• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Identification of Keturah with Hagar

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Judaism DIR.

It's a common tradition that Keturah and Hagar are the same; still, I read a note in my Chumash that states that Rashbam and Ibn Ezra disagree with this view but it doesn't explain why. It then says that Keturah is a Canaanite woman, not an Egyptian as Hagar. If this is the case, how are the two reconciled and what are the Rabbis' disagreements if any other than this?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Judaism DIR.

It's a common tradition that Keturah and Hagar are the same; still, I read a note in my Chumash that states that Rashbam and Ibn Ezra disagree with this view but it doesn't explain why. It then says that Keturah is a Canaanite woman, not an Egyptian as Hagar. If this is the case, how are the two reconciled and what are the Rabbis' disagreements if any other than this?
The Ibn Ezra writes
"This cannot be Hagar because in verse 6, Scripture refers to Avraham’s concubines in the plural."

The Rashbam writes
"according to the plain meaning of the text this woman was not identical with Hagar."

Rashi and others are referencing a midrash that Keturah was a renamed Hagar (though I don't see where the "Canaanite" reference is) and it would seem that the Ibn Ezra and Rashbam would say that the midrash cannot be taken literally.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Rav Amnon Bazak in "Until This Day" wrote on this Rashbam, saying: "presumably because the Torah wouldn't talk about such a well-known character without making any mention of her name".
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
So, referring to Genesis 25:5, Rashi writes:

הפילגשים THE CONCUBINES — The word is written deficient, (without י, but our texts have a י in both places) because he had only one concubine, Hagar, who is identical with Keturah. Wives are those whom a man marries with a marriage-contract (Ketubah): concubines have no marriage contract, as we explain in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 21a) in reference to David’s wives and concubines.
I do not understand. Where is it written deficient and why would that lead to the identification of Hagar with Keturah.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
So, referring to Genesis 25:5, Rashi writes:

הפילגשים THE CONCUBINES — The word is written deficient, (without י, but our texts have a י in both places) because he had only one concubine, Hagar, who is identical with Keturah. Wives are those whom a man marries with a marriage-contract (Ketubah): concubines have no marriage contract, as we explain in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 21a) in reference to David’s wives and concubines.
I do not understand. Where is it written deficient and why would that lead to the identification of Hagar with Keturah.
The R. Bahya indicates that this is a reference to the medrash B. Rabbah
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.25....ahya&lang2=en&p3=Berei****_Rabbah.61&lang3=en

and the Gur Aryeh discusses what the final mem would indicate even without the yod.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
So the argument rests on the the defective spelling of a word in a work dated to perhaps the fourth century C.E.?
the argument rests on the claim of a text which faith indicates is authoritative and only if taken literally which might not be the right approach.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
the argument rests on the claim of a text which faith indicates is authoritative and only if taken literally which might not be the right approach.
You will not be surprised to read that I find such things deeply unsettling, but that's for a different and more challenging thread.
 

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
the argument rests on the claim of a text which faith indicates is authoritative and only if taken literally which might not be the right approach.
Then why not interpret it logically, metaphorically?
It seems like you accept, even embrace illogical thinking, I think.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Then why not interpret it logically, metaphorically?
It seems like you accept, even embrace illogical thinking, I think.
You draw an erroneous generalized conclusion, inextricable and inevitably tying logical thinking with metaphorical interpretation. You seem to endorse an untenable position. If you don't like the reading I am presenting (though I have not indicated my own position on it) you should start a thread in a "debate" section as here, your questioning me instead of commenting on the content of the top post is inappropriate.
 

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
@Jake1001 ,

So... What's the metaphor in this part of the story?
Rabbi states:

“the argument rests on the claim of a text which faith indicates is authoritative and only if taken literally which might not be the right approach.”

And indicates that literal approach may not be correct.
 

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
@Jake1001 ,

So... What's the metaphor in this part of the story?
Good point, dyb, I’ve reviewed this thread and agree there is no metaphoric lesson here, so its really a non-starter.

I suppose the closest we get to significance is they are like two women, one from Queens and the other, Brooklyn. At least that is metaphoric.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Good point, dyb, I’ve reviewed this thread and agree there is no metaphoric lesson here, so its really a non-starter.

I suppose the closest we get to significance is they are like two women, one from Queens and the other, Brooklyn. At least that is metaphoric.
Agreed.

If I remember the story, Hagar rec'd the new name after her encounter with the Angel. The experience changed her, made her into a new person? Maybe she was the first Baal Teshuvah?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Perhaps I misunderstood. You wrote:


Where in the Torah does it describe her receiving a new name?
You're right, it doesn't list that in Torah. It's described in Midrash Says. I can find you a page number, if it's helpful.

the-midrash-says-vol-beraishis-genesis-18933-base.jpg
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
You're right, it doesn't list that in Torah. It's described in Midrash Says. I can find you a page number, if it's helpful.
No, thanks. This has been addressed in posts #4 through #8. I thought you were offering something new.
 
Top