When I learned this perek at other times, I typically thought about it through the lens of the individual. I wondered why Abraham would resort to the same ruse that failed in the past, and compared Avimelech's responses to that of Pharaoh. However, this time I came to realize that the placement of this chapter is incredibly important because it is intended to show both Abraham and the reader how God's justice works.
We see this almost from the get-go. When Avimelech realizes that the woman he has taken is another man's wife, he speaks to God and says (Genesis 20:4)
4 Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said: 'LORD, wilt Thou slay even a righteous nation?
There is a very strong echo here to an earlier scene with Abraham. Specifically, it is the scene in which Abraham pleads for Sodom and Gomorrah (Chapter 18).
24 Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?'
The cry that Abraham espouses- "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?" is echoed by Avimelech. "I didn't know," Avimelech claims. "I acted in the innocence of my heart and with clean hands. I ought to be judged fairly!"
(A point of interest is that God agrees that he acted in the innocence of his heart but not with clean hands. That part is omitted from the answering verse.
5 Said he not himself unto me: She is my sister? and she, even she herself said: He is my brother. In the simplicity of my heart and the innocency of my hands have I done this.'
6 And God said unto him in the dream: 'Yea, I know that in the simplicity of thy heart thou hast done this, and I also withheld thee from sinning against Me. Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Why isn't Abimelech considered to have acted with clean hands?
Rashi comments to this and explains that while it is true Abimelech originally took Sarah innocently, not having known she was another man's wife, it is only Godly intervention that prevents him from consorting with her. As becomes clear later in the chapter, Abimelech and all of his court are stricken with some kind of ailment that stops up women's wombs and renders them infertile (Genesis 20:18).)
Here is the important part. Once Abimelech recognizes that God has brought this plague upon him, he does the right thing and relinquishes Sarah. But not without a parting shot- note the following odd phrase:
And to Sarah he said, “I herewith give your brother a thousand pieces of silver; this will serve you as a covering of the eyes before all who are with you, and you are cleared before everyone.”
There are several different interpretations as to what Avimelech means when he talks about giving Sarah money "as a covering of the eyes" before all who are with you. However, some commentators interpret that Abraham and Sarah blindedAbimelech and kept him from seeing clearly by pretending to be sister and brother. Therefore, an angry Avimelech curses Sarah (see the Torah Temimah) and eventually the curse comes true. כסות עינים. א"ר יצחק, לעולם אל תהא ברכת הדיוט קלה בעיניך, שהרי אבימלך קלל את שרה ונתקיים בזרעה, שנאמר הנה הוא לך כסות עינים, אמר לה, הואל וכסית ממני שהוא אישך וגרמת לי הצער הזה, יהי רצון שיהיו לך בני כסויי עינים, ונתקיים בזרעה, שנאמר ביצחק (פ' תולדות) ותכהין עיניו מראות י. (ב"ק צ"ג א')
There is another scene just prior in whichblindness was referenced. This is the famous scene where the angels come to Sodom and Gomorah and the members of the city want Lot to give them over to be sodomized. Lot tries to argue with the mob and offers them his virgin daughters in lieu of his guests but the people of Sodom press him and say they will do worse to him. They attempt to break down the door.
Then the angels cause blindness to fall upon every single one of them (which, if we are paralleling our two scenes, would be the equivalent to Avimelech and his entire court being unable to bear children).
This is the moment at which the people of Sodom can choose to see the hand of God at work or choose to refuse it. They can decide to give up on their desire to sodomize the men, recognizing that God (or more precisely, His angels) have forbidden them to do it. This is what Abimelech does in our scene- recognizing that something mysterious and miraculous is in play, he speaks to God, speaks to Abraham, makes reparations to Sarah and relinquishes her.
But this is NOT what the people of Sodom do. They are stubborn and they will refuse to recognize God's intervention- quite literally if it kills them.
