Abraham, Sarah, and
Hagar as a Blended Family:
Problems, Partings,
and Possibilities
David J. Zucker, Aurora, Colorado, USA
Moshe Reiss, Israel
Abstract
Blended
families are families where after divorce or death, and then through
remarriage, at least one parent and one child (children) are not biologically
connected. One prime example found in Genesis, are the lives and interactions
of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, and then the additional personages of Ishmael and
Isaac. This article considers this ancient blended family through the lens of
the norms of relationships between spouses (partners), and child(ren) within
family life in the twenty-first century. What was accepted, and acceptable in
the ancient world, the cultural mores and customs of that age are not the
standards and models of our time. That disjunction notwithstanding, the past
informs the present. Dividing into three parts, Problems, Partings, and
Possibilities, this article analyzes that ancient blended family through
biblical, midrashic, and contemporary teachings.
Blended families
are families where after divorce or death, and then through remarriage, at
least one parent and one child (children) are not biologically connected. This
phenomenon is commonplace in todays world. The dynamics of blended families
are infinitely more complicated than in more traditional family configurations.
What role can –or should – the stepparent (blended parent) take?
What loyalty is there between the stepparent and the stepchild? And the stepchild
to the stepparent? Or blended siblings? Can/should a stepparent discipline a
stepchild? If exchanges between traditional family members are often
potentially charged, exchanges between members of a blended family are
magnified. Frequently, people clamor for status, attention, and/or power.
Feelings are easily hurt, actions are misread and misinterpreted, and
individuals ascribe meaning to deeds that may not necessarily have been
intended.
Once
a person enters into a relationship with another, any decisions made by either
have consequences felt by both parties. This is true of any partnership or
marriage. Adding a child (children) makes this more complicated. To a greater
or lesser degree, all decisions necessarily affect everyone, whether or not the
person intended this to happen.
Blended
families do not come with a set of instructions how to negotiate these troubled
and troubling waters. We can however, learn from the experiences of others. One
prime example is found in Genesis, the lives and interactions of Abraham,
Sarah, and Hagar, and then the additional personages of Ishmael and Isaac.
Their story provides us with living lessons of what might be done – or
avoided – when there is a blended family.
As
we analyze this ancient blended family, we do this through the lens or filter
of the norms and understanding of relationships between spouses (partners), and
child(ren) within family life in the twenty-first century. What was accepted, and acceptable in
the ancient world, the cultural mores and customs of that age are not the
standards and models of our time. That disjunction notwithstanding, we look at
the past to inform us in the present. In seeking lessons from the past, we can
add to our knowledge by referring to some traditional rabbinic understandings
of what was going on in this early example of a blended family.
This
article is divided into three parts: Problems, Partings, and Possibilities. The
first section, Problems, considers the initial couple of Abraham and Sarah. It
explores how decisions were made by Abraham that negatively impacted upon the
life of Sarah. Subsequently, when it appears that she cannot produce an heir,
Sarah offers Abraham her maidservant, the Egyptian woman Hagar, to serve as a
surrogate womb. Initially a successful solution, difficulties soon arise. These
matters are resolved in some manner, but then resurface some years later
following Isaacs birth and weaning.
The
second section analyzes the Partings. There is an initial parting of the ways
when Hagar flees to the desert to escape Sarahs cruel treatment, though Hagar
does return. Nearly twenty years later, however, Sarah forces Hagar and Ishmael
from the Abrahamic encampment.
Finally,
the article considers Possibilities for this blended family. It suggests a
reading of the text where Sarah and Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac, reconnect and
reconcile. It also suggests that Abraham and Ishmael, and Abraham and Hagar
reconcile.
PART l: PROBLEMS
All happy
families resemble each other, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.[1] On the face of it, the Abraham-Sarah
family is an unhappy family in its own way. Though outwardly successful, in
that they have many material possessions –Now [Abraham] was very rich in
cattle, silver, and gold (Gen. 13:2)[2]
– they have not known the blessings of a child, never mind several
children. Gods promise that Abraham (and presumably Sarah) would be a great
nation (Gen. 12:2; cf. 15:3-5) has not been realized. Their unhappiness stems
from their feeling unfulfilled: they have no offspring.
Rightly
or wrongly, Sarah is labeled as the cause of this matter. When first mentioned
by name, no details are given of her ancestry. Rather the text notes that she
was barren, she had no child (Gen. 11:30). Underscoring its
significance, the text repeats her condition. These ominous words haunt
the narrative to come. They bring [Sarah] to center stage . . . Unique and
barren, [Sarah] threatens the demise of genealogy.[3]
Shortly
after this notice about Sarah, the text explains that God sends Abraham and Sarah
on a journey to a new land, where in time they (or more technically he,
Abraham) shall produce a great nation.[4]
At this point, Abraham does not seem concerned about how this will happen.
Abraham just allows matters to unfold.
In
a time of famine Abraham and Sarah travel southward to Egypt. There he
misrepresents his real relationship to Sarah. Abraham pretends that Sarah is
his sister. His stated fear is that the Egyptians would covet her and kill him.
As a result, Sarah is placed into the Pharaohs harem. In this incident, Sarah
is doubly a victim of abuse. Part of this abuse stems from Abrahams fears and
lies; the other part is unwanted advances from Pharaoh.[5]
When
Sarah was placed into the harem, because of her, it went well with [Abraham];
he acquired sheep, oxen, asses, male and female slaves, she-asses, and camels
(Gen. 12:16). It would appear that this is Pharaohs purchase price for his new
wife or concubine, a normal transaction in ancient days.
Pharaoh
was then punished with plagues by God for his having – or at least
attempting – intimate relations with a married woman (Gen. 12:17).[6]
Later Pharaoh states that if he had known the truth that Sarah was a married
woman he would never have taken Sarah into his harem.[7]
He
returns Sarah to Abraham, and then expels both of them from Egypt. Time passes.
Sarah still fails to produce an heir. God had previously presented Abraham with
a view of the future as a great nation, and God repeats this promise in a
vision, though no specific mention is made of Sarah (Gen. 15:1 ff.) Inasmuch as
Abraham already had experienced Sarahs apparent infertility he may have well
have begun to expect that she could not provide the heir or heirs he needed. In
order to translate Gods promise into reality he would need another wife.
