Yishmael Comes Around
R. Yaakov Bieler
Parshat Chaye Sara, 5766
A
recurrent theme in Rabbinic literature, including commentaries on Beraishit
25:9 in Parshat Chaye Sara, concerns Avraham’s son Yishmael’s religious
orientation towards the end of his father’s life.
Yishmael’s
early alienation from Avraham’s form of belief and worship is assumed by
Rabbinic tradition on the basis of three considerations:
a) the implication of the verb “Metzachek” (lit. playing)
in 21:9, an action which Sara observes
Yishmael engaging in vis-à-vis Yitzchak, and which precipitates her insistence that Yishmael and
his mother be banished from contact with Avraham and Sara’s family,
b)
the ostensibly cold and cruel manner by which Yishmael is sent away and
essentially given a death sentence by Avraham (see 21:14-16), suggesting some
extraordinary disillusionment on his part with his son, adding to the basis for
Sara’s documented negativity,
and c) although HaShem, via an
angel, ultimately Saves Hagar and Yishmael from impending death (
In terms
of the transgressions suggested by “Metzachek”, the Midrash presents the
following possibilities with respect to the word’s connotation:
Beraishit Rabba 53:11
“And Sara saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian”—
Said R. Shimon bar Yochai: Rabbi Akiva saw
something negative in this behavior (of Yishmael) and I saw something positive.
R. Akiva interpreted: “And Sara saw”—“Metzachek” is to be
understood as sexual immorality. This is just as it is stated, (39:14)
“And she (Mrs. Potiphar) called to the members of her household, and she said
to them, saying: See! He (her husband) has brought to us a Hebrew man
‘LeTzachek’ with us. He came to me to lie with me and I called out in a loud
voice.” This teaches that Sara our Foremother saw that Yishmael would frequent
gardens and stalk married women and rape them.
It was taught in the Yeshiva of R. Yishmael: This
language of “Tzechok” refers to idolatry, as it is stated, (Shemot 32:6,
within the context of the sin of the Golden Calf) “And they got up early the
next morning and they offered whole burnt offerings, and they brought peace
offerings, and the people sat down to eat and drink and they rose ‘LeTzachek’.”
This teaches that Sara our Foremother saw Yishmael build mini-alters and hunt
grasshoppers, and he would offer them upon them (the alters).
R. Elazar beno shel R. Yosi HaGallili said: This language of “Tzechok”
refers to bloodshed. It is just as it is said, (II Shmuel
R. Azarya in the name of R. Levi said: Yishmael said to Yitzchak,
“Come, let us see our possessions in the fields,” and he would take a bow
and arrows, and shoot them in Yitzchak’s direction, pretending all the time
that he is only “playing”. It is just as it is said, (Mishlei
But I (R. Shimon bar Yochai) say something concerning the
implications of the term “Metzachek” in a “positive”[1]
vein. The connotation of “Tzechok” is an expression associated with inheritance.
At the time that our Father Yitzchak was born, everyone was rejoicing. Yishmael
said to them: You are fools. I am the firstborn, and I will take a double
portion (of Avraham’s estate).[2]
For from the response of our Foremother Sara to Avraham, “for the son of this
handmaiden will not inherit with my son” you can learn that (her intent was) Yishmael
will not inherit with my son even if I was not speaking of Yitzchak; and he
will not inherit with Yitzchak even if the latter was not my son; all the more
so will he not inherit since Yitzchak is truly my son.
Sephorno
on 21:9 interprets “Metzachek” by employing the hermeneutic principle of
“Semichut HaParshiot” (the juxtaposition of topics),[3]
seeking to relate 21:9 specifically to the contents of 21:8. His view parallels
that of R. Shimon bar Yochai in the Midrash cited above, but adds a certain hurtful
edge that would more easily justify a powerful response on the part of Sara.
Sephorno on 21:9
“Et Ben Hagar HaMitzrit” (the son of Hagar the
Egyptian)—she (Sara) thought that he (Yishmael) learned this insult (see the
next comment) because he heard it from his mother, as the Rabbis have stated,
(Sukka 56b) “What the child says in public is what s/he has heard from his/her
father or mother.”[4]
“Metzachek”—He was speaking deprecatingly regarding
the celebration that was taking place in Avraham’s home, by saying that Sara
had conceived with Avimelech.[5],[6]
The reason why Yishmael had not said this immediately when Yitzchak was born,[7]
was because Yishmael heard these malicious accusations later, from the cynics
of the generation. And in the event that he had said such things at the time of
Yitzchak’s birth, Sara did not notice his comments since she was preoccupied
with other matters.
