Did Avimelech Touch Sarah, While Pharaoh Did Not?

A rather curious Baal HaTurim on Vayera, explaining vaHashem pakad et Sarah. The pasuk in question reads:

א וַה' פָּקַד אֶת-שָׂרָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמָר; וַיַּעַשׂ ה לְשָׂרָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר.

1 And the LORD remembered Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as He had spoken.

The obvious reason for this pekidah -- which is that she becomes pregnant and gives birth -- is given in this very pasuk -- as he had said. This refers either to the promise to Avraham at the brit bein habetarim, or in parshat Vayera with the angels present.

His first concern is why now? The easy answer, on a peshat level, is that Hashem said lamoed, and ka'et chaya, and so on. It is hard to see what he is grappling with. Perhaps it is that there is no need for pekidah, remembering, such that Hashem is coming to a decision here, and that it should have just led off with pasuk 2, about Sarah giving birth? Perhaps. I think it plausible.

He also attempts to associate it with surrounding narratives. Thus, the intervening episode with Sodom and the births by Lot's two daughters. And then, all of the women in Avimelech's house giving birth, where they were previously shut up. There certainly does seem to be a theme of childbirth in this sidra.

Rashi does a similar thing, associating it with the preceding narrative, in stating:

And the Lord remembered Sarah, etc. (B.K 92a) This section was placed next to [the preceding section] to teach you that whoever begs for mercy for his friend, when he needs the same thing, he is answered first, for it is said (verse 17) “And Abraham prayed, etc.,” and immediately following it, “And the Lord remembered Sarah,” i.e., He had already remembered her before He healed Abimelech. —
remembered Sarah as He had said Concerning [the promise of] conception. —
as He had spoken Concerning [the promise of] birth. Now where is [the expression] “saying” and where is [the expression] “speaking” ? “Saying” (אִמִירה) is mentioned (above 17:19):“And God said (וַיֹאמֶר) : Indeed, your wife Sarah, etc…”“Speaking” (דִבוּר) [is mentioned] (above 15:1):“The word of (דְבַר) the Lord came to Abram,” in the Covenant Between the Parts, where it is stated (ibid. 4):“This one [Eliezer] will not inherit you, etc.” and He brought forth the heir from Sarah.
and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken to Abraham.

Thus he associates it with the prayer by Avraham in the previous perek, on behalf of the women in Avimelech's house. And this is not just a lesson to be taught by the juxtaposition of sections, but even is to be read into the narrative -- for as Rashi states, Avraham was answered before Avimelech.

This is indeed strange given that there were already two promises, and that such promises were indeed time-bound. Yet this is what Rashi states.

Rashi also states that Avimelech did not touch her. Rashi gets this from Avimelech's own claim, in perek 20:

Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she said, 'He is my brother.' With the innocence of my heart and with the purity of my hands have I done this."

upon which Rashi states:

With the innocence of my heart I did not intend to sin. —
and with the purity of my hands I am pure of sin, for I did not touch her. —

Hashem's response is then:

And God said to him in a dream, "I too know that you did this with the innocence of your heart, and I too have withheld you from sinning to Me; therefore, I did not let you touch her.

And Rashi states:

I know that, etc., with the innocence of your heart It is true that you did not intend at first to sin, but you cannot claim purity of hands [because…]- [from Gen. Rabbah 52:6; Tan. Buber, Vayera 25]
I did not let you It was not due to you that you did not touch her, but I prevented you from sinning, for I did not give you strength, and so (below 31:7):“and God did not let him (וְלֹא נְתָנוֹ)” ; and so (Jud. 15:1):“but her father did not allow him (וְלֹא נְתָנוֹ) to come.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 52:7]

such that Rashi, and the midrashim he states, note the distinction between Avimelech's claims and Hashem's response. For Hashem does not echo the "purity of hands."

{* I would interject here that nikayon kapay on a peshat level would suggest to me nothing of the sort. He is talking about how in all innocence of heart and hands he did what he did, taking Sarah. This only is reference to touching or not touching Sarah if you take it at a somewhat hyperliteral, and thus midrashic, level. *}

Ramban modifies this presentation by Rashi somewhat. He writes:

והנכון בעיני כי מיום אשר נלקחה שרה, לקה אבימלך באברי התשמיש ולא יוכל לשמש, וזהו לא נתתיך לנגוע אליה, כי הנגיעה והקריבה בנשים הוא על התשמיש, כענין אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט טו), ואקרב אל הנביאה (ישעיה ח ג), ואשתו ואמהותיו שהן מעוברות עצר בעד רחמן ולא יכלו להמליט. כי "עצירת רחם" הוא שלא תהר, כדרך וה' סגר רחמה (ש"א א ה), אבל "עצירה בעד הרחם" הוא שלא תלד, כלשון גדר בעדי ולא אצא (איכה ג ז), ועמדה שרה בביתו ימים ולא שב אבימלך מדרכו הרעה כי לא הבין, עד שבא אליו האלוהים בחלום והודיעו. ולא פירש הכתוב חולי אבימלך והזכירו ברמז דרך מוסר וכבוד לשרה. ואחרי תפלת אברהם נרפא אבימלך ואשתו ואמהותיו וילדו הנשים.

