And Sara laughed on the inside
When G-d visits Avrohom while he is recovering from the Covenant of Circumcision. G-d sends three (3) ‘men’ [Angels] to visit Avrohom, giving Avrohom the opportunity to practice kindness to his guests. After eating and drinking under the tree, the Torah records[i] a strange conversation:
ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך – The ‘men’ ask him, “where is Sara your wife?”
ויאמר הנה באהל – and He [Avrohom] said, “she is in the tent.”
ויאמר שוב אשוב אליך כעת חיה והנה בן לשרה אשתך – And He said [to Avrohom], “I will absolutely return to you at this appointed time, and your wife Sara will have a son.”
ושרה שמעת פתח האהל והוא אחריו. ואברהם ושרה זקנים באים בימים, חדל להיות לשרה אורח כנשים – and Sara heard this as she was at the entrance of the tent, which was behind him. And Avrohom and Sara were elderly, coming on in years, and Sara had ceased [previously] to experience her menstrual cycle.
ותצחק שרה בקרבה לאמר, אחרי בלתי היתה לי עדנה ואדני זקן – and Sara laughed internally saying, “After I have become worn out [with age], my menstrual cycle occurs; however my husband is old.”
ויאמר ה’ אל אברהם, למה זה צחקה שרה לאמר האף אמנם אלד ואני זקנתי. היפלא מה’ דבר, למועד אשוב אליך כעת חיה ולשרה בן – And G-d said to Avrohom, “Why is Sara laughing, by stating, ‘Is it possible that I will give birth, as I [Sara] am old.’? Is there anything impossible for G-d? At the appointed time, I will return to you, and Sara will have a son.”
ותכחש שרה לאמר לא צחקתי כי יראה, ויאמר לא כי צחקת – and Sara denied, stating, “I did not laugh,” as she was afraid. And He said, “No. Rather, you did laugh.”
Changing the Narrative
There are several questions on this brought up by the various commentators:
- Why did G-d change the statement that Sara had made, from “and my husband is old” to “as I [Sara] am old”?
The sages derive from here, that for the sake of marital peace between a husband and wife, it is permissible to change the truth[ii] as G-d himself did. By shifting the focus of who was said to be old, G-d headed off possible bad feelings that may have been felt by Avrohom when his wife thought of him as old.
That statement in turn explains why Sara was willing to deny something that was true. Having heard that G-d had changed the truth of the statement to preserve marital harmony between Sara and Avrohom, Sara was able to justify denying the statement. As in truth she hadn’t actually laughed, at least not out loud. She had only laughed internally. And this choice to deny the laughter was made “as she was afraid.”
She feared that an admission that she had laughed would mean she would have to explain why – which would result in revealing the truth that she had thought Avrohom was old. Or, in the alternative, she may have feared that an expression of laughter in the face of this prophecy would be a demonstration of lack-of-faith, which could incur punishment, which would also cause friction between herself and Avrohom.
However, even after this explanation, we are left with a fundamental question to pose:
- Why was Sara singled out? Didn’t Avrohom himself laugh at very nearly the same statement made to him previously by G-d, in the verse[iii] ויפל אברהם על פניו ויצחק – and Avrohom fell on his face and laughed, which laughter was in response to G-d’s prior statement that וגם נתתי ממנה לך בן – and I have also given you a son from her. At that time, G-d did not respond with a rebuke to Avrohom, but instead simply reiterated the promise that their son would be born to them whom they would name Yitzĉok. Why was Sara rebuked, but not Avrohom? Especially since there is a difference between Avrohom and Sara’s laughter; Sara laughed ‘internally’, while Avrohom laughed out loud.
Laughter in Joy and Jest
The Ĉasam Sofer offers that laughter can be the result of two feelings: laughter from joy, or laughter in jest. He suggests that Sara was laughing in jest. And accordingly, she was being rebuked. Whereas Avrohom laughed in joy.
However, this answer is insufficient. While Targum Onkelos (cited by Rashi) differentiates the two by translating Avrohom’s laughter as “joy” and Sara’s as “jest,” Rashi’s reliance on the Targum without offering his own prose highlights a textual difficulty that Rashi leaves unresolved. Etymologically, the Hebrew root צחק carries a connotation of mockery or incredulity. Furthermore, immediately after Avrohom laughs, he anxiously petitions G-d: “O that Yishmael might live before You!” If his laughter was one of pure, unadulterated joy at the promise of Yitzĉok, this sudden pivot to Yishmael is inconsistent. As Sforno implies, Avrohom was essentially dismissing the need for a miracle, content with the natural heir he already had.