Avraham’s
eventual cruelty with respect to the manner in which Hagar and Yishmael are
sent out into the desert with virtually no supplies and therefore little hope
for survival (21:14) is accounted for by the Rabbis by expanding upon the approach of the
Yeshiva of R. Yishmael listed above.
Shemot
Rabba 1:1
…What is
meant by (Mishlei 13:24)
“One who keeps back the rod hates his child…”? It is to teach that whoever
withholds from his child bitterness, in the end s/he will come to be involved
in negative activity and the parent will hate him/her. For this is what we find
with Yishmael, whose father Avraham was extremely indulgent to him, and did not
discipline him. He engaged in negative activity and Avraham in the end hated
him, and he banished him from his home with nothing. What did Yishmael do? When
he was 15, he began to bring idols home from the market, and he would “Metzachek”
with them and worship them, emulating what he saw others doing.
Immediately, “And Sara saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian that had conceived him
with Avraham, ‘Metzachek’.” “Metzachek” connotes idolatry… Immediately “And she
said to Avraham: Banish this handmaiden and her son”, lest my son learn from
his ways. Immediately, “And the thing was very bad in the eyes of Avraham” that
Yishmael had engaged in negative activity. “And God Said to Avraham: This
should not be evil in your eyes”…Immediately “And Avraham rose up early in the
morning and took a bread and a skin of water” to teach that he hated Yishmael
that he had engaged in negative activity. And he sent him and his mother
empty-handed and troubled from his home as a result. Does it ever cross your mind
that Avraham, about whom it is written, (13:2) “And Avram was very wealthy in
terms of herds etc.” would send out his wife and child from his home
empty-handed without clothing or means of support? But this is to teach you
that since he engaged in negative activity, he (Avraham) no longer was
positively disposed towards him. What was his (Yishmael)’s end? He would lie
in ambush at crossroads and steal from those passing by, as it is
said, (
The
Midrash therefore not only attributes to Yishmael idolatrous indiscretions
during his adolescence, but that his disenfranchisement by Avraham directly
leads to a life of thievery and preying on others.
Consequently,
given the broad attribution to Yishmael of so much anti-social and
anti-monotheistic behavior, it is surprising to read RaShI’s commentary on
25:9, based upon a combination of a Talmudic passage in Bava Batra and a
Midrash in Beraishit Rabba, that suggests that while there may have been an
initial disenchantment with Avraham’s monotheistic beliefs and ethical
practices, Yishmael later repented, and took up Avraham’s faith and lifestyle once
again during his father’s lifetime.
Beraishit 25:9
And they, Yitzchak and Yishmael his sons, buried
him (Avraham) in Ma’arat HaMachpeila (the Cave of the Pairs), in the field of
Efron ben Tzochar the Hittite which faces Mamre.
RaShI
From here (it can be concluded) Yishmael
engaged in “Teshuva” (repentance), and therefore allowed Yitzchak to
precede him (in the funeral procession, implied by the order of the names
listed in the verse);[8]
and this is the “Seiva Tova” (good old age) that had been promised to
Avraham. (The last portion of this commentary is a reference to the “Covenant
between the Pieces” recorded in Beraishit 15, that includes the following
Divine Promise: (
Bava Batra 16b
R. Yochanan said: Consider Yishmael, that there is written concerning
him “Geviah” (expiration) and “Aseifa” (gathering)[9]
(references to verbs appearing in connection with Yishmael in 25:17 “And these
are the years of the life of Yishmael: 100 years and 30 years, and 7 years and
he expired and he died and he was gathered to his people)…
R. Yochanan said: Yishmael repented during his father’s lifetime, as
it is said, “And they, Yitchak and Yishmael his sons, buried him…”
But perhaps their listing was in accordance with their
respective levels of wisdom (Yitzchak being considered wiser than Yishmael
deserved a listing ahead of his older brother, even though Yishmael may not
have actually deferred to allow Yitzchak to lead the funeral procession)?
But then consider another parallel verse: (35:29) “And
Yitzchak expired and he died and he was gathered unto his people, old and
satiated in days, and they buried him, Eisav and Yaakov, his sons.” What
reason were the sons not mentioned in this case according to their wisdom
(which would have placed Yaakov ahead of Eisav)? But rather he (Yishmael) deferred
to Yitzchak and said, “You lead the way”, indicating that Yishmael had
repented.
