Danger, Denial & Determination: Sarah's Pragmatism & Abraham's Naivete
As I was reading through this week’s parsha, Vayera, I was struck by Rashi’s understanding of what prompted Sarah’s decision that Hagar and Ishmael must leave.
Genesis 21:9 reads:
וַתֵּ֨רֶא שָׂרָ֜ה אֶֽת־בֶּן־הָגָ֧ר הַמִּצְרִ֛ית אֲשֶׁר־יָלְדָ֥ה לְאַבְרָהָ֖ם מְצַחֵֽק׃
Sarah saw the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham playing.
Rashi explains:
מצחק MAKING SPORT — This means worshipping idols, as it is said in reference of the Golden Calf, (Exodus 32:6) “And they rose up to make merry (לצחק).” Another explanation is that it refers to immoral conduct, just as you say in reference to Potiphar’s wife, (Genesis 39:17) “To mock (לצחק) at me.” Another explanation is that it refers to murder, as (2 Samuel 2:14) “Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and make sport (וישחקו) before us” (where they fought with and killed one another) From Sarah’s reply — “for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son״ — you may infer that he (Ishmael) was quarrelling with Isaac about the inheritance, saying, “I am the first-born and will, therefore, take a double portion”. They went into the field and he (Ishmael) took his bow and shot arrows at him (Isaac), just as you say (Proverbs 26:18-19) “As a madman who casteth firebrands, [arrows and death] and says: I am only מצחק mocking” (Genesis Rabbah 53:11).
Ishmael wanted to inherit all of Abraham’s wealth. So he decided to play a game with Isaac in which he shot arrows at him- to harm him- but pretended he was doing nothing more than playing.
Ishmael had a motive, and he was also no longer a child. (Given that he was circumcised at thirteen, which was the age of adulthood, and it’s now been years since then as Isaac grew up, he is old enough to know better.) In some ways, his actions make sense, as problematic as they are, which is a relief.
There are more disturbing modern day occurrences of this exact kind of event. Think of the movie ‘The Good Son.’ That’s an extremely disturbing film, but there are actually real life cases that feature children like these.
The New York Times put out an article in 2012 entitled ‘Can You Call a 9 Year Old a Psychopath?’ It’s worth reading in full. I’m going to excerpt one part:
Anne is a strict disciplinarian, she said, particularly with Michael, who she worries would otherwise simply run wild. She mentioned an episode of “Criminal Minds” that terrified her, in which a couple’s younger son was murdered by his older brother. “In the show, the older brother didn’t show any remorse. He just said, ‘He deserved it, because he broke my plane.’ When I saw that, I said, ‘Oh my God, I so don’t need that episode to be my life story down the line.’ ” She laughed awkwardly, then shook her head. “I’ve always said that Michael will grow up to be either a Nobel Prize winner or a serial killer.”
Told that other parents might be shocked to hear her say such a thing, she sighed, then was silent for several seconds. “To them I’d say that they shouldn’t judge until they’ve walked in my shoes,” she said finally. “Because, you know, it takes a toll. There’s not a lot of joy and happiness in raising Michael.”
I’ve also learned about a disorder called RAD, or Reactive Attachment Disorder. While not every child with RAD is violent, some are- while able to present a charming facade to outsiders. Read ‘A Hidden Aftermath of Reactive Attachment Disorder: When a Child’s Trauma Traumatizes the Family’ at this link.
Here’s an excerpt.
Most people can’t fathom how a young child can seriously hurt others, especially their own family members. But it’s a tragic and under-reported reality for families everywhere. Many parents of kids with reactive attachment disorder (RAD) feel shamed and blamed by other adults and, thus, remain silent.
Simply because a perpetrator is a child does not diminish the effects of abuse. Child-on-family abuse is not readily recognized. Nor is the extreme traumatic effects of this abuse. Those who fail to acknowledge the child as an abuser also fail to properly treat the child.
[…]
Years ago, I had come to terms with the fact that our 7-year-old daughter Ella* was dangerous.
Abused and neglected as a young child, Ella had developed severe reactive attachment disorder (RAD)—an affliction that changed the way her brain developed. Out of an innate need to survive her own early abuse, Ella had become abusive herself—a way to escape others who may hurt her again.
Ella came into our home from the foster care system with this serious disorder for which we lacked substantial knowledge and education. Her case manager didn’t fully disclose Ella’s history or the reality of living with severe RAD.
