Compassion, Blame, Humiliation in the Hagar Sarah Dynamic - Lech Lecha

This week, I had the pleasure of talking with Christian leaders in Perth about polarisation and compassion in our time, and a confronting story in Genesis about two humiliated women, Hagar and Sarah. While questions of blame and justice are always important, there needs to be a strong element of compassion whenever we are confronted with pain, regardless of the blame and justice response.

The story of Hagar and Sarah begins with admiration, according to the Midrash (1). Sarah caught the attention of Pharaoh’s daughter Hagar, when Sarah was abducted to the house of the Pharaoh (2). The princess was struck by Sarah’s character and righteousness to such an extent that she volunteered to be a maid in the house of this great woman – in modern terms, her intern – rather than stay in the palace.

The relationship between Hagar and Sarah changed, twice. First, Sarah’s infertility led Sarah to propose that her husband Abraham take Hagar as a second wife (3), with the idea that Hagar would become pregnant and the baby would be raised by Sarah. This was taking internship to the next level, but was common practice in the ancient world, as recorded in Hammurabi’s code (4). The Torah also has examples of this, with Rachel naming the children born by her maid Bilhah (5). Abraham either too quickly (6) or reluctantly (7) – depending on two interpretations - agreed to this arrangement, and Hagar became his second wife.

When Hagar became pregnant, there was a further shift in her relationship with Sarah, with her previous admiration being replaced by contempt (8). Hagar thought that Sarah’s infertility must have been a punishment from God because of hidden faults that did not match her public persona. (9) Hagar assumed that Sarah was not authentic and was deeply disillusioned with her former hero, whom she now saw as deeply flawed. Hagar made humiliating comments to Sarah about there being no place for her because she was barren and old (10), in contrast to her own pregnancy and youth.

Sarah might have felt that Hagar saw herself as Sarah’s replacement in Abraham’s life (11). Her response was to become enraged both with Hagar and Abraham (12). Abraham’s response was to encourage Sarah to do whatever she wanted to her maidservant (13).  According to the Midrash (14), Abraham feebly objected to changing Hagar’s status back from wife to maidservant, but was either too conflict-averse or too taken with Sarah’s humiliation to assert himself and his understanding of what was ethical. Perhaps he hoped that the change of status from wife to maidservant would be sufficient to cool Sarah’s rage and diffuse the situation (15).

Sarah took up Abraham’s invitation to dominate Hagar with gusto. She “afflicted” Hagar to the point that Hagar ran away from what felt like an abusive workplace (16).

There is much discussion about whether what Sarah did was wrong or somehow justified. Several highly respected early authorities are adamant that Sarah was in the wrong and use words including “sin” and “great cruelty” to describe her actions. They are also critical of Abraham for being complicit in her behaviour (17).

I am drawn to the views that the humiliation of the powerless servant at the hands of her “master’ was wrong and to be condemned.

On the other hand, the Torah is less clear about a judgement of Sarah. There is an implicit criticism of her deeds, hinted at by the fact that the Torah uses very similar words to describe Hagar’s situation and that of the powerless Hebrews who were “afflicted” by the Pharaoh (18). Both Abraham and Hagar are given very similar promises of many descendants and wealth as apparent compensation for their affliction (19). On the other hand, Hagar is addressed by an angel as “maidservant of Sarah” (20) and instructed to go back to her master and continue to suffer the abuse (21).

I will invoke Rumi here. “Somewhere beyond right and wrong, there is a garden. I will meet you there.”

“Beyond right and wrong”. There is a powerful message from the angel that God has heard Hagar’s cries (22) and encouraged her to name her son Yishmael, “God will hear”. Her suffering calls for a divine response of compassion. The Talmud writes that the gates of tears (to heaven and God) are never locked (23).

Hagar herself was deeply moved by God’s compassion. She named God, “God of my seeing”. I suggest this could be read as “God who sees me.” In other words, Hagar feels heard and seen by God.