Beraishit Rabba 38:12
…(15:15) “And you will be buried in a good old age”—He
(HaShem) informed him (Avraham) that Yishmael would repent.[10]
Certainly
the Talmudic interpretation of 25:9 appears to have come to light only after a
comparison with 35:29 reveals an apparent inconsistency with regard to the
order of the listing of the siblings involved in the funeral procession. Had
35:29, or for that matter even 25:9, simply said, “And they, his sons, buried
their father”, we would not have had any basis of comparison and would not have
been aware of any exceedingly subtle, implied change in Yishmael. The Midrashic
insight into the nature of the “good old age” mentioned in 15:15,
clearly assumes that what HaShem is Referring to, is the quality of one’s
older years, rather than their quantity. Yet, to specifically interpret
this terminology with respect to Yishmael’s behavior towards the end of
Avraham’s life does not appear to be a particularly obvious interpretation.
Many different factors, including experiences and accomplishments independent
of how one’s progeny have turned out would seem to contribute to how an
individual ultimately feels about the life that s/he has led. The Midrash on
24:1 suggests a parallel source for the idea that Yishmael repented that shares
an identical premise with Beraishit Rabba 38:12.
Beraishit Rabba 59:7
(Beraishit 24:1) “And HaShem Blessed Avraham with
everything”—…R. Levi said (this connotes) three things: 1) that He Gave him
dominion over his inclination,[11]
2) that Yishmael engaged in “Teshuva” during his (Avraham’s) lifetime,
and 3) that his storage houses were never lacking.[12]
Once
again, just as a parent might consider a long life as incomplete and
frustrating as long as a child has turned his/her back on the parent’s
traditions and decided to live his/her life in a manner quite at odds with
their upbringing, so too no matter how much one owns and has accomplished, a
recalcitrant, rebellious child can render it all meaningless and create the
impression that one’s life has been cursed rather than blessed. However,
to convincingly claim that Yishmael did “Teshuva” and this was the answer to
all of Avraham’s prayers does not appear to be an obvious understanding of the
phrases in question. Consequently, it is not surprising that various
commentators search for additional indications that such a transformation took
place on the part of Yishmael.
Klee
Yakar wonders how to reconcile the idea of Hagar’s having provoked Yishmael’s
negative activity—if Sephorno could attribute Yishmael’s scandalous rumor
mongering to his mother, why shouldn’t the sexual immorality, idolatry and
bloodshed also be seen to have if not been encouraged, than at least not
discouraged by Hagar as well—and the Rabbinic tradition that Ketura, whom
Avraham marries following the death of Sara and Yitzchak and Rivka’s wedding
(25:1), is in fact Hagar (see e.g., RaShI).
Klee Yakar on 25:1
…Immediately (when he realized that Hagar may have been at
least partially responsible for Yishmael’s idolatrous activities) he divorced
her,[13]
and she went and wandered, in accordance with Sara’s wishes. So what is
difficult to understand is if Avraham divorced Hagar due to the improper matter
of her involvement with idolatry, how could he have gone and remarried her?
Therefore, we are being told (by Avraham’s action) that she repented just as
Yishmael her son repented as well. And in order to publicize her change of
heart, Avraham called her “Ketura”, calling to mind the incense sacrifice
“Ketoret”. He was demonstrating to all that she had repented. With respect to
every “Ba’al Teshuva”, his/her past intentional sins are from this point
forward considered as merits,[14]
and these intentional sins rise up to Heaven as a pleasant spirit, comparable
to merits. It is for this reason that such a turnaround is compared to Ketoret,
which contains the spice frankincense, which by itself has a foul order, but
when combined with the other spices, rises up as a pleasant odor…
An
intriguing question is raised by Klee Yakar’s approach: who did “Teshuva”
first? Was it Hagar’s repentance that influenced Yishmael, or did Yishmael’s
turnaround affect Hagar? While in the Messianic Age we are told (Malachi
Gur Aryeh
supplies an interesting insight with regard to a curious comment that RaShI attributes
to Avraham concerning Yishmael, and which may resolve the question that was
raised by Klee Yakar’s commentary. According to the order of events, the
Binding of Isaac (Chapt. 22) takes place after Hagar and Yishmael have
been banished (Chapt. 21). Yet from RaShI’s perspective, Avraham’s emotional
tie apparently remains.[15]
The context of the verse is that HaShem is in the process of Informing Avraham
of the Commandment to sacrifice Yitzchak, and Avraham appears to be attempting
to avoid dealing with the implications of the test.
