Inspired by Yishmael

Parshat Chayei Sarah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The character Yishmael in the Torah is quite fascinating. Any honest opinion of Yishmael may be partially sympathetic to him, but will more than likely cast him as an unfavorable character until he undergoes his personal teshuvah (repentance) towards the end of his life, as indicated by the term "gviah" which describes his death (Midrash, Rashi, etc).

In truth, most of the negativity ascribed to Yishmael is not even evident in the Torah. As I wrote in this space last week, even whatever caused Sarah to have him banished from the home may have had nothing to do with bad behavior. In the best case scenarios, he was either being very nice to Yitzchak or he was talking about his rights as Avraham's first born (which is completely legitimate!), either of which made Sarah uncomfortable.

        
Beyond that, he seems to be more of a victim! He is banished in utero and as a teenager, the latter time with a minimal amount of bread and water, and he reappears at Avraham's funeral. The rabbis indicate that he died shortly after Eisav married his daughter, perhaps because Eisav married his daughter.

        
The Rabbis even depict him as one of the lads accompanying Avraham to the Akeidah (binding) of Yitzchak!

        
And of course, Avraham's love for Yishmael is no secret. When God tells him he'll have a son with Sarah, he says "Let Yishmael live before You." (17:18) When God tells Avraham to take his son… the one he loves… Yitzchak… to the mountain, Rashi points out Avraham's responses: "I have two sons, I love them both, o – You mean Yitzchak…"

        
Would Avraham have such feelings for a son who is terrible? Compare him to Yitzchak and Rivka, who are tremendously hurt by Eisav's choice of wives (26:35)

        
At the end of Yishmael's life, when his death is recorded using similar language to Avraham's death, we are told of his "descendants/generations." They are introduced using a familiar term, "V'Eileh Toldot Yishmael…" These are the generations of Yishmael.

        
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch points out that of all the times this phrase appears in the Bible, the word Toldot is spelled four different ways: with either 6, 5 or 4 letters. Yishmael's case is the only time it appears with 4 letters.

        
In Hebrew, the 6 letter version is called "Malei" (full or complete) because it has two vovs as vowels. The 5 letter versions either has a vov for the first "o" vowel, or a vov for the second "o" vowel, while the other "o" vowel in the word is indicated by a dot after the consonant preceding it. The 4 letter version has no vovs as vowels.

        
The two times it appears "Malei" are in 2:4 – the Toldot of the heavens and the earth, and in Ruth 4:18 – these are the generations of Peretz leading to David. The first vov is missing when describing the generations of Eisav (36:1,9) and Yaakov (37:2). The first vov is present, while the second vov is not for Adam 5:1, Noach 6:9, 10:1, Shem 11:10, Terach 11:27, Yitzchak 25:19, Aharon and Moshe – Bamidbar 3:1. For Yishmael – no vovs! Causing Hirsch to say, "All this says is 'Explain me!'"

        
The missing first vov (of the shoresh/root word) indicates an incompleteness in the children of that person. Eisav had many descendants, but they had no internal greatness, neither spiritually or ethically. And in the context in which the word appears for Yaakov, it is as part of the introduction to the fighting between his sons, which culminated with their selling their brother to Egypt.

Missing the second vov (the vov that makes the word plural) hints to there not really being "generations" because the person only had one or two sons that carried his traditions.

The heavens and earth are complete in quality and quantity, on the other hand, because they were made through a statement of God.

The generations of Peretz is considered complete because of the responsibility it will bear in heralding the redemption of Israel, based on its worthiness.

Yishmael is the only one spelled without vovs because he did not have as many descendants as, for example, Eisav had (compare Yishmael's 3 verses to chapter 36!). And his sons were also not as complete in their character as the descendants of Yitzchak eventually proved to be.

In essence, this one word indicates that Yishmael's family – 12 princes and all – were nothing to write home about. He had the 12 children that were promised, but how he raised them did not reflect well on him.

At the same time, when we examine Yishmael himself, we see a man who is loved by his father, who is viewed as a person who went through many personal struggles to unquestionably conclude his life as a righteous man.

Every person who becomes a parent has an important job in raising children. Hopefully we do our best, have our influence, and it can be listened to for as long as we are alive and have the ability to communicate. And of course, thereafter.

But there comes a time when the children leave and they are, to a certain degree, on their own. When that happens, the focus must once again revert to each of us as an individual.

There's a joke about three religious leaders arguing over when life begins. One says, "At conception." Another says, "At birth." And the rabbi says, "Life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies."

