Parshat Vayeitze: Raising Some Questions

While reading parshat Vayeitze this week, there were a few segments that generated questions for which I have not found a satisfying answer.  I have laid out my thoughts below:

“Every Speckled and Spotted Animal…Such Shall be my Wages” 

After serving Lavan for 14 years for his two daughters, Jacob is finally ready to return to his homeland in this week’s parsha (v. 30:25).   But, Lavan is able to convince Jacob to stay and continue pasturing Lavan’s flocks; his “wages” for the rest of his service will be “every speckled and spotted animal – every dark-colored sheep and every spotted and speckled goat” (Genesis 30:32).  Lavan deceives Jacob by removing the streaked, spotted, and speckled goats from his flocks, leaving Jacob with hardly any left as a wage for his service.  Jacob’s response to this trickery is his own form of trickery:

Jacob then got fresh shoots of popular, and of almond and plane, and peeled white stripes in them, laying bare the white of the shoots.  The rods that he had peeled he set up in front of the goats in the troughs, the water receptacles that the goats came to drink from.  Their mating occurred when they came to drink, and since the goats mated by the rods, the goats brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted young.  But Jacob dealt separately with the sheep; he made these animals face the streaked or wholly dark-colored animals in Lavan’s flock.  And so he produced special flocks for himself, which he did not put with Lavan’s flocks.  Moreover, when the sturdier animals were mating, Jacob would place the rods in the troughs, in full view of the animals, so that they mated by the rods; but with the feebler animals he would not place them there.  Thus the feeble ones went to Lavan and the sturdy to Jacob.  So the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks…. (Bereishit 30:37-43)

The first thought that comes to mind when reading this is incredulity at the seemingly absurd way in which Jacob created speckled and spotted flocks for himself.  But I recall a similar concept in Medieval/Renaissance Christian Theology (from a college art class) that lead to the patronage of many baby and child paintings in wealthy and even average households (it was very rare at the time for non-wealthy families to commission paintings but this shows the prominence of the belief was not limited).  They believed that if a husband and wife were to look at a painting of an angelic child when the child was conceived, their children would become angelic, church-going children.  This idea has obviously been discredited and removed from official church theology (To my recollection this was only Protestant theology, to which the Catholic Church did not subscribe to).

Did our Patriarch, Jacob, really believe that unique goats and sheep could be conceived if they looked at stripped rods or dark sheep?  We know that Jacob became prosperous, but did this action have any effect?  Jacob later attributes the prominence of speckled and spotted flocks to God, but this is only after the fact.  And if it was in fact due to God that these flocks produced speckled and spotted animals, why did Jacob need to place stripped rods by their watering troughs?

“When morning came, there was Leah”

When Jacob first came to Haran and was taken in by Lavan, he made a deal to serve him seven years for his daughter, Rachel’s, hand in marriage.  At the end of the seven years, Jacob said to Lavan: “Give me my wife, for my time is fulfilled, that I may cohabit with her” (Bereishit 29:21).  The deceitful Lavan, however, tricked Jacob into marrying his oldest daughter, Leah, instead of Rachel.  “What is this you have done to me!?  I was in your service for Rachel!  Why did you deceive me?”, Jacob asks Lavan when he discovers that he was tricked. 

Much attention has been paid by the Rabbis to the cunning way in which Jacob was tricked by Lavan and to Jacob’s reaction, and this situation has been used to explain the way in which fate works itself out sometimes.  But what I wonder is, what was Leah thinking?  It was not just Lavan but also Leah that deceived Jacob.  Leah knew that she was marrying a man who had just worked seven long years for her sister, Rachel.  What makes the story even more odd is that the Midrash tells us Jacob and Rachel expected this trickery and had developed special signals that Rachel could use under the Chuppah (wedding canopy) to let Jacob know if it was really her.  When it came time for Leah to go the Chuppah, however, Rachel told her of these secret signals so that Leah would not be ashamed or embarrassed (if Jacob realized she was the wrong sister and refused to marry her).  Here I am left wondering why Leah let it get to this point; why she didn’t refuse to go under the Chuppah? 

