Why is the Torah so simplistic about the avos/emahos?

Chayalle

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 9:36 am

keym wrote:

My personal favorite Medarash is in Vayeshev. I don't have the text so I'm paraphrasing.
Yosef was in chains davening.
Yaakov was in sackcloth and ashes, crying.
Reuvein was mourning.
Yitzchok was quiet but crying for his son.
The brothers were eating and drinking.
And Yehuda was off finding a wife.
And what was Hashem doing? He was planting the seeds of Mashgiach (ie coordinating galus mitzrayim and the birth of Peretz father of Mashgiach).

On the other hand, the brothers were punished terribly (asara harugei malchus) so its not a simple process.
As a teacher used to say Hashem has a huge Computer.

I once heard a shiur on this topic. Yehuda demonstrated malchus - essentially, leadership qualities - by doing something positive while the whole family was mourning. Because essentially, that is what we Jews are always having to do - pick ourselves up and rebuild. That's why Mashiach could come from Yehuda.

It reminds me of something personal I heard so many times - how when after the holocaust, my grandmother (she should live to 120) found that the Rav of her town had survived. She went to him, and what did he tell her? You have to get married.

holylandgirl

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 1:56 pm

amother wrote:

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. The idea that to show that our Forefathers were infallible is the terribly anti-Torah Hashkafah.

There could be other explanations for the mention of their errors, but that doesn't discount the statement above.

I should've been clearer. I wasn't stating my opinion, rather quoting Chazal. They say- whoever says Reuven sinned (with moving his father's bed), is mistaken etc..

My point was that if you study the Torah by combining written and oral law (the only way to do so), you will see that these episodes have nothing to do with sin and mistakes as we understand them. Obviously it needs to be understood how to read the Pesukim, but the point is that Chazal tell us it's mistaken think of their actions as sins.

Here, in the case of Yaakov and his wives, we're talking about actions that seem lower than even our level (see Rashi there) and OP was asking about how to understand these because the Torah couldn't possibly be saying what it seems to say on the surface.

I hope that's clear.
(Obviously I have not substantiated what I have said here, but study will show this is what the Torah teaches.)

Seas

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 2:27 pm

This will be bln my one and only post on this thread, as to get into an argument will just add to the chilul Hashem. But the following has to be said.

The avos, imahos, shevatim and all the greats of our nation were so far away from us spiritually, that we don't have a clue about any of their deeds. They were personifications of the Shechina's presence on earth, and the epitome of perfection.

Chazal tell us that any bird which flew above where Rabbi Yonasan ben Uziel was learning, was burned to a cinder by the great kedusha in that space. If we were to meet one of the aforementioned great people, the same fate would befall us.

We just can't comprehend their greatness.

I remember years ago hearing a drasha which helped put things into perspective. On the face of it one might think that Sarah Imeinu was a regular rebbitzen, subject to the foibles of human nature just like the rest of us.

However, Chazal tell us that she was greater in nevuah than Avraham Avinu. Now the Rambam teaches us that in order for someone to have nevuah, they had to have risen above all their pettiness, and discarded all physical pleasures and pursuits. So if Sarah was greater than Avraham, she must have been all that and more.

It's a terrible chutzpah to discuss those great people as if they were our counterparts, or even as if we have any kind of insight into their greatness. I'm not judging anyone who did so unknowingly, but please refrain from continuing.

amother

Amber

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 2:34 pm

holylandgirl wrote:

The oral law is the part where all the debates, arguments and counterarguments occur. And Reuven's actions is an example of such.

You may have been taught that everyone depicted in the Torah was infallible, I wasn't taught that way. It's precisely the human factor of fallibility that precipitates the immense inspiration that the Torah brings forth. That humans with the degrees of fallibility reached such spiritual heights, is what encourages us to continue to persevere in our own spiritual journey.

amother

Amber

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 2:40 pm

Seas wrote:

Yes, we cannot comprehend the greatness of our Avos, Imahos and Shvatim, but the Torah was given to all Yidden, and relates to all Yidden of all spiritual levels. It is encumbered upon us to relate to the Torah in our own individual levels, and seek ways to apply its message to our personal lives.

If we can only think of them as some exalted beings, then so much of the intended message will not have its proper impact.

If relating to them as exalted beings, is what inspires you to become a better person, then you should only think of them as such. For me, relating to them as fallible human beings who reached topmost spiritual levels, is what inspires me to start taking the little steps towards my own journey.

holylandgirl

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 2:53 pm

amother wrote:

I agree with you largely. But you misquoted me earlier and then argued with what I didn't say.
What I said was "The idea that it's to show they're fallible just like us is simply not true and a terribly anti-Torah Hashkafah."

I wrote that carefully. I did not say they were incapable of slipping (on their elevated level). I said that the episodes mentioned are not there to teach us that they're fallible just like us, meaning that we are unable to judge them based on our understanding. They were capable of slipping, but not just like us. They were on a level we literally cannot fathom. Yes, they reached spiritual heights through tremendous struggle and effort, but on a plane we cannot comprehend. (Not to say we can't apply the messages to our personal lives and struggles, as you mentioned above. Because if they were irrelevant to us, the Torah would not have mentioned them!)

