Showing posts with label Yishmael. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yishmael. Show all posts

Friday, October 25, 2013

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.

Friday, October 18, 2013

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.