Beraishit 22:2
Take now your son, your only son, that you love, Yitzchak,
and go to the
RaShI
“Your son”—He said to Him: I have
two sons. He Said to him,
“Your only son”—He said to Him:
This one is the only son to his mother, and this one is the only son to his
mother. He Said to him,
“That you love”—He said to Him: I
love both of them…[16]
Gur Aryeh
Even though he (RaShI) had written (on 21:14, in
accordance with Shemot Rabba 1:1) that Avraham had not given Yishmael any
silver or gold because he had engaged in negative activity…nevertheless he
still felt love for Yishmael, since HaShem had Informed him that Yishmael
would eventually repent.[17]
The most
imaginative and fully developed description of Avraham and Yishmael’s
relationship post-banishment is found in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer:
Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapt. 29
…Avraham rose up early
and wrote a bill of divorcement and gave it to Hagar and sent her and her son
away from him and from Yitzchak, his son, from this world and from the
next…Avraham stood to watch his son Yishmael and to see in which direction he
would travel. And due to Avraham’s
merit, the water in the skin never ran out. But when he reached the beginning
of the desert, she (Hagar) began to wander after the idolatry of her father’s
house, and immediately, the water in the skin was used up...And Yishmael’s soul
was enervated with thirst...and he said, “God of Avraham my father! There is
before You the results of not having water (i.e., Look at the state to which I
have been reduced). Take my soul from me and Do not Allow me to die of thirst!”
And HaShem Allowed Himself to Respond to him...and they journeyed to the
After three years,
Avraham went to see Yishmael, his son, and swore to Sara that he would not get
down from his camel in the place where Yishmael was dwelling. And he reached
the place at
After another three
years, Avraham went to see Yishmael, his son, and Sara made him swear once
again as he had done the first time that he would not descend from his camel in
the place where Yishmael was dwelling. He reached the place at
In light
of Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, it is not at all surprising that Yishmael repented,
and that his mother followed suit. Avraham’s kindnesses and concern did not
cease, even after they had been exiled. A line of communication continued to be
open, and
Avraham’s concern was eventually repaid in truly experiencing a “Seiva Tova”.
Shabbat
Shalom, and may we all be blessed with long, meaningful and satisfying lives in
the manner of Avraham Avinu.
[1] R. Shimon bar Yochai’s view is
“positive” only in terms of comparison with the interpretations attributing to
Yishmael much more dangerous and illicit behavior listed previously in the name
of various Tannaim. Understanding that one has acted less than righteously does
not automatically categorize him/her as an evil individual. Sara’s resolve to
banish Yishmael has less to do with Yishmael’s character according to R. Shimon
bar Yochai, and therefore can be understood as “relatively positive”. See fn. 2
below.
[2] Although such bragging is not
optimal behavior, nevertheless, it is hard to call what normal adolescents say
to each other and even to others a sin of such proportions that he and his
mother deserved exile. Consequently, R. Shimon bar Yochai, as opposed to the
views listed before him, refuses to assume that “Metzachek” reflects some sort
of inherent moral shortcoming on the part of Yishmael, but merely a sense of
competition and self-worth.
[3] Based upon the assumption that the
Tora was carefully composed by HaShem, therefore no sequence of verses or
stories is to be viewed as random. If in the previous verse mention was made of
the celebration that Avraham made in honor of Yitzchak, then Yishmael’s
“playing” or “mocking” may have been in direct response to it.
[4] Sephorno is accounting for why the
Biblical text does not simply state Yishmael’s name, but rather identifies him
in terms of his mother. Assuming that Hagar is guilty for instigating the cruel
words of her son serves as a justification for not only the boy’s banishment,
but his mother’s as well.
[5] The basis for such a charge
obviously comes about as a result of Avraham and Sara’s inability to have a
child of their own for such a long period of time (see 16:3). Despite Hagar’s
having conceived Yishmael with Avraham, reflecting that Avraham was capable of
fathering a child, cynics looked to discount the miraculous nature of Sara’s
conception as predicted by the HaShem (17:16) and His Angels (18:10) and
instead suggest a more scandalous explanation for Yitzchak’s sudden birth. The
rumor monger’s attempt to undermine Yitzchak’s legitimacy is reflected in RaShI
comment on the apparent superfluity of 25:19—
Beraishit 25:19
And these are the generations of Yitzchak, son of Avraham.