And the context of my comment was that the episodes are not there to teach us the Avos were capable of error, rather they must be learned differently, which you pointed out. The Torah is not trying to teach us they are capable of error. Something else is going on there.

I have a feeling we don't disagree. Am I correct?

amother

Amber

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 3:16 pm

holylandgirl wrote:

I don't disagree with that, AND I still stand by me earlier statements in full. That's the beauty of the Torah. There are so many approaches to study and interpret it, and all of them can be equally valid.

It is one approach to look at it the way you described above, and it's another approach to study and understand the 'error's they made. We can study what lead them to it, what the actual 'error' was, and how they handled themselves afterwards, down to the most gracious acceptance of their 'punishment'. And most of all - what lesson can we learn from it to apply in our own lives.

One approach does not invalidate the other.

princessleah

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 3:33 pm

It's not to teach us that we are fallible JUST LIKE THEM, but some of the stories can be instructive in behavior and teshuva. Many many commentators point to David HaMelech as the paradigm example of how to do teshuva properly.
The Avot and Imahot are in a sense, our "origin story" as a people. The Torah is the foundation of our belief system and thank G-d it is there to be interpreted, pulled apart, read, struggled with, etc. and it is ALL CORRECT. The stories from pre-Torah times provide us with the background of how we came to be as a nation (p.s. Avraham did not put on tefilin or wear a black hat), we learn our most basic values and mitzvot in these early books. We see the "growing pains" of the Jewish people and the struggles we had to go through to become a fully realized nation.
We can't really look at it with a lens of today. We can't superimpose our current system onto them-- and I think that might be missing the point anyway. If you want to look to them for inspiration, there is plenty to be inspired by-- mistakes don't negate that. People are never 'all good' or 'all bad," even Moshe Rabeinu, who was the closest thing to perfection, got severely punished for his mistakes.

My 2 cents

holylandgirl

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 4:37 pm

amother wrote:

Those are not two different approaches, are they? To understand and study all you just mentioned, can and must go hand in hand with understanding that they were on a level way above us and we would struggle to see these actions as sins at all. Meaning that understanding their so-called shortcomings has to be done in the context of understanding they operare on a different plane. Saying we can relate to their level and compare ourselves to them is the anti-Torah hashkafah I mentioned. (But we learn from them as you mentioned here - in the way, lehavdil, an amateur can learn a great amount from a master pianist with their respective musical abilities still being eons apart.)

And this is not actually relevant to the episode of Yaakov with Rochel. It is NOT an area where he fell in any way. Same is teue of the Imahos being described as beautiful. Those Pesukim need understanding as a separate topic. However, Reuven's actions, and mechiras Yosef are areas where there is criticism given and our discussion would be relevant there.

I ask you again, do we disagree?

amother

Amber

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 4:53 pm

holylandgirl wrote:

Those are not two different approaches, are they? To understand and study all you just mentioned, can and must go hand in hand with understanding that they were on a level way above us and we would struggle to see these actions as sins at all. Meaning that understanding their so-called shortcomings has to be done in the context of understanding they operare on a different plane. Saying we can relate to their level and compare ourselves to them is the anti-Torah hashkafah I mentioned. (But we learn from them as you mentioned here - in the way, lehavdil, an amateur can learn a great amount from a master pianist with their respective musical abilities still being eons apart.)

And this is not actually relevant to OP's question. The episode of Yaakov with Rochel is NOT an area where he fell in any way. Those Pesukim need understanding and our little debate here has nothing to do with that! Sorry OP for derailing your thread somewhat.

I ask you again, do we disagree?

Yes, we disagree. Because they ARE two different approaches. There's a basic level & straightforward understanding of the Torah and then there's more advanced interpretation of it. On a basic level, I can relate to the human trait of jealously, of favoritism, etc, and see what the Torah is teaching me about it. And then I can dig deeper. I can ask myself that being that our Avos were on such a high level, is there another interpretation, another lesson, I can learn out of this.

Two different approaches, two different interpretations, two different lessons learned.

To me personally, the basic level teaches me the practical application, and the more advanced level gives me theoretical application. I'm on a very low level, I need the practical application to enact changes in my life. Theory is beautiful in concept and knowledge, but much more difficult to apply to the daily rituals of life.

imorethanamother

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 4:57 pm

holylandgirl wrote:

I wrote that carefully. I did not say they were incapable of slipping (on their elevated level). I said that the episodes mentioned are not there to teach us that they're fallible just like us, meaning that we are unable to judge them based on our understanding. They were capable of slipping, but not just like us. They were on a level we literally cannot fathom.

Here's why I disagree.

If they were NOT fallible, just like us, then what makes them so great? If they don't have a yetzer hara to do the things we - in modern times - want to do, then they're not the Avos and Imahos. That's the catch-22 you've got there.

If Hashem said to Avraham, "Go kill your only son", and it was super easy peasy, because Avraham was on this "level we literally cannot fathom", then . . well. . . it's hardly anything to write home about. It wouldn't be something we mention in tefilah every day. It wouldn't be something we mention on Rosh Hashana.

