Parshat Chayei Sarah, 5773/2012 thoughts
You can read the basics here.
I have nothing new to add at the moment, but Conservadox casts a vote for Rivkah's competence. (Better late than never: I forgot to link to his D'var Torah last week re the Akeidah.)
Saturday, November 10, 2012 post-Shabbat update:
Okay, now I have some new things to add. See end of post.
Here are some previous posts of mine on this week's parshah:
[ ¶ ]
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?!" Saturday, November 10, 2012 post-Shabbat update: See end of post for a correction.
Saturday, November 10, 2012 post-Shabbat updates):
I have nothing new to add at the moment, but Conservadox casts a vote for Rivkah's competence. (Better late than never: I forgot to link to his D'var Torah last week re the Akeidah.)
Saturday, November 10, 2012 post-Shabbat update:
Okay, now I have some new things to add. See end of post.
Here are some previous posts of mine on this week's parshah:
- Chayei Sarah (Sunday, November 07, 2004)
- Chayyei Sarah (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)
"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?!" Saturday, November 10, 2012 post-Shabbat update: See end of post for a correction.
- The Sacrifice Of Sarah (by Chessler & Haut) (Sunday, October 31, 2010) Please check out the linked essay--I'm not sure I wouldn't be violating a copyright by pasted a quote on my blog.
- Parshat Chayei Sarah (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)
- "•I don't remember where I heard or read this, but someone commented that Avraham showed more respect for Sarah after her death than he'd shown for her while she was alive. Sadly, I think one could make a case (see B'reishit/Genesis, chapter 23) for that."
- •Rachel (Sat., Nov. 10, 2012 post-Shabbat correction--Rivkah) fell off her camel before she inquired as to the identity of the man whom she saw in the field. Was it customary in the ancient Near East for a woman to dismount from her "ride" in the presence of a man of her own social class?
•Interestingly, much of the story of Rachel's (Sat., Nov. 10, 2012 post-Shabbat correction--Rivkah) encounter with Avraham's servant would be, for all practical purposes, impossible in current Chareidi (fervently Orthodox) society, in which, especially for an unmarried person, speaking to just about any person of the opposite gender other than one's parent is considered scandalous behavior."
- Avishag: Drafted for "mistresshood" (Sunday, November 04, 2007)
"How delightful (quoth she sarcastically). The king's servants brought a real, live female to the king to play the part of an electric blanket.
:( "
Saturday, November 10, 2012 post-Shabbat updates):
- Note that Rebeccah/Rivkah, in listing her own yichus ("pedigree"), names her father and his parents, but her mother is never once mentioned by name by Rivkah or anyone else. Apparently, the Redactor(s) who collected and wrote down the received traditions didn't think it necessary to connect her with her mother's family at all, only to Avraham's brother. Mom doesn't count. Ouch. (Those who wish to protest that I'm thinking like a 21st-century feminist are right, of course. So sue me. :) )
- Am I the only who found it odd that Avraham's servant lauded--and demonstrated--his master's wealth to the nth degree, but never said a word about Yitzchak/Isaac himself? Sure, Avraham said that he wanted his servant to find a wife for Yitzchak from among his family, rather than from among the locals, and also insisted that Yitzchak never return to the family's former home, but couldn't that be as easily explained as an attempt to ensure that Yitzchak's wife marry him sight unseen, rather than rejecting him because she could see that he had a disability?
- Why on earth did Yitzchak/Isaac take Rivkah into his late mother Sarah's tent instead of his own? And why didn't Avraham have anything to say about that? Was Avraham already deceased, as my husband theorizes, or was he too busy fooling around with Keturah to care? All theories cheerfully entertained--feel free to chime in in the comments section.
- The text doesn't say that Avraham only gave gifts to the later concubines--that was my error. But what good did it do for Yishmael to get a go-away present from his father when he was already in his fifties and well-established? He needed the help when he was a teenager and almost died of thirst in the wilderness. This was too little, too late, rather like a father who abandons his child as a teenager and refuses to pay child support, but offers the kid--who became a plumber/archer instead of a pharmacist/shepherd because his mother couldn't afford to send him to college/buy him goats--a guilt gift forty years later.
- Regarding the haftarah, I just find it an interesting coincidence that we read this about this palace intrigue/ancient Israelite politics right after an American election. :)
posted by Shira Salamone at 1:25 PM
8 Comments:
•Interestingly, much of the story of Rachel's encounter with Avraham's servant would be, for all practical purposes, impossible in current Chareidi (fervently Orthodox) society, in which, especially for an unmarried person, speaking to just about any person of the opposite gender other than one's parent is considered scandalous behavior
As you write above, when you write Rachel, do you really mean Rebecca?
