פרשה: לך לך · עלייה: שישי (יסוד)

ויאמר לאברם, He said to Abram, etc. Why did G'd say ידע תדע, instead of simply תדע, know! Why did the Torah stress the word גר in גר יהיה זרעך, instead of the more customary זרעך יהיה גר? The Torah does not usually mention what happens before having stated to whom it is going to happen! Why does the Torah not make it clear when and to whom the various stages of being a stranger, being enslaved, and being afflicted apply? Will Abraham's descendants experience all these stages of unpleasantness for the whole of the 400 years, or will some experience some of the afflictions and others only being strangers such as history has taught us?

I believe the Torah repeated the words ידע תדע for three separate reasons. 1) Our sages said: "our forefathers descended to Egypt on account of a relatively minor sin, i.e. Abraham having asked: 'How will I know that I will inherit'" (Genesis 15,8)? G'd answered him; ידוע, "know! that because you asked, תדע you should be aware that your descendants will first be strangers, etc." 2) Seeing that G'd's response to Abraham's question contained both a pleasant and an unpleasent message, i.e. enslavement and subsequent redemption, G'd told Abraham that just as surely as there would first be enslavement, this would be followed by redemption. 3) Our sages (Berachot 18) commented on Deut. 34,4: זאת הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאברהם, ליצחק וליעקב לאמד לזרעך אתננה, that G'd told Moses לאמר, to tell the patriarchs that He had fulfilled the oath He had sworn to all of them regarding the land of Israel. In view of this the repeated use of the expression ידע תדע refers to both the present and the eventual status of that land.

The reason that the word גר is stressed by being placed ahead of what is going to happen, is to inform us that the status of being an alien commenced already at this time. Abraham's life from here on in was part of the decree. Abraham should not think that his descendants' history would parallel his own experience to the extent that they would be aliens only part of these 400 years. Abraham was not to misunderstand the meaning of the words כי גר יהיה זרעך as applying only at some time in the future. That period would commence the day he would have descendants, i.e. with the birth of Isaac. This was also a pleasant aspect of the decree in that all the years Isaac and Jacob lived either in the land of Canaan or at Laban's were counted as part of the 400 years.

Should you argue that this could have been expressed equally well by use of the normal syntax כי זרעך גר יהיה, know that G'd wisely phrased it differently in order to reveal that He had not decreed slavery and oppression for all of Abraham's descendants. G'd wanted that Abraham should have the satisfaction of knowing that some of his descendants would only have to suffer being aliens, nothing worse. It is as if G'd had said to Abraham: "you will have a share in your descendants," i.e. they will only suffer being strangers without suffering anything worse. Had G'd used the word זרעך first, this would have created the wrong impression. By inserting the word יהיה between the words גר and זרעך the Torah makes clear that some of Abraham's descendants would experience only גרות. The descendants referred to were Isaac, Jacob, and all of Jacob's sons. As a result what sounded like 400 years of enslavement and oppression actually was reduced to 210 years, the years remaining before the Exodus after the last of Joseph's brothers had died. Even the tribe of Levi who, according to our sages never performed slave labour, did not completely escape the aspects of enslavement and oppression seeing that its babies too were subject to drowning. Moses' own experience when his basket stood in the bulrushes at the banks of the Nile, is the best proof for the anxieties suffered by even the most prominent families of the Levites.

וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי, "I will also judge the nation for whom they perform slave labour." What justification is there for the word "also" in this verse? The last subject the Torah spoke about was enslavement and oppression. How can the retribution be linked to the former by the word וגם, "and also?" Besides, as we are all aware that G'd is the judge, why does G'd have to say דן אנכי, "I will judge?" Who else could possibly judge? Why does the Torah write את הגוי instead of merely הגוי, "the nation?" Why does the Torah not mention the conclusion of the Jewish people's exile experience at the end of verse 13 by adding: "after that they will depart with great possessions," and then add the part about G'd's retribution to the Egyptians in verse 14? Why was the part about the retribution inserted in the middle of the sequence? The last question is probably best answered by recalling that events actually happened in precisely the order the Torah describes. First the Jews were enslaved and oppressed, then G'd smote the Egyptians with the ten plagues; finally the Jews left Egypt having "borrowed" all of the Egyptians' gold and silver.