This is not to suggest that when the kids move out we cut the strings. But we must also be able to focus on our own growth – spiritually, religiously, mentally and healthfully – so we can live out our days after "life begins" with the ever present goal of concluding life unquestionably as a righteous person, following Yishmael's example.

What was Yishmael Doing (to Yitzchak?)?

Parshat Vayera 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

            

In all of the Torah, Yishmael and Yitzchak have (maybe) one encounter, other than burying Avraham together. As the Torah describes Avraham making a party over Yitzchak's weaning, it describes Sarah's concern over what she witnessed: Yishmael was "m'tzachek," perhaps towards or with Yitzchak. Or not.

            

What does "m'tzachek" mean?

            

Avimelekh will later witness Yitzchak being "m'tzachek" his wife. I don't know of any commentary who views that as a negative act.

            

Certainly in context, with everyone smiling and laughing over the birth of Yitzchak (the root "tzchok" appears five times in 8 verses), one would think Yishmael is doing nothing out of the ordinary to Yitzchak.

            

Midrash Aggada suggests he bent over and kissed him. This should be viewed as nothing more than an older brother kissing his cute little brother. Until you read that the Midrash compares the "m'tzachek" verb to a similar one describing the lewd behavior surrounding the worship of the Golden Calf. (Why not compare it the word in the Yitzchak/Rivkah context?)

            

Midrash also records the more well known opinion (made famous by Rashi) that Yishmael was pulling a "William Tell" move on Yitzchak, perhaps with the intent to kill (based on verses in Mishlei 26:18-19).

            

Rabbi Akiva compares our "m'tzachek" verb to the one used by Potiphar's wife in her accusing Yosef of trying to seduce her (based on Bereshit 39:17), while Rabbi Yishmael (ironically) suggests he was teaching Yitzchak about idolatry (comparing to the Golden Calf verse). Rabbi Eliezer (son of Rabbi Yosi Haglili) said "m'tzachek" refers to murder, as he compared it to Samuel II 2:14. (Pesikta Zutrasa)

            

Onkelos said "Mtzachek" means he was smiling. While Targum YOnatan suggests idolatry.

            

Ibn Ezra suggests Sarah was jealous because Yishmael was bigger than her son. Radak says Yitzchak was an easy target because his parents were "old."

            

Ramban rejects a whole host of views and concludes that it's all a question of inheritance. Yishmael was born as a result of Sarah's graciousness in giving Hagar to Avraham. Now that she had borne Yitzchak and he was to inherit, Sarah did not want Yishmael to get too comfortable with Yitzchak – to avoid fights in the future. (See also Rashbam and Midrash Sechel Tov)

            

Chizkuni felt that Yishmael was trying to play with Yitzchak in a mature – not age-appropriate way. Which Sarah viewed as a threat to her son's well-being.

            

Seforno says Yishmael was mocking the party Avraham had made in Yitzchak's honor, particularly as he spread the barnyard slander he had heard of people claiming Avimelekh was the father of the baby. This never bothered Sarah until she heard it from Yishmael, because before then she had been preoccupied with the birth and getting back to routine.

            

The Malbim suggests this is the reason why Sarah refers to him as "the son of Hagar the Egyptian" as if to contrast him with her own son – who is clearly her son, with Avraham, as the Torah repeatedly confirms.

            

In an extreme interpretation, Rabbenu Bachya even suggests Yishmael’s mocking behavior warranted a death sentence, because a servant who mocks his master may be killed. From this perspective, the subsequent banishment was actually saving Yishmael’s life.

            

I personally prefer the approach of the Tosefta – even though Ramban rejects it – because it looks at the context of what Sarah is saying, "Banish him because he will not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak."

            

The Tosefta suggests that Sarah saw the "m'tzachek" to be a mocking of everyone who was celebrating Yitzchak's birth as the birth of the inheritor. "I am the firstborn," thought Yishmael, "and I am obviously going to inherit the double portion that is my rite and entitlement – everyone who thinks otherwise is a fool."

            

It is true that the possibilities abound, but the imperative question to address is how much of a thought process did Yishmael have? Was he so vindictive and evil? Or was he just a teenager?

            

Was he – a person who grew up in Avraham's home – really so troubled that he could engage in idolatry, murder, immorality?

            

We raise our children and we don't agree with all of their choices. In some cases, their choices really trouble us.

            

But there are some things which are so ingrained in their personalities and upbringing that, barring a real psychological episode, we can be nearly 100% certain they will not be engaging in activities that are so against the very fabric of our essence and our nature as the Jewish people.

            

May we merit to fulfill the positive sides of "m'tzachek" with our families and loved ones. And may the negative "m'tzachek" interpretations remain in the realm of homiletics and drash. A nice thought, but not a reflection of who we are. Amen.