Polygamy was accepted in ancient times.
Becoming a
Blended Family[8]
Sarah
herself provides an answer to their mutual problem. Consort with my [Egyptian
maidservant Hagar]; perhaps I shall have a child through her (Gen. 16:2).
Surrogate motherhood allowed a barren woman to regularize her status in a
world in which children were a womans status and in which childlessness was
regarded as a virtual sign of divine disfavor (see [Gen.] 16:2; 30:1-2; . . .
38).[9]
Abraham
acceded to Sarahs request, and in time, Ishmael is born. Since blended
family is a modern expression, Sarah does not use this term. Yet, Sarahs
inviting Abraham to acquire a concurrent second wife creates the phenomenon of
a blended family. The blended Abraham-Sarah-Hagar family is even more
complicated than most blended families, because there has been no divorce:
everyone is living in the same household, and further, wife number one has some
considerable power over wife number two. The dynamics of the interplay between
Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar (Abraham with Sarah, Abraham with Hagar, Sarah with
Abraham, Sarah with Hagar, Hagar with Abraham, and Hagar with Sarah) are
mindful of the interchanges that one finds in blended families. Adding the
children Ishmael and Isaac, the dynamic quickly becomes exponentially more
multifaceted. With the presence of Ishmael and Isaac, interactions become more
intricate. There now is an additional Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael dynamic, an
Abraham-Hagar-Ishmael, an Ishmael-Isaac dynamic, and many other permutations as
well.[10]
Hagar
is used by Sarah as a surrogate mother[11]
whose womb apparently is available at no financial cost to her mistress.
Sarahs statements to Abraham literally are the first words she speaks in the
biblical text. The phrase she uses creates a pun, for the literal Hebrew
translation of her words, I shall have a child through her are ib-ba-neh – I will be built up – is a
word play which also could mean sonned through her (the Hebrew ben is son).[12]
The
biblical text terms Hagar a (second) wife (Gen. 16:3) using the term isha, (not a pilegesh – a concubine).[13]
Hagar presumably was given some undefined rights of a wife, albeit a secondary
wife. Yet, here when Hagar becomes [Abrahams] wife (v. 3), she does not cease
to be [Sarahs] slave; when Abraham surrenders Hagar to [Sarahs] authority (v.
6), he acknowledges that his wife has prior claims that supersede his.[14]
Hagar
makes no comment to either Sarah or Abraham regarding her new status. Hagar
might have conjectured that having sexual relations with her mistress master
and having a child would elevate her status; it would seem a natural reaction.
Abraham appears aloof and largely abdicates any responsibility in this very
sensitive triad but as we shall see the dynamics and interpersonal
relationships assume massive importance for the two women involved.
Abraham
impregnates Hagar. Whether this relationship continued beyond the point of
Hagars conception is not explicitly stated but seems likely given her wifely
status. Abraham probably expected to have more than one child.
Earlier
God had promised Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land. No
explicit mention was made of a wife; so, Abraham assumed that the child born to
Hagar would be his promised son.
Hagar
Oversteps
Once
she is pregnant, Hagar makes a serious error in judgment. She starts to flaunt
her status, her
ability to become pregnant, in contrast to Sarahs state of barrenness. Hagar
. . . conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt
on her mistress (Gen. 16:4). As
noted earlier, childlessness was regarded as a virtual sign of divine
disfavor.
The
rabbis explain the situation thusly: Hagar draws attention to the fact that
while Sarah had been married for years, she was unable to conceive. Hagar
suggests Sarah deserves the punishment of being barren, because she is not a
moral person. The unspoken message is clear. I, Hagar, am a moral person,
I conceived immediately.
A Midrash
explains that female visitors would come to visit and spend time with Sarah.
Sarah would suggest to them that they also should visit Hagar. Instead of being
thankful to Sarah for arranging these visits, Hagar would tell them: My
mistress [Sarah] is not inwardly what she is outwardly: she appears to be a
righteous woman, see how many years have passed without her conceiving, whereas
I conceived in one night![15]
Hagars parading
her newfound pregnant status, though unwise considering her being the second
wife, was not an uncommon phenomenon Childless wives were humiliated and
taunted by co-wives.[16]
Sarah
was lowered in [Hagars] esteem (Gen. 16:4). This reaction would be similar
to that of the later blended families of Jacob/Leah and Rachel, or that of
Elkanah/Hannah (mother of Samuel) and Peninnah (Gen. 30:1-21; 1 Sam. 1:6). In
each case, the wife, who is able to produce offspring, acts and certainly is
perceived by society as superior to the barren woman.
Perhaps
Hagar ceased to feel subservient and became more confident; she had achieved
the impossible mission assuring Abraham his posterity. Hagars very swollen
belly and smile must have seemed an affront to Sarah.
Instead
of retaliating directly against Hagar, Sarah initiates the blame game. She
accuses Abraham of being solely responsible for this state of affairs. She
says, The wrong done me is your fault! I myself put my maid in your bosom; now
that she sees she is pregnant, I am lowered in her esteem (Gen. 16:5). The
term Sarah uses, the wrong done me is your fault! is very strong (literally,
my violence is on you.)
Her
accusation is that Abraham has committed an injustice to Sarah. What crime had
Abraham committed? A case can be made that he was merely obeying and passively
carrying out Sarahs unilateral suggestion.
Sarah
may be overstating the wrong done her, but it is clear that she is very angry.
She feels deceived and displaced by Abraham. Sarah then challenges Abraham with
the words, may [YHVH] decide between you and me![17]
In
a very close reading of the biblical text, an insightful Midrash makes a good
case for Sarahs sense of outrage. She points out to Abraham that earlier
(during the divine vision recorded in Genesis 15) he had the chance to make a
case for both he and Sarah becoming parents, but he did not do so. Abraham had said to God, I shall die
childless . . . Since You have granted me no offspring (vss. 2-3). Sarah chastises Abraham, saying you should
have said to God that we
will die childless . . .