Avraham fathered Yitzchak.
RaShI
“Avraham fathered Yitzchak”—because the cynics of the
generation were saying, “Sara conceived from Avimelech”, because after all
Avraham and Sara were together for a considerable number of years, and she
never became pregnant by him, what did the Holy One, Blessed Be He do? He
Formed Yitzchak’s face to practically identically mirror Avraham’s. By means of
this powerful resemblance, everyone would give testimony to the fact: “Avraham
fathered Yitzchak”. And that is what the verse here is indicating, i.e.,
Yitzchak was indeed the son of Avraham, for there was indisputable evidence
that Avraham had fathered Yitzchak.
[6] Sephorno’s version of “Metzachek”
would have the same result as R. Shimon bar Yochai’s interpretation, i.e., it
would delegitimize Yitzchak’s claim to be Avraham’s main heir. However, whereas
the Tana’s view entails Yishmael telling the truth and what is in question is
whether or not as Hagar’s son he qualifies as the “Bechor” (the first-born) who
is entitled to a double portion, according to Sephorno he was engaged in a much
more nefarious form of spreading lies impugning not only Yitzchak, but also Avraham
and Sara.
[7] 21:1-7 deal with Yitzchak’s
immediate birth. 21:8 is prefaced with the phrase, “And the boy grew and he was
weaned…” RaShI, based upon Ketubot 60a, interprets the verse as referring to 24
months later.
[8] Despite the fact that Yishmael was
chronologically 14 years older than Yitzchak—see 17:25 and 21:5—he allowed his
younger brother to walk in the lead position during Avraham’s funeral
procession.
[9] The Talmud assumes that these
particular verbs are used only in connection with particularly righteous
individuals. It comes to such a conclusion in light of the other examples in
Chumash: Avraham (25:8); Yitzchak (35:29); Yaakov (49:33); Aharon (Bamidbar
20:26, 29); Moshe (Devarim 32:3).
[10] In case someone would counter that
just because a child repents at some future time, does not compensate for all
of the aggravation that was caused prior to the act of repentance, the
following comment is interesting to consider:
Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei Tosafot on 23:1
…like in the case of a convert, at the time of his/her
conversion, s/he is like a new born baby, and all of the years that preceded
the act of conversion are ignored, so too with regard to a penitent, the
previous years of acting badly are overlooked, and the individual is to be
viewed as one who has done the right thing for his entire life.
Such an attitude could indeed help a parent make peace
with previous years of alienation and conflict with a child.
[11] Avraham finally demonstrated that
human beings could carry out what HaShem had Told Kayin prior to his slaying
his brother: (4:7) “Behold, if you do good, you will be forgiven/elevated; but if you do not do good, sin crouches at
the door, and to you is its desire, and you will rule over it!” Too many
before Avraham had instead become subservient to their desires and
inclinations, rather than exercising self-discipline and self-control. The
initial indication of this human foible appears in 3:6.
[12] Avraham’s continuous wealth is
remarkable in light of how hospitable Avraham and Sara were, and the great
amount of resources that they must have expended in order to entertain the
massive numbers of guests that they invited into their home.
[13] The assumption that Hagar needed a
divorce is premised upon 16:3 in which the Tora states that Sara gave Hagar to
Avraham as a full-fledged wife, in contrast to the status of Bilha and Zilpa,
the handmaidens of Rachel and Leah. See e.g. the commentary of R. Saadia Gaon.
[14] This can be understood quite
rationally, since with every deliberate transgression, it becomes more and more
difficult to repent. Were a person to repent despite a troubled past, the
repentance is so much more difficult and consequently religiously significant
than had the person not engaged in this type of negative behavior.
[15] Naturally one could claim that
these are Midrashim at odds with one another, as well as invoke the rule “Ein
Mukdam U’Me’uchar BaTora” (there is no chronological order with regard to
stories in TaNaCh), thereby allowing one to say that Yishmael was banished at a
later point. However, it is also reasonable to read the simple implication of
the text and see how it matches up with the respective Midrashim that are
applied to it.
[16] Of course the presumption of
Avraham’s undying love for Yishmael flies in the face of the premise of Shemot
Rabba 1:1 which attributes to Avraham hatred for the malfeasances of his son.
[17] This is most probably a reference
to the implications of 15:15, “a good old age”.