Therefore, Avrohom’s laughter, like Sara’s, contained a modicum of incredulity at the biological absurdity of the promise. Which seemingly is why G-d felt the need to reiterate his promise to Avrohom, in the verse[iv] אבל שרה אשתך ילדת לך בן – nevertheless, Sara your wife will bear you a son.
Thus, the fundamental question remains: If both laughed with a degree of jest, why was Sara directly confronted while Avrohom was simply reassured?
Who said that?
To answer this fundamental question of the disparity of treatment between Avrohom’s laughter and Sara’s, the following additional question needs to be addressed:
- In responding to Sara’s denial, the verse does not identify by pronoun who was the one responding. It simply states ויאמר – and he said… Who was the one who made that statement?
Most translators and commentators assume that the ‘he’ in this statement is referring to Avrohom. They therefore insert a separate conversation between Avrohom and Sara: after G-d asked Avrohom why Sara was laughing, Avrohom confronted her. She then denied it. And Avrohom, who was certain she had indeed laughed, because G-d himself had told him so, counters with “No. Rather, you did laugh.”
- Ramban explains her choice for denying this as she did not realize that these ‘men’ were in fact angels of G-d and had delivered a prophecy. When Avrohom clarified that he knew that this was a prophecy she stopped denying this as what happens in the heart is revealed to the prophets.
- Oreĉ Ĉaim offers a more philosophical take on this; Sara denied this because she felt denial was better than admitting the truth, just as any person who regrets their initial wrongdoing will first deny it before coming to a state of repentance.
- Alshiĉ clarifies that Sara denied the statement as it contained a falsehood – namely that she had thought herself too old. Avrohom then continued by noting that regardless of the reason why she had laughed, the fact remains that she had laughed.
- Sforno is blunt and states that Avrohom countered her denial roughly stating that G-d does not lie.
- Bĉor Shor states that this episode was taught to us because it was unique, as other than this instance, Sara never lied.
- Ĉizkuni takes it a step farther and states that this is the source as to why women are prohibited from testifying, as they might lie if they are afraid.
It is also possible to imply that the ‘He’ who is responding to Sara is the same ‘he’ who initially told Avrohom that they would have a son, and ‘he’ would return to them at the appointed time next year. Namely, this would be one of the ‘men’ [angels] present. They would be in a position to see how Sara reacted, because Sara was standing in the entrance to the tent, behind Avrohom. While Avrohom was facing the ‘men’, the ‘men’ were facing Avrohom, and by extension, Sara who was behind him. Therefore, they were able to see Sara’s reaction, and when she denied she had laughed, they were able to counter it by telling what they had seen.
There is one other interpretation as to who the ‘He’ was who countered Sara’s denial:
The Paradigm Shift in Talking to Sara
On the requirement that the Kohen speak to a Sota, and tell her of the curse that would befall her after drinking the bitter water after which she would respond with אמן, the Yerushalmi quotes this verse, the Yerushalmi[v] and states:
Rabbi Yoshia says that this is in accordance with the verse[vi] ואמר הכהן לאשה – and the Kohen speaks to the woman, this implies that he speaks to her in any language that she understands.
Rabbi Yonason replied, and if she does not understand him, why would she respond with אמן. [Obviously she is made to understand, so that she can respond with an affirmative. Since this is obvious,] the meaning of the verse is that the Kohen must speak directly to her and not speak to her through an interpreter.
[Yerushalmi now seemingly introduces a non sequitur:]
Rabbi Yoĉanan, in the name of Rabbi ‘Lazar son of Rabbi Shimon, said, ‘we do not find that the omnipresent spoke with a woman, with the exception of Sara alone.’ [Yerushalmi questions this] But didn’t the verse[vii] write אל האשה אמר הרבה ארבה וגו’ – To the woman He [G-d] said, I will greatly increase etc.
[Yerushalmi ignores[viii] that question and returns to discussing the statement above by Rabbi Yonason:]
Rabbi Yaakov from the village of חנין said, ‘[quoting Rabbi Yonason] “through an interpreter”; but doesn’t the verse[ix] write ויאמר ה’ לה שני גוים בבטנך – and G-d said to her [Rivka], there are two (2) peoples in your womb.[1]
[Yerushalmi answers that it is possible to speak through an interpreter but still be considered as speaking to the person.]
Rabbi ‘Ba son of Kahana said, the speech [of G-d] fell to her.[2]
Rabbi Biri said, ‘how many circuitous circuits? G-d desires to listen to the speech of the righteous women, [as stated in the verse] ויאמר לא כי צחקת.