By all means, let us not shy away from blame and seeking justice for all who are harmed, especially – but not limited to- the weak victims of the strong. At the same time, let us ensure that along with the indignation and the rage, there is compassion, and even some calm, to hear and see all who cry out in pain.

Notes   

1)       Midrash Sechel Tov to Genesis 16:1

2)       Genesis 12:15-20

3)       Genesis 16:1-3

4)       Cited in Nachama Lebovitz, Studies in the Weekly Torah Portion, Genesis, p, 156

5)       Genesis 30:3-6, see Rabbi Yaakov Medan, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-lekh-lekha/banishment-hagar-did-avraham-and-sarah-sin

6)       Midrash Hagadol on Genesis 39:10 cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 675 "Our father Avraham, when Sarah told him come to my maidservant, ' immediately hearkened to the voice of Sarah, and in the end what happened to him? [Sarah said] "May God judge between me and you". However, Joseph, when propositioned [by Potiphar's wife] did not listen to her and in the end what happened to him? he took kingship and married her [Potiphar's wife's] daughter.

7)       Ramban

8)       Genesis 16:4

9)       Rashi based on Midrash Rabba 45:4

10)    Ohr Haafela - in Torah Shlaima p. 678, 21,

11)    Medan, ibid, Medan links Hagar's perspective to "The Good Earth, by Pearl S. Buck”, ..a poor Chinese farmer of lowly standing who marries a woman of equally humble background, homely, but devoted and resourceful. She helps him to the best of her ability with the difficult work in the fields, even when she is pregnant, and fights alongside him most conscientiously in their struggle to survive. They experience years of drought and hunger; the village is deserted, and the couple moves with their children to an unfamiliar town, with no income and no home. The husband despairs and becomes feeble; his wife assumes the helm of the family, and by virtue of her efforts and resourcefulness the family is delivered from its troubles. The couple returns to the village, rebuild their home and their farmstead, and grow prosperous. Once the husband is finally in a position to rest a little from his hard work by hiring laborers, he looks at his wife, whose face has been blackened and whose body has grown old from all the effort during the difficult years, and he feels that he deserves a younger, more beautiful wife. The now-wealthy farmer is inundated with offers, and a beautiful young concubine joins his household to entertain him in his free time. Slowly, his wife is pushed aside and marginalized as the concubine comes to occupy her central position in the home".

12)    Genesis 16:5, Targum Yonathan, and Targum Yerushalmi

13)    Genesis 16:6

14)    Midrash Rabba, Bereshit 45:6

15)    Tzror Hamor

16)    Genesis 16:6

17)    Ramban, Radak, Tzror Hamor

18)    Prof. Yonatan Grossman –https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-lekh-lekha/lekh-lekha-suffering-hagar-and-enslavement-egypt

19)    Grossman compares Genesis 16:10-12 to Genesis 15:13-14

20)    Genesis 16:8

21)    Genesis 16:9

Tolerance and Space for the Other - the Tower of Babel

Tolerance is necessary, and it cannot simply be replaced with a celebration of differences in every situation. I acknowledge that there are people who don’t want to be tolerated and, in principle, we should affirm all people, not just put up with them. Still, we need tolerance as a tool in the toolbox against hate. 

Ideally, tolerance would be applied only to attitudes or behaviours that we strongly disapprove of, while people should be valued for who they are (1). In reality, the distinction between people and their behaviours and attitudes is fraught because some people see their own identities or the identities of others as inseparable from their politics, religious convictions, behaviours, or attachment to places where harm was done. In such cases, there is often a sense that the only choice is either acceptance, agreement and approval on the one hand or hatred and intolerance on the other hand, of both the person and the position.

However, tolerance is a good third option, even if it may be a less inspiring option in a range of stances one can take as part of the broader imperative of making space for “others”.