An equally valid explanation of the sequence of the verse will become clear when we keep in mind what our sages had to say on Exodus 13,18. We read there that וחמושים עלו בני ישראל מארץ מצרים. According to the Mechilta the meaning is that only one out of five Israelites left Egypt, the remainder having died in Egypt during the plague of darkness so as not to afford the Egyptians the satisfaction to observe that they had not been worthy of redemption. The judgments that verse 14 speaks about then would be G'd judging the Israelites who did not merit to participate in the Exodus. The verse also alludes to the opportunity the Israelites had to examine where the Egyptians kept their valuables during the days of darkness, and to subsequently demand to borrow those. The expression וגם is used to demonstrate that G'd kept the promise made to Abraham here. This was recorded in Exodus 12,35-36. The word וגם means that G'd referred to something in addition to the decree of enslavement, namely that the redemption would be accompanied by a windfall of silver and gold, a compensation for some of the suffering to be endured. The word את refers to the death of 80% of the Israelites, whereas the word אנכי refers to the fact that this was something only G'd himself would know about; the Egyptians would not have any idea that some Jews died during the plague of darkness.

The question arises why G'd punished the Egyptians altogether when they had actually carried out the decree G'd had announced long previously.

Maimonides already answered this in his ספר המדע, explaining that G'd had never appointed a specific nation to carry out His decree. Whenever Gentile nations abuse Jews and this appears to be a fulfilment of a divine decree, none of the Gentiles had ever been specifically charged to be G'd's agents in the matter. Nachmanides and Rabbi Avraham ben David both take issue with Maimonides on this. They feel that inasmuch as those Gentiles had carried out G'd's wishes they had actually performed a מצוה. Nachmanides explains that the reason that G'd punished those nations was that they carried out the commandment with excessive enthusiasm. They demonstrated that they were intent on inflicting maximum discomfort on the Jews rather than to carry out G'd's will by what they did. When we keep this in mind, the word וגם refers to the excessive zeal displayed by the nations who persecute us which is the reason that G'd judges them. The word את then means that while G'd is busy punishing the Gentiles, He punishes the Jews who deserve it at one and the same time.

The Gentile nations persecute us because we separated ourselves from them by rejecting their religion. Had the Jewish people worshiped the lamb (Egyptian deity) in Egypt, the chances are the Egyptians would not have seen in us a foreign element and they would not have persecuted us. The same holds true throughout our history. Our persecution by the nations (at least from their point of view) has always been due to our refusal to accept their religious yardsticks, and to our describing ourselves as G'd's chosen people. The Gentile nations never viewed themselves as performing G'd's decree to punish us for our sins. There is therefore no question that they deserve retribution for what they did to us on their own initiative. G'd decreed that we be punished because we did not observe all of His commandments, whereas they persecuted us for not disregarding all of His commandments. This is what the prophet Zecharyah 1,15 had in mind when he quoted G'd as saying: אני קצפתי מעט והמה עזרו לרעה, "I was angry a little (because of a few sins Israel committed), and they overdid the punishment." In fact the Gentile nations contributed to our transgressing more of G'd's commandments because they maltreated us so much.

G'd goes on record here that He knows the true motivations of our oppressors and that is why He will punish the Egyptians. The Torah continues by linking Israel's redemption to the degree of abuse they would experience at the hands of the Egyptians by saying: ואחרי כן יצאו, "and as a result of this (exaggerated maltreatment) they will depart with great belongings;" Israel's redemption would be due in large measure to the excessive cruelty of its oppressors rather than to its accumulated merits. Sanhedrin 104 tells about the delegation the Egyptians sent to Alexander the Great demanding that the Jews return the silver and gold they had taken with them from Egypt at the time of the Exodus. Israel's representative countered by demanding back-pay with interest for several hundred years of slave labour by over a half a million of its people for over 200 years.

