When Hagar flees from Abraham’s house, it is the result of the tension that existed between his two wives – tension that stemmed from competition over his heart. In the midst of the complicated set of relationships that existed in this triangle, Sarah turns to Abraham with an uncompromising demand, and invoked God Himself – the Judge of the entire world – to mete out justice: demanding “The LORD decide between you and me!”
Jealousy, whose source is the delicate internal politics of family discord, quickly changes from being a sensitive, personal matter and becomes a question about rights and responsibilities, which is how Sarah presents it when talking to her husband. A close reading of the verses shows that even before Sarah demands that the case be brought before God, she already has stated: “The wrong done me is your fault!” She is not saying that she is angry with Abraham, rather she is accusing him of being responsible for the fact that her rightful position – her status and her honor – was being usurped by her rival.
Switching the conversation from an internal, family matter to a legal discussion is something with which we are familiar in the Israeli reality where we live today. Power struggles between religious and secular Jews, for example – like the question of keeping streets open for traffic in Orthodox neighborhoods on Shabbat – are not presented as a question of values to be discussed within the community. No attempt is made to find that fine compromise which would be the best solution for all concerned. Instead the conflict is taken to the courtroom, sacrificing brotherhood and interconnectedness on the altar of civil rights and obligations.
This is the difference between attempts to create dialogue and the demand for rights. Dialogue comes at a price – it requires participants to concede that their positions are subject to potential compromise. Entering into dialogue means recognizing that there is another side to the coin. Each participant must listen to his interlocutor, which, by definition, means conceding that the truth may not be entirely on his side. Someone who demands that his position be considered in the courtroom, however, is stating that he is not willing to participate in a conversation. His positions become entrenched and he ends up insisting on demarcating a precise boundary between his territory and that of his adversary. Interaction with his fellow comes only by means of the law and through the perspective of what the law requires.
This becomes even more evident in the case of Sarah. We see that Sarah does not engage Hagar directly with her complaints, rather she turns to Abraham as the one who is responsible for undermining her status as the mistress of the house. By invoking God to judge between her and Abraham, Sarah makes a clear statement about her attitude towards Hagar. She views Hagar as a household object, at best as a tool for bearing Abraham’s offspring – but only as a surrogate womb. This position is made abundantly clear by Sarah when she chooses to clash with Abraham about the situation, rather than with Hagar. Had she been willing to engage in dialogue, it would have obligated Sarah to interact with her adversary directly. By choosing to make her argument on legal grounds, Sarah ignores the human element of her rival, Hagar, entirely.
Sarah’s decision to pursue a legal route leads to her success in remaining the mistress of the house and Abraham’s only true wife. From Sarah’s perspective, Hagar has no place as a member of the household and is not even an active part of the discussion. In two concise lines, the midrash expresses this idea very clearly.
“I am running away from my mistress Sarai.”
From this we can derive that Hagar became a wife only to Abraham
But with regard to Sarai, she is considered a maidservant.
Midrash Aggada Lakh Lekha 7
The midrash describes how sensitive Hagar was to the fact that Abraham viewed her as his wife, but that in Sarah’s eyes she remained a maidservant. By establishing this reality, the midrash supports Sarah’s claim, even if it does not approve of her methods. Ultimately, Sarah’s issues are with Abraham – she has no need or interest in engaging with Hagar at all.
There is quite a bit of discussion about how we are to view Sarah’s conduct. Nachmanides, for example, believes that Sarah’s behavior is antithetical to the moral standard that we would expect from someone of her stature. Most of the commentaries focus on Sarah in this discussion, but in truth, if we are to look at the outcome of the disagreement – Hagar’s exile from Abraham’s home – we must evaluate the actions of both Sarah and Abraham. In this story, Abraham does not turn to God or wait for God’s advice or intercession, as he does later when Sarah demands that Yishmael be expelled from his home. Abraham chooses to avoid a clash with his wife and places the decision in her hands. By saying: “Your maid is in your hands. Deal with her as you think right,” he chooses not to defend Hagar in any way. He accepts Sarah’s main argument that this is a matter of master and servant, and as the servant’s mistress, Sarah can behave towards her as she pleases.
There are likely two elements involved in Abraham’s decision to remove himself from the argument. First, Abraham is expressing his dissatisfaction with Sarah's language and is unwilling to mix family matters with legal issues. Second, in his desire to soften Sarah’s attitude and calm her feelings, Abraham may have believed that the best response was to express apathy. By accepting all of Sarah’s claims fully and without question, it is possible that her feelings of humiliation would be assuaged. But Sarah is not satisfied.
The midrash suggests that Sarah is punished for her actions. She is not punished because of her mistreatment of Hagar, but because of the way she carried on the dispute. It is her inappropriate choice of words, demanding that the letter of the law be followed, that leads to her punishment:
Sarah should have merited to live as long as Abraham,
But because she said: “The LORD decide between you and me!”
Her lifespan was shortened by 38 years.
Pesikta Zutrata Lekh Lekha
At the same time, we must recognize that the argument was won by Sarah. All of her demands were met. She was recognized as the mistress of Abraham’s house and as his main wife. Even if there was a significant personal cost and this argument shortened her year, the fact of the matter is that she did not have to make any concessions. It would appear that from the perspective of the law, Sarah was right.
When reviewing the earliest historical pattern of the relationship between the mothers of Yishmael and Yaakov, I cannot help but think how different things may have turned out if only Sarah been open to engaging in dialogue rather than turning to the law.