My husband and I made the innocent and naive assumption (as many others do) that all Ella needed was love and time in our stable home. But reactive attachment disorder is a cruel affliction that love can’t cure. Our healthy family terrified Ella, in fact. The more we tried to nurture her, the more intensely she tried to push us away.
Most people would not believe, nor want to believe, that a small child with a beautiful smile and infectious laugh could do the things Ella did.
Even my husband and I couldn’t quite believe it. So we tried to keep living normal lives. But our sad reality sunk in after several frightening events.
My husband Joe took Ella and our 5-year-old daughter Laila to an ice skating rink. On their drive home, Ella hit Laila over the head with an ice skate. She told Laila she planned to slice her into pieces. Joe came home stunned. As a pediatric nurse, I quickly tended to Laila’s gash and rushed Ella to the emergency room for a psychiatric evaluation.
Ella had only been out of psychiatric inpatient care less than two weeks when this happened. She was then readmitted for another three-week stay. She was later released back to us just the same as she was before, if not worse.
Ella attempted to set our house on fire in the middle of the night. She tried to light several papers on a coal that was still hot from the fireplace. Thankfully, she couldn’t catch anything else on fire. When we brought up the evidence we found the next morning, she didn’t have much to say about it. Much later, Ella casually brought up the event during a residential hospital stay. She told the staff that she tried to kill us one night by burning the house down. “It didn’t work though,” she said, disappointed. “My plan now is to choke them.” And then she was released back to us.
Sarah watches Ishmael “playing” and recognizes the threat to Isaac. She immediately tells her husband:
וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לְאַבְרָהָ֔ם גָּרֵ֛שׁ הָאָמָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את וְאֶת־בְּנָ֑הּ כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יִירַשׁ֙ בֶּן־הָאָמָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את עִם־בְּנִ֖י עִם־יִצְחָֽק׃
She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
Look at Abraham’s reaction:
וַיֵּ֧רַע הַדָּבָ֛ר מְאֹ֖ד בְּעֵינֵ֣י אַבְרָהָ֑ם עַ֖ל אוֹדֹ֥ת בְּנֽוֹ׃ The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.
Here’s what I find so interesting. Sarah does not communicate her real concern to Abraham. She doesn’t tell him that Ishmael has been trying to kill Isaac.
Why not?
A possible explanation is that Sarah has realized that Abraham is simply naive in certain areas. He thinks that the smokescreen of having her say that she is his sister will save her from mistreatment or kidnapping at Pharaoh’s hands (which it obviously does not). When Sarah complained to him about Hagar’s mistreatment at an earlier juncture, his response wasn’t to actually intervene but to simply give her license to intervene, washing his hands of the whole scenario (Genesis 16:6). Abraham believes that Ishmael is a good, dedicated son, and even prays that he should “live before” God (Genesis 17:18). (Granted, Sarah wasn’t privy to that conversation, but it seems likely she would have known this was Abraham’s worldview). Had Sarah tried to explain her logic to Abraham, it’s likely Abraham would have minimized her concerns or denied that Ishmael had truly intended to kill Isaac.
So Sarah doesn’t tell him why. She just puts her foot down to protect her child. Abraham is distressed, but God tells him that he need not be- for Ishmael too shall thrive- a child of the desert.
Abraham’s naïveté and idealism are linked. Someone who is idealistic and optimistic, who can see the good in everyone, is the kind of person who is willing to uproot his life and journey to a new country by the word of God alone. But Sarah is pragmatic. Sarah is the one who laughs when she is told she will give birth to a son- because she is too old, and it doesn’t make sense. When Sarah tries to have Abraham see things from her perspective, she realizes it’s futile. So she continues with her pragmatic, seemingly harsh judgments- and ensures that Isaac isn’t murdered at a young age.
Sarah’s character has never resonated with me while Abraham’s has. It’s easier to relate to Abraham, to his optimism, idealism and his willingness to believe the best of everyone. But in life, every Abraham needs a Sarah- someone who can see the unpalatable aspects of reality and make a judgment call, even if it isn’t a pretty one. Someone who doesn’t pretend reality away but deals with it as it is. Someone who doesn’t live in denial, either naive to the threat or choosing not to see the threat.
As readers, we may not like Sarah, but we can respect her fierce protective instincts. Sarah isn’t going to win friends as the most charming and likable person in the room. She will, however, ensure the continuity of the entire Jewish people. And in the end, that’s what matters.