It was because Avraham DID NOT WANT TO DO IT and had to do it anyway and fight with himself, that's how it was something worthwhile.

If the brothers didn't feel any jealousy at all toward Yosef, and it was actually just a spiritual decision that they made on their super high level, then why mention it at all? Why mention the snide comments Levi said to Shimon? Why discuss a multi-colored coat? Why did Yehuda have to tell Yosef in disguise that Yaakov had a son he loved the most and now his second-best-loved son Binyamin was in danger?

Bais Yaakov does a disservice when it tries to whitewash everything into oblivion. If God waltzed right up to me and told me to kill my favorite child, I don't think I could do it. My yetzer hara is so strong - and to get the reward he did, Avraham ALSO had to have a yetzer hara not to do it at least that strong, otherwise he would be no greater than me.

If I had a parent that loved a sibling best out of all 12 of us, and threatened to take away my inheritance and give it to him, I don't know if I could smile and wish him the best. It's Yehuda's triumph over this jealousy that grants him the meluchah. If it were so easy to do so, if he truly never felt any jealousy, then by what rights does he warrant getting his reward?

OP, the Torah itself is concise for a reason. If you listen to Rabbi David Fohrman, he discusses how odd it is that so many huge stories in the Torah are literally a few lines long, cutting out really crucial details. He gives many reasons for that. There's huge backstories to Avraham and to Moshe that we never see in the text, and that's because the Torah isn't interested in biographies. It's interested in not just life lessons, but that often the only details mentioned about our Avos and Imahos are directly correlated to the mitzvos we must keep.

holylandgirl

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 5:26 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

I'm not sure where to start...
No catch 22 at all. They struggled and we struggle, but their struggles were not just like ours. For example, someone raised by criminals may struggle not to kill someone he's angry at just like I struggle not to shout at someone I'm angry at. The struggle is equal in strength but totally different in nature because we come from different places. This is free will. Everyone struggles equally, on vastly different levels.

You contradicted yourself when you brought in the Akeidah. Hashem gave Avraham the test precisely because he's on a level I can't fathom! Would you or me ever be asked to give up our child? Of course not. That would be akin to asking a 5 year old to play a world chess master! We're all given tests on our level. A first grader works equally hard on a math test to get an 80 as a university student has to work on his math test. But is the test comparable in its objective level? No.

Avraham could give up his child and actually did! Which proves he was on a totally different level, you've just defeated your own argument. Of course it was a struggle, otherwise it wouldn't have been a test. But it's a struggle I could never experience because it's above me. Funnily enough Hashem has also never spoken to me in nevuah.

I promised myself not to get involved in this discussion because it's not possible to address every point without spending time I don't have, so I don't know if there's a point...

But there is no whitewashing involved in saying the jealousy of the brothers towards Yosef is not comparable with the jealousy I may have experienced in my life. It's much more fine-tuned. If you want to know where you can study this, see Strive For Truth based on R Dessler's teachings before attacking people for holding by these ideas.

imorethanamother

Mon, Nov 19 2018, 5:54 pm

holylandgirl wrote:

First of all, no one is "attacking" anyone. I disagreed. We are allowed to disagree, no? I have no hard feelings to you, and I'm sure you have none towards me.

We are talking Torah here! That's exciting!

Now, onto the discussion. Yes, Avraham on a different level, because he is STRONG enough to overcome the Yetzer Hara. And only Hashem knows that. But nowhere does it say that his yetzer hara isn't as strong, if not stronger, than mine. In fact:

https://dafyomi.co.il/sukah/in.....2.htm

The Tzadikim will see their Yetzer Hara as a mountain, while the reshaim will see it as a small pile. There are all various explanations for the dichotomy that seems odd, but I think we can extrapolate that just because people are tzadikim, doesn't mean that they didn't struggle with the same things you and I struggle with. And in that respect, it's a reason why their ability to overcome their trials is met with unsurpassed reward - because they fought the mountain and won. If I fight my little pile and win, it's not all that impressive.

I don't think anyone is going around saying that they're better than the forefathers. The OP wonders why the Torah discusses their struggles in language that seems "simplistic". What she means is that the Torah skips the niceties and parses their motivations down to the base issue. And it's at the base issues that we can all connect.

For example, why doesn't the Torah say:

So Yehuda and all the shevatim had this extremely high moral dilemma, in which they were concerned with matters of lashon hara and the dismantling of the singular force that was to be klal yisroel. No. Hashem knows the ultimate motivating factor. Whether the jealousy that faced the brothers is the same jealousy I feel towards my, say, sister, that's hard to determine. Unlikely. But EVERYONE has a motivation. Even for our good deeds. So we are to understand that the core of the issue of the brothers was jealousy, which is a problem that all of us face, and that's why the Torah strips away the layers to get to the core problem.

It says that Leah was "hated". WAS she really hated? Who knows, really. With Yaakov as her husband, probably not. But she felt hated. And that part was crucial for the Torah to discuss. Why? Because parshiot later, there's a mitzvah where if a man has a loved wife and a hated wife, he may not give the yerushah to the loved wife's son, if he is not the true bechor. One story was the platform for the mitzvah. And that's why the Torah mentions it.