1) Last week, we cited the Rambam’s own words (Pirush HaMishnayot, Chullin, Chapter 7): “Similarly, we do not circumcise ourselves because Abraham, of blessed memory, circumcised himself and the members of his household; rather, we do so because Moses commanded us to circumcise in the manner that Abraham circumcised. The same applies to the sciatic nerve. We do not follow the prohibition to the patriarch Jacob. Rather, we forbid it because we were so commanded by our teacher Moses. This is what our Sages state (Makkot 23b): All 613 commandments were said to Moses at Sinai, and all of these [even those that appear in the Torah before Maamad Har Sinai] are included in those commandments.”
We follow the laws of inheritance – that a son inherits his father, etc. – not because of the precedent set by Abraham, but because they were given to Moses (and explicated in the Talmud, Baba Batra, Chapter 8). Therefore, what Abraham did or did not do is of little relevance, and there would be no reason, according to the Rambam, to fault him if he actually disinherited Keturah’s children.
2) In Parshat Chayyei Sarah, Eliezer tells Betuel and Laban (Genesis 24:36): “Vateled Sarah eshet adoni bein ladoni acharei ziknata, va’yiten lo et kol asher lo – Sarah, my master’s wife, bore a son to my master after she had grown old, and he gave him all his possessions.” Rashi cites Pirkei D’Rabbi Elazar (89:7), which states that Eliezer showed Betuel and Laban a document stating that Abraham gifted all that he owned to Isaac.
Thus, when Abraham later took Keturah as a wife and had children with her, he essentially had no possessions since everything already belonged to Isaac. Abraham only retained use of these possessions for the remainder of his lifetime. Therefore, Abraham did not really disinherit Keturah’s children since he had nothing to give to them.
In fact, after Abraham marries Keturah, the Torah relates again (Genesis 28:5), “Vayiten Avraham et kol asher lo l’Yitzchak – And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac.” The next verse states that he gave the sons of Keturah presents and sent them away. The Rashbam and Ibn Ezra both explain that the presents were a large monetary endowment. The Sforno writes that Abraham gave it to them not as an inheritance but rather as a present, and did so in order that there be no challenge to the manner in which his estate would be disposed.
Interestingly, the Sforno writes (25:2) that Keturah’s children were not biologically his. He merely raised them, just like the five “sons” of Michal, daughter of King Saul, were really the sons of Meirav, Michal’s sister, but were raised by Michal. (Rashi states that this verse serves as proof that someone who raises an orphan in his home is considered as if he or she gave birth to that child.)
In truth, this is consistent with Rashi’s statements in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 59b sv “Bnei Keturah”). He writes that the commandment of circumcision only applies to the six sons of Keturah, not their progeny. Abraham was commanded not only to circumcise himself and Ishmael, but all the members of his household. The only problem with this line of reasoning is that Rashi in Chumash (Genesis 25:1) cites the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah) that explains that Keturah was actually Hagar. She was renamed Keturah because her every action was fragrant like spices (i.e., she carried herself in a most proper manner) or because she kept herself “bound” and had no relations with any other man after she departed Abraham’s household. Thus, according to the explanation we have suggested, Rashi in the Talmud would end up in dispute with his commentary on Chumash.
