Avraham Avinu

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Avraham Avinu

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #613778

    It’s a little hard to word this. I don’t want to speak disparagingly of Avraham Avinu. Studying his life I see that he does show sadness and joy. He is exceedingly pious. The perfect tzadik. And that makes it a little hard to connect with him. After reading much of Midrash Rabbah, Rashi, Ramban, and some modern English stuff, I see Avraham portrayed as just always doing everything good – all the time. He seems as if Avraham he becomes ecstatic whenever he could do God’s bidding, and preoccupied himself with mitzvot when in the interim. It seems like his yetzer hara is completely subjugated. Even when he is going up to sacrifice Isaac, the Bible doesn’t really talk about what was going through his mind. Reading the story of David, however, I was able to really connect with him and feel his pain. Was Avraham a chariot for God who didn’t even think to disobey Him for a moment, for that would be blasphemy? Did he have many internal battles? Can we look at the tests of God as being exceedingly taxing on him? Does the Torah and Midrash text just not enumerate his internal battles or mistakes (other than a few) and just focuses on his obedience to God?

    #1040393
    akuperma
    Participant

    Of course he was human. We don’t hold by supernaturals. Both why would Humash (or the Aggadahs) bother to discuss anything that was irrelevant. We hold that Humash is an deliberately written work (by an extremely hashuv author, the best there is), not a scientific collection of data. Of course it is propaganda, and given who wrote it, it is propaganda we should take very seriously. If many things were left out, they were do so on purpose, and it isn’t for us to question the author’s purpose.

    #1040394

    Yes he was human, but no, that does not mean we need to feel we are able to relate to him.

    Different humans are on different levels, sometimes worlds apart. The people from tanach

    (including David) were on a completely different level than we are on today.

    “Anybody that says David sinned is mistaken” is a quote from chazal. It means that what we think were David’s sins are not really what they were at all.

    Do I understand that?

    No. But that’s the point.

    I realize this doesn’t answer you’re question, but I am questioning your need to be able to “relate” to the people in Tanach.

    #1040395
    Joseph
    Participant

    Avraham Avinu is more comparable to a malach than to mere mortals.

    #1040396
    Sam2
    Participant

    pickle: Maybe that’s the point. Some will connect more to David. Some will connect more to Avraham. That’s why we have both archetypes.

    #1040397
    writersoul
    Participant

    tcim: The quote about David sinning- I could easily be wrong, but didn’t that apply to very specific situations (like Batsheva, etc) and not to his entire life? There are people quoted in the gemara as never having sinned (Binyamin is an example) but I don’t believe that David is one of them.

    #1040398

    Writersoul, I think you are right about it referring specifically to the story with Batsheva.

    My point was that people from Tanach were on a level that not many of us can imagine.

    Yes, we need to draw inspiration from them and their actions, but to be able to “relate” – I don’t think that’s something we can do. And if we are doing it and drawing parallels then we don’t understand who they truly were.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    #1040399
    my own kind of jew
    Participant

    “Yes he was human, but no, that does not mean we need to feel we are able to relate to him.

    Different humans are on different levels, sometimes worlds apart. The people from tanach

    (including David) were on a completely different level than we are on today.

    “Anybody that says David sinned is mistaken” is a quote from chazal. It means that what we think were David’s sins are not really what they were at all.

    Do I understand that?

    No. But that’s the point.

    I realize this doesn’t answer you’re question, but I am questioning your need to be able to “relate” to the people in Tanach.”


    And so, functionally, it’s the same thing as saying they were Malachim. The whole point of emphasizing their humanity is to show that they were human (like us) and had the same sort of choices and internal trials as you could imagine any human having. that the tests given to them were actual TESTS, things that required not just physical, but mental and emotional exertion as well.

    As for David, yes he sinned. He wasn’t some God-King, or some Malach of Hashem that could do no wrong. He was a human, prone to the same weaknesses and needs that drive all humans today.

    (thats not to say that he had the exact same inner-trial as say I do, the same way you don’t have the exact same ones I do. But we do have relatable ones, that others can understand).

