This week we bid farewell to Sarah Imeinu. It is ironic that only with her departure do we sense that we really get to know her. There are in this parsha a number of midrashic observations which, I believe, bring this great personality to life and, I hope make her relevant.

The first Rashi in this week's Torah reading, which is based on a midrash, gives us a famous view of Sarah. It states, "When she was one hundred she was as a twenty year old in terms of sin, just as a twenty year old is without sin, because she is not yet culpable for punishment, so she was blameless at age one hundred, and when she was twenty she was as a seven year old in terms of beauty." The reference to the innocence of a twenty year old is a tradition that the heavenly tribunal only begins to hold people responsible for their actions after their twentieth birthday.

There are many who still find this Rashi problematic. We tend to find seven year olds more innocent, and twenty year olds the possessors of beauty. In answer we find commentaries who point out that standards of beauty were different in ancient times. Which is why Rivka was referred to as attractive apparently at age three. There are others who say our Rashi is a corrupted text and just switch around the references.

On the other hand Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik had a more inventive approach. The Rav suggested that we are not discussing physical attributes at all, rather spiritual character. At seven one has a simple belief system which can be best described as beautiful. The enthusiasm of a twenty year old ready to conquer the world, or at least make it a better place, is best called innocent (if not naive). While a still active centenarian has a philosophic sophistication that comes with a treasury of experience. Well, Rashi is giving us a glimpse of a special personality who throughout life maintained her simplicity of belief while retaining her enthusiasm and zest for life and still managed to attain a sophisticated world view. This Rashi describing three periods of Sarah's development has a parallel later in the parsha. Here, when Rashi is describing Yitzchak's love and acceptance of Rivka as a replacement for his mother in his life (Freud, who may or may not have known this Rashi, said that girls marry the image of the father and sons marry the image of their mother.). There are mystics who maintain that Rivka is the reincarnation of Sarah, or actually his mother. This why we have the opinion that Rivka was three years old at the marriage, because she was born with the death of Sarah.

We are told of the three contributions of Sarah to the home she shared with Avraham. The Rashi states, "And he brought her to the tent, and she became the image of Sarah his mother. That is to say she actually was Sarah his mother. That all the time that Sarah lived, there was a candle burning from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve (another version asserts that the candle burned until the end of the Sabbath), and a blessing was found in the dough, and there was a cloud attached to the tent. When she died these phenomena ceased, but when Rivka arrived they reappeared." The midrashic source for this Rashi has a fourth item, that the doors of the tent were always open. Rashi opts for only these three, perhaps, for two reasons. One, he wants three items to represent the three pillars of our religion: 1) the candle which had to be extinguished each Friday so it could be relit stood for Torah, 2) the always sufficient bread dough was part of the kindness displayed to all visitors, and 3) the cloud, like on the mishkan, demonstrated divine service.

Also, I believe, we have a parallel to the first Rashi in the parsha. These three concepts are the three stages of Sarah's life. The seven year old Sarah had an open, lovely worship of Hashem, as clear to all as the cloud above the tent. The twenty year old had the empathy and guilelessness toward others represented by the miraculous dough she distributed to every wayfarer. Yet she studied Torah and acquired a scholar's outlook on the world. We now have an aspect into Sarah's soul.

But one thing still nags. How could it be that the home of Avraham Avinu and Yitzchak Avinu (one of my children as a preschooler used to refer to them as the 'Avinu' family) was lacking in Torah, Avodah, and Gemilat Chasodim? God forbid that these traits should be absent from such a domicile. But it wasn't the same without Sarah's urging and participation. The house can have these qualities but still not feel quite right. In other words it's not quite a home. A home requires a partnership. Different energies building towards the same goal. Sarah was missed until Rivka arrived.

Avraham and Sarah were a perfect partnership. Each had qualities that meshed completely with the other's. This ideal is imbedded in our tradition, and in our language. Allow me to explain. There is a very famous rabbinical statement: "Torah scholars increase peace in the world. As it states, 'And all your sons are learned in the Lord; and there is great peace upon your sons.' Don't read it your sons, rather your builders." In other words Torah scholars are the builders of peace.

A beautiful thought, but seemingly a very bad pun. Not so, says R. Baruch Halevy Epstein. The Hebrew word 'ben' or son is identical in its root to the word 'boneh' or builder. It isn't a pun at all, but complementary meanings of the same root. Sons are builders. Equally so, I believe, we can say about the word 'bat' or daughter with the word 'bayit' or house. Daughters are homes. This idea is used frequently in the Talmud, that wives are referred to as 'beiti' or my home.

Sons are expected to go out and build a world; daughters are expected to provide the atmosphere that becomes a home. Successful football teams used to have a power runner and a speed demon referred to as Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside. So, too, a Jewish family requires an element which confronts and changes the world, and one which engenders a warmth and support for all to find succor in. Traditionally the wife stayed home and did that job, and the husband emerged from the home to represent the family's interests in the wider world. Today, I'm not sure these stereotypes must be maintained, but I am sure both roles must be filled by whomever is best fit for each capacity.

Sarah and, later, Rivka provided the nurturing atmosphere which made the 'Avinu' domicile a home. Avraham and Yitzchak went out and made their mark on the world, but the house was neglected. The tent was a shell. The world was confronted but the insides were empty. A truly developed, functional family needs both an outer bulwark and an inner keep. Rashi informs us that these matriarchs did this endeavor, and it is the character of Sarah which best fulfills its requirements. I not only learned this as an idea, but have experienced it in my life. And am thankful for it every time I return home to my wife.

If you want to verify your existence, send a note to: rwalk@yhol.org.il

Return to Home