On the point of Leah actively being involved in Jacob’s deceit, Genesis Rabbah states:

[Jacob asked Lavan], “Why are you extinguishing the lamps?”  They answered, “What do you think, that we are disgraceful like you (to engage in relations by the light of a lamp)?”  All that night he called her “Rachel,” and she answered him.  In the morning, “there was Leah!”  He told her: “What is this, you are a deceiver, the daughter of a deceiver!”  She retorted: “And is there a scribe [teacher] without pupils?  Did not your father call you ‘Esav,’ and you answered him?  You, too, called me ‘Rachel,’ and I answered you.” 

In this response, Leah was following Jacob’s model – and Jacob was falling into the same trap of his father Isaac in not recognizing what was demanded of the present reality (in this case, that Leah was meant to mother some of the 12 tribes).  (I wrote of Jacob/Esav and Isaac here last week.)  It could be that Leah recognized she was destined to be one of the matriarchs and therefore was comfortable deceiving Jacob, knowing it was ultimately for the best.  [Aside: Wait, has a soap opera been made out of this script yet?  I think it’d be a hit….]

But we are still left wondering about Leah’s state of mind.  When Leah has her first son she says “she named him Reuven, for she declared, ‘the Lord has seen my affliction; it also means: now my husband will love me’ (Bereishit 29:32), even though ‘he loved Rachel more than Leah’” (29:30).  Later when Rachel asks for some flowers that Reuven picked for Leah, Leah retorts: “Was it not enough for you to take away my husband, that you would also take my son’s mandrakes” (Bereishit 30:15).  How quickly she forgot that it was she who took away Rachel’s husband, not vice versa.  Based on the rough married life she seemed to have – which should easily have been predictable given the situation – I am still left wondering why Leah went to the Chuppah, supplanting her sister.  By reading classic commentators, it is made to seem as if only Lavan was the progenitor of deceit.  But why didn’t Leah speak up?  Rebecca spoke for herself in saying she would leave to marry Isaac; was Leah not able to speak for herself in the same way?  Or was her action one of self-sacrifice for the future of the Jewish nation? 

“…the Lord shall be my God”

To begin Vayeitze, Jacob has a dream on his journey to Haran.  Through this dream (which I discussed here last year.) God comes to Jacob and he awakes to the startling realization that “Surely the Lord is present in this place, and I did not know it” (Bereishit 28:16).  This stimulates Jacob to pray as follows:

Jacob then made a vow, saying, If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father’s house – the Lord shall be my God.  And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You.  (Bereishit 28:20-22)

This prayer is full of conditions…Jacob making conditional deals in his prayer to God.  Yet God has just revealed to Jacob: “Remember, I am with you: I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land.  I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you” (v. 28:15).  So why did Jacob need to make conditions if he already had been assured of God’s protection and that he would return to his father’s land? 

The simplest response is summed up by Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple (Great Synagogue, Sydney): [Jacob’s] ‘if’ is not conditional, but a prayer: ‘Please, God, may it be thus, that You will be with me, guard me and be my God.’ 

I can certainly relate, as I have also used “ifs” in my own prayers but intend them more along the lines of how Rabbi Apple interprets Jacob’s prayer.  But why would the Torah expect us to interpret Jacob’s words differently than the way they are actually written? 

Rabbi Ira Stone provides one of the most satisfying responses: Jacob did indeed start his prayer with uncertainty, a tentative faith.  But his prayer does not contain an “if…then” statement.  Jacob is transformed by his prayer encounter with God.  He recognizes the foolishness of placing conditions upon God, recognizes that he must take responsibility for what happens in his own life, and also recognizes that he is not alone as God is always present.  This is why the direct translation of the text is “if I return safe to my father’s house and the Lord shall be my God…the “and” conveys the transformation Jacob undergoes from the start of his conditional prayer until the conclusion of his prayer.  It doesn’t say “if this…then the Lord shall be my God” but rather declares that “Yes…I have come to the realization that the Lord is my God.” 

But this leaves the question of the timing of Jacob’s prayer.  Since God has just approached him in a dream and promised him so many blessings, shouldn’t his prayer be one of thanks?  Why does his prayer begin as a conditional one and only later turn to a conviction that God is with him?  Jacob realized in the previous verses he was surrounded by God’s awesome presence…did this feeling of God depart so quickly?  Or was Jacob (who declared “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the abode of God.”) unsure if God would be with him in other places as well, but then realized that God’s presence was not limited to any one location?

