A tallit-and-tefillin-wearing woman in a traditional Conservative synagogue?! An unorthodox—and non-orthodox—perspective on Jews and Judaism from a perpetual misfit. This blog, welcoming the entire Jewish community, is dedicated to those who take Judaism seriously, but not necessarily literally.
6 But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.
[ ¶ ]
Say what?! He did this for the sons of his later concubines, but he didn't do this for Yishmael/Ishmael, his firstborn son, son of Hagar?!
[ ¶ ]
My Haftarat Chayyei Sarah post: Avishag and David
[ ¶ ]
Update: See The Sacrifice of Sarah
posted by Shira Salamone at 12:38 PM
Once upon a time, I belonged to a left-wing egalitarian Conservative synagogue, where I was one of a number of women who wore a tallit—and one of the few members who used an Orthodox prayer book (adding the Mothers, of course). Having moved since then, I now belong to a right-wing traditional Conservative synagogue, where I’m almost always the only woman wearing a tallit—and one of the few members who adds the Mothers. I seem destined to be forever . . . on the fringe.
11 Comments:
1) Perhaps Avraham learned a lesson.
2) Ishmael and Hagar were being exiled, because (according to midrash) of Ishmael's violence against Yitzchak. Even according to the text they were being sent out because Sarah thought Ishmael was a bad influence on Yitzchak.
Keturah's(*) children were being sent away to keep the order of inheritance clean and perhaps (again according to midrash) to spread monotheism into the lands to the east.
3) Not to say anything bad about any of the Imahot, but Avraham is no longer operating under the requirement to do what Sarah tells him to. Those of us who can see Yitzchak and Yaakov's preferential treatment of favored children as a flaw can also see Sarah's jealousy of rivals to her and her children similarly.
(*) Ignoring the midrash that says Keturah is Hagar.
Larry, your Point 2) is debatable. See Genesis 25:
10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham: 'Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.'
For openers, what, exactly, was Yishmael doing? No one really knows what "m'tzachek" "making sport", means in this context. Whence do the rabbis get the notion that Yishmael acted against Yitzchak with violence?
For closers, the text states very clearly that Sarah was trying to protect Yitzchak's inheritance. She, too, was trying "to keep the order of inheritance clean."
" . . . Avraham is no longer operating under the requirement to do what Sarah tells him to."
Sarah told Avraham to kick Yishmael out, not to send him practically empty-handed into the desert to die. That was Avraham's decision.
"Those of us who can see Yitzchak and Yaakov's preferential treatment of favored children as a flaw can also see Sarah's jealousy of rivals to her and her children similarly."
This is all G-d's fault. If He'd ever bothered to tell Sarah that she'd eventually have a child of her own, she never would have brought Hagar in as a surrogate mother in the first place.
Shira,
How do you figure that? It is certainly alluded to that Abram/Abraham was wealthy. Why should Sarah not have brought him a concubine? Certainly better to be the wife when there is a concubine than first of multiple wives.
Lech L’cha, Genesis, chapter 16, verse 1:
1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bore him no children; and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 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 builded up through her.' And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
3 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.
Miami Al, Sarah didn't just give her handmaid to Avraham as a gift--she gave him Hagar for the specific purpose of having Hagar be her surrogate mother. Why would she have done that if she'd known that she, herself, was going to have a child?
I always assumed Sarah knew what G-d had promised, but that after 10 years of waiting, she had stopped believing what she knew.
To assume that Sarah wouldn't have acted as she did if G-d had acted differently, and therefore that HaShem could be wrong is a bit of stretch for me.
For openers, the text never indicates that she was told.
For closers, if *you* had waited for so many years, would *you* still have believed?
"To assume that Sarah wouldn't have acted as she did if G-d had acted differently, and therefore that HaShem could be wrong is a bit of stretch for me."
With due respect, that's exactly what I assume. If HaShem hadn't left Sarah childless for so many years, she wouldn't have felt the need to offer her husband a surrogate mother, and this whole mess would never have happened.
If you're going to view this from a literal perspective, and try to understand what Sarah thought or understood, don't you think it's a little unfair to impose on her your 21st century north american reality?
It's not like she graduated from Barnard in '70 and then settled on the UWS until her cousin Abe came and swept her off her feet.
I agree that allowing 13 years to pass before fulfilling the promise is a bit long, and think HaShem could have been a bit more compassionate with the timeline.
I suspect that your thinking includes that HaShem should have told Sarah directly and not through her husband, but I simply don't think Avraham didn't tell Sarah what G-d had promised.
As for me, my circumstances aren't exactly as the same as Sarah's but I did wait 19 and half years after getting married before children. I know about waiting.
TOJS,
That was kind of my point. This is in the ancient near east, not contemporary America.
Abraham had enough money to successfully move from Ur to Canaan... and send servants to Ur to retrieve a spouse... He's not an upper middle class doctor with a house keeper, he's a rich landowner with multiple servants, including one for his wife.
No child = no heir = no right to his property, it goes "back" to his family in Ur, presuming that his servants don't simple kill Sarah and take his property upon his death.
What reason should Sarah have given for giving him a concubine? Lower back pain from intimacy? Seriously, all marriage is ultimately for child bearing. Her servant as a concubine leaves Sarah in the first position. Had he instead taken a second wife that bore him a male child, Sarah moves into the second position because wife two bore an heir.
If we're trying to read this literally, and not either within the Rabbinic tradition of Midrashim, or the literary tradition of multiple stories of related traditions redacted together with mixed spelling success, I think it's hard to ignore the economic impact of various behaviors.
Too Old to Jewschool Steve said...
If you're going to view this from a literal perspective, and try to understand what Sarah thought or understood, don't you think it's a little unfair to impose on her your 21st century north american reality?
Miami Al said...
. . .
No child = no heir = no right to his property, it goes "back" to his family in Ur, presuming that his servants don't simple kill Sarah and take his property upon his death.
. . . Her servant as a concubine leaves Sarah in the first position. Had he instead taken a second wife that bore him a male child, Sarah moves into the second position because wife two bore an heir."
Thanks to TOTJ Steve and Miami Al for pointing me in a different directions. The economic argument makes sense.
I agree with Anon that " . . . allowing 13 years to pass before fulfilling the promise is a bit long . . . HaShem could have been a bit more compassionate with the timeline." That said, Sarah made the economic move that would protect her financial position.
" . . . my circumstances aren't exactly as the same as Sarah's but I did wait 19 and half years after getting married before children. I know about waiting."
Anon., I'm glad that your wait came to a happy conclusion.
In fairness to Avraham, I should go back to Larry's Point 1, "Perhaps Avraham learned a lesson." My husband has pointed out that Chapter 25 says only that Avraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines, plural, yet the only concubines mentioned are Hagar and Ketura, so it's possible that Avraham got smart in his older age and finally gave some "you-go-your-way-and-Yitz will-go-his" gifts to Yishmael.
Post a Comment
<< Home