The “Other” Son – Rav Yonatan Horovitz The stories of Bereishit are familiar to us. We have been reading and learning about the Avot since our early childhood years. Yet, there are often details that we gloss over only to realize at some point that we never really understood them. One such example can be found in this week’s parsha. As Avraham sets out to perform the task placed upon him by God, the Akeida, the Torah tells us that Avraham took with him his two “nearim”, lads or henchmen. Rashi informs us that these two men were Eliezer and Yishmael. This raises the obvious question; what is Yishmael doing here? Just a few verses earlier we read of the dramatic scene in which Hagar and YIshmael were exiled from Avraham’s home. Why would Yishmael reappear in the very next chapter? In order to try to answer this question we must look back at the previous episode and examine some of the details therein. We begin with the following verse: “Avraham awoke early in the morning, he took bread and a flask of water and gave them to Hagar and placed them and the child on her shoulder and sent her away; she went and wandered around the wilderness of Be’er Sheva.” (Bereishit 21:14) We understand that Hagar and Yishmael were being exiled by decree of God but why did Avraham send them away with such meager provisions? We know that Yishmael almost died of thirst a little while later and would have done so had Hashem not intervened. Did Avraham really issue a death sentence upon his maidservant/concubine and son by sending them into the desert without the necessary supplies? The commentaries to this passuk relate to this question. Ramban explains that, based on the instructions of Sarah which were then confirmed by Hashem, Avraham had to send Hagar and Yishmael away immediately and therefore did not have time to organize more than the very basic provisions. Rashi, citing a midrash which he invokes earlier in this chapter, states that Avraham gave Hagar and Yishmael bread and water but not gold and silver “because he hated him (Yishmael) for having chosen an evil direction in life”. Although this may explain the events described here, it seems somewhat harsh to suggest that Avraham feels so disappointed in his son that he sends him to perish in the desert. However, this may not be the meaning of Rashi’s comment. Rashi points out that Avraham did not provide him with gold and silver thereby denoting that Avraham would not continue to support Yishmael financially. He may not wish to provide the backing for what he believes to be Yishmael’s misguided pursuits. But this does not mean that the basic provisions he gave Hagar and Yishmael were not sufficient for them to survive the upcoming journey. Rashbam relates to this notion and explains that Avraham gave them enough food and water to enable them to reach the next town. Ibn Ezra and Radak both state that he gave them gold and silver too, even though the Torah does not say this explicitly. The question we must then ask is why did they run out of water? Why did Yishmael almost perish of dehydration if they had enough water to reach their destination? Ibn Ezra and Radak both explain that Hagar did not know the way and so wandered around in the desert for much longer than intended. Rashbam suggests that Hagar took a roundabout route rather than the direct one and therefore they ran out of water before they arrived at the next inhabited area. Both these theories point to the fact that it was human error that caused them to be without water and Yishmael to be dying. One could suggest that the reason Avraham provided Hagar and Yishmael with so few provisions is because he did not want them to travel far. He wished for them to remain close to him and his hometown. Avraham accepted that Yishmael could not continue to live in his house as he was a negative influence on Yitzchak. (There are many explanations offered as to why Hagar and Yishmael had to be sent away – we have quoted the most accepted one.) However, this did not preclude him from continuing to have a relationship with his son Yishmael. As opposed to the position taken by Rashi, rather than cutting off Yishmael, Avraham wished to maintain a connection to him. Yes, he may have adopted bad habits, he may have chosen a path in life which was incorrect but that just strengthened Avraham’s will to remain in contact with Yishmael. Why then did Hagar “get lost” in the wilderness? Perhaps this was Divine intervention. It is possible that the ensuing events whereby Hagar first abandons her son and then is told by God to pick him up, is part of a different process which is beyond the scope of this shiur. It is worth reading the comments of Rav Hirsch and Rav David Tzvi Hoffman about this episode. [A similar idea can be found in the second half of the article found here : http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/tora/al-gerush-2.htm, though the direction taken is somewhat different from that which we have chosen in this shiur.] Based on the above suggestion, we can now understand why Yishmael appears at the beginning of Chapter 22, at the story of the Akeida. At this crucial moment, Avraham longed for the company of the two people to whom he felt closest, Eliezer and Yishmael. Seeing as Yishmael did not live far away, Avraham summoned him to join him in what proved to be a once in a lifetime educational experience. We could further suggest that given the fact that Avraham had been instructed to sacrifice Yitzchak he wished for the comfort of his one remaining son and so asked for Yishmael to remain close by. We see here two diametrically opposed outlooks on parenting and education. When a child has gone astray, when a student has taken a different path in life, one deemed to be misguided and wrong, how does one relate to him? Do we cut him off, sending him to a metaphorical exile or do we keep him close in the hope that our influence upon him may be a positive one? This is a dilemma that we wish never to be forced to contemplate but one which the Torah raises in these very parshiot. We suggest that whatever path a child takes in his life, even if it is antithetical to the values we hold so dear, the door must be left open in the hope for his eventual return. To some extent the same is true of a student though the educational considerations may be different. If we are to adopt our explanation of Rashi’s comments about the two “nearim”, then Avraham is teaching us an eternal message. No matter what a child does or has done, he remains our responsibility and deserves our love. Shabbat shalom – Rav Yonatan