Our verse also contains a hint that when the Israelites went down to Egypt G'd's presence accompanied them (Megillah 29). Psalms 91,15: "I will be with him (Israel) in distress," is also proof that the שכינה accompanies the Jewish people into exile. Another indication that our verse speaks about the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt is Exodus 24,10 where the nobles of Israel had a vision of a sapphire brick underneath the throne of G'd. This is an allusion to G'd having been present when the Israelites were engaged in brick-making in Egypt.

ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום. As for you yourself, you will join your forefathers in peace. Why did the Torah interrupt the promises made to Abraham's descendants with a promise to Abraham personally? Even though G'd wanted to reassure Abraham that he personally would not experience the part of the decree connected with enslavement and oppression, this could have been stated after G'd had concluded telling him which generation would experience the redemption! The meaning would have been clear since the promise was adjoining the promise that Israel would experience redemption! Besides, why did the Torah have to repeat itself, stressing: a) "in peace," and b) "in a ripe old age?" Would it not have sufficed to promise Abraham that he would die in a ripe old age before the enslavement of his descendants would commence? The promise of death in a ripe old age would have implied that Ishmael would become a penitent, as pointed out by Bereshit Rabbah 38,12.

Righteous people, and especially our patriarchs, were always concerned with losing part of the reward they had stored up for use in the Hereafter through some act of kindness G'd would perform for them in this world. According to Bereshit Rabbah 44,4 Abraham worried that he might have caused the death of an innocent person in his war against the four kings and that as a result he had forfeited some of his eternal reward. G'd therefore reassured him by saying in 15,1: "Do not worry, your reward will be great." In view of the concern that Abraham displayed then it is reasonable to assume that he was similarly worried whether the eventual redemption from Egypt would not use up too many merits if it were accompanied by extraneous perks such as the רכוש גדול, acquisition of material wealth that would accompany it. What troubled Abraham was that clearly G'd would have to perform miracles in order to free his enslaved descendants when the time came. G'd wanted to put his mind at rest immediately; this is why He interrupted the prediction of what was going to happen by promising Abraham that his peace of mind would not be disturbed. The promise of שלום, refers to Abraham's peace of mind in the Hereafter, whereas the שיבה טובה, ripe old age, refers to his concerns about life on earth.

ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, "And the fourth generation will return here, etc." We must examine why the extent of the sins of the Emorite has a bearing on the timing of Israel's return to its homeland. Rashi and Nachmanides disagree on what the words "the fourth generation" refer to. Rashi understands them as a reference to the fourth generation from Yehudah (who descended to Egypt). His son was Peretz, his grandson was Chetzron; great grandson Caleb returned to the land of Israel. Nachmanides rejects Rashi's explanation preferring to understand the words as referring to a fourth generation of Emorites. He bases himself on G'd waiting up to four generations before visiting the sins of the fathers on their descendants (Exodus 34,7). Even if we accept the words of Nachmanides, why did G'd mention this fact to Abraham? Besides, it appears that no provision was made for the possible penitence of the Emorite, which, according to Nachmanides, would have delayed a return of the Jewish people to their homeland still further? Furthermore, assuming that Nachmanides is correct, why did G'd mention the sin of the Emorite altogether once He had told Abraham that the Jewish people would return to their homeland in the fourth generation?