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
Those three words ought to shock you. When these people are blinded, a completely supernatural event, their reaction is NOT, like Abimelech, to give up on the pursuit. They do not make reparations, pay Lot, pay the guests they have tried to seize (exactly as Abimelech took Sarah)- no, they simply keep on grasping for the door and they only give up when they have literally become so weary that they have to.
It is only AFTER this event that the angels turn to Lot and say
12 And the men said unto Lot: 'Hast thou here any besides? son-in-law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whomsoever thou hast in the city; bring them out of the place;
13for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxed great before the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.'
What then do we learn from this?
We learn that this was actually a test.
Abimelech passed the test but the men of Sodom failed.
Here's the test, in short: Someone who is not quite who you think they are (an angel disguised as a man, a wife who appears merely to be someone's sister) appears in your place of residence. You either take them or try to take them. You are stricken by a mysterious plague (literal blindness or a plague caused by the fact that you were blind to the truth of the situation). Do you recognize God's hand in these events and immediately attempt to make reparations? Or do you deny God's role completely?
If you're Abimelech, you recognize God. Thus, you pass the test. You demonstrate there is at least some fear of God in your land.
If you're the Sodomites, you refuse to recognize God. You fail the test. You and your city are totally destroyed.
Here's why it matters- because Abraham bears witness to it. He sees a situation in which God does allow someone who did wrong but who later made reparations to be saved. Indeed, he is the agent that helps it to happen because he prays on Avimelech's behalf (Genesis 20:17).
Where else do we see someone praying on a monarch's behalf?
27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them: 'I have sinned this time; the LORD is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.
29 And Moses said unto him: 'As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread forth my hands unto the LORD; the thunders shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know that the earth is the LORD'S.
ל וְאַתָּה, וַעֲבָדֶיךָ: יָדַעְתִּי--כִּי טֶרֶם תִּירְאוּן, מִפְּנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים.
30 But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the LORD God.'--
Notice the echoes going on in this scene. Pharaoh admits that he and his people are wicked while God is righteous and just. It seems like he is going to behave as Abimelech does and finally relinquish the people once and for all (just as Abimelech relinquishes Sarah). But Moses chides him, saying that while he will pray for him he knows that they do not truly fear God. Pharaoh and his countrymen are more similar to the people of Sodom, who will weary themselves trying to keep what they want, than Abimelech, who was willing to give it up eventually.
So what is going on in this perek? This perek is a meditation on God's justice. We learn something about how His justice works. God does not assume that everyone knows and plays by His rules from the beginning. He does, however, insist that once He brings punishment upon them (whether blindness or a plague that causes infertility) they then acknowledge His presence and relinquish what is not theirs (whether it is the men who are really angels, or the sister who is really a wife, or the slaves who are really God's chosen.) If they are willing to do this, He is merciful - as Abraham himself and we as the readers witness in this chapter. If they are unwilling...God has already shown what will happen in His destruction of Sodom.
But I listened to Rabbi Alex Israel of TanachStudy on this chapter, and the part that was new to me had to do with the dissimilarity between Abraham's hospitality and Lot's hospitality. Rabbi Israel reads the two stories as foils for one another (much as Hamlet and Laertes are foils, for example).
When it comes to Abraham, the entire family is involved in hospitality. We see that both Abraham and Sarah are working to provide food for the guests. There is even an interpretation of the statement וַיִּתֵּן אֶל-הַנַּעַר, וַיְמַהֵר, לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ that indicates the na'ar in question was Ishmael, and he too was involved in serving the guests.
In contrast, when it comes to Lot, he alone is involved in seeing to the guests' needs.
3 And he urged them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
His wife (and as we find out later, his daughters, his married daughters, his sons-in-law etc) are nowhere to be found. But the main shared responsibility would have rested on his wife, and she's clearly not mentioned when it comes to caring for the guests.
