ותאמר שדי אל אברם חמסי עליך. Sarai said to Abram: "The wrong done me boomerangs on you." Why does the Torah present Sarah's complaint as if it were directed at Abraham when clearly she was angry at Hagar as she spelled out when she said that she had been downgraded in Hagar's eyes? If, on the other hand, she really targeted Hagar with her complaint, she did not seem to address the right target. After all, it was Sarah who had been slighted, her honour had been impugned not Avraham's. Furthermore, we must understand Avraham's reply. He appeared to have accepted Sarah's complaint when he said: "do what you will with Hagar!" If Avraham had not felt that he had a share of guilt in what happened he should have denied wrongdoing and not simply told Sarah what she could do.
In order to understand what transpired we must refer to Bereshit Rabbah 45,1 where it is explained that the status of the servant Hagar was one which obligated Avraham to look after her economic needs, whereas he was not entitled to sell her. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains there that in return for supplying Hagar's needs, Avraham was entitled to consume (use, or own) the produce of her hands. This meant that wile Hagar was a bodily slave of Sarah, the proceeds of her labour belonged to Avraham. There is an argument in Ketuvot 79 whether the children born by women of such status belong to the mistress or to the husband. Those who hold that the infant belongs to the mistress base themselves on the principle that only one generation of "labour" belongs to the husband; when such "labours" have produced dividends in the form of children or animals, they certainly do not belong to the husband of the woman owning the slave. We have also learned in the name of Rav Ashi in Gittin 39 that when a male slave has married a free woman in the presence of his master, the master must free him. The Talmud explains that this is so when the master has arranged the marriage. The commentators there are at pains to explain that the master had presumably freed the male salve in question first, as it is unlikely that he would use force to marry somebody forbidden to him in Jewish law. The same ruling applies when the woman was the slave and the husband was a free man. In that case the master has to free the woman (first). Concerning this ruling the Maharik writes in Yoreh Deah item 246 in laws dealing with slaves, that if a master engages in sexual intercourse with his slave intending to marry her, this is equivalent to setting her free. If his intention was purely; carnal, however, this has no legal consequences, i.e. she is not freed. There is a disagreement between Rav Alfassi and Maimonides concerning the result of a master sleeping with his slave without declaring any intention either way. According to Rav Alfassi on Yevamot 82. such an encounter also brings in its wake the freeing of the slave, whereas Maimonides disagrees in chapter 9 of the laws about slaves. After having explained all this, we can now return to the issue at hand.
When Sarah noticed that Hagar exploited her pregnancy to belittle her she became angry at the very idea that a slave should belittle her mistress. There is every reason to believe that Abraham could not have been unaware of Hagar's conduct. Our verse need not be understood as if Sarah had only now brought this to her husband's attention. Our verse reflects Sarah's anger that her husband had not reacted sooner to the slights she experienced at the hands of Hagar. When Abraham slept with Hagar in order to establish a man-wife relationship, Hagar in effect had become a free woman legally, as we have demonstrated from the rulings quoted. When Hagar assumed haughty airs it was because she no longer viewed herself as a slave. Sarah blamed her husband for enabling Hagar to have attained the status of a free person. She did not express anger at Hagar, seeing that Hagar was correct in no longer viewing herself as subservient to Sarah.
Sarah now challenged Hagar's new found legal status. She did this by emphasising that it was she who had initiated the union between Hagar and Abraham, not Abraham. She had given Hagar to Abraham inasmuch as she could dispose of the activities of her slave Hagar. Why would the Torah repeat ("I have given my slave to your bosom") something we knew already, except to stress the conditions under which Hagar had been given to Abraham? According to what we have explained earlier Abraham had no claim to the fruit of Hagar's womb. Any child of Hagar's would belong to Sarah, her mistress. Hagar had never been Abraham's slave so that he could have freed her. Hagar could only have been freed if her mistress had not given her to Abraham as a slave, or even specifically as a wife and we would fall back on the argument that Abraham would not consort with a harlot and that therefore even if he had not promised freedom to Hagar it was implied by his sleeping with her. All of this would apply only if Hagar had at that time been Abraham's slave, not when she was Sarah's slave. Sarah claimed that she had been very careful at the time she suggested that Abraham sleep with Hagar. She said (verse 2): "please sleep with my slave." She had given Abraham notice that Hagar would remain her slave also after he had slept with her. Had Sarah not had such an intention, she would simply have said to Abraham: "sleep with Hagar!"
I have found an explanation of the words: "she (Sarah) gave her to her husband to become his wife." Bereshit Rabbah 45,3 states that the words "to Abraham as a wife" were meant as "to him exclusively, not to anyone else." Our sages also deal with the extraneous word אישה, "her husband," in verse three. Did we not know that Abraham was Sarah's husband? They say the word is an exclusion, i.e. Sarah insisted that in spite of Hagar sleeping with Abraham, he would remain a husband only to her! These words make excellent sense in the context of our approach to the whole episode. The Torah had to add this word so that we would understand that Hagar's status as a slave did not change as a result of her sleeping with Abraham. Abraham could neither release Hagar to someone else nor even free her.
