesis 27:38–40 he displacement of the firstborn by the younger sibling is a re- curring motif found throughout the book of Genesis.1 Indeed, the central theme of Genesis, as Sarna states, is “the fortunes of Tthose who are heirs to God’s covenant”2 and as Robert Alter asserts, the entire book of Genesis “is about the reversal of the iron law of primogeni- ture, about the election through some devious twist of destiny of a younger son to carry on the line,” thus “the firstborn very often seem to be losers in Genesis by the very condition of their birth.”3 First encountered in the narration of primordial history, that is, in the story of Cain and Abel, this motif comes to the fore in the Patriarchal narratives. Indeed, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Leah and Rachel, Ephraim and Manasseh are part and parcel of this motif.4 At the same time, however, the extent to which 13 © 2006 State University of New York Press, Albany 14 Ishmael on the Border a sibling is marginalized, the motive for, and the effects of marginaliza- tion differ from story to story. A literary analysis of the biblical texts per- taining to Ishmael and Esau demonstrates that while there are significant differences, their narratives consist of particular parallel features that, in turn, contribute to a postbiblical Ishmael-Esau pairing found in rabbinic literature. An analysis of the biblical narrative of Ishmael in light of the story of Esau5 will set the stage for our ensuing examination of the rabbinic use of both biblical figures. Both men, deliberately placed “outside” the family not by the will of the father, but rather the mother, who carries out the providential plan (in Sarah’s case unbeknownst to her), resemble one an- other, yet have distinct features. The narratives parallel and eventually intersect. Ishmael in the Bible The biblical narrative dealing with the figure of Ishmael is a story of mar- ginalization par excellence. He is Abraham’s firstborn, circumcised with Abraham, yet he is not the son of the covenant. He is part of the family, yet he is excluded. His presence is felt, yet his actions are few. He is spoken about, yet never speaks. God hears his voice, but the reader hears silence. He will be a great nation, but “his hand will be against everyone, and every- one’s hand against him.” He is loved, and although expelled from Abraham’s house, he is not rejected. As we shall see, the difficulty in discerning the meaning of several biblical references to Ishmael contributes to his ambigu- ous role in the patriarchal narrative. What, for example, does it mean that he will be a pereυυa–da–m, a “wild ass of a man,” that his hand will be against all, that he will live al peˇnê, “in the face of ” his kinsmen? Before we look at how the rabbis interpreted these phrases and how they portrayed Ishmael, let us examine the biblical story. The figure of Ishmael is introduced in Genesis 166 when the messen- ger of God appears to Hagar. He informs her that God will multiply her seed exceedingly, that she is with child, and that she shall call him Ishmael, which means “God hears,” because the Lord has heard her affliction. Moreover, in Gen. 16:12, one learns that he will be a wild ass of a man whose “hand shall be against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; and he shall dwell alongside7 all his kinsmen.” “Part of the announcement of the birth of a son,” Westermann points out, “is a preview of his later destiny, as for example: he will be one of renown, a king, a savior. The son in these cases (as Judg. 16; Lk. 1) will be of © 2006 State University of New York Press, Albany Ishmael and Esau: Marginalized Men of the Bible 15 significance for the people.”8 The birth announcement of the ill-fated first- born is no exception: The fierce, aggressive way of life of the sons of Ishmael . is other than the peaceful nomadic life-style of the patriarchs. It presupposes the sedentary and bedouin desert tribes living in Canaan side by side and in confrontation in the period after the settlement.9 Wenham offers a different understanding of the verse: “This verse describes Ishmael’s future destiny, to enjoy a free-roaming, bedouinlike existence. The freedom his mother sought will be his one day. The pereυ, ‘wild ass,’ lives in the desert, looks more like a horse than a donkey, and is used in the OT as a figure of an individualistic lifestyle untrammeled by social convention” (Jer. 2:24; Hos. 8:9).10 In a similar vein, Sarna writes: Like the wild ass among the beasts, so are the Ishmaelites among men. In their nature and destiny they call to mind the sturdy, fearless, and fleet-footed Syrian onager (Heb. pereυ), who inhabits the wilder- ness and is almost impossible to domesticate . Hagar, the abused slave woman subjected to the harsh discipline of her mistress, will produce a people free and undisciplined.11 Syren also considers Gen. 16:7–14 as expressing a favorable, or at least neutral position toward Ishmael: Elsewhere in the Bible the wild ass is the typical unfettered wild an- imal, alone and free to go its own way (Hos. 8:9; Job 39:5). ...In Hos. 8:9 and Jer. 2:24, the animal serves as an illustration of Israel’s apostasy; as the wild ass in her heat exposes herself to her mates, Is- rael lustfully submits itself to foreign gods. Apart from this, nothing pejorative is associated with the wild ass—and in this instance it symbolized Israel and not her seducers. Like the wild ass, Ishmael is predestined to a solitary, wandering life. In this respect he can be compared to Cain, although unlike Cain, the biblical narrator does not impute any crime or guilt to Ishmael. Yet . Ishmael’s life ...is not unlike Cain’s: both are sent away from their own family and community.12 Von Rad proposes an even more positive understanding of the verse: “He will be a real Bedouin, a ‘wild ass of a man’ . free and wild (Cf. Job 39:5–8)...eagerly spending his life in a war of all against all—a worthy son of his rebellious and proud mother! In this description of Ishmael there © 2006 State University of New York Press, Albany 16 Ishmael on the Border is undoubtedly undisguised sympathy and admiration for the roving Bedouin who bends his neck to no yoke. The man here pictured is highly qualified in the opinion of Near Easterners.”13 Finally, Speiser makes a connection between the Hebrew pereυ and the Akkadian phrase lullu-awelu, approximately translated “savage of a man,” a phrase used to describe not only Enkidu but also the first human created by gods.14 The similarity drawn between Enkidu and Ishmael, as will be shown later, is also drawn between Esau and Enkidu. What then did the messenger of the Lord mean when he told Ha- gar that her son shall be a pereυυa–da–m, “a wild ass of a man; his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; he shall dwell alongside all his kinsmen”? Given the various ways of interpreting pereυ and al peˇnê, the connotation is ambiguous and thus ripe for interpretation. The de- scription, however ambiguous, is clearly of the “natural” person who is unrestrained, uninhibited by agrarian life. And, while al peˇnê may express hostility, it more likely describes the close proximity of the nomadic Ish- maelites to other tribes. Whether or not the description of Ishmael as a “wild ass of a man” is deemed negative seems more to depend upon one’s own bias than on the context. That is to say, for some, the free-roaming bedouin existence is uncouth and unconventional, whereas for others, an unshackled lifestyle unencumbered by social convention and unrestricted by geography is de- sirable. The characterization of Ishmael is neither inherently negative nor pejorative. It presents the antithesis of the “civilized” sedentary Israelites. It is thus not surprising to learn in Gen. 21:21 that when Ishmael grew, he dwelt in the wilderness.15 The notion that “his hand will be against every- one and everyone’s hand against his” does depict tension between seden- tary and nomadic tribes in the Near East,16 but this tension need not be understood as negative. In fact, upon revisiting Westermann’s understand- ing of Gen. 16:2, we find that he says, “It presupposes the sedentary and bedouin desert tribes living side by side,” however, taking it a step further by claiming, “and in confrontation in the period after the settlement.” Again, there is nothing inherently negative in the text to warrant this par- ticular reading. Moreover, in Genesis 1717 God makes his covenant with Abraham and his seed.18 God tells Abraham that Sarah is to give birth and that God will establish his covenant with Isaac, not Ishmael.