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

holylandgirl

Tue, Nov 20 2018, 12:07 pm

amother wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, we're just going round in circles. I see I haven't been understood and I'm unsure how to put it clearer...

I'm going to leave this discussion now but will repeat myself one last time in the hope I'll be understood:
We should and must take the lessons we can from the Avos and Emahos, but it would be a terrible mistake and zilzul to them if in so doing we diminish one iota our reverence for them and lessen our appreciation of who they were. That's all I've been saying. Like the amateur pianist, there's so much we can and must learn from the masters but dare not think we've then reduced said masters to our level. Please read it carefully.
And thanks for the debate Smile

holylandgirl

Tue, Nov 20 2018, 12:12 pm

imorethanamother 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.

You're making some points that need addressing and I wish it were possible to convey the answers and you would read them. There is a fundamental logical flaw in your argument I tried to address, but for whatever reason you didn't respond to what I said. Sadly in this format it's not possible to have a proper back and forth discussion, instead of bringing up new points and ignoring what was previously said. If we were face to face I'd happily debate you and do think we would come to a conclusion either way.

I'll just say it once more, please read properly.
You're consistently contradicting yourself back and forth by first saying their yetzer hara is stronger than mine and they are greater, and then saying they struggle with the same thing you and I struggle with.
Every struggle is balanced- the greater the person the greater the yetzer hara. So great people have great yetzer hara's- meaning more sophisticated challenges. I on the other hand am very small, so have a petty yetzer hara. Precisely because I'm on a level far below the Avos. The issue is when I read their struggles and translate it into my level. You can't say they had the same struggles as you and me while at the same time saying they were greater. Thats like giving a 5 year old and a professor the same level test! Harder test = greater person.
So the 5 year old and the professor both struggle with maths just like us and Yosefs brothers both struggle with jealousy. But you can hardly compare the maths of those two, nor the jealousy of us two. In fact it's dangerous to use the word jealousy for both because I translate that word into my language, which is a different language to theirs.
I haven't said an opinion there, I'm sure you realise that's obvious.
Please,if you have a rebuttal directly on what I have said then PM me. I'd love to continue but here you're not reading and then addressing the points I make. There's no real dialogue going on.
I've enjoyed this thanks and am unfortunately going to have to leave this discussion in the middle. [b]
I only got involved to defend the honour of our immeasurably great forefathers.

imorethanamother

Tue, Nov 20 2018, 5:00 pm

holylandgirl wrote:

I'd prefer not to privatize the discussion.

Let's discuss why what I said is not the contradiction you think it is. You said I'm not reading what you wrote, but I read it perfectly fine. Your point is that their struggles are on this huge, higher madregah than ours. No one is disputing that. I said myself that no one believes that we are somehow on equal footing with the giants that created our nation. And no one believes that they were small, petty people.

In fact, that's the OP's question. If WE KNOW that they're not small, petty people, then why does the Torah simplify their actions as such? I keep responding to the OP's original question. You, on the other hand, seem intent on telling me that the avos were far, far, far better people than we can even imagine, and the "sins" that the Torah says they performed are actually not sins at all.

Perhaps. But if that's the case, then why not have the Torah spell it out? That was my point. If the Torah implies that the sin is jealousy, but the sin is NOT jealousy, and in fact is no sin at all, but simply k'chut ha'sa'arah, then just . . . don't mention it? Or be much more specific. But the Torah doesn't, and the question is why. Many posters here said that it's because the Torah wants us to relate to the issues that the Avos struggled with. And I agree.

NO ONE SAID that we struggle the same in the same way. But it's also a mistake to say that the Avos had none of these sin-inducing feelings at all, and that they were as perfect as angels, which is your implication. I said that I would fail the test that all these Avos were given, but I do not believe that the Avos didn't struggle with these tests at all, as you imply.