Hearing Sarah's words, Abraham concurred with her. This can be understood on two levels. 1) Abraham had never intended that Hagar's status should change as a result of the new arrangements; nonetheless he did not consider himself as a קדש, male prostitute, when he slept with her. 2) Originally, Abraham thought that Hagar became free as a result of his sleeping with her as a legal arrangement. He had not paid attention to the finer nuances of Sarah's words when she offered, or pressed, Hagar on him as a sleeping partner. Had he understood Sarah correctly he might not have agreed to sleep with Hagar at all, worrying that his sleeping with her would stamp him as a קדש, male prostitute. This may well be the reason why during the fourteen years that elapsed between the birth of Ishmael and that of Isaac we never hear that Abraham slept with Hagar again.
The simplest approach to the whole problem is, of course, that as the Torah had not been given as yet, the various halachic wrinkles we have discussed did not enter the picture. The fact that Abraham and Sarah already observed the Torah's commandments of their own free will did not mean that on occasion, and in order to help fulfill some prophecy, they would not transgress laws temporarily. [Did not Jacob marry two sisters during their lifetime? Ed.] Maimonides already stated in chapter nine of Yesodey Torah in Sefer Hamada that when a properly accredited prophet asks the Jews to violate one of the 613 commandments on a temporary basis that one should obey him. He cites the example of the prophet Elijah who rebuilt a private altar at a time when such altars were prohibited (Kings 1 18). Seeing that Sarah was a greater prophetess than he (Shemot Rabbah 1, based on Genesis 21,12), Abraham complied with her suggestion. It was necessary for matters to develop in this manner so that the residue of the original serpent's poison, some of which was still lodged within Abraham, could be expelled with the sperm which impregnated Hagar. When Abraham would eventually father Isaac, this would be from sperm that was no longer contaminated by the זוהמה, spiritual poison, of the original serpent. Had Hagar become a free woman, not only would she not have absorbed the entire spiritual contamination that was still lodged within Abraham, but the fact that Isaac would have been born with some of it could have caused untold harm to the future of the Jewish people. Sarah insisted that Hagar remain a slave because of such considerations. How else could we explain that Sarah would allow Abraham to make a קדש, male prostitute, of himself by sleeping with her slave? The reason she invited God to judge between them was because only God knew her true motives.
As soon as Sarah heard that Abraham did not doubt her pure motives and that he did not say anything when she not only treated Hagar as a slave, but more demonstratively than previously, Hagar took the hint and fled that household. Hagar did not accept the decision that reduced her again to the status of a slave. She had never heard the condition Sarah made at the time she gave her to Abraham to cohabit with. When the angel called to Hagar (16,8), he addressed her as שפחת שרה, "the slave-woman of Sarah," to make it clear that she had not been entitled to leave Sarah and Abraham's household in what she thought of as her new status as a free woman. Hagar immediately accepted the angel's rebuke by saying "I flee from my mistress Sarah."
We must explore the legal status of Hagar's son Ishmael. Is he (and his offspring) subservient to us inasmuch as he was the son of a Jewish owned slave? There is a
Beraitha in Torat Kohanim 87 on
פרשת בהר on the subject: Whence do we know that if a Jewish male fathered a son with a Gentile slave that this son is a slave of his? The words
אשר יהיו לך מאת הגוים אשר סביבותיכם in Leviticus 25,44 are considered as the source of this ruling. This verse only ruled out slaves who lived in the land of Canaan at the time the Jewish people conquered that land. The words "who will be yours" were quite unnecessary. Normally, the Torah would have used an expression such as "whom you will purchase," or something similar. For this reason the author of the Beraitha understands the words as referring to as yet unborn children of a Gentile slave sired by a Jewish male. The law that remaining Canaanites had to be killed applied only to those who were already alive and in the land of Canaan at the time the Torah was given (
Deut. 20,
17). As a result of this ruling it emerges that Ishmael and all his offspring are truly slaves of the Jewsih people (legally speaking). There is no need to enter into the discussion we have described on page 149. Regardless of whether we view ourselves as Sarah's or as Abraham's heirs, Ishmael and offspring are included in our inheritance. Abraham inherited Sarah upon her death. He made Isaac his sole heir. God renewed the covenant with us the Jewish people to give us the lands He promised to Abraham. That land includes all the parts inhabited by Edom as well as the part of Esau shared with Ishmael's offspring.
The most convincing proof that we are correct is found in Genesis 21,13 where God promises that the son of the slave-woman (Hagar) will develop into a nation. It is important to note that the Torah does not refer to Ishmael as Abraham's son but as Hagar's son. Thus the Torah emphasizes that Ishmael remains a slave, seeing that he is the son of a slave. If you wanted to see further proof of this look at the way the Torah describes the sons of Zilpah i.e. Leah's slave-woman, and the sons of Bilhah, i.e. Rachel's slave-woman. You will observe that when the Torah described those women giving birth (
Genesis 30,
5) that the sons are attributed to Jacob, not to their respective mothers. This means that because Jacob slept with them in order to establish a legal bond they became free women. In the reports of the births of all the four sons of Zilpah and Bilhah the Torah was careful to emphasize this point, (compare 30,7; 30,10; 30,12) In our case the Torah empahasises the difference in status between Ishmael and Isaac once more when we read: "for through Isaac your seed will be known" (
Genesis 21,
12) i.e. not through Ishmael.
There was no need to promise to give us the lands of Ishmael since a slave does not own land and whatever land he lived on belonged to the Jewish people, his owner.