Thoughts and responses are always welcome.

Happy Thanksgiving and Shabbat Shalom

Parhsat Toldot: The Deceit of Isaac

Every year, I am troubled by the deceit Rebecca and Jacob display in quite blatantly lying to Isaac to steal the blessing of the first born away from Esav and ensure that Jacob is blessed in his stead.  To be sure, Rebecca was told by God that Jacob (the second born twin) was the one that deserved this blessing…but do the ends (i.e. Jacob receiving the blessing) justify the means (deceiving her husband/Jacob’s father)? 

There are many prevalent Torah commentaries that justify Jacob’s actions.  Some, seemingly contrary to the text’s straightforward reading, claim that Jacob did not lie at all.  According to these commentators who seem to be rationalizing Jacob’s actions away, Jacob didn’t say to his blind father, I am your son, Esav, your first-born (Genesis 27:32).  Rather, he said: It is I.  Esav is your first-born (Genesis Rabbah 52).  While I don’t deny that this may be true, I am not a fan of this apologetic explanation that does not really address the Torah’s text directly.  Jacob quite clearly tells Esav, after realizing that Jacob stole his blessing: Your brother came with guile and took away your blessing (Genesis 27:35) (although the same commentators reinterpret this phrase so as to not implicate Jacob in any misdoing). 

Rabbi Yehuda Zoldan of Bar Ilan University takes a different approach, based upon writings of the Vilna Goan, Sforno, and Rav Kook.  In their commentaries on Malachi I (the haftarah associated with Parshat Toldot) they take a much more universal, long-term approach to what Jacob and Esav represent throughout history in Judaism.  Rav Kook states:

It is not the absorption and destruction (of the nations) that is the goal of Israel’s being a light unto the nations, just as we [the Jews] do not intend general destruction of the world and all its nations, but rather their repair and their elevation, the removal of their wickedness, which will then join them to the source of Israel, to shower them as well with droplets of light.  Of this process it is written, But I will clean out the blood from its mouth and the detestable things from between its teeth.  Its survivors, too, shall belong to the Lord (Zecharia 9:7).  If this is the practice even regarding idol worship, all the more so for religions that are partially based on the foundations of the light of Israel’s Torah.

The Vilna Gaon writes on Malchi 1:3 that the hatred of Esav is only “in reference to the minor parts of Esav”:

The brotherly love between Esav and Jacob, between Isaac and Ishmael, will surpass all the tumult brought on by the evil embedded in the uncleanliness of a dead body…will overcome it and replace it with light and eternal loving-kindness. 

In this take on the Jacob-Esav dichotomy the two people are viewed as existentially connected.  Yet there are sharp differences, none highlighted more so than in Esav’s outburst of anger after getting his blessing stolen by Jacob: “I will kill my brother Jacob” (Genesis 27:41)!  Despite this, intrinsically both figures are destined to be united.  Unlike Isaac and Ishmael, who stemmed from separate wombs and were largely raised apart, Jacob and Esav originated from the same womb and grew up together.  This togetherness is how Jacob, Esav, and their descendants were supposed to live.  The Talmud states in Megillah 6a on the verse of Zecharia above (“Its survivors, too, shall belong to the Lord”):

These are the synagogues and study halls in Edom (= Esav).  ‘They shall become like a tribe in Yehuda, and Ekron shall be like the Jubusites.’  These are theaters and circuses in Edom in which the leaders of Yehuda are destined to teach Torah to the multitudes. 

The Sages recognized the potential for Esav to join to the tribe of Yehuda, to be students of Torah.  This also seems to be alluded to in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezzer, which tells us that Esav’s head was buried in the Cave of Machpelah with our three forefathers and mothers, presumably due to his righteousness (but he was not fully righteous, as the rest of his body was buried outside in the Field of Machpelah). 

It is this approach to Jacob and Esav (Israel and Edom) that I believe can lead us to a more honest answer of the reason Jacob deceitfully stole the blessing of the firstborn from his brother, Esav.  Rabbi Zoldan has extrapolated from this approach that Isaac desired to bless Esav because he believed that the unification of Jacob and Esav envisioned by the Sages might come to pass in his lifetime.  Rebecca, however, was more practical and able to see the reality of the present situation in which she recognized Esav’s evilness (not that he was fully evil, but that parts of him were) and that Jacob was destined to be the father of the twelve tribes of Israel.  On top of this vision, was the fact that God told her “the older [Esav] shall serve the younger [Jacob].” 