The suggestion is that when it came to Abraham and Sarah, there was a family value of providing sustenance to others. In contrast, Lot alone had this value- it was not something he had successfully imparted to the other members of his family. (My husband made me read part of a book called The Secrets of Happy Families and the author writes about being explicit in one's family values and imparting them not only by modeling but by transparently stating them/ teaching them to one's children. It fits well with the overall idea here.)
Thus, when it comes to Abraham and Sarah, since they had inculcated this family value of giving and sustaining life through offering food, they were blessed with life. In contrast, since Lot's wife did not subscribe to this value at all (and she's the foil to Sarah), she's cursed with death. Rabbi Israel makes the point that salt connotes death. We know that "salting the earth" is a way of symbolically cursing a city and that if enough salt were sown, it would be impossible for anything to grow on that arid land. We have an example of this ritual of salt connoting death in the book of Judges.
45 And Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, and slew the people that were therein; and he beat down the city, and sowed it with salt.
Thus, on a symbolic level, when we say Lot's wife turned to salt, what we mean to say is that she was incapable of giving life (like a salted field). She refused to be hospitable- it was not a value of hers- and so she was judged, measure for measure.
Incidentally, the idea of being kind to strangers or NOT being kind to strangers and then reaping the consequences of one's actions is a major trope in fairy tales and folklore. I can name numerous stories where the theme arises, but the most recent one to come to mind is one I read to my daughter and it's calledMufaro's Beautiful Daughters: An African Tale. In this take on Cinderella, the daughters are not step-siblings and there is no fairy godmother. However, there is a king who can change his form and pretend to be a hungry boy or a wise old woman. He sees how each of the sisters responds to him (and whether or not she shares her food with the hungry boy, for instance) and eventually chooses his queen based on that. It would be interesting to research fairy tales and folklore and see whether this idea of sharing food with strangers and being rewarded for acting in a kind/ hospitable fashion predates the Bible or is mainly seen after the Bible. If it comes after, I think the Abraham-Sarah vs. Lot-Lot's Wife stories are a good first example.
This is the chapter where our Matriarch Sarah is generally viewed in a negative light. She is certainly viewed this way by today's socially conscious young adults, who seek to right injustice wherever they may find it. And in fact, there are even traditional commentators who view her as having done wrong. Ramban states that she sinned in her treatment of Hagar. Both Radak and Rabbi Menachem Kasher discuss Sarah's behavior as well.
ספר בראשית, פרק טז, פסוק א-רד"ק על "ותענה שרי"ותענה שרי - עשתה עמה יותר מדאי ועבדה בה בפרך, אפשר שהיתה מכה אותה ומקללת אותה ולא היתה יכולה לסבול וברחה מפניה. ולא נהגה שרה בזה למדת מוסר ולא למדת חסידות, לא מוסר כי אע"פ שאברהם מוחל לה על כבודו, ואמר לה "עשי לה הטוב בעיניך" היה ראוי לה למשוך את ידה לכבודו ולא לענותה; ולא מדת חסידות ונפש טובה כי אין ראויה לאדם לעשות כל יכלתו במה שתחת ידו, ואמר החכם מה נאוה המחילה בעת היכולת, ומה שעשתה שרי לא היה טוב בעיני האל, כמו שאמר המלאך אל הגר "כי שמע ה' אל עניך" והשיב לה ברכה תחת עניה. ואברם לא מנע שרי מלענותה, אע"פ שהיה רע בעיניו, משום שלום בית. וכן זה הספור נכתוב בתורה לקנות אדם ממנו המדות טובות ולהרחיק הרעותAnd Sarai afflicted her: She did with her (Hagar)excessively and she worked her with backbreaking labor. It is possible that she (Sarai) hit her (Hagar) and cursed her and she (Hagar) wasn’t able to bear it so she ran away from her. And Sarah was not behaving this way out of the trait of ethical behavior or the trait of piety. It wasn’t ethical behavior because even though Avraham gave in on his honor and said to her ‘Do what is proper in your eyes” it would have been worthy for her to not harm Hagar due to his honor. And it was not piety because it’s not proper for a man to do whatever he is able to do with those who are under him, and the wise man said that forgiveness is desirable in a time where one can give it, and what Sarai did was not proper in the eyes of God which we see when the angel says to Hagar “for God has heard your affliction” and he gave her a blessing in place of her affliction. And Avram did not stop Sarai from afflicting her even though it was evil in his eyes due to shalom bayit(keeping peace in the home). And this story was written in the Torah to show that an individual should strive to acquire good attributes and should distance himself from bad ones.
