Attitudes Towards Yishmael and Building Theology from One Midrash
Adapted from Rabbi Braun’s sermon in 5777
The relationship between Judaism and Jews and Islam is a complicated, both historically and theologically.
I want to address it or touch upon it through a Midrash in this morning’s parsha and try and explain the danger of building theology from one Midrash.
After Hagar and Yishmael are thrown out of Avraham’s house, they are parched in the desert and Hagar begins to cry. Hashem’s response to that is recorded in 21/17:
בראשית פרק כא
יז) וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע אֱלֹהִים֘ אֶת־ק֣וֹל הַנַּעַר֒ וַיִּקְרָא֩ מַלְאַ֨ךְ אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ אֶל־הָגָר֙ מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר לָ֖הּ מַה־לָּ֣ךְ הָגָ֑ר אַל־תִּ֣ירְאִ֔י כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֧ע אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶל־ק֥וֹל הַנַּ֖עַר בַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הוּא־שָֽׁם
17. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, What ails you, Hagar? fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.
Where else was Hashem going to hear his voice if not where he was?! What does that mean or come to teach us?
The Midrash explains that this phrase actually contains Hashem’s response to the angels. The angels came before God as he was pondering Yishmael’s fate and argued as followed: This one’s children is going to kill your children by depriving them of water in the future, and proceeds to tell us this occurred during the first exile from Israel. Don’t save him say the group of angels, let Yishmael die for what his kids will do to yours in the future.
Hashem responds – where is the lad now – is he a tzaddik or a rasha? Reluctantly the angels agree that NOW he is a tzaddik and thus Hashem says – I judge people based on where they are now, and not based on what will be!
I have seen it argued that if not for the technical issue of judging an innocent based on the future, this Midrash seems to advocate wiping out all of Ishmael’s descendants. After all the Midrash does not respond – it wasn’t all of his descendants that were bad to us.
I believe that it is wrong to make such an argument in general but today want to keep my comments confined to this Midrash.
#1 – Genocide by inference seems tough.
#2- This is certainly not the only way and not the simplest way to read the Torah.
Rashbam, Radak and others explain that Hashem answered him there is simply a reference to the creation of the well at the spot Yishmael was – Hashem did not require them to get up and go to a well, rather Hashem creates the well right there.
These commentators are aware of the Midrash and choose not to quote it, possibly because they reject its message!
#3 – the Midrash itself contains certain inherent difficulties.
- The Midrash implies that we do not judge someone based on future actions. Yet many of the Ashkenaz Rishonim and Tosafists question this assumption from the Torah’s command regarding the rebellious son, the ben sorer umoreh who is killed at 12 and a half for being an ungrateful glutton. All of the commentators there understand that he is being judged on what he will become in the future and not merely for his current actions. They all offer nuanced distinctions but they are all tough to swallow.
- Is Yishmael really a tzaddik now? Wasn’t he just thrown out of Avraham’s house for being metzachek, which has many interpretations but certainly implies that something was amiss?
Rav Chaim Paltiel asks that question but suggests that while he was not a tzaddik, he was in respect to killing Avraham’s descendants. Another tough answer! - The angels argument is specific – because they subjected us to thirst and sought to harm us this way- God should do the same to Yishmael! And if they killed us through sword or car bombs Hashem should save him because they did not try to dehydrate us!
- Lastly, it is important to realize that this is not the only answer given to the angels in this discussion. The Targum Yonatan hints to the Midrash and the angels argument and then writes: he was not judged based on the future bad actions as God had compassion for him based on the merits of Avraham! Yonatan ben Uziel is reminding us that he is Avraham’s son as well and thus he too enjoys his father’s merits! That answer offers an entirely different tone for the relationship between the two sons of Avraham!
I have made this point before and want to re-emphasize it now. Building theology of off one source and a tough one at that, is very dangerous. Our positions should be born out of careful readings of sources and from our literature as a whole.
Any attempt to read things from or into one source is more likely reading what you would like to see into a source, as opposed to what the source is actually trying to teach us.