I would like to add, however, that even with this knowledge, Rebecca recognizes that her plan to deceive Isaac into blessing Jacob is not fully laudable.  Jacob worries that a curse, rather than a blessing, will be brought upon him for deceiving his father.  His mother therefore says: “Your curse, my son, be upon me!  Just do as I say and go fetch them [the game] for me” (Genesis 27:12-13).  Therefore the Jewish nation that comes forth from Jacob and his wives are not burdened with a curse; rather Rebecca assumes the curse upon herself to leave Jacob pure and obtain what she knows to be an ultimate good.  This curse, presumably, could be removed only when Edom becomes like Yehuda in future generations.  

Parshat Chayei Sarah: Isaac and Rebecca

Similar to the majority of Bereishit (Genesis), this week’s parsha is full of stories.  But unlike the rest of the Torah up until this point, Parshat Vayeira expounds upon Avraham’s servant’s search for a wife for Isaac in detail.  Throughout the past month, the Torah has raced through Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the flood, the Tower of Babel, and numerous stories of Avraham and Sarah.  This week, the Torah seems to be catching its breath.  Until this week, everything is compact and brief and requires many details to be filled in by the oral tradition, sages, and future commentators.  So why does the Torah relay the search for Isaac’s wife in such detail (and even repeat a part of the story twice!)?  The Torah doesn’t even mention Avraham’s youthful years and discovery of monotheism…why is Eliezer’s (Avraham’s servant) search for Rebecca, Isaac’s wife, given at such length?

Parshat Vayeira does not contain any mizvot (although there are very few commandments in all of Genesis), which makes this parsha entirely story-based.  There must be some other lessons that can be learned from this story.  I think that Eliezer’s first conversation with Rebecca at a watering teaches us one significant lesson:

She [Rebecca] went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up.  The servant [Eliezer] ran toward her and said, “Please let me sip a little water from your jar.”

“Drink, my lord,” she said, and she quickly lowered her jar upon her hand and let him drink.  When she had let him drink his fill, she said, “I will also draw for your camels, until they finish drinking.” 

Eliezer had been searching for the woman who would give both him and his camels water on their journey, and this was the woman he knew was meant to be Isaac’s wife.  Why was this action the specific one he was looking for?  And exactly what vital character trait does this action represent? 

Each of the patriarchs represents a different trait.  Isaac is most commonly associated with gevurah, strength, which references his devotion in serving God even through self-sacrifice.  One of the primary ways in which people show their devotion to God, however, is the way in which we interact with others.  It is not possible to be truly and fully devoted to God, without having God’s presence in your life impact the way in which you interact with others.  Dedication to God doesn’t stop with prayer (i.e. conversation with God) but extends to our conversation with others; it doesn’t stop with keeping Shabbat, but extends to up-keeping your commitments to family, friends, and others.  Dedication to God encompasses all of one’s actions – speech and deed.  From the way in which Rebecca acted towards the servant Eliezer, calling him “my lord” and letting him drink and letting his camels drink, despite the inconvenience it may have caused her in both time and loss of water, which likely was not overly abundant, Eliezer knew that she also showed the attribute of gevurah.  She behaved in such a manner towards people, because of her reverence for God.  But she also displayed the attribute of Chessed, kindness, which Avraham, Eliezer’s master and Isaac’s father, is most prominently known for.  Not only did she display this act through the way she treated Eliezer, but also graciously opened her house (her father’s really) to him and his cammels, warmly offering food and shelter for the night. 

It was these actions of Rebecca that guided Eliezer to pick her as Isaac’s wife.  And it is a woman such as this for whom Isaac was able to “find comfort after his mother’s death” (Bereishit 24:67)…and, as we are told during the creation of woman, it is for a woman with Rebecca’s character that Isaac became a “man [who] leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh” (Bereishit 2:24). 

Shabbat Shalom.

Parshat Vayeira: The Beauty of a Laugh

This week, we will read the Torah portion of Vayeira.  Upon an initial reading of the text, I am struck by the numerous similarities between Vayeira and  last week’s portions, Lech Lecha.  In both parhsiyot, Avraham claims Sarah is his sister.  Twice Avraham is seemingly innocently involved in a business dispute.  And twice Avraham saves his nephew, Lot.  

