Q&A: A seven-year-old for beauty? Better a twenty-year-old. And for sin, a seven-year-old makes even less sense in a context of punishment.
A seven-year-old for beauty? Better a twenty-year-old. And for sin, a seven-year-old makes even less sense in a context of punishment.
Question
Maybe there’s a textual error in the version?
A seven-year-old with regard to sin (she is not punishable, not even by the Sanhedrin, and in general is not legally obligated in a way that would define sin; she is completely innocent),
and a twenty-year-old is much more fitting than a seven-year-old when it comes to beauty.
Maybe the wording should simply be changed?
Answer
Even if you change the wording, you would still have a difficulty with Rashi, who brings this. How did he understand it?
Discussion on Answer
But seemingly this is contradicted by the end of the portion, where about Abraham too it says one hundred years and seventy years and five years, and there Rashi says: at 100, like at 70; like at 5 with regard to sin.
That implies there is a great advantage to an age that is still below legal obligation, and yet not commanded and acting, in that one is free of sin; and the ages of 70 and 100 are compared to that age.
If so, regarding Sarah it would be preferable to compare her to age 7 for being free of sin (and there is no drawback of not being commanded and acting), and to age 20 for beauty..
Does the Rabbi accept the refutation?
I already wrote that aggadic literature and biblical interpretation are not my field.
A relative of mine suggests reconciling the wording: a seven-year-old still is not commanded and acting, so her advantage in not sinning is smaller than that of a twenty-year-old, who is commanded and acting and nevertheless is without sin.
And regarding beauty, maybe the intention is more what nowadays is called charm, and a seven-year-old has more of that than a twenty-year-old.
So the wording stands.