Israel Passover Haggadah by Rabbi Menachem M. Kasher, page 77Rabbi Simeon the son of Johai said: Hagar was the daughter of Pharoah. When Pharoah saw what was done on Sarah’s behalf in his own house, he took his daughter and gave her to Sarah. “And he called her Hagar,” which name is a form of the Aramaic phrase “havagrach,” which means “Here is thy reward.” Later, Holy Writ informs us “And Sarah tormented her.” Because of her harshness to Hagar, Sarah’s descendants were afflicted and enslaved by the Egyptians. For this reason, also, it is written: “And Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt.”
Back in the day, when I learned these approaches, I felt vindicated. As a Bais Yaakov girl, we were only taught black and white portrayals of characters in which the Avos and Imahos were unquestionably righteous and it would have been akin to heresy to suggest otherwise. (Incidentally, I think that teaching children black-and-white versions of important characters in Tanakh is developmentally appropriate in the younger grades, and fully support the use of Midrashim that paint characters in these ways in elementary school. High school should be the time to uncover nuance and start exposing children to the multiplicity of readings on any given text or indeed, any character. But I digress.) Knowing that there were traditional commentators that viewed Sarah as human, and having fallen prey to human error, was a coup for me.
I still think it is valuable for students to learn that even the greatest individuals among our people have flaws and faults. But I have changed, and I have much more compassion for Sarah than I originally did. Thus, what I would like to do here is suggest that actually, the fault for Sarah's behavior lies more with Avraham than with Sarah. And I believe that if Avraham had acted differently, Sarah would never have behaved in this manner.
What is it that Sarah was seeking and did not find?
She sought protection.
Ramban believes that Avraham sinned when he brought Sarai to Egypt. In his words:
ספר בראשית, פרק י, פסוק יב-רמב"ן על "ויהי רעב בארץ"ודע כי אברהם אבינו חטא חטא גדול בשגגה שהביא אשתו הצדקת במכשול עון מפני פחדו פן יהרגוהו, והיה לו לבטוח בשם שיציל אותו ואת אשתו ואת כל אשר לו, כי יש באלקיםכח לעזור ולהציל. גם יציאתו מן הארץ, שנצטווה עליה בתחילה, מפני הרעב, עון אשר חטא, כי האלקים ברעב יפדנו ממות. ועל המעשה הזה נגזר על זרעו הגלות בארץ מצרים ביד פרעה. Know that Avrahamour father unintentionally committed a great sin by bringing his righteous wife to a stumbling block of sin on account of his fear for his life. He should have trusted that God would save him and his wife and all his belongings for God surely has the power to help and to save. His leaving the Land, concerning which he had been commanded from the beginning, on account of the famine, was also a sin he committed, for in famine God would redeem him from death. It was because of this deed that the exile in the land of Egypt at the hand of Pharaoh was decreed for his children.(Taken from the Chavel translation, page 174)
There are other more charitable interpretations of Avraham's actions in this scene. But let us, for this moment, go with the Ramban's approach. According to this approach, Avraham should have stayed in the land of Canaan alongside Sarai and trusted in God to help them survive the famine. But he did not, and because he did not, his wife was taken from him and placed into the lion's den, the Pharoah's palace. As much as Avraham might have wanted to protect her, he failed her. Sarah was left alone, unprotected and defenseless.