What I would like to focus on, however, is an interesting juxtaposition of two instances of laughter.  In last week’s parsha, Avraham laughs when God tells him that, despite his old age, he and Sarah will be blessed with a child.  This week, Sarah has a similar reaction.  God and Jewish tradition, however, have two very different interpretations of their laughter.  Let’s look at the text in both instances:

Abraham’s Laughter:

And God said to Abraham,  As for your wife Sarai, you shall not call her Sarai, but her name shall be Sarah.  I will bless her; indeed, I will give you a son by her.  I will bless her so that she shall give rise to nations; rulers of peoples shall issue from her.  Abraham threw himself on his face and laughed, as he said to himself, Can a child be born to a man a hundred years old, or can Sarah bear a child at ninety? And Abraham said to God, O that Ishmael might live by Your favor!  God said, Nevertheless, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac; and I will maintain My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring to come.  [Genesis 17:15-19]

 

Sarah’s Laughter:

Then [one of Avraham’s guests] said, I will return to you [Avraham] next year, and your wife Sarah shall have a son.  Sarah was listening at the entrance of the tent, which was behind him.  Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years; Sarah had stopped having the periods of women.  And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment – with my husband so old?  Then the Lord said to Abraham, Why did Sarah laugh, saying ‘Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?’  Is anything too wondrous for the Lord?  I will return to you at the same season next year, and Sarah shall have a son. [Genesis 18:10-14]

God’s reaction to Sarah’s laughter seems to stand in sharp contrast to that of Avraham.  The way I have heard it most often explained is that Avraham’s laughter was laughter of joy and therefore God did not question the laughter as he knew it was done with complete faith that God would do as he said (this interpretation is taken up by Rashi).  Sarah’s laughter, on the other hand, was viewed as being almost cynical with disbelief that she would actually bear a son in her old age.  [There are also less-well-known commentaries critical of Avraham’ s laugh; e.g. Yalkut Shimoni 82.]  Therefore, God openly criticizes Sarah.  It appears to me, however, that the text can be read in another way (and is perhaps even more easily read this way). 

To begin, Avraham “threw himself on his face and laughed” seemingly similar to one who falls out of their chair in laughter due to an absolutely ridiculous statement that someone said.  Then, when God replies to Avraham’s laughter he begins with the Hebrew word “Aval”.  I have seen this translated in this context as nevertheless (above), nay, and but (which reads a bit awkwardly).  In short form, God is saying with this word: Avraham, despite your disbelief and your hope that Ishmael will find My favor, Sarah will be given a son!  Perhaps this is because it is not just Avraham who God is blessing with a son who will upkeep a covenant with God.  Sarah, too, has won God’s favor (see my other post linked above) and God therefore says despite Avraham’s reaction God will be giving him a son because Sarah is the primary one that God is blessing with Isaac.  Avraham would have been happy with Ishmael as his only son, as is apparent through the verse: O that Ishmael might live by Your favor!  Sarah, however, would have died barren and without a legacy.  Isaac was more of a blessing for Sarah than for her husband.

Sarah’s laughter, which very well may be in disbelief, may not be in anyway directed toward God.  Avraham laughed directly at God, face-to-face.  Sarah, however, was not in direct conversation with Him.  Rather, she is overhearing a conversation between her husband and men (God’s messengers, perhaps angels) that she has not just never met, but never seen (as can be assumed from the fact that the Rabbis emphasize she stayed in the tent for modesty reasons).  God’s messengers, who Sarah believes are just passersby, deliver God’s message to Avraham; Sarah merely overhears this message.  Her reaction is no different than what is to be expected from an elder woman who has been barren her whole life.  Not until God speaks directly (rather than through the messengers) does Sarah realize that the men were not ordinary men but carried a divine message.  Upon this realization, she responds to God’s claim that she laughed, lying and saying: I did not laugh.  Only then does God speak directly to Sarah: You did laugh.  Simple as that.