Since You have granted us
no offspring.[18]
In
the face of Sarahs anger and accusation, Abraham abdicates his
responsibilities to Hagar as his (second) wife. He figuratively turns his back
on her. He says to Sarah, Your maid [shifhateykh] is in your hands. Deal with her as you
think right.[19]
As
noted earlier, when Hagar becomes [Abrahams] wife (v. 3), she does not cease
to be [Sarahs] slave; when Abraham surrenders Hagar to [Sarahs] authority (v.
6), he acknowledges that his wife has prior claims that supersede his.
Then
[Sarah] treated [Hagar] harshly (Gen. 16:6). Sarah abuses her pregnant
maidservant who was intended to be a surrogate mother, producing an heir. The
Hebrew for treating harshly is va-tanneha.
This word suggests physical as well as mental abuse. It generally
carries the connotation of physical harm: it can mean . . . to oppress . . . as
well as simply to humble or humiliate.[20]
A
number of midrashim (plural
of midrash) suggest Abraham should have been more sensitive and reprimanded
Hagars behavior protecting Sarahs feelings.[21]
Other sources however are more critical of Sarah. The medieval commentator
Nahmanides writes, Our mother sinned by this harsh treatment as did Abraham in
permitting her to act this way.[22]
Hagars
continuing change of status is dizzying. She moves from shifhah (maidservant/female slave) to mistresss
masters wife (isha)
and then while pregnant she returns to her status as a shifhah (maidservant/female slave). For Hagar
this was both understandable and overwhelming. She has succeeded when her
mistress has failed. That she might smirk with her swollen belly is not
unreasonable, albeit unwise. Sarahs angry reaction, borne out of rival-filled
jealousy at realizing that she and Abrahams infertility can now be seen by the
outside world as her (Sarahs) responsibility is equally understandable.
Sarahs
response to Hagar, Sarahs abusing her maidservant might be explained (though
not excused) by seeing this as her delayed reaction to the abuse she suffered
in Egypt. Abraham had turned her over to Pharaoh. Some contend that in effect,
Abraham pimped her for his own personal gain.[23]
Sarah was forced into having sexual relations with Pharaoh, or at the least,
she had to ward off his advances.
Hagar, as an Egyptian, represented all that was hateful and hurtful in
that land. For feminists, male or female, this perpetuation of abusive
behavior, and especially an abused female abusing another female, is painful to
encounter. As a contemporary critic has written, the violence that is
practiced by Abraham against Sarah, she now recapitulates in relation to the
most vulnerable person in her own household. Thus, the cycle of abuse goes on.
[The] Torah makes clear that our ancestors are by no means always models of
ethical behavior that edify and inspire us. On the contrary, often the Torah
holds up a mirror to the ugliest aspects of human nature and human society[24]
Thereby offering us lessons that continue to be relevant today.
As
noted earlier in this article, with any partnership or marriage, decisions that
one person makes impacts others as well, whether or not that was the intent of
the act.
Sarah sets up a
situation, and then upon reflection rues her actions. She makes life unbearable
for Hagar. A modern observer notes, Hagar is Sarahs victim and Sarah was
wrong to impose a role upon her and then begrudge her for playing it too well.[25]
PART II
– PARTINGS
Because
Sarah mistreats Hagar, Hagar runs away to the desert. There she has an angelic
encounter at an oasis, which is then designated by the name Beer Lehai
Ro-i. Hagar eventually returns and gives birth to Ishmael. Abraham names
Ishmael and claims him as his own son (Gen. 16:15). For more than a dozen
years, it appears that Ishmael will be the designated heir. Although unstated,
Sarah has apparently made her peace with the situation, and reconciled with
Hagar, regarding Ishmael as her own surrogate son.
Then,
without warning, when Ishmael is about thirteen, God suddenly comes to Abraham
and creates the covenant of circumcision, wherein both Abraham and Ishmael are
circumcised. God further makes a covenant of land for Abrahams heirs. God
finally then tells Abraham that Sarah will, in her own right, bear a child who
will become the link to their future descendants (Genesis 17).
God
tells Abraham that Sarah his elderly wife who is nearly ninety years will give
birth. Abraham expresses doubts about his own ability and fertility despite
having had a son thirteen years earlier with Hagar (Gen. 17:16). He also
questions whether Sarah, in her advanced age is capable of such a feat. (In the
next chapter, Sarah herself laughs at the thought of giving birth, describing
herself as post-menopausal – Gen. 18:11-12). Nonetheless, [YHVH] took note of Sarah as promised . . .
Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the set time of
which God had spoken (Gen 21:1-2). Abraham named this son Yitzhaq
– Isaac.
When
the boy is weaned, perhaps at about three years of age, Sarah apparently feels
threatened by the presence of Hagar and Ishmael.[26] Unexpectedly and aggressively, Sarah
demands that Abraham send away both Ishmael and his Egyptian mother. She cannot
bring herself to speak Hagars or Ishmaels names, referring to them instead by
their status and role. [Sarah]
said to Abraham, Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that
slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac (Gen. 21:9).[27]
Sarah disregards that Ishmael is Abrahams son and that she instigated the
entire scenario resulting in his birth.
The
family inheritance included what Abraham and Sarah had brought from Haran, and
in addition, the gifts bestowed upon them by Pharaoh. Other possessions come from King Abimelech of Gerar where
Sarah is again offered up as a sister to Abraham (see Genesis 20.). These
latter gifts came to Abraham because of his willingness to misrepresent his
relationship with Sarah. Sarah having been abused twice may well feel she is
entitled to all the full inheritance; she had earned them. Since Abraham in a
sense had sold her to Pharaoh and Abimelech, they could be considered a dowry
price which, under ancient law belonged to the wife.[28]
This
is a difficult text. As a modern commentary notes, the call for the expulsion
of Hagar raises troubling questions. The story portrays the oppression of one
woman by another.[29]
Sarahs insistence Cast out that that slave-woman and her son [Hagar and
Ishmael] has thrown what is already a vulnerable family situation, into
complete chaos.
Abraham,
seemingly against his will agrees to Sarahs demand. According to Genesis 21:11;
The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his. God
needs to direct Abraham to submit to Sarahs stipulation. Abraham severs his
relationship with his second wife, and his firstborn son, and they with him.