When In An Argument...

In the parsha, the forefather in question is named Avram until his name change at his circumcision. Following the adjudication of Berachot 13a, he is referred to as "Avraham" in this article.

Parshat Lekh Lekha

The King of Egypt discovers the woman he has brought into his chambers is married to a different man, and he makes all kinds of accusations. "What have you done to me? Why didn't you tell me she is your wife? Why did you say she is your sister, leading me to take her as a wife? Now – take your wife and go!" Paraoh then commanded and sent him and his wife out of the land. (12:18-20)

            

Avraham's response to this is silence. Either he is not given a chance to respond, or perhaps more likely, he recognized that responding, whether truthfully or in anger, would go nowhere. Avraham knew that having the last word was not only unnecessary, but were it be the wrong word, it may come back to bite him. After all, he did come to Egypt looking for help. He should be grateful he is going free (with many gifts!) with merely a tongue lashing.

            

The king of Sodom arrogantly tells Avraham, who has just saved him and his people at tremendous peril and self sacrifice, that Avraham should give him the POWs as he gives Avraham permission to keep the booty that is rightfully Avraham's.

Avraham does have the last word as he tells the king that he does not intend to keep anything beyond what his men have already eaten. Sometimes you need to give the swift kick and end the conversation. Especially since the gratitude should have come in the other direction – from King of Sodom towards Avraham. (14:17-24)

            

In both cases, Avraham does not have nor does he intend to pursue a longer term relationship with these kings. Though the reason for each encounter likely contributes to how Avraham chooses to deal with the person in question.

Let us look, however, at the two arguments Avraham has with people for whom he does care deeply.

          
When Avraham's shepherds argue with Lot's shepherds, Avraham is the one who intervenes saying, "Let there not be an argument between me and you, and between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are brothers."

          
He gives Lot a very generous offer – You pick where you want to be. Stay here or pick a direction. Whatever you choose, I will go the other way. (13:8-9) That Lotchooses to go to Sodom is aseparate factor. But they part in peace and Avraham has achieved his objective.

          
After Sarah gives her maid to Avraham, demonstrating tremendous self-sacrifice and concern for her husband so he could have a son, Hagar denigrates her mistress who has been suffering with infertility for years. "I am angry at you," she says to Avraham, "because I gave you my maid, she has become pregnant, and I have become denigrated." (16:3-5)

          
It is ironic that Avraham is blamed for doing exactly what his wife told him to do. But note how he does not say, "Why are you yelling at me? It's YOUR fault! You asked for this! What do you expect of me? I did what you told me! I'm going to be the father I always wanted to be. I'm going to have a child – something you could never provide for me!"

He does say, "Here is your maid. Do to her what is best in your eyes." (16:6) Radak says Avraham did this for the sake of Shalom Bayis (to preserve peace in their home), so Sarah can feel good about herself again one day.

There is a much longer conversation to be had about how Hagar was treated in this incident. The commentaries are split over the choices made here - Ramban is critical of both Sarah and Avraham on account of her treatment of Hagar, the Riva defends them both. Radak says though we normally learn model behavior from the forefathers, here we learn how not to treat someone from the way Hagar is treated.

The question here is, do Avraham and Sarah respect one another in this exchange? It's not like with the kings where you either ignore the person or tell him off. Even more than he cared for Lot Avraham cared for his wife. And as his demonstration of compromise played out with Lot, it played out even moreso with his wife, with whom he intended to live for the rest of his life.

And it is completely in character for Avraham. Remember how he resolved the dispute with Lot. You choose. You decide. I don't need to have the last word. I don't need to be the one sitting on top, sitting on the gold mine, with the choice land or property. I want YOU to be happy. I want YOU to find peace.

It's hard to judge Sarah. She is a woman who has suffered terribly – with infertility, her maid's mistreating her, and her maid getting pregnant right away while Sarah remains barren.

But Avraham certainly teaches us a few things about the "rules of engagement" in an argument.

Ben Zoma concludes a listing of a few important rhetorical questions (Avot 4:1) by asking, "Who is honored? Who is honorable? One who gives honor to all of God's creatures." Certainly the first place to begin is with one's loved ones. Treat them with respect. Preserve their dignity at all times. Don't argue in front of other people.

A person must not say. "You were wrong and I was right. You always do this. You don't care about me. Nothing that matters to me matters to you. Your choices disgust me. I would never do the things you do, treat others the way you do, talk about myself the way you do, or think so highly of myself that I could never admit I might be wrong. But YOU. All the time – always the same. When will you ever learn?"