Neither Avraham or Sarah’s laughter result in any changes in God’s will.  In neither instance does he rescind his promise of Isaac being born to Sarah.  This makes their inclusion in the Torah even more interesting.  The Torah is very brief and includes only essentials; the Talmud and Midrashim fill in the details behind what is actually written in the Torah.  Why aren’t the verses describing Sarah and Avraham’s laughter relegated to a Midrash?  To this, I do not have an answer. 

Perhaps it is to teach us something of human nature, of the human psyche.  Perhaps it is to show the importance of a name, as Isaac (“Yitzchak”) is named after laughter (also “Yitzchak”).  Or perhaps the effect of our fore-father and –mother’s laughter was only felt in later generations (Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Levi claims this). 

No matter the reason for its inclusion, in this week’s Torah portion we are shown the beauty – and the complex dynamics – of a laugh. 

Shabbat Shalom.

Parshat Vayeira: Sarah, Avraham's Sister

This week I was asked to prepare a podcast on the parsha for KOACH.  Here is a link to the recording, and below is the script.

This week we read the Torah portion of Vayeira.  While it is replete with action-packed stories and plenty of drama, I would like to focus on one story that seems to be a near repeat of something that occurred in last week’s parsha, Lech Lecha.  In Lech Lecha, when Avraham and Sarah go into Egypt, the Torah tells us that Avraham said to his wife: If the Egyptians see you and think “she is his wife,” they will kill me and let you live.  Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may remain alive on your behalf.  (Genesis 12:12-13)

Similarly in this week’s parsha, when Avraham and Sarah enter the land of Gerar, the Torah relates: Avraham said of Sarah his wife, “she is my sister.”  So King Avimelech of Gerar had Sarah brought to him. (Genesis 20:2)

My initial reading of these verses left me with an odd feeling.  It is hard to believe that Avraham would throw his wife under the bus for a second time!  The first time that Avraham and Sarah play the brother-sister card, the Ramban comments:

Know that our father Avraham sinned grievously, albeit inadvertently, in placing a sinful obstacle in the path of his virtuous wife because he feared for his life….  He should have trusted in the Lord.

I understand the Ramban’s criticism, but I can also reasonably believe that Avraham had good intentions.  Pharaoh and Egypt represent impurity and immorality; they are a corrupt society and Avraham did what he felt was necessary.  But this week, the situation in parshat Vayeira is different.  Avraham is not dealing with Pharaoh, but with Avimelech of Gerar – a land that seems to be just and righteous – the land in which Avraham will raise Isaac.  As Ramban says: [Avimelech was] innocent and just and his people as well are good, but Avraham suspected them and would say to everyone ‘She is my sister.’  I would add that not only was Avimelech innocent, he was God-fearing.  God even appeared to him in a dream to tell him of his sin for taking a married woman.  Avimelech replies to this claim: O Lord, will You slay people even though innocent?  [Avraham] said to me, ‘She is my sister!’ And she also said, ‘He is my brother.’  When I did this, my heart was blameless and my hands were clean.  And God then agrees that Avimelech was innocent!  

Given this situation, I am not sure what to make of Avraham’s actions.  So I would like to propose that perhaps my focus on Avraham, is misplaced.  Sarah is also an integral character. 

Immediately after the story with Avimelech concludes, we read:

The Lord took note of Sarah as He had promised, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken.  Sarah conceived and bore a son to Avraham in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken. {Genesis 21: 1-2)

We are well aware the God gave Avraham ten trials to prove his loyalty to God, with the final one being the Akeidah, the binding of Isaac.  Could it be that Sarah, our foremother, also had her faith tested?  Could it be that one (or, rather, two) of her tests was how she reacted in an unknown and fearful situation, living in the house of Pharaoh and then Avimelech? 

I am not aware of this stance being taken by any Torah commentaries, but I would like to propose that is was not just Avraham that was tested before being granted a son through which the Jewish nation would begin.  After all, Avraham alone could not father and raise the would-be Isaac.  An equally faithful, upright, smart and caring woman was needed.  Sarah too was being tested by being uprooted from her homeland, by showing generosity for spontaneous guests, by going through the pain of seeing her maidservant give birth to her husband’s child, and through the fright of living in the houses of Pharaoh and Avimelech.  Sarah and Avraham both needed a superhuman amount of internal strength to live through the ups and downs that God dealt them.  We, the Jewish people of today, do not come only from an extraordinary man, but also from an extraordinary woman.  Shabbat Shalom.