Today's Chumash class proved to be very interesting. Mrs. Perl noticed that we all had a difficult time understanding the actions of Sarah in the Hagar Story, and she printed out an article for us by Rav Elchanan Samet. Rav Samet approached the story with the right mindset, and he came up with a really good answer.
Rav Samet says that the story involving Sarah and Hagar is a typical situation for the times. It was common practice for women to give their handservants to their husbands for the purpose of having children. This practice is even discussed in the Code of Hammurabi. The code says, "Should a man marry an infertile woman and she gives her maidservant to her husband, if the maidservant bears children and then equates herself with her mistress, the mistress may not sell her, since she has given birth to children [and it would constitute cruelty to separate the maidservant from her children]. Rather, she shall place upon her a sign of servitude and assign her as one of the maids. If she does not bear children, she may be sold.
Rav Samet explains that the way things worked was that when a woman have her maidservant to her husband, she still held authority over the maidservant. In actuality, the maidservant's status is changed because she is married to the master of the house, and she is thus a free woman. However, this only applies if she maintains a good relationship with the mistress. If the maidservant begins to act haughtily, or on the same level as the wife, the law allows the mistress to return the maidservant to her previous condition of servitude. Such was the situation with Sarah and Hagar, Rav Samet asserts.
The "oppression" of Sarah spoken of in the Torah is simply referring to the reinstating of Hagar to her previous status- that of a maidservant. The loss of freedom felt by Hagar certainly constitutes oppression, especially in the emotional sense. The loss of her freedom and independence was the source of Hagar's emotional distress.
And what is further proof that Sarah did not physically harm Hagar? When Hagar flees in the desert, the angel of Hashem appears to Hagar and asks who she is running from. Hagar replies that she is running from "her mistress Sarah." Hagar does not say that she is running from any incident of mistreatment; she is running because Sarah is her master again. The angel tells Hagar to return- if Sarah were beating and tormenting Hagar, would the angel, on G-d's orders, tell Hagar to return to such abuse? No. Harsh treatment therefore must mean the "perfectly legal lifestyle of servitude to which Hagar is subjected."
I found this article to be highly intelligent and thorough, making complete sense. If we approach these situations in the right context, considering the laws and practices of ancient times, we can better understand the stories in the torah.
Rav Samet says that the story involving Sarah and Hagar is a typical situation for the times. It was common practice for women to give their handservants to their husbands for the purpose of having children. This practice is even discussed in the Code of Hammurabi. The code says, "Should a man marry an infertile woman and she gives her maidservant to her husband, if the maidservant bears children and then equates herself with her mistress, the mistress may not sell her, since she has given birth to children [and it would constitute cruelty to separate the maidservant from her children]. Rather, she shall place upon her a sign of servitude and assign her as one of the maids. If she does not bear children, she may be sold.
Rav Samet explains that the way things worked was that when a woman have her maidservant to her husband, she still held authority over the maidservant. In actuality, the maidservant's status is changed because she is married to the master of the house, and she is thus a free woman. However, this only applies if she maintains a good relationship with the mistress. If the maidservant begins to act haughtily, or on the same level as the wife, the law allows the mistress to return the maidservant to her previous condition of servitude. Such was the situation with Sarah and Hagar, Rav Samet asserts.
The "oppression" of Sarah spoken of in the Torah is simply referring to the reinstating of Hagar to her previous status- that of a maidservant. The loss of freedom felt by Hagar certainly constitutes oppression, especially in the emotional sense. The loss of her freedom and independence was the source of Hagar's emotional distress.
And what is further proof that Sarah did not physically harm Hagar? When Hagar flees in the desert, the angel of Hashem appears to Hagar and asks who she is running from. Hagar replies that she is running from "her mistress Sarah." Hagar does not say that she is running from any incident of mistreatment; she is running because Sarah is her master again. The angel tells Hagar to return- if Sarah were beating and tormenting Hagar, would the angel, on G-d's orders, tell Hagar to return to such abuse? No. Harsh treatment therefore must mean the "perfectly legal lifestyle of servitude to which Hagar is subjected."
I found this article to be highly intelligent and thorough, making complete sense. If we approach these situations in the right context, considering the laws and practices of ancient times, we can better understand the stories in the torah.
I also liked the article and felt that it gave very realistic and solid explanations for Sarah's actions and also gave helpful background information that showed us about the life of Hagar. I also liked the way in which we read the article, how we each picked out something that we liked and then everyone responded to one another. It's fun to do something different every once in a while.
ReplyDeleteGreetings!
DeleteI also really liked the article that basically showed us how Sarah was really not "evil" and didnt afflict her slave.Although i would have liked to see one f our role models in a negative light for once, i liked the articles explanation. The explanation that the article gave also fit in perfectly in the Psukim which i found important. In addition, Avrahams role in this whole Spiel was also further explained which i found very good because i was often confused why he didnt do anything about this whole situation.
This was a great article and a great blog post! I can only imagine that you love the fact that something similar was mentioned in the code of Hammurabi. Remember Rabbi Perl's class? There's a lot to be said about this Code..
ReplyDeleteAnyways, but I totally agree with the whole thing. I loved what he said about the angel. The angel wouldn't' be defending Sarah if she really did something bad. This explanation was so logical one would think it should be obvious. Yay! Sarah is good!