A person needs to think in the following way. "I am going to express my needs. What I have done, my reasoning, why I did it. I will explain where I am coming from. I will explain my choices. I will emphasize my commitment and dedication to this relationship. I care about you. I care about us. Above all, I want there to be peace between us. I want to hear your side, I want to hear your perspective, and really want us to come to a resolution."

As long as communication is done respectfully, resolution is attainable with dignity, honor, respect, and love. After all, "Who is most honored?" Those who want the best for one another, and demonstrate it through treating one another with the utmost respect.

Envisioning A New World

Parshat Noach

The contrast between the beginning of the book of Bereshit and our parsha is not only striking in terms of God's vision for the world, but is even fascinating to compare on a textual level.

After completing creation, "And God saw all that He had done, and behold it was very good." (1:31) Compare that to the beginning of Chapter 6, "Hashem saw that man's wickedness on earth was increasing. Every impulse of his innermost thought was only for evil, all day long." (6:5)

            

Unlike the optimism that came with God's declarations of "Let there be light" (1:3) and "Let us make Man" (1:26), we see, "Hashem regretted that He had made man on earth, and He was pained to His very core. Hashem said, 'I will obliterate humanity that I have created from the face of the earth - man, livestock, land animals, and birds of the sky. I regret that I created them.'" (6:6-7)

            

[A very lively conversation can be had over the usages of "Elokim" (which I translate in verses as "God") and the "shem havaya" Tetragrammaton (which I translate in verse as "Hashem"). In the interest of space, that conversation will be ignored now, beyond noting it in the translation.]

            

Despite the regret over the creation of Man, God chooses to rebuild the world not with a new, perhaps more perfect model of humans, but with one specific human who "has found favor in God's eyes." (6:8)

            

In other words, the prototype seems to be what God wants. It's just the wrongly mutated models which have caused God to "regret" the first 1650 (or so) years of human endeavor.

            

Like Adam, Noach had 3 sons who are named in the Torah. Unlike the terms "Adam" (human) and "Basar" (flesh) which are used to describe the flawed human beings (6:6,13), Noach is called an "Ish" (6:9, 9:20) – the same term used to describe Adam when he is first introduced to his wife – before any sinning had taken place. "She will be called 'Ishah' (woman) for she had been taken from 'Ish' (man)." (2:23) "Ish," it seems, is a better kind of human than an Adam or a Basar.

            

The difference between Noach's world and the world of Adam, however is laid out in how the world is described and what God sees and says.

            

In the beginning the land was empty and void with the spirit of God hovering over the water's surface. God said, "Let there be light" and it was, and God saw the light was good. (summary of 1:1-4)

            

In Noach's time, "… The land was filled with crime. God saw the world, and it was corrupted. All flesh had perverted its way on the earth. God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me. The world is filled with [man's] crime. I will therefore destroy them with the earth…'" (6:11-13)

            

Which world would be the ideal? The world with the spirit of God hovering, or a crime-ridden corrupt world? The world where God says "Let there be light" or where God says, "The end of all flesh has come?" The world in which God sees light and calls it Good, or one in which God sees a corrupt world on account of the acts of Basar – all made-of-flesh beings – which must be darkened and destroyed so a new effort by a man described as being righteous could begin?

            

There are different reasons why new beginnings might come about. A child is born – the child did not exist before, it has a clean slate and a world of opportunity before it. What life it will have will be determined by its parents and by what Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik called the "Covenantal Community" in which it is raised.

            

A person or family move to a new community or are the pioneers in creating a new community, they have a tremendous opportunity to build a world that follows the ideal of the sprit of God hovering, in which the focus is on creating light, and making a very clear division between light and darkness.

            

And sometimes a new beginning comes about because what has happened in the past has brought a person to the pits of despair. An addiction, a bad breakup, a divorce, a death, being fired from a job, being frustrated with a spiritually empty life and returning to God, the pursuit of materialism turned to a pursuit of meaning in life.

            

Both beginnings bring a tremendous potential. They begin with similar qualities.

            

But the role a person plays in either beginning has a tremendous impact on whether the endeavor will be successful or not. Adam and Chava ate from a tree and threw their potential into the wind. They produced two sons, one of which died at the hands of his murderous brother, who himself was banished to a life of wandering. They only seemed to get real "nachas" from their third son, an ancestor of Noach.

            

Noach also had three sons – and while they did not kill one another, they too had the opportunity to follow their father's footsteps for good – and he seemed to only be successful with two out of three.

            

Despite all our best efforts, nothing is perfect. But everything has potential. Our challenge is to tap into the potential for good in every person and opportunity. And hopefully, with God's help, we can build a world that God can look down upon and say, "It is very good."