Actually, G'd told Abraham of two possible timetables according to which the return of his descendants to the land of Canaan could occur. One is the end of the exile in Egypt and the oppression there. This would occur when the combination of the years of being a stranger, being enslaved, and finally being oppressed (עינוי), would total 400 years. At that point G'd's decree would have been completed and He could lead the Jewish people forth from Egypt on the very day that those years came to an end. The second time factor which would enable the Jewish people to return to their homeland would be determined by the measure of guilt the Emorites had accumulated by that time. This would occur in the fourth generation, a generation later than the Exodus. For the purpose of this calculation the generation of Caleb is considered the third generation inasmuch as Caleb left Egypt as an adult. Even though Caleb personally entered the Holy Land (Numbers 14,30), the entry of a single Jew certainly does not constitute the return of a people to their homeland. When the Torah speaks about a generation it refers to the majority of the members of that generation. Caleb's sons constituted part of the fourth generation, as did all those who had not attained the age of 20 prior to the Exodus. The four generations are not to be counted as commencing with Yehudah, as does Rashi. If we were to count in Rashi's fashion i.e. from the time G'd's decree became effective, there is no reason why Isaac himself should not be considered as a generation either, seeing that the 400 years commenced with his birth. If, on the other hand, we are to count the generations as commencing with the first Jew who descended to Egypt, the count should commence with Jacob. If we did this, Caleb himself would already be the fifth generation. It is clear then that the count was meant to commence with the period the Israelites experienced enslavement. Shemot Rabbah 1,5 states that as long as any of Joseph's brothers was alive none of the Israelites were enslaved. The calculation of the fourth generation the Torah speaks about here therefore commences with Yehudah's sons Peretz and Chetzron.

The fact that the Torah uses the plural when speaking about the return of the Jewish people is a hint that the Torah speaks about people who have been forcibly prevented from returning up until that time. They would return after four generations have been completed. The first generation of Israelites who were forcibly prevented from returning to the land of Canaan were the children of Joseph and his brothers.

We now need to understand why the guilt of the Emorite plays any role in all this when the Torah elsewhere told us in Numbers 14 that the sin of the spies and the generation who believed the ten spies was the cause that re-entry to the land of Israel was delayed by an additional generation. The 400 years G'd had decreed were completed at the time the Jewish people asked that the spies be sent out. Had they not done so, they would have entered the land of Israel at the end of the 400 years G'd speaks about in our פרשה. This would have coincided with the 3rd generation of the Jews who had experienced servitude. The additional generation was due to the sin of the spies. Assuming this tragic delay had not occurred, how could G'd have squared entry of the Jewish people to the land of Canaan with the measure of guilt of the Emorites the Torah speaks about here?

We must understand the Torah in terms of how the Talmud Berachot 7 explains Chabakuk 1,13: למה תביט בוגדים, תחריש בבלע רשע צדיק ממנו, "Why do You countenance treachery, and stand by idly when the one in the wrong devours the one in the right?" The Talmud says that while it is possible that the wicked triumphs over someone relatively more righteous than he, he will never triumph over someone truly righteous. This means that the wicked are not totally devoid of merits, and we find on occasion that by using their merit they can overcome someone else who is generally more pious than they (while on this earth). The reason is that the wicked at that time can point at the imperfections of the person who thinks of himself as righteous. When the wicked is absolutely wicked however, it is not only permissible to destroy him but whichever righteous person does so first deserves credit. One need not be a totally righteous person in order to be entitled to wipe out such a wicked person.

At the time of the Exodus as well as at the time when they despatched the spies about 15 months later, the Israelites were on the level of perfectly righteous people. Although they had sinned during the episode of the golden calf, they had been punished for that sin and had regained their status as צדיקים גמורים, as perfectly righteous people. The "echo" of that sin was not strong enough to deprive them of that title especially vis-a-vis the Emorites. In Sanhedrin 110 Rabbi Eliezer describes the people at that time as pious, quoting Psalms 50,5: "bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice" as his support. After the episode with the spies, Israel lost this status. From that moment on their moral superiority over the Emorites was marginal. As long as they had been considered חסידים their merit was enough to overcome the Emorites immediately. If the Emorites had refused to vacate the land in order to allow Israel to return there, they could have easily overcome them in battle. Now they had to wait until the Emorites accumulated a further measure of sin before their own moral superiority would suffice to overcome the Emorites in their homeland. Proof of our contention is found in Numbers 14,44 when the Israelites had realised that they had sinned grievously in fearing the Canaanites, and volunteered to fight them. Moses warned them against such an enterprise. They insisted and were defeated. Had they been considered as righteous they certainly would not have been defeated. All of this is an elaboration of what the prophet Chabakuk spoke about.

