Laughing on the Parts of Avraham and Sara

Ostensible different Divine Treatment of a prophet and his wife after their responding the same way to the news of their  conceiving a child together.

In R. Amnon Bazak’s 2^nd essay for Parashat VaYeira, “Tzechoka Shel Sara” (Nekudat Peticha: Iyunim Ketzarim BePeshuta Shel Parashat HaShavua, [revised and expanded], Yediot Acharonot, Rishon LeTziyon, 2018, pp. 45-6,) he wonders why, Avraham and Sara appear to be treated differently by the Divine, after they respond identically upon being informed that they were going to have a child.

Beraishit 17:17

Then Avraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart: Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? And shall Sara, that is ninety years old, bear?

Ibid. 18:12

And Sara laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

God Gently Responds to Avraham, Insisting that what he has been told, is no “laughing matter”:

Ibid. 17:19

And God Said: Nay, but Sara thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Yitzchak; and I will Establish My Covenant with him for an everlasting Covenant for his seed after him.

in contrast to Sara, whom God Confrontationally Accuses, via the angel, of scoffing at the news, and following her attempt to deny having been skeptical, is “Outed” by the “Bochein Levavot” (lit. the discerner of “hearts;” fig. the One Who “Knows what you are thinking”) of having in fact entertained negative thoughts regarding the information, and therefore God’s Ability to Make Good on His Promises:

Ibid. 18:13-5

13 And the LORD Said unto Avraham: Wherefore did Sara laugh, saying: Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old? 14 Is anything too hard for the LORD. At the set time I will Return unto thee, when the season cometh round, and Sara shall have a son. 15 Then Sara denied, saying: I laughed not; for she was afraid. And He Said: Nay; but thou didst laugh.  

Two approaches to explain this apparent inconsistency. 

R. Bazak initially cites a Midrash that while admitting that Avraham and Sara reacted in the same, questioning manner, attributes the Divine Response to each of their past “track records:”

Midrash HaGadol on Beraishit 18:13

“And the LORD Said unto Avraham: Wherefore did Sara laugh…”—Why did the text rebuke Sara, but didn’t do so with respect to Avraham, as it says: (Ibid. 17:17) “Then Avraham fell upon his face, and laughed…”? But this is to teach you that when two do something inappropriate, and one of them was a great person, while the other was not, we only rebuke the latter, and the former will feel (chastened) on his own.

(The Midrash assumes that both Avraham and Sara deserved censure, but Avraham was left to his own devices with respect to this, while Sara, who could not be relied upon to draw the correct conclusion, had to be upbraided directly!)

(The difference between husband and wife is reminiscent of a subsequent subtle biblical comment interpreted by a classical commentator. After establishing that both Yitzchak and Rivka prayed for a child—see RaShI on Beraishit 25:21 s.v. LeNochach Ishto—the commentator states: 

Ibid.

And Yitzchak entreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD let Himself Be Entreated of him, and Rivka, his wife, conceived.

RaShI s.v. VaYe’atar Lo

Of him and not of her; the prayer of  a righteous person [Yitzchak] who is the child of a righteous person [Avraham], cannot be compared to the prayer of a righteous person [Rivka] who is the child of an evil person [Betuel.] Therefore, “of him, and not of her.”)

But RaShI himself, according to R. Bazak, believes that there was a different tenor regarding the two cases of laughter on the parts of Avraham and Sara respectively:

RaShI on Ibid. 17:17 s.v. VaYipol Avraham Al Panav VaYitzchak

…This teaches that Avraham believed and rejoiced, but Sara did not believe, and mocked. This is the reason why the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Was Particular with Sara, but not with Avraham.

Providing RaShI with a textual referent.

R. Bazak wishes to make RaShI’s interpretation have a literary basis (rather than to appear arbitrarily conceived, or even sexist in nature,) and therefore closely reads the two verses in question:

Ibid. 17:17

Then Avraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said “BeLibo” (in his heart) …

Ibid. 18:12

And Sara laughed “BeKirba” (within herself) …

R. Bazak states that other instances where the term “Leiv” (heart) is utilized in conjunction with a possible doubt regarding God’s Actions, are similarly dealt with “gently:”

Devarim 7:17-8

17 If thou shalt say in thy heart: These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them? 18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them; thou shalt well remember what the LORD thy God Did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt.

Ibid. 9:4-6

4 Speak not thou in thy heart, after that the LORD thy God hath Thrust them out from before thee, saying: For my righteousness the LORD hath Brought me in to possess this land; whereas for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth Drive them out from before thee. 5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart, dost thou go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth Drive them out from before thee, and that He may Establish the Word which the LORD Swore unto thy fathers, to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Yaakov. 6 Know therefore that it is not for thy righteousness that the LORD thy God Giveth thee this good land to possess it; for thou art a stiff-necked people.

By contrast, invoking “BeKirba” with respect to an emotion or belief is unique to this one instance within the Tora. R. Bazak states the usually, the term has to do with a location of a physical phenomenon:

Beraishit 25:22

And the children struggled together “BeKirba” (within her) …

Ibid. 45:6

For these two years hath the famine been “BeKerev” (in the midst of) the land …

Conclusion.

R. Bazak ends his essay with the following observation:

…It is possible, therefore, that while the laughter of Avraham articulated an understandably human intellectual wonder, the laughter of Sara was an internal expression of a lack of believing the message, and for this reason, she was criticized.

Discussion.

Although Avraham initially objects to Sara’s determination that Hagar and her son Yishmael pose too much of a threat to her son, Yitzchak, and therefore should be banished from the family encampment, God Tells Avraham to follow his wife’s instructions:

Ibid. 21:11-2

11 And the thing was very grievous in Avraham’s sight on account of his son. 12 And God Said unto Avraham: Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sara saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Yitzchak shall seed be called to thee.

leading RaShI to make the generalization:

s.v. Shema BeKola

We learn from this that Avraham was secondary to Sara with respect to prophecy.

RaShI’s comment is often taken to mean that when it came to practical matters that effected the family, Sara had a better grasp of reality than did Avraham. So it would appear that with respect to the ability to conceive a child when the “parents” are elderly, one would think that Sara was in a better position that Avraham to make a judgment about the viability of such a claim. I suppose, in answer to such a challenge, it could be said that as opposed to Yitzchak being Avraham and Sara’s future, this already had been established objectively by God’s Prophecy. However, the birth of Yitzchak that would make all of this possible, could only happen by Avraham and Sara conceiving a child, a miraculous occurrence in light of their advanced ages. The prophecy of Avraham with regard to having a child was deemed superior to Sara’s practicality; however, the means for preserving Yitzchak’s life, once he came into existence, was placed into Sara’s purview. In the end, there is “Nevua” and “Nevua.”