Commento su Genesi 21:10

עם בני עם יצחק WITH MY SON, WITH ISAAC —For since this is my son, even though he were not as good as Isaac really is, or if he were as good a man as Isaac really is, even though he were not my son, this one (Ishmael) is not deserving of inheriting with him: how much less is he deserving of inheriting with my son, with Isaac — with one who possesses both these qualities (of being my son and of being the good man Isaac) (Genesis Rabbah 53:11).

For the son of this maidservant shall not inherit: And [just] because he banished him, is it impossible for him to return for his inheritance after the death of his father? So it appears that it was speaking about the inheritance of his deeds. As Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she bore for Avraham, laughing with sexual immorality - from the angle that he was the son of Hagar the Egyptian, [as] she gave birth to one similar to herself. For it is known that the Egyptians are awash in licentiousness, as it is stated (Ezekiel 23:20), "and whose issue was like that of horses"; and their offspring are similar to them. Therefore Sarah said to banish him, so that Yitzchak would not learn from his deeds. But perhaps you will say, it is the opposite - maybe Yitzchak will change him and bring him back to the good! It is about this that she said, "I knew it through prophecy that he will not inherit with my son from the good deeds of his father, Avraham." And hence the concern remained that Yitzchak would learn from him. And [for] more of the content of this section, see below, Parashat Chaye Sarah, on the verse, "and her name was Keturah" (Kli Yakar on Genesis 25:1).

גרש האמה הזאת ואת בנה, seeing that what the son did was at the instigation of his mother. He spread lies about Yitzchok’s legitimacy in order to establish a claim to your inheritance.

ותאמר...גרש האמה, it was inconceivable to expel the son without his mother as she would not remain after he had gone.

Drive out this maidservant and her son: And through this, everyone will know that Yitzchak is your son. As behold, a man as great as Avraham would not drive out his only son out of love for his wife. And do not say that it is not proper to distance Yishmael - as the transferal of the legacy and the inheritance will be included in this; all the more so, the rights of the first born. Hence she said...

And she said: That is why she requested that he drive out the maidservant, who incited him, and also drive out her son with her. Since she thinks that he should inherit equally with Yitzchak - or that he has an advantage over Yitzchak, according to her mockery. But the truth is that he will not inherit, from the perspective that he is the son of the maidservant; as the offspring of a maidservant is [considered to have a status] like her. And he would not inherit with him, from the perspective that [Yitzchak] was his son, the son of the lady; and from the perspective that he was Yitzchak, who was born by a miracle and is the heart and the treasure.

That he is my son even if he were not as deserving as Yitzchok... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say עם twice? It should say: עם בני יצחק. Perforce, it means that being “my son” is reason enough to exclude Yishmael from the inheritance, as is being “Yitzchok,” each on its own. [Rashi considered this explanation] preferable to that of Targum Yonasan. (R. Meir Stern)

גרש, nicht bloß ein räumliches Entfernen, sondern ein Entlassen, womit aller Zusammenhang mit dem Hause aufhört. So גרש) .אשה גרושה מאישה, verwandt mit ירש, aus dem Besitz drängen, daher auch תירש: der aus der Hülse getriebene Saft. קרש: die vom Zutritt fernhaltenden Wandbretter. Vielleicht auch כרש und davon der Name Cyrus, des Eroberers).

For the son of this maidservant shall not inherit: Meaning to say, it is not right that the son of the maidservant inherit with my son. And therefore I do not want that he should live here, lest he should say after our death, "I am also the son of Avraham," and come to inherit.

כי לא יירש, “for he will not have a share in the inheritance;” it appears clear from this remark of Sarah that Ishmael had claimed a double portion of his eventual inheritance based on the fact that he was his father’s firstborn son. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 53,11)

כי לא יירש בן האמה, seeing that he is not part of your family; the child always is considered as part of the halachically defective parent. (Maimonides issurey bi-ah 15,7)

for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit: He should not inherit even without this. As a result, it is appropriate that you should publicize this in your lifetime.

כי לא יירש, “he imagines that he will share equally in the inheritance because he is your son. This is the reason why he is so overbearing, making fun of my son.”

Es klingt dies hart, und ist doch ganz durch die Verhältnisse motiviert. Sollen Abrahams Haus und Jizchak nach beider Ableben Hagars und Ismaels, ja des ältesten Sohnes, Einfluss nicht zu fürchten haben, so müssen diese beide in einer Weise entlassen werden, dass sie damit diesem Hause gegenüber in ihrem wirklichen, rechtlichen Verhältnisse, d. i. als Sklavin und Sklavinsohn, somit selbst Sklave, erscheinen. Nachher konnte Abraham ja, wie es auch wirklich geschehen, ihr Los so freigebig ausstatten, als es seinem Wohlstande und seinem Herzen gemäß war. Nicht umsonst wiederholt Sara das: diese Magd, האמה הזאת. Nicht, dass keiner Sklavin Sohn überhaupt ihres Hauses Mitfortträger sein solle. Hatte sie doch selbst dieses Verhältnis ganz ausdrücklich beabsichtigt und ganz allein aus eigenem Antriebe veranlasst. Allein diese Magd hatte sich für ein solches Verhältnis völlig ungeeignet erwiesen, darum: גרש בן האמת הזאת לא יירש בן האמה הזאת וגו׳. Ich habe gehosst אבנה ממנה, Hagars Sohn werde mein Sohn werden, ich würde ihn dir erziehen können. Das hat aber Hagars Wesen vereitelt.

With my son, with Yitzchak: The exactitude of this expression will still be explained below.

עם יצחק, the words suggest that Sarah had told Avraham “didn’t G’d tell you that He would perpetuate His covenant with Yitzchok who Sarah will bear for you? (17,21)?”