To address your final point - we are saying the same thing. I never said that a five year old and a professor will struggle the same way on a math test. But they WILL struggle with defining the parameters of a complex spatial patterned system at their own level of understanding. I struggle with jealousy and the brothers struggled with jealousy. The "level" changes, obviously, but at its core issue is the struggle with that alien emotion that can undermine your spiritual progress. And the Torah wants you to understand that it's a dangerous emotion, even to someone as high and holy as the brothers.

imasoftov

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 5:17 am

amother wrote:

Now you see why women should not learn gemara & some even discourage learning chumash because women learn differently than men, you are all delving & you do not understand, it doesn't make sense to your sechel, then you say that it can't be or say things against the Torah chas vsholom because your limited mind doesn't understand all the layers & depth & the greatness of these people. Some people here want the Torah to have been written according to your level of understanding & satisfaction & according to current times & terminology. Leave these things for the talmidei chochomim to debate if you are too small to understand.

It seems to me that if it's bad for women to learn chumash, they also shouldn't hear about it. Don't ever tell them about the Avot and Imahot or Moshe Rabbenu. Make Shabbat without knowing about creation, make Pesach without hearing about Yetziat Mitzraim and stay in the kitchen while the Hagada is being read because it's got pesukim, never find out what happened on (or a day after ...) Shavuot, just make blintzes and cheesecake.

zaq

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 8:04 am

amother wrote:

Oh, you poor dear. You’ve swallowed whole the misogynistic pap you were fed in preschool and never bothered analyzing it yourself to see if it made sense. Last I learned, the Torah—the whole Torah, not selected and edited bits and pieces—was given to the entire nation of Israel, not to selected portions of it.

IIRC, we were all standing there at the base of Har Sinai having the living daylights scared out of us by the awesome majesty of the Word of G-d reverberating all around us. But it was about 4000 years ago so maybe I don’t remember correctly. Maybe we were really back in our tents baking strudel for the post-Mattan Torah kiddush while the menfolks were getting the Law.

If every eleven-year-old (or even younger) boy, regardless of personality, character, intellect, maturity, or interest or lack thereof, is permitted and sometimes forced to study not only Chumash and nach but also mishnayos and Gemara, I fail to see why such study is any less appropriate for his thirty-year-old mother, sixty-year-old grandmother, or eleven-year-old twin sister.

mo5

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 10:34 am

zaq wrote:

Just wanted to add that the women were taught the Torah first. כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל
Rashi says about Beis Yaakov: these are the women.

dankbar

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 12:14 pm

Why I'm saying is because when people start being choker when they dont understand the definitions, the nuances, they see some words contradict in Torah & they dont know deeper meaning it is offputting to them & they drop yiddishkeit sometimes. Of course its those that seek to challenge because they dont believe or are not so strong in their beliefs & questions. Those will twist Torah according to their whims. However, if learning deeper, enriches your experience, makes you closer to Hashem, makes you see the beauty of the Torah with all its layer & depths, DO go ahead. Kol Hakovod to you that you appreciate it.
I did say that in prior posts.

The reason the Torah is written in simple words is that we should peel away the outer layers & find the answers deeper. That's why Torah can be learned by a 5 year old & by 100 year old & they all learn it on a diff level. Also people that learned Torah countless times, can learn it yet again, & find new beautiful insights which they never knew before when learning same text. TORAH is not just a book.

dankbar

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 12:27 pm

With כה תאמר.... yes women first because we have the binah, the intuition, that this is the truth & this you need first as a platform to accept the torah. HASHEM knew that women will be easier to accept the Torah that's why it was first spoken to the women. It says women dont have the daas to learn gemara. Where there are difficult debates about halacha where you need to put your head to follow & know what the right answer is at the end. Mens brains are wired in a way more to use logic & that's why gemara was given to them. I believe that's why men were spoken to after women, because to their logical mind it has to make sense after they coined around with all sides & until they understand it.

Women are diff. Binah as intuition is an understanding that works as a feeling more.
Not all women can follow all the back & forth of gemara & then interpret wrong way. It's more of a men's thing.