The negiah mentioned in the pasuk as lo netaticha lingoa eileha

ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאֱלֹהִים בַּחֲלֹם, גַּם אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי בְתָם-לְבָבְךָ עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת, וָאֶחְשֹׂךְ גַּם-אָנֹכִי אוֹתְךָ, מֵחֲטוֹ-לִי; עַל-כֵּן לֹא-נְתַתִּיךָ, לִנְגֹּעַ אֵלֶיהָ.

6 And God said unto him in the dream: 'Yea, I know that in the simplicity of thy heart thou hast done this, and I also withheld thee from sinning against Me. Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

refers to actual intercourse. But meanwhile, Avimelech tried his best in these intervening days.

It would also seem that he is influenced by pasuk 4, וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ לֹא קָרַב אֵלֶיהָ. We find this idea that there was mishmush yadayim by Avimelech in Bereishit Rabba 52:8, which is where Ramban gets this idea from.

Meanwhile, in parshat Lech Lecha, in a similar incident involving Pharoah, Ramban wrote:

(יח): ויקרא פרעה לאברם -
יתכן כי בבוא הנגעים פתאום עליו ועל ביתו בעת אשר לוקחה שרה אל ביתו הרהר בדעתו לאמר מה זאת עשה אלוהים לנו, ושאל אותה והגידה כי היא אשתו, ולכן קרא לאברהם והאשים אותו:

The way it reads, it was pretty immediate, with Pharaoh immediately finding out and then immediately inquiring of Sarah, and then reacting properly. This is quite unlike Avimelech.

As we saw in a previous post, Baal HaTurim details in his hakdama (pictured to the right, under the line I drew) how he is extremely Ramban-based. As such, we would expect him to follow in Ramban's path. But perhaps not.

The Baal HaTurim, as noted above, connects Sarah's pregnancy to Lot's daughters becoming pregnant, and then to her being shut up with Avimelech.

In terms of being shut up with Avimelech, he likens it to Sotah, that if the accused Sotah is innocent, she becomes pregnant from her husband. This is based on a famous derashah.

But then he asks why this did not occur earlier, in Lech Lecha, when Pharaoh took Sarah? He writes:

ומה שלא נפקדה אחר סתירת פרעה לפי שכאן היה משמוש ידים ולא היה חסר כי אם ביאה.

What does kan mean? I would be tempted to say "here" means when Pharaoh took her. And thus she is all the more "innocent" here, such that the blessing for the innocent accused Sotah would apply. This would then derive from the professions of בְנִקְיֹן כַּפַּי. Of course, this peshat would be Rashi-based; and we have no evidence of Pharaoh's actions or lack of actions; and kan does not mean "there." And he uses the phrase mishmush yadayim, which we have clearly by Avimelech.

But kan does mean "here," which would be the incident with Avimelech. It would then, surely be Ramban-based (a plus). For as we saw, Ramban said:

ועמדה שרה בביתו ימים ולא שב אבימלך מדרכו הרעה כי לא הבין, עד שבא אליו האלוהים בחלום והודיעו. ולא פירש הכתוב חולי אבימלך והזכירו ברמז דרך מוסר וכבוד לשרה.

The idea would then be that since Avimelech was trying much harder, and actually touched Sarah though was unable to have full intercourse with her, it is much more of a Sotah situation. And so emerging innocent from that situation brings the aforementioned blessings.

Shadal has an interesting discussion of Rashi here, and the proper girsa of Rashi, in the matter of whether , another, more modern pashtan, gives a similar interpretation to these verses. He writes:

ו] כי בתם לבבך עשית זאת : ולא אמר ובנקיון כפיך כמו שאמר אבימלך בתם לבבי ובנקיון כפי ; ובמדרש רבא (פ' נ"ב ח) אמרו הוא אמרת משמוש ידים היה, והוא נמצא גם בפי' רש"י בקצת דפוס" ובכ"י שבידי ; ונראה שאינו אלא תוספת שהוסיפו אחרים בגליון, כי רש"י נותן טעם אחר לחסרון מלות "ובנקיון כפיך" באמרו שלא ממך היה וכו', והכוונה : תום לבב היה בך, כי לא ידעת היותה אשת איש, אבל נקיון כפים לא היה בך, כי מה שלא עשית לא היה אלא להעדר כוח. וכן במקראות גדולות אין כאן "משמוש". ונ"ל שאם כתב רש"י שהיה שם משמוש, לא היה אומר שלא ממך היה שלא נגעת בה, אבל היה אומר שלא שכבת עמה.

Thus, in some versions of Rashi, the Midrash Rabba about Mishmush Yadayim is cited. But Shadal says this is an addition to the original text, and argues why it does not fit into the text of Rashi.