The brotherly bonds between the stepbrothers (blended brothers) Ishmael and
Isaac are torn asunder. Whatever relationship Isaac has established with his
stepmother Hagar (and she with him), is instantly curtailed, as is the
relationship with Sarah and Ishmael, and so forth.
As
noted earlier, the dynamics of the interplay between Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar
(Abraham with Sarah, Abraham with Hagar, Sarah with Abraham, Sarah with Hagar,
Hagar with Abraham, and Hagar with Sarah) are mindful of the dynamics that one
finds in blended families. Since there now are two children, Ishmael and Isaac,
the dynamics and the partings are even more complicated than they were before.
Each character is affected by the presence –and the anticipated absence
– of the other, whether directly stated in the Bible or not.
Consequently, the possible distress felt is exponentially larger than just
between the three characters of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael.
At
the conclusion of Genesis 21, Abrahams primary and secondary families seem to
be irrevocably and irretrievably estranged. The last words that are spoken
while they are still together are Sarahs: Cast out that slave-woman and her
son. As noted above, Sarah appears so angry that she cannot bring herself even
to mention them by name. They have moved from being close family members, human
subjects, with real names, to objectify others, property to be disposed of.
When
last seen, Hagar and Ishmael are in the desert wildness, alone, afraid, but at
least protected by the presence of an angel who promises that nearby is a well
of water. They may also be comforted by the fact that God has promised to watch
over them. God told Abraham, Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave .
. . As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a great nation of him, too,
for he is your seed (Gen. 21:12-13). The difficulty is that there is no way of
knowing if Hagar and Ishmael are aware of this promise to Abraham. Did he tell
them, or not?
Further,
even though God assured Ishmaels future, there is no indication that the
central characters have a chance to work through their grief at this sudden
separation, much less affect some kind of reconciliation.
Yet,
despite there being no explicit biblical support for this notion, it is
conceivable that this blended family, or at least parts of this blended family,
were able to transcend their difficulties and find room for reconciliation. The
Bible does not state so directly, but there are inferences and clues that would
seem to point in that direction.
PART III
– POSSIBILITIES
In
the ensuing chapters the Bible offers several suggestions that there is a back
story to this situation, that all is not as it appears on the surface. In
addition, rabbinic traditions present variant explanations as to how some of
these characters interact (or fail to interact) in the coming years. Finally, contemporary scholarship
offers some conjectures as to how many of the major characters found a way to
reconcile what appears to be an unbridgeable chasm.
Biblically
Based Clues
Sarah When last seen alive Sarah was at
Beersheba, about age ninety-three, at the time of Isaacs weaning. At next
report, she has died at age 127. Sarah died in Kiriath-arba –now Hebron
– in the land of Canaan, and Abraham proceeded to mourn for Sarah (Gen.
23:2). The more literal
translation of proceeded to mourn (the Hebrew reads: vayavo Avraham lispod) would be and Abraham came to mourn Sarah. When Abraham was last seen, he
was dwelling in Beersheba (Gen. 22:19). If Sarah is in Hebron, why is Abraham
in Beersheba, and why is his wife not with him? What is she doing in Hebron?
The Bible is silent on these issues, but it suggests that the two were living
separately.
Isaac Genesis
22 is the famous Aqedah,
Abrahams Binding (of Isaac) and this sons near-sacrifice at the hand of his
father. In that chapter, he is termed a boy or young lad (naar) at several points. Presumably, he is a
teenager.[30] At the end
of chapter 22, Abraham returns to Beersheba. There is no indication that Isaac
went back with him following this terror-filled ordeal. In the text, they never
speak again. Equally interesting is that God likewise never again speaks to
Abraham. When Isaac next appears in Genesis, he is forty years old. He is about
to meet his future bride, Rebekah. Isaac is portrayed walking in the area
around an oasis termed Beer Lehai Ro-i, in the area of the Negev (Gen.
24:62). Later the Bible tells us that Isaac settles there for a time (Gen.
25:11). Beer Lehai Ro-i is not an unknown locale in the southern part of
the land. Beer Lehai Ro-i is directly connected to Hagar (Gen. 16:14);
and presumably to Ishmael. It is likely that this is the spring mentioned in
Genesis 21:19. One explanation is that following the Binding on Mount Moriah,
Isaac joined his blended family, Hagar and Ishmael who were living at Beer Lehai
Ro-i.
Abraham,
Isaac, and Ishmael In Genesis 25:9-10, Isaac and Ishmael together bury
Abraham. Each in his own right has reason to be upset with and estranged from
Abraham. In both cases, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, at Gods
behest. God had told Abraham to listen to Sarahs request to cast out the
slave-woman and her son, and in the opening words of Genesis 22, God asks
Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on a distant mountain. That deserved anger notwithstanding,
and though there is no direct text to support Isaac and Ishmaels living in
harmony, the fact is that they are there at his funeral. His sons Isaac and
Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah . . . the field that Abraham had
bought from the Hittites (Gen. 25:9-10.)
Rabbinic
(midrashic) Explanations
Though
there are no explicit verses to support their contention, the rabbis also
suggested that there was reconciliation between members of the Abrahamic
family.
Abraham and
Ishmael In the midrash collection Pirke de
Rabbi Eliezer the author
suggests Abraham, following Ishmaels expulsion from the home encampment,
nonetheless tried to develop a relationship with this son. Abraham takes his
camels and goes into the desert, visiting Ishmaels campsite. On the first
visit, Ishmael was not at home. Abraham asked for some water and bread.