Thus, we cannot derive a lesson as to whether the Kohen should speak directly to the Sota woman when administering the curse from G-d’s choice to speak with the righteous women Ĉava, Sara and Rivka, since G-d ‘desires to listen to the speech of righteous women.’ In contrast, the Sota woman is being administered a curse for possible infidelity (or at least immodesty after being warned against this by her husband), and as a result, presumably G-d does not want to speak with her.
Without any fanfare, the Yerushalmi casually introduced a paradigm shift in our understanding of G-d’s speech to mankind.
As per the conclusion in the Yerushalmi, Rabbi Yoĉanan considered the speech to Sara unique in that it was initiated because, as Rabbi Biri said, ‘G-d desires to listen to the speech of the righteous women.’
Thus, according to Rabbi Biri, the ‘He’ who denied Sara’s laughter was G-d himself. And the purpose of the denial “No. Rather, you did laugh,” was only because he wanted to talk with Sara. The entire purpose of this entire event was to manufacture an opportunity to speak with Sara.
G-d therefore created a situation where the prophecy of Yitzĉok’s birth would be relayed to Avrohom and Sara in a way that Sara would hear it and laugh internally – whether in jest or joy was not really important[3]. And then, she could be confronted by Avrohom about that laughter, which would force Sara to respond and either explain herself or deny it. And after the denial, G-d would then have the opportunity to speak to Sara directly saying, “No. Rather, you did laugh.”
Every other time that G-d spoke to any of the prophets throughout all of history, there was a purpose in doing so. A purpose of relaying information, clarifying a point of law, or instructing them about hidden matters – whether current or the future. Even with Moshe about whom G-d testifies[x] פה אל פה אדבר בו – I speak to him mouth to mouth [plainly], we do not find that G-d said anything to him without practical implications, just to make conversation.
There is only one time in all of history and the only person in all of history to whom G-d spoke to – simply for the purpose of engaging in conversation with them. His speech with Sara was because He just wanted to talk to her!
Considering that the speech of G-d creates worlds, as we learn in the Mishna[xi] The world was created with ten (10) utterances. What does the speech of G-d to Sara create?
Then our mouths will be filled with laughter
Among the prophecies of the coming redemption is the one given by Yirmiyahu[xii]
כי ברא ה’ חדש בארץ נקבה תסובב גבר – when G-d has already created something new in the world, females will encompass males.
Throughout history, patriarchy has been the norm. That will not continue during the coming redemption, at which point females will be shown to encompass and exceed males. While this is something new, as Yirmiyahu calls it חדש בארץ, it is also something very old, which is why he also uses the term בָרָא – created, in the past tense, as opposed to the future tense יברא. Something created long ago… with G-d’s speech to Sara. G-d’s statement to Sara of לא כי צחקת – No. Rather you did laugh allowed her to be more in tune with her inner self than men and ensured that what she (and all women) felt internally were not segregated from their behavior externally – an emotional maturity capacity that exceeds that of men. An aspect of superiority which will be fully realized when אז ימלא שחוק (צחוק) פינו – then our mouths will be filled with laughter.[xiii] This explains why sometimes women laugh on the inside – they do so because they are in on it.
[1] And this (as per Rashi on the verse) was said through an interpreter, namely Shaym son of Noaĉ. We thus see that the phrase of ויאמר … לה – speaking to a woman can include the meaning of talking through an interpreter.
Thus, the verse quoted by Rabbi Yonason has not been proven definitively to mean that the Kohen must speak to her directly, in the language she understands.
[2] Meaning when G-d spoke to Shaym, he spoke allowing Rivka to hear as well. Thus, even though there could be an interpreter present whom the Kohen can address to ensure the message of the pending curse is clearly understood, the content must be addressed in a way that the recipient must be able to hear and perceive the message.
[3] Which explains why Rashi is content with Targum Onkelos’ translation since there is no comparison between G-d’s response to Avrohom vs. Sara – so there is no reason to explain the different reactions to the laughter. In talking to Avrohom, G-d’s intention was to ensure the prophecy was relayed. In talking to Sara, G-d’s intention was to ‘make conversation’.
[i] Beraishis 18:9-15
[ii] Rambam דעות 5:7, and גזילה ואבדה 14:13
[iii] Beraishis 17:17
[iv] Beraishis 17:19
[v] Yerushalmi Sota 7:1
[vi] Bamidbar 5:21
[vii] Beraishis 3:16
[viii] Korban Ha’ayda has a different way of learning this Yerushalmi
[ix] Beraishis 25:23
[x] Bamidbar 12:8
[xi] Pirkei Avos 5:1
[xii] Yirmiyahu 31:22
[xiii] Tehillim 126:2