Of course, God intervened, bringing plagues that Rashi explains interfered with Pharoah's ability to perform sexually. Because of this, Sarai was not assaulted. But she could not have known that this would happen, and it is possible she felt rightfully vulnerable, angry and frustrated that her husband could not protect her.
Then, in the next chapter, Sarai sees the lengths that Avraham will go to to protect a kinsman. Avraham risks life and limb, not only of himself but of 318 men, to save Lot. He spares no effort and no expense to take him back from those who have kidnapped him.
And so, having witnessed Avraham's efforts, it is reasonable for Sarai to expect that Avraham will spare no effort to protect her as well. Struggling within herself, Sarai finally admits to herself that there is no way that Avraham will sire a child with her. Her menses have stopped. She is old. But Avraham is still virile. And so, in what must have been an extraordinarily difficult decision, Sarai determines that she is willing to allow a surrogate to bear a child on her behalf. She tells Avraham of her decision, willing him to lie with her handmaiden in the hopes that the child that is born will be their child- the child of Avraham and Sarai- even if it was originally housed within another's womb.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram: 'Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing; go in, I pray thee, unto my handmaid; it may be that I shall be builded up through her.' And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
You know where we see a similar tale? In the story of Ruth and Naomi.
Naomi begins by mentioning her old age and the unlikelihood of her bearing children:
12 Turn back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say: I have hope, should I even have an husband to-night, and also bear sons;
13 would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye shut yourselves off for them and have no husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes, for the hand of the LORD is gone forth against me.'
By the time her story is done, Ruth has served as a kind of surrogate for her. It is Naomi who ends up dandling the child upon her knee and loving the child almost as though she were its mother.
15 And he shall be unto thee a restorer of life, and a nourisher of thine old age; for thy daughter-in-law, who loveth thee, who is better to thee than seven sons, hath borne him.'
17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying: 'There is a son born to Naomi'; and they called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father of David. {P}
The story of Ruth and Naomi shows the way that the Sarah and Hagar story could have gone. If Hagar felt affection towards her mistress, and would be willing to surrender her child to her, then people would have said "There is a son born to Sarai" in the same way that they said "There is a son born to Naomi."
But Hagar either does not have or chooses not to show affection or kindness to Sarai. Instead, she uses her pregnancy to put on airs, flaunting the fact that she is pregnant by Avraham when Sarai is not. And so, instead of Sarai's sacrifice and desire to create a covenantal family being recognized, she is mistreated in her own house, put down and made fun of in her own home.
It is Avraham's duty as a husband to protect her from this. It is Avraham's duty to step in, intervene and clarify to Hagar that she is not a full wife to him in the way that Sarai is. Hagar's job is to serve as surrogate, not to serve as a full wife.
But Avraham is a kind man and he is an idealist. He cannot do this. To his mind, Hagar is equal to him; he does not or cannot view her as a mere surrogate. And because he cannot do this, he allows Sarai to be mistreated.
Is it any wonder then that she comes to him, with a cry that encompasses her whole soul, and states that God Himself will judge between him and her?
5 And Sarai said unto Abram: 'My wrong be upon thee: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.'
She has been wronged and mistreated and he has allowed it to happen. He has not been strong enough, clear enough, to let Hagar know exactly what her place is...and what it is not.
6 But Abram said unto Sarai: 'Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her that which is good in thine eyes.' And Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her face.
Avraham's response is inadequate. Sarai is looking for him to show that he cares. This is his moment to intervene. This is where he is supposed to step in and say, "Yes, I will defend you. I will protect you. I will speak with Hagar. I will make her understand that though I value her and the child she bears, that does not give her a right to treat you in this manner."
But Avraham does none of those things. Instead, he offers the responsibility back to Sarai. "She is your handmaiden- do with her what you wish."