Ishmaels wife said, There is no bread and there is no water. Perhaps this is
an ironic response reminiscent of the insufficient water and bread Abraham supplied
on Ishmaels expulsion. Upon Ishmaels return home, his wife tells him of the
visit, and her response. He is
angry and divorces her. Three years later Abraham came again and Ishmael [and
Hagar?] was/were again not at home. Ishmaels new wife gives Abraham bread and
water, and then he leaves. When Ishmael comes back to the campsite, his new
wife tells him what happened. The narrator explains that Ishmael knew his
father loved him.[31]
Abraham and
Hagar According
to one source, Abraham was concerned about Hagar and how she will fare in the
desert. Before she left, he ties some kind of sash around her, which will leave
a mark in the sand wherever she goes. Then at some later point, he can go to
find her.[32] The rabbis
also suggest that Hagar and Abraham reconciled. In fact, there are suggestions
that Isaac and Rebekah helped to achieve this reunion. In the opening verses of
Genesis 25 the text explains following Sarahs death (Genesis 23), and
Abrahams arrangements for a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24), that Abraham
remarried. Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him
[six sons] (Gen. 25:1-2). In several midrashim, the rabbis equate Keturah with
Hagar.[33]
Not only is Keturah the same person as Hagar, Isaac himself promotes this
extraordinary (re-) marriage.
THEN
ABRAHAM TOOK A WIFE AGAIN. It is simply that when Isaac took Rebekah, Isaac
said: Let us go and bring a wife to my father. Hagar and Keturah are the same
person.[34]
The Midrash does
not expand on this terse statement. Yet, common sense suggests that Isaac knows
where Hagar is living (presumably, nearby at Beer Lehai Roi), and that
he has good relations with his stepmother. Since three years have passed since
Sarahs death, he feels that it is an appropriate time to facilitate the
Abraham-Hagar reconnection.
Contemporary
Scholarship
Though
the Bible is silent, we in our own day can address and offer answers to some of
the outstanding issues that remain unaddressed in the narrative in Genesis.
These explanations require reading the text closely, and sometimes reading
between the lines. This may be a form of intertextual modern Midrash,[35]
but these suggestions offer answers to matters that concern the lives of many
of the major characters.
As
noted earlier, when last seen alive in Genesis 21, Sarah was about ninety-three
years old. She dies at age 127 (Gen. 23:1).
- What happened in the intervening
three-plus decades between Sarahs presence at Isaacs weaning and her
death?
- Where was she in those years?
- Why was she at Hebron?
- Why were Abraham and Sarah not
living together when she died?
- Where was Isaac in the years
following his near sacrifice on Mt Moriah?
- Why was Isaac living at Beer Lehai
Ro-i?
- How did Abraham know how to find
Ishmaels camp (based on the rabbinic suggestion that Abraham tried to
reconcile with Ishmael)?
- How did Isaac and Ishmael know when
Abraham died?
- How is it that they both were there
to bury him?
- How did Isaac know where Hagar was
living that he could bring her to Abraham (based on the rabbinic suggestion
that Hagar = Keturah)?
The
blended family of Abraham-Sarah-Hagar, and then Abraham-Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael,
and finally the blended family made up of Abraham-Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael-Isaac
stayed intact for well over fifteen years, and probably close to two decades,
as the biblical text explains. Undeniably, there were initial tensions between
Sarah and Hagar when Hagar was first pregnant. When, however, Ishmael is born,
the two women find a way to make peace. Sarah adopts Ishmael for his role is
the heir-child for the Abraham-Sarah household. Everyone understands that Hagar
is Ishmaels birth mother. It is in everyones self-interest that there is
harmony between Ishmaels mothers, and his father, Abraham.
Sarah,
reluctantly, but realistically, makes her peace with the situation. It is
conceivable that she forms some kind of sisterly bonds with Hagar. They both
are married to a man who has visions and acts strangely; he is given to falling
into trances (Genesis 15). At age ninety-nine, he suddenly speaks about a ritual
of circumcision, and he circumcises both himself and Ishmael (Genesis 17). He
sometimes communicates with his God, and sometimes argues with his Deity
(Genesis 18). Even in their mature years, he tries to claim that he and Sarah
are siblings, and not husband and wife. Once again, Abraham tries to pimp
Sarah to achieve his goals (Genesis 20).
Statistics
suggest that divorce rates are very high among blended families. That the
Abraham-Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael household held together in its initial years is a
sign that these people were able to compromise for the greater common good.
The
birth of Isaac, and the years leading up to his weaning appear to change
– and irreparably upset – the balance that had existed. Sarah
appears to be saying that she does not wish any foreign competition in their
household (Hagar was an Egyptian). Further, Sarah appears to be stating that
she does not wish any ambiguity about who is to be the true heir for the
Abraham-Sarah household. Consequently, in her immortal words,[Sarah] said to
Abraham, Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave
shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac (Gen. 21:9).
Yet,
perhaps what appears to be the surface story is actually a ruse, a play-acting
to achieve another end?
Sarah
and Hagar share more than a common husband. They share the position of being a mother, and they share a
deep commitment to their respective sons. As noted above, Abraham is given to
strange behaviors. Who knows what he will propose next?
It
is in their sisterly self-interest to form a close alliance where they will be
able to protect themselves, and their sons, against the possible whims of
Abraham. After giving the matter great thought, the two women decide that they
want to establish their own encampment somewhere else. After due deliberation,
they decide that a perfect solution is for the two mothers and their respective
sons to decamp and move to the nearby oasis of Beer Lehai Ro-i. There
they will raise their sons. The two boys have bonded, for they only have each
other as close relatives of this next generation.
Sarah
and Hagar develop a scheme where Hagar and Ishmael will first go to Beer Lehai
Ro-i to establish themselves there.
Then Sarah will report to Abraham that Isaac misses Ishmael and Hagar.
Next, she will make plans to join the two of them, and reunite the two sons and
the two mothers.
When
Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael away, he gives them limited supplies, and no
pack animal. Contrast this with Abrahams own journey in Genesis 22, when
presumably he will be gone for less than a week. On that occasion, he takes two servants and a donkey.
Abraham clearly loves Hagar and Ishmael (The matter distressed Abraham
greatly, for it concerned a son of his.) He would not send them away without
proper provisions; unless he was sending them on only a short journey (to
nearby Beer Lehai Ro-i).
Regrettably,
Hagar momentarily loses her way in the desert wilderness, and the whole plan is
in jeopardy. Fortunately, the Deity is watching, and through the intervention
of an angel rescues Hagar and Ishmael, pointing out the way to the spring,
presumably Beer Lehai Ro-i.