    But he acknowledged that sin. And repented for it. And moved on. Just like we can.

    The Torah doesn’t tell us stories about their lives for the sake of knowledge. The Torah is not a history book. It’s a text meant to teach us lessons about how to live our lives.

    Avraham Avinu is their to show us how to be kindhearted people, yet to also show that Hashem comes before our own perceived notions of kindness. He passed a test that few would ever pass. He was the most loving, kind person around, yet he put that aside to follow Hashem’s will.

    And he is something to look up to, to try and emulate. But even if we can’t perfectly match him, that doesn’t mean it’s hopeless. the point is the journey, not so much the destination.

    As for David, he was the king. A prophet of Hashem. There was every reason to believe he would not be capable of such a sin, relating to such a base human desire. Yet he was.

    The tanach wasn’t interested in telling us gossip. it wasn’t just telling us a fun story. It’s meant to teach us something.

    Even David was vulnerable to such a thing. All the more sop to us.

    Yet even David was repented and was forgiven. yet it wasn’t because of his previous status. It was because he sincerely felt bad about what he did, and did teshuva.

    Or at least that’s the way I see things.

    #1040400
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    writersoul:

    You are correct that David is not listed as one of those who never sinned: ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? (Bava Basra 17a) Although the Gemara there does say ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???… ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? whatever that means (see Tosafos for example).

    Regarding the other Gemara (Shabbos 56a) which says ?”? ????? ??

    ????? ??? ?’ ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????, I don’t think thechoiceismine was applying the quote to David’s entire life. I think he/she that we can’t necessarily take the literal story at face value. The statement of the Gemara is not saying that David didn’t do anything wrong; it’s saying that it wasn’t eishes ish.

    Interestingly, it would seem from the Gemara in Kesubos (9a-9b) that David did literally sin with an eishes ish. The Gemara asks ??? ????

    ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? and answers ??? ???? ???. The Gemara then gives an alternative answer that ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? in which case Batsheva would not be considered an eishes ish. But according to the first answer, it seems that she was. The Chelkas Mechokek (11:10) in fact (in discussing the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch about an eishes ish about whom eidim testify that she was mezaneh) writes: ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????’ ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??”? ???? ????? (?????? ?”? ?”?) ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????’ ?????’ ???? ???”? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???”? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?”? ????? ?????? ?”? ??? ????? ???’ ??????? ???? ??”? ??”? ?????? ?? ?? ?? (??”? ?????? ?? ?? ???’ ??”? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??”? ????? ???’ ??”?) ???? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? which seems to be understanding the Gemara’s first answer as I wrote above – that Batsheva was actually an eishes ish.

    Additionally, the Gemara itself (back in Shabbos 56a) says ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? which could indicate that the limud zechus is not so simple. Indeed this is one of the Abarbanel’s justifications for stridently rejecting the statement ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????. He claims that David actually sinned with Batsheva as an eishes ish and that the gemara is ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? and that the defense provided for David is ?? ??? ????. (I would quote it in its entirety but it’s a bit too long – it’s in Samuel 2 in the beginning of chapter 11.) It must be noted thought that the Abarbanel is a major daas yochid in this and the Malbim already somewhat castigated him for this in his comments to verse 3:

    ??? ???? ?? ???? ??”? (??? ?? ?) ????? ?????? ??????

    ayyen sham.

    Also, the Abarbanel does not bring the Gemara in Kesubos as a proof, and I have yet to see any mefaresh who does.

    #1040401
    benignuman
    Participant

    One story I find very relatable from Avraham Avinu is when Sarah asked him to send away Yishmael and Avraham didn’t want to do so. For Avraham this was expelling his son from his home. Avraham ultimately does it because he knows it is what Hashem wants but it is still a very bad thing in his eyes and very painful.

    I think we see multiple times in Tanach and Chazal that Avraham Avinu viewed Yishmael as his son, and loved him very much. Avraham had a very hard time giving Yitzchok such primacy over Yishmael