In her frustration and bitterness, realizing that her own husband will not protect her and will not defend her, Sarai is overly harsh with Hagar. We can all agree that it was not fair and perhaps not justified. But we can certainly understand why she does it. What she wants is to be valued. To be defended. To be protected. She wants Avraham to stand up for her. But he doesn't.
Unfortunately, and this is the real tragedy, Avraham constantly fails to protect Sarah. He fails to stop Avimelech from taking her. He fails to see that the situation with Hagar and Ishmael has deteriorated to the point that they must be cast out. Indeed, God himself must intervene there to make Avraham listen to his wife. And finally, when Avraham makes the misguided attempt to protect Sarah by not telling her anything about the Akedah, the Midrash informs us that Satan (disguised as a human) is the one who breaks the news to her in an ungentle manner, and that she has a heart attack on the spot due to the shock (see Midrash Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 31).
Avraham doesn't behave this way because he doesn't love Sarah. He may love her very much. He simply doesn't see the world like she does. He isn't aware of the threats that she sees. He assumes that Sarah's frustration with Hagar can be rectified if Sarah reprimands her. He sees this as a situation where something needs to be fixed- not a situation where he needs to prove something about Sarah's worth and value to him. He figures that even if his strategy for protecting Sarah didn't work in Egypt, it will work in Gerar. He assumes that even if Hagar and Ishmael are behaving badly (if he even sees it! because he may not be able to see it), it's a child's posturing, nothing serious. Sarah, in contrast, sees the threats, and wants her husband to act against them. When he does not, she realizes she will have to rely upon others- God, and herself- to manage them.
I'll stand by you, I'll stand by you, won't let nobody hurt you, I'll stand by you. Baby, even to your darkest hour, and I'll never desert you, I'll stand by you. And when, when the night falls on you baby, You're feeling all a lone, you're wandering on your own, I'll stand by you.
After these things, we are told, God speaks to Abraham and assures him that he is indeed protected and that his faith will be rewarded. At this moment, I imagine Abraham turning to God and speaking to Him in a very low voice, a pained voice, as he asks, "What can you give me that is worth having, for I have no child? I shall see my estate and all I have in the hands of my steward Eliezer."
What are the things that have so hurt Abraham that at this moment he turns to God defenseless, wounded, voicing a pain that is not new?
I believe that Abraham feels profoundly disillusioned in this chapter, and his disillusionment comes about due to his encounter with Lot.
Abraham has an important quality, one that makes him willing to leave everything behind in order to embark upon a journey to the land that God will show him and to endure the difficulties that attend him. It is a kind of willful naivete, a belief not so much in people's innate goodness as in their capacity for redemption. Abraham is a kind of idealist. He searches for God in humanity and is shocked each time he does not find it. In Egypt, he recognizes that the people are corrupt, but believes that if he engages in a ruse where he pretends to be Sarai's brother, he will be able to save her, tricking the inhabitants of that country into behaving decently. But it is not so. This also explains why he uses the same ruse when he and his wife visit Avimelech; he assumes that even if it failed in Egypt, it cannot possibly fail twice. It is impossible that people could be so corrupt. Additionally, Abraham treats Hagar well, to the point that Sarai is frustrated and angry, feeling like her husband has not allied with her in making clear Hagar's role as surrogate mother as opposed to her own role as full wife. "May God judge between you and me!" she declares, believing that Abraham's kindness is to blame for Hagar's putting on airs. Later, he suffers greatly when Sarai determines that Ishmael and Hagar must leave for good, not believing that it is necessary- and God Himself must intervene to convince him that it is. And, of course, from the Midrashic reading due to the extra language in the verse, he is unclear as to which son he is to offer up to God - Isaac or Ishmael. It is not that Abraham cannot see evil or perversity. It is simply that he does not believe that is all there is to see. It is why he argues on behalf of Sodom- to him, the concept of totally wicked cities defies conception. He believes, with profound faith, that there is goodness in all beings, and that given the opportunity to act justly and correctly, man eventually will do so. If he can only succeed in showing them the light- they will change.