In
Genesis 24, when Isaac marries Rebekah, the text states clearly, that Isaac
then brought [Rebekah] into the tent of his mother Sarah . . . Isaac loved
[Rebekah], and thus found comfort after his mothers death (Gen. 24:67). That
Isaac took Rebekah into Sarahs tent strongly suggests that Sarah had been
living with Isaac (and perhaps Hagar and Ishmael) at Beer Lehai Ro-i.
This
explanation, though conjecture, does provide answers as to Sarahs missing
whereabouts for over three decades, why Isaac knows where Hagar is living so
that he can bring her to Abraham (i.e. Hagar = Keturah), and how Isaac and
Ishmael not only know about Abrahams death, but are able to coordinate their
being there together. What it does not answer is why Sarah died at
Kiriath-arba/Hebron. One explanation for that is that at age 127 she was of a
goodly age. She senses that her time is near, and so she wants to see some of
the sites that she saw early in her life in Canaan. For a time, Abraham and
Sarah lived at the neighborhood of the oak trees (terebinths) of Mamre, which
are at Hebron (Gen. 13:18). She went there, and died at Hebron.[36]
Conclusion
With
the addition of Hagar to the Sarah-Abraham family unit, a blended family came
into being. Following the birth of the additional personages of Ishmael, and
then Isaac, the difficulties and potential for misunderstanding and concomitant
anger-driven actions grew exponentially. Blended families are at risk at a
greater rate than families who do not have to face those issues. In the
Abraham-Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael-Isaac family, there are many instances of improper
behavior, and blaming.
The
biblical text makes no direct attempt to tie up the loose ends of this familial
narrative. Hagar and Ishmael are off somewhere in the wilderness of Paran (Gen.
21:21). After Isaacs weaning, Sarah is missing, until her death. Following the Binding of Isaac, Abraham
and Isaac never speak again.
Yet,
there are intriguing clues that there was some kind of reconciliation. Ishmael and Isaac are at Abrahams
funeral. Isaac lives at Beer Lehai Ro-i. He takes Rebekah into Sarahs
tent. Perhaps, as the rabbis suggest, Hagar is Keturah, and Abraham (re-)
marries her after Sarahs death. This article suggests that following the
problems of this blended patriarchal-matriarchal family, and the subsequent
partings, that at least some of the players were able to reconcile and reconnect,
that past their difficulties their respective futures had possibilities.
As
noted in the beginning of this article, blended families are now commonplace in
society. Because of their nature, their dynamics are more complicated than
traditional family configurations. The biblical examples of Abraham, Sarah, and
Hagar, as well as Ishmael and Isaac, separately and together, provide us with
living lessons of what might be done – or avoided – to make peace
and to keep peace for the greater good of all.
WORKS
CITED
al-Tabari. Prophets and Patriarchs. Trans. William M. Brinner. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1987.
Alter, Robert. The
Five Books of Moses: Translation and Commentary. New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1996.
Brown, F., S. R. Driver,
and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.
The Contemporary
Torah: A Gender-Sensitive Adaption of the JPS Translation. David E. S. Stein, Revising Editor. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 2006.
Edwards, Rosalind.
Creating Stability for Children in Step-families [Blended-families]: Time
and Substance in Parenting. Children & Society 16 (2002): 154-167.
Gold, Michael. And
Hannah Wept: Infertility, Adoption, and the Jewish Couple. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1988.
Graetz, Naomi. Silence is Deadly: Judaism Confronts Wifebeating. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1998.
Graetz, Naomi
and Julie Cwikel. Trafficking and Prostitution: Lessons from Jewish Sources. The
Australian Journal of Jewish Studies
20 (2006):
25-58.
Hackett, Jo Ann.
Rehabilitating Hagar: Fragments of an Epic Pattern. In Gender and
Difference in Ancient Israel.
Edited by Peggy L.
Day. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Kugel, James L. How
To Read The Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. New York: Free Press, 2007.
Matthews, Victor
H. and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels. Fully revised and expanded 3rd
edition. New York/Mahwah: Paulist, 2006.
Meek, Theophile
J. The Code of Hammurabi. In The
Ancient Near East Texts,
edited by James B. Pritchard.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.
Midrash
Genesis Rabbah. Two volumes. H. Freedman, trans. London:
Soncino, 1939.
Midrash ha
Gadol. Edited by
Mordecai Marguiles. Jerusalem:
Mossad haRav Kook, 1947.
Midrash
Tanhuma, Genesis, Vol.
1. S. Buber Recension, John T.
Townsend trans. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989,
Midrash
Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, Genesis
and Exodus. Samuel
Berman trans. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996.
Niditch, Susan.
Genesis. In The Womans Bible Commentary, edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, 10-25. London: SPCK, Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1992.
_____ Lech
Lcha commentary to Genesis 16:1.
In The Torah: A Womens Commentary, edited by Tamara Cohn Ezkenazi and Andrea L. Weiss. 59-77.
New York: URJ Press and Women of Reform Judaism, 2008.
Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. Gerald Friedlander trans. New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1981.
Planitz, Judith
M., Judith A. Feeney and Candida C. Peterson. Attachment patterns of young
adults in stepfamilies [blended families] and biological families. Journal
of Family Studies 15
(2009): 67-81.
Plaskow, Judith.
Contemporary Reflection, Lech Lcha.
In The Torah: A Womens Commentary, edited by Tamara Cohn Ezkenazi and Andrea L. Weiss.
107-108. New York: URJ Press and
Women of Reform Judaism, 2008.
Sarna, Nahum N. The
JPS Torah Commentary – Genesis. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
The Schocken
Bible, Volume I, The Five Books of Moses. Everett Fox trans. New York: Schocken, 1995.
Speiser, E. A. Genesis,
The Anchor Bible. New
York: Doubleday, 1964.
Tolstoy, Leo, Anna
Karenina. New York:
Signet Classic/Penguin, 1961.
Trible, Phyllis.
Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah. In Women in the Hebrew Bible, edited by Alice Bach, 271-290. New York – London: Routledge,
1999.
____, Texts
of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narrative. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Tsevat,
Matitiahu. Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael. In The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical
Studies. (New York:
Ktav; Dallas, TX: Institute for Jewish Studies, 1980.