The point is underscored by Moses in Deut. 9.5, where Moses credits Israel's conquest of the land of the Canaanites not to their piety but to the wickedness of the inhabitants of that land at that time. Moses meant that the measure of their sins had become full by that time. Moses told the Israelites at that time that though they were not totally righteous, their merit was sufficient to overcome the complete lack of it in their opponents. He emphasised this lack of righteousness by the Israelites three times! However, the Emorites had absolutely no merits left that they could have used to help them triumph against Israel's various moral shortcomings.

We now understand the need for mentioning the "fourth generation" in G'd's promise in our verse. G'd stated that the latest possible date for Israel taking over its inheritance would be at the end of four generations since the onset of slavery. By that time the Emorites would not have any merit left they could use to deny Israel their return to the land of their forefathers. This part of the prophecy would become relevant only if Israel did not maintain sufficient moral superiority over the Canaanites, if they did not qualify for the appellation צדיק גמור.

ביום ההוא כרת ה׳ את אברם ברית. On that day G'd made a covenant with Abram. The reason that G'd used the past tense in referring to the gift of the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants is that He had already made Abraham take possession of it, as we explained on 13,15. Abraham's children would henceforth own the land in their capacity as his heirs.

In view of this clear-cut promise of the Bible that the descendants of Abraham were to inherit the land of the ten nations mentioned, how could Jewish heretics delude themselves by denying that there is hope for us in the future, seeing that G'd's promise had already been fulfilled and we have forfeited it due to our sins?. [I believe the author refers to converts who accept the Christian theologians' views of Jewish history. Ed.] In view of the fact that we never possessed the land of all of these ten nations, the promise of the covenant has clearly not been fulfilled as yet. Up until now Israel only occupied the land belonging to seven of the ten nations listed here. We did not even possess all the land of those seven nations. How then can one understand the people of little faith [the author calls them the dried up bones describing the revelation in Ezekiel 37. Ed.] who have given up on our glorious messianic future? G'd treated us according to the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that punishment must fit the crime. Seeing that we were supposed to be G'd's servants but rebelled in that we failed to observe many of His commandments, He caused those who were supposed to be our servants to rebel against us. This does not mean that G'd does not have the power to fulfil His covenant in full at the appropriate time.

The reason that the Torah first lists the nations whose territory we never captured, i.e. the Keyni, the Knizi and the Kadmoni, is that they are only different names for the Ammonites, the Moabites and the Edomites. When the time arrives when we will experience realisation of G'd's promise concerning those three nations, we will also again recapture the lands of the other seven nations listed here at the end. The Torah mentions those three first in order to teach us that the essential element of G'd's promise is that we will dispossess those three nations. The author sees an allusion of the future in Abraham's defeat of the four kings listed in 14,1. Three of them symbolise the Ammonites, Moabites and the Edomites. The last one (of those four), "Tidal king of גוים," represents the other seven nations. [The author seems to feel that the word גוים does not describe the name of a specific nation. Ed.]

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 fulfil 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 G'd to judge between them was because only G'd 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. G'd 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 G'd 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 emphasises 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 emphasise 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.

ולא יקרא שמך עוד אברם, your name will no longer be Abram, but Abraham. Bereshit Rabbah 44,10 already stated that when Abram cited that he had seen in his horoscope that he would not father any children, G'd agreed with him and told him that he was correct, that as Abram he would not father children but that as Abraham he would. The same would apply to Sarai as compared to Sarah. This Midrash is very difficult since the Torah reports Abram as siring Ishmael, not Abraham!

Besides, why did the Midrash mention that Sarai did not bear children when Abraham had never even raised the problem of Sarai not having children?

We must conclude therefore that Abraham already knew at that time or at least surmised that any meaningful seed of his could only be conceived through Sarah because (presumably) whatever he had foreseen in his horoscope applied to himself in conjunction with his wife. G'd confirmed this when He told him that his seed would be known through Isaac. This is why the Midrash included the name Sarah when describing a prophecy primarily directed at Abraham. Abraham realised that the need for Ishmael to be his son was to rid his sperm of any residual contamination of the original serpent. Fathering Ishmael then was not fathering in the true sense of the word.