Abraham has just saved Lot, and it seems likely that he thought there would be some kind of powerful moment or reconciliation. Perhaps now the two of them can live in peace in one place. Perhaps Lot will come home with Abraham. But no such thing happens, and Abraham is forced to recognize that Lot prefers the company of others, those who are dissimilar to Abraham and who indeed may even be wicked (certainly, there is a focus on materialism, a constant emphasis on "Lot and his possessions") to what he has to offer. In the back of his mind, Abraham likely assumed that if he would not have children, Lot would be his heir. But now Abraham sees that this will not be. Lot is not the kind of man Abraham thought him to be- the kind of man who desires to ally with him in a quest for God- and spirituality over materialism. Leaving Lot his estate and inheritance would not advance Abraham's cause because Lot would see them as so many material goods, not as items that should be used in service of promoting the monotheistic vision. And so, having recognized all this, Abraham is at a loss. He feels disillusioned and upset. If this is what happened to Lot, his own kinsman, what will happen to him? Will he too be swayed and end up this way? And in that moment God reaches out to comfort him, informing him that no, he will not. God is His shield and will protect him. Abraham will never be Lot. And Abraham will not have to leave all he worked for in the hands of an unworthy individual - or a foreign servant. There will be someone to continue his efforts, his vision, his desire to bring knowledge of God to the world. This will be a child of his own body.
A special word is used in this narrative, a word that takes us back to a prior narrative. That word is תַרְדֵּמָה, and it means a deep, transformative sleep. The last time we saw this word was in the story of Adam in Chapter 2.
And I think the presence of this word is deliberate. We are meant to see a similarity between the two narratives.
Adam is searching, longing and wishing for an עזר כנגדו, a helpmate.
Abraham is searching, longing and wishing for an heir, someone to be יורש אותו.
They are each searching for someone who will help them carry the dream forward, serving as their torchbearer.
In the Adam story, God creates beasts and birds. Adam sees them all, names them all and according to the Midrash, consorts with them all, but none of them are the person who will help him to build, conquer and inherit the land. None of them can help him create new life.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.
כה וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
As soon as he sees her, Man claims Woman. This- he indicates- is who I have been searching for. She is a part of me, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. We will never be parted; we will never be dissolved. We are One, and when we come together, we are one again.
In the Abraham story, God has Abraham destroy beasts while the birds remain whole. Abraham cuts the beasts in half, leaves the birds intact, and protects all of the defenseless creatures from the carrion birds that descend to consume the flesh laid out before them. And then comes Abraham's moment.
13 And He said unto Abram: 'Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and there was thick darkness, behold a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces.
18 In that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates;
21 and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.'
There is a creation aspect here, too. It is darker. There is the promise of the child who will be born, the person who will help Abraham to carry the torch and bring his vision to the greater world. But there is also the promise of pain. This is the dream of the birth of a nation.
If Woman is created from Man's body, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, then the Nation is created from Pain, seed born of suffering. Abraham's pain, in the short term, seeking an heir and not finding likely candidates, and their own pain, in the long term, serving under other nations until such time that they can inherit the land.
To me, the smoking furnace and tongue of fire that pass through the pieces is the personification of this struggle, this journey. There will be darkness, intense and thick and black. There will be pain. But there will also be light, flaring brightly, and a people conceived from the darkness with matchless ability to endure, to continue and to create. We know that we find God in both darkness (I Kings 8:12) and light. With God, pain is creative. Whether it is the pain of wresting a bone from Adam's side and creating a woman, or forcing a nation to endure beatings, killings and slavery to ensure resilience, somehow both these narratives tell the story of continuity. This is how continuity is assured- how the torch passes from one to the next.
But did you see the flares in the sky? Were you blinded by the light? Did you feel the smoke in your eyes? Did you, did you? Did you see the sparks filled with hope? You are not alone 'Cause someone's out there, sending out flares -"Flares" by The Script