Yes, I mean Rebecca/Rivkah. Good catch, Kid Charlemagne. My husband caught that error, too. Now I'll have to go back to my previous posts and make corrections. Oy. I just love embarrassing myself on the worldwide web (quoth she sarcastically). :(
Anyone know why the Midrash gives Rivka's family (Besuel and Lavan) such a bad rap? According to the Baal HaTurim and Rav Bechaye, they wanted to poison Eliezer and rob him. Why would any relative of Avraham's want to do that?
AztecQueen, here's my theory: Lavan shows up later as the villain victimizing Yaakov/Jacob. Why wait to villainize him later when you can start now? :)
P.S. to all: Don't forget to check my post-Shabbat updates at the end of this post. I added a number of new thoughts.
Sigh.
>?! 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?!"
Yishmael was a son of a wife so he was a genuine threat to Yitzchak's primacy. The sons of concubines would never have been in that position.
Plus the Midrash notes that Yishmael didn't move that far away and remained in contact with his father until he died.
> Mom doesn't count
Mom's count but they don't transmit yichus. Note that in the birth announcement at the end of Vayera, Rivkah is the only girl mentioned. Again, that's because she's important to the story. Otherwise geneologies only mention men for practical reasons.
> but never said a word about Yitzchak/Isaac himself?
Until relatively recently in history, matches were made based on social class, political connections, wealth, etc. The idea of romance as a driver for marriage is only just over a century old (and highly overrated). The servant would mention Avraham and his wealth because that's what was relevant. Yitzchak's physical characteristics were not. Rivkah would choose to marry him for reasons other than "attraction".
> take Rivkah into his late mother Sarah's tent instead of his own
Because she was now the head woman in the family so she moved into the former head woman's tent. Just like Avraham and Sarah had separate tents, so Yitzchak and Rivkah would. It was standard.
> And why didn't Avraham have anything to say about that
First, Avraham didn't die until Yaakov and Eisav were 15 years old. And again, you're thinking in terms of superficial 20th century romance. Back then people were more practical. The idea that Avraham would say "No, that was your mother's tent!" is foolish. It was the head woman's tent and she was the new head woman.
> He shows Sarah precious little respect while she's still alive,
That's not fair. He tosses out his first born son on her order!
Garnel, The Hebrew suggests that you may well be correct—Lech L’cha/Genesis 16:3 says that Sarah gave Hagar to Avraham “l’ishah, ” which does appear to mean “as a wife.” If that’s the case, one problem is solved while another is created—while Yishmael may, indeed, have been sent away because, as the son of a wife, not a concubine, he was a genuine threat to Yitzchak's primacy, that also means that Yishmael was *not* included among the sons of Avraham's concumbines who received gifts from him.
Re Yishmael having remained within Avraham's vicinity, I tend to take most midrashim with a grain of salt, since there's often no proof in the text for them (which is why they were written in the first place :)--one of the main roles of a midrash/rabbi interpretive story is to attempt to provide information and/or an explanation that's not including in the Torah sheh-bi-Ch'tav/Written Torah itself). Bottom line: I don't buy it.
"Moms count, but they don't transmit yichus." Sigh. Yes, I've noticed. I assume that that's changed in more recent times.
"The servant would mention Avraham and his wealth because that's what was relevant." Probably true. But I still wonder whether Rivkah would have been so willing to marry Yitzchak if she'd known that, according to some modern opinions, he had a disability.
> take Rivkah into his late mother Sarah's tent instead of his own
Because she was now the head woman in the family so she moved into the former head woman's tent."
That's a very logical explanation, and I really appreciate logical explanations. Thanks, Garnel.
> He shows Sarah precious little respect while she's still alive,
That's not fair. He tosses out his first born son on her order!"
Though that doesn't excuse Avraham for his indifference to Sarah's earlier suffering, that is a good point. Maybe he improved with age, to some extent.
> since there's often no proof in the text for them
In this case there is. Yishmael is part of Avraham Avinu's funeral procession and gives the prime spot over to Yitzchak. The other sons are not mentioned and presumably not present.
> I assume that that's changed in more recent times
No. Religion is transmitted by the mother, lineage by the father.
> according to some modern opinions, he had a disability.
Like I said, people married for social positions. They had affairs for romance!
"Yishmael is part of Avraham Avinu's funeral procession . . . "
Good point, Garnel. In the old days of the Camel and Donkey Transit Authority, getting to someone's funeral would have been tough if you didn't live in the neighborhood. I wonder how long it took Avraham to get to Chevron to bury Sarah.
"Religion is transmitted by the mother, lineage by the father."
Sigh. Some things are tough to change.
"people married for social positions."
That's precisely my point--what would have been the social position of a person with a disability, back then? Or did yichus/social status depend entirely on wealth, self-made and/or to-be-inherited?
Post a Comment
<< Home