Wiesel, Elie.
Ishmael and Hagar. In The Life of Covenant, edited by Joseph Edelheit. Chicago:
Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1986.
Westermann,
Claus. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary,
trans. John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985.
Zucker, David J.
Blended Families: Sarah, Hagar, and All
That . . . Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling 57.1 (Spring, 2003): 33-38.
____ The Mysterious Disappearance of Sarah. Judaism 55:3-4, (Fall/Winter, 2006): 30-39. Available as a PDF at www.davidjzucker.org/djzpdfs/Sarah-Mysterious Disappearance.pdf
Special thanks to
Sandra Mayer for reading this article in an earlier form and offering
constructive suggestions.
[1] Leo
Tolstoy, Anna Karenina (New York:
Signet Classic/Penguin, 1961), 17.
[2] Genesis
quotations from The Contemporary Torah: A Gender-Sensitive Adaption of the
JPS Translation, Revising Editor
David E. S. Stein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006).
[3] Phyllis
Trible, Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah, in Alice Bach (ed.), Women in
the Hebrew Bible (New York –
London: Routledge, 1999), 281.
[4] God
speaks to Abraham, and the language is in the second person masculine singular.
[5] Abuse
is a very strong designation and description. The biblical term for abuse or
betrayal has the root bet-gimel-dalet (b-g-d) and as a verb is used only once in the
Torah, and then not in Genesis but in Exodus 21:8b, where it refers to a man
who broke faith with his wife. The root b-g-d has a range of meanings. The prophets
often use it; it also appears in the Psalms and Proverbs. First Isaiah weaves
the word most poetically and alliteratively into his speech: bogdim bagadu uveged bogdim bagdu – For the treacherous deal
treacherously, the treacherous deal very treacherously (Isa. 24:16). It is in
this sense of breaking faith/faithlessness/treachery that the terms abuse/abusive
are used.
[6] The
rabbis suggest that though he tried to approach Sarah, Pharaoh was thwarted in
his attempts. Midrash Genesis Rabbah
41.2.
[7] Pharaoh
claims he would not have taken Sarah into his harem had he known she was
married. That does not mean he would not have had Abraham killed to achieve the
goal of Sarah as an unencumbered woman. Abraham may have been fearful of
Egyptian practices for good reason.
[8] Moshe
Reiss writes: The term Blended Family applied to Sarah and Hagar was first
used (to my knowledge) by Rabbi Dr. David J. Zucker in his article Blended Families: Sarah, Hagar, and All That . .
., Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling 57.1 (Spring, 2003), 33-38.
[9] Susan Niditch, Genesis in Carol
A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (eds.), The Womans Bible Commentary (London: SPCK, Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 17.
For the cultural context of this legalized surrogate motherhood, see
Nahum N. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary – Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1989), 119, comment to verse 2; E. A. Speiser, Genesis, The Anchor
Bible (New York:
Doubleday, 1964), 120; Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament
Parallels, Fully revised
and expanded Third Edition (New York/Mahwah: Paulist, 2006), 48 f., 110.
The
sense of shame felt by a woman unable to conceive continues to haunt modern
society. See Michael Gold, And Hannah Wept: Infertility, Adoption, and the
Jewish Couple
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988).
[10] There
is a considerable body of research concerned with the impact of changing family
forms, with implicit or explicit attention to stability for children.
Discussions around [which] . . . arrangements are best for children after
divorce or separation . . . Step-family formation is posed as involving a
cluster of changes for children . . . Most of the literature on step-families
stresses the complexity of family forms and dynamics of family life involved .
. . including changing relationships over time. Rosalind Edwards, Creating Stability for Children in
Step-families [Blended-families]: Time and Substance in Parenting, Children
& Society 16 (2002), 156.
[T]hose in stepfamilies [blended families] may be
more insecure in their attachments; further, there is evidence that parental
conflict is associated with attachment insecurity . . . Judith M. Planitz, Judith A. Feeney and
Candida C. Peterson, Attachment patterns of young adults in stepfamilies
[blended families] and biological families, Journal of Family Studies 15 (2009), 70.
[11] Surrogate
motherhood began early in the Bible and was apparently fairly common. Note
Sarah, Rachel, Leah. It is also noted in the Code of Hammurabi #146. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A
Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 239; it is also found in the Nuzi and Mari texts
(18th century BCE) in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian sources relevant to
Genesis 16:1-6 are found in Matitiahu Tsevat, Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael,
The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies (New York: Ktav; Dallas, TX: Institute for Jewish
Studies, 1980), Excursus 1, 70-72.
In modern times, the
surrogate/birth mother generally is not involved with her offspring following
delivery.
[12] Robert
Alter, The Five Books of Moses: Translation and Commentary (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1996), 77; Sarna,
JPS-Genesis, (above, note 9),
119. Sarah can be compared
with Rachel who too was preoccupied with her own immortality when as a barren
woman she cried to her husband Jacob give me children or I will die (Gen.
30:2); meaning to her that without a child her house or lineage would die.
[13] Second
wife, or concubine? Speiser and
Sarna make the case that Hagar is a concubine, not a wife. Speiser, (above,
note 9), 117; Sarna, JPS Genesis,
(above, note 9), 119. The rabbis
disagree. A Midrash proclaims, TO BE A WIFE, but not a concubine. Midrash
Genesis Rabbah 45.3. English translations also use the term wife. Cf. the
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), New English Bible (NEB), New International
Version, Jerusalem Bible. See also, The Schocken Bible, Volume I, The Five
Books of Moses, Everett Fox trans.,
(New York: Schocken, 1995). Nahmanides (Ramban), the 13th Century
Spanish commentator on the Bible, also suggests the correct term is wife not
concubine. Robert Alter writes, as a wife. Most English versions, following the logic of the
context, render this as a concubine. The word used, however, is not pilagesh but ishah,
the same term that identifies Sarai [Sarah] at the beginning of the verse. The
terminological equation of the two women is surely intended, and sets up an
ironic backdrop for Sarais abuse of Hagar. Alter, The Five Books of Moses, (above, note 12), 78. Susan Niditch, Lech Lcha
commentary to Genesis 16:1, in Tamara Cohn Ezkenazi, Andrea L. Weiss (eds.), The
Torah: A Womens Commentary (New
York: URJ Press and Women of Reform Judaism, 2008), considers the proper term
to be wife, 72.