Even if I enjoyed the deeper learning in school, today with all on my head as a mom, idk if I'd be able to follow along with pilpul....

amother

cornflower

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 11:50 pm

dankbar wrote:

You know what I think? I think that men made up that women's brains can't follow logic and are too emotional. Yes, there are sections of the gemara that discuss just how "light" a woman's knowledge is, but let's remember that, at the time:

- Women were married in their mid-teens.
- They weren't given formal schooling.
- They had babies in their teens and often until middle age or death.
- There was no infants formula, there was no kosher butcher, there was no washing machine, there was no dishwasher.
- Someone had to do all the housework - most of the Rabbaim didn't have money for maids and servants.

And voila! An easy peasy excuse as to why women couldn't possibly learn gemara, and a way to explain away the inequalities of the time period.

princessleah

Thu, Nov 22 2018, 12:42 pm

dankbar wrote:

I am going to call this what it is: drivel.

Historically gemara has been withheld from women, but NOT because we cannot understand. I'd bet you that every single woman on this website can understand it-- it just has its own internal logic that must be TAUGHT. Which it is to the boys (and some of us lucky girls).

And anyway, I don't agree that the Torah is written in "simplistic" language-- what does that mean anyway? It is written straightforwardly, but with layers of complexity and nuance, character depth and development, that is open to interpretation. Like any (L'HAVDIL) great work of literature

Mommyg8

Sat, Nov 24 2018, 11:17 pm

amother wrote:

These are all nice answers but are all difficult to understand.

1. Yes, Klal yisroel had to go thru galus Mitzrayim. We needed Yosef to be a leader in Mitzrayim. Hashem couldn't think think of a better way to orchestrate these events without having the brothers trying to murder Yosef?

2. If the imohos beauty was on the inside, let the torah say that. The loshon of the pesukeim say the were good looking woman who men lusted after. Doesn't sound like it means the inside.

3. Even if Yosef wanted to chap arein, that cause the shevatim to be jealous to the extent they tried to kill him? Very odd.

These are just so many stories like this in these parshas. For the most part the answers often involve "when it says this, it really meant that".

I'm also bothered by the story with the stones around Yackov's head. The pasuk first says stones and a few pesukin later it says a single stone. We all knoww the famous answer that the stones were fighting and so hashem made them a single stone. I wish the torah would have recounted this very important story. It just makes the pesukim look contradictory without this incredible pshat.

I know these have been answered, but I'll give it a shot as well...

1. Mechiras Yosef- the medrash says that the shevatim convened a bais din and paskened that he is chayav misah.

2. It says that Yaakov loved Rochel because she was beautiful. Then, just a few psukim later, it says that Yaakov waited seven years for Rochel, and the seven years felt like only a few days because of his great love for her. I have heard this explained that we see from this that this was not an ordinary love - if the would be based on lust each day would feel like seven years! This is how the ordinary kind of love works. The fact that it felt like only a few days shows that this was not a love based on ordinary attraction at all.

As for Reuven and Bilha - I know someone answered this upthread but I want to repeat it if anyone might have missed it - Rashi says that he moved Yaakovs bed from Bilhas tent to Leah's tent. After Rochel passed away, Yaakov moved his bed into Bilhas tent, and Reuven got upset and felt the honor of his mother was slighted. So hee moved it. The posuk says he slept with her because the Torah is medakdik batzadikim c'chut hasaarah, and on his level, it was considered like he slept with her.

You question why the chumash speaks in riddles sometimes, but that's how it is, because we have both the Torah shebichsav and the Torah shebaal peh to explain it. You can't understand a large part of the chumash without the Torah shebaal peh.

A simple example is Yom Kippur. The Torah says " you should afflict yourself". What's the correct way to afflict ourselves? So we all learned in preschool, there are five things ... But that's from the Torah Shebaal peh. Without the explanation, maybe I'll think I should walk on sharp nails - who knows? So we need the Gemarah to explain.

etky

Sun, Nov 25 2018, 12:50 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

I think it's important to distinguish between midrash halacha - halachot that chazal learned by applying coherent, systematic methods through which Torah is interpreted, and midrash aggada, which are expansions on the narrative portions of the Torah that do not produce halachot or authoritative conclusions. Moreover, more often than not, in midrash itself there are conflicting accounts of events that can't possibly be reconciled.