I was moved the other week by the words of a softly spoken, academic, Muslim woman and migrant to Australia who attended a roundtable that Together for Humanity organised with the Federal Minister for Education. She said how pleased she was to have a seat at the table. On merit alone, she certainly belonged there, but too often there is not enough space created for difference.

There is a verse in the Book of Genesis story of the Tower of Babel that seems benign but that I find chilling. “[All the people of] the whole earth were of one language and singular words” (2). Everyone, apparently, agreed with everyone else about everything, including the construction of a great tower. Thinking about this more deeply, we need to consider that the only way to have everyone across humanity agree on everything is by suppression of dissent (3). In such a context, this Tower would provide an opportunity for surveillance and to enforce totalitarianism. One person who disagreed with the enforced “groupthink” was Ashur, who had to leave civilisation (4). Another was Abraham, who, according to the Midrash, would later be thrown into a fiery furnace for daring to have another view (5). It was only after the defeat of the tower that Abraham and Ethical Monotheism emerged, thereby illustrating how putting an end to imposed conformity can unleash human flourishing. 

I read a wonderful idea by the philosopher known as Manitou (6), that the primary challenge of all of human history is to leave space for the “other”. I love that.

I have been thinking a lot about Cain and Abel. Like my older brother Mendel and me and our many siblings, these two siblings were very different people, something that we recognise and acknowledge. Cain was a firstborn, a very practical and substantial (7) man. He produced food as a farmer for his whole family (8). He was the one who initiated the first act of worship (9). His mother thought that his birth was the most significant event in contrast to the much less exciting birth of his brother, which passed without comment or celebration. Abel’s Hebrew name, Hevel, means air or vanity. Far less practical than his high-achieving older brother, he became a shepherd. In a vegetarian age, that was not very productive, but it gave him the chance to contemplate the big questions of life, while standing around with his sheep. Unlike my brother Mendel and me, Cain and Abel never appear to appreciate each other’s distinct ways.

Cain eventually killed Abel. Before he did so, there appeared to be an interrupted attempt (10) at dialogue between them. Genesis tells us that “Cain said to Abel” but mentions nothing about what he said, only that the dialogue was followed by murder.    

 According to the Midrash, Cain believed that, as Adam and Eve’s son, all of the earth belonged to him (11). He did not think Abel had any right to exist on “his earth”. Cain began to talk at Abel. Abel failed to assert himself and claim a space for himself (12). The two brothers failed to appreciate each other’s ways of being and at least to tolerate those ways.    

While I have argued for tolerance to be included in the toolbox for creating space for others, there are other tools. These include curiosity and questions like “tell me more”, instead of assuming we fully understand others without deep and slow listening. Another tool is the courage to sit with the discomfort of hearing the lived experience of others that can be painful to hear.  Hopefully, we can get to a stage where tolerance is invoked far less often than appreciation and celebration of difference. Until then, I will do what I can to promote not just connection across difference but also tolerance.

 Notes

1)       https://ethics.org.au/explainer-tolerance/

2)       Genesis 11:1

3)       Haemek Davar, Bick, E. Unity and Individualism, https://etzion.org.il/en

4)       Midrash Rabba

5)       Kahn, Y. Tower Bavel The Brotherhood of Man - https://etzion.org.il/en

6)       Ashkenazi, Y.L., Sod Midrash ha-Toldot, III, p. 151, cited in Eitam, U. https://etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/great-thinkers/manitou/kayin-and-hevel

7)       Bick, E, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-bereishit/bereishit-raising-cain-and-hevel

8)       Haemek Davar

9)      Genesis 4:3, Bick, E, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-bereishit/bereishit-raising-cain-and-hevel

10)    Genesis 4:8

11)    Midrash Rabba

12)   Eitam, U. https://etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/great-thinkers/manitou/kayin-and-hevel

Status Games - Abel and Cain

 Last Friday, 2 October, I was at a roundtable on social cohesion with the Australian education minister, Jason Clare, where I noticed that several people standing near me had little gold pins with a blue dot in the middle, similar to the one I was wearing. I also noticed that one man’s pin didn’t have a blue dot because he outranked the rest of us. If I was dishonest, I would make a joke about all the pins; in fact, I was tempted to do so on the day. However, I will admit to feeling some pride that the work I have done and continue to do has been recognised by my being awarded the Member of Australia honour. I also admit to feeling honoured to be in the company of others whose efforts were recognised. My only regret is that there are some unsung heroes whose much-deserved recognition is lacking. It got me thinking about the role that status plays in our lives.