[14] Susan
Niditch, Lech Lcha, (above note 13), 71.
[15] Midrash Genesis Rabbah 45.4; Midrash ha Gadol, Mordecai Marguiles, ed. (Jerusalem:
Mossad haRav Kook, 1947), Genesis 1.244.
[16] Niditch, Genesis, (above, note
9), 17.
[17] There
also may be a legal side to this matter. Tsevat suggests that in vs. 5. the
legal form has a litigious ring. A lawsuit is indicated with [Sarahs crying to
Abraham that she has been wronged].
He, the master of the house, is permitting her handmaid to infringe on
her position as mistress . . . Whatever protection under custom of agreement
Hagar might have had before, she has forfeited by her conduct Tsevat, Hagar
and the Birth of Ishmael (above, note 11), 55.
[18] Midrash
Genesis Rabbah 45.5.
[19] When
Hagar escapes to the desert, she meets an angel of God. The angel addressed
Hagar as Sarahs shifhah
(Gen. 16:8).
[20]
Jo
Ann Hackett, Rehabilitating Hagar: Fragments of an Epic Pattern in Peggy L.
Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 14. See also Midrash
Genesis Rabbah 45:6; Phylis Trible, Texts
of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narrative (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 13; Naomi Graetz, Silence
is Deadly: Judaism Confronts Wifebeating
(Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1998), 23.
[21] Midrash
Genesis Rabbah 45.5 (see also
45.6).
[22] Nahmanides,
Comment on Genesis 16:6.
[23] Naomi
Graetz and Julie Cwikel, Trafficking and Prostitution: Lessons from Jewish
Sources, The Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 20 (2006):
34. The suggestion that Abraham pimped Sarah, undoubtedly is
controversial. As Judith Plaskow
observes below (see note 24), our ancestors are not always models of high
ethical behavior.
[24] Judith
Plaskow, Contemporary Reflection, Lech Lcha in Ezkenazi and Weiss, The
Torah: A Womens Commentary, (above,
note 13), 107.
[25] Elie
Wiesel, Ishmael and Hagar in Joseph Edelheit (ed.), The Life of Covenant (Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1986),
238.
[26] Though
a few midrashim describe Ishmael in positive terms, most ascribe negative
behaviors to him, ranging from rape, to idolatry, to murder. Cf. Midrash Genesis Rabbah 53.11.
[27] The
term that Sarah uses for slave-woman is amah. Earlier the term used had been shifhah. The
terms amah and shifhah are used interchangeably in the Bible. In Genesis
21:13, God describes Hagar as an amah
(maidservant/female slave). See Alter, The Five Books of Moses, (above, note 12), 77. F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A.
Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 51 (amah), 1046 (shifhah).
[28] Theophile
J. Meek, The Code of Hammurabi, in James B. Pritchard (ed.) The Ancient Near East Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), 153,
see Laws 137, 138.
[29] Ezkenazi
and Weiss, (above note 13) comment to Genesis 21:10, 98.
[30] There
are several midrashim that suggest Isaac was thirty-seven at the Binding. This reasoning is based on the fact
that Sarah was 90 when she gives birth (Gen. 21), that the Binding took place
in Genesis 22, and that Sarah died at the beginning of Genesis 23 at age 127.
The term used for Isaac, however, is naar (boy/young man) and the plain sense meaning of the text suggests that
he was a youngster, not a man of thirty-seven.
[31] Pirke de Rabbi
Eliezer, Gerald Friedlander trans. (New York:
Sepher-Hermon, 1981), Chapter 30.
This author was writing after the advent of Islam and there are some polemical
aspects of the text, but he clearly distinguishes between Ishmael as Abrahams
deserving son and the Ishmaelites as the final evil kingdom. A very similar
story is told in an Islamic hadith.
al-Tabari, Prophets and Patriarchs., trans.
William M. Brinner (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987).
There is great debate in the literature as to whose text came first.
[32] Pirke
de Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 30.
[33] Midrash
Genesis Rabbah 61.4; Midrash
Tanhuma, Genesis, Vol.
1. S. Buber Recension, John T. Townsend trans. (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), Hayye
Sarah 5.9 Genesis 25:1
ff., Part III; Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 30.
Were
Hagar and Keturah actually the same person? In all probability, they were not.
The rabbis equating the two, however, resolved some of the difficulties arising
out of the plain reading of the text in Genesis 21, which depicts the rupture in
the Abrahamic family.
[34] Midrash
Tanhuma, Genesis, Hayye Sarah 5.9
Genesis 25:1 ff., Part III; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 60.14; Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, Genesis and Exodus, Samuel Berman trans. (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav,
1996), Genesis 5.8, 163.
[35] We
use Midrash in the sense explained by Kugel, Midrash as a non-obvious interpretation . . . a method of
searching the text carefully for hidden implications [that] seemed to solve so
many problems in the Bible that otherwise had no solution. James L. Kugel, How
To Read The Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (New York: Free Press, 2007), 13-14.
Kugels
definition refers to traditional rabbinic Midrash. Yet, the explanation we
offer as a modern Midrash,
although conjecture, also searches the text carefully for hidden implications
[that seem] to solve so many problems in the Bible that otherwise had no
solution. A fuller treatment of this issue is found in an article by one of
the co-authors, David J. Zucker, The
Mysterious Disappearance of Sarah, Judaism 55:3-4, (Fall/Winter, 2006), 30-39. Available as a PDF at www.davidjzucker.org/djzpdfs/Sarah-Mysterious Disappearance.pdf
[36] For
an alternative explanation why Sarah is at Hebron, see Zucker, Mysterious
Disappearance of Sarah, (above note 35) 35.
Women in Judaism:
A Multidisciplinary Journal Winter 2009 Volume 6 Number 2
ISSN 1209-9392
2009 Women in Judaism,
Inc.
© 1997-2013 Women in Judaism, Inc. ISSN 1209-9392