In his book The Status Game (1), Will Storr argues – and I partially agree with him - that human behaviour is driven by an on-going game to gain social rank and status. Historically, having high status meant better access to better food, mates and safety. Storr describes three types of status games:

a) dominance games: forcing or intimidating others to submit, using fear and power.
b) virtue games: proving moral superiority, duty or selflessness within a group.
c) success/competence games: achieving prestige through skills, knowledge or achievements.

The quest for status – especially but not limited to dominance games - is often measured in terms of one’s rank in comparison to others, and it can be very destructive. The Talmud states that envy, lust and the pursuit of honour cause people to be removed from the world (2). Status anxiety can cause illness. Often, the stress involved in status-related conflict – where people are fighting to be seen as the “good one” and the victim and to position the other as the villain – can have serious health impacts.

It is really important to mitigate the harm of one person gaining status at the expense of others. At this roundtable, participants were asked to stand near a poster with the name of a value that they would be prepared to sacrifice. The values were based on the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values (3). The values we used were Achievement, Benevolence & Loyalty (to the people close to you), Change, Conformity, Hedonism, Humility, Self-Direction/ Self-Expression, Peace, Power, Security, Tradition, Universalism and Dignity for all. Some participants stood at Tradition as something they would trade in favour of Change, others at Conformity that they saw as destructive. I stood at Power, because I am concerned that the exercise of power by one person is often at the cost of the dignity of another.

In our work in Together for Humanity, we recently invited young people to consider the trade-offs between values to make better choices. One group of girls reflected that their value of power made them act like “control freaks” at the expense of their values of respect for others and cooperation. I told participants at the roundtable that preaching respect is not enough to defeat hatred and discrimination. Perhaps, thinking more deeply about values trade-offs can lead to better results.

Fortunately, in cases where a win-win is possible, there is no need for trade-offs. One insight about this is the Jewish teaching, “Who is respected? Those who respect all people.” (4) Starr points out that there are multiple ways to play the “status game”, in some of these approaches, we can spread high status around.

One way of understanding the story of Cain and Abel is as a catastrophic status game. The siblings’ rivalry began with arguments about which of their occupations – farming or being a shepherd – was more worthy (5). The offerings the two brothers brought to God (6) were an attempt to get God to referee their status game (7). The enduring shame (8) and anger that Cain felt in seeing his brother recognised by God while he and his offering were rejected led him to murder his brother. This is therefore a cautionary tale about the harmful aspects of the status game and an invitation to play it differently.

Going back to the roundtable I mentioned at the start of this blog, among the participants were an Aboriginal elder, a female academic who is both Muslim and a migrant, a passionate feminist, representatives of the Ethics Centre, people of Jewish heritage and someone working on Anzac Day remembrance. It was wonderful to see the dignity of all participants and the communities they represent affirmed on this occasion. We might not all have had pins in our lapels,
but the body language of all participants made it clear that the status of all was recognised.  

1)      Storr, W. (2021). The Status Game: On human life and how to play it. William Collins.

2)      Pirkey Avot – Ethics of the Fathers, 4:21

3)      Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2.1

4)      Pirkey Avot – Ethics of the Fathers, 4:1

5)      Abarbanel’s commentary on Genesis 4:1-8, Chorev Edition, p. 221

6)      Genesis 4:3

7)      Abarbanel, p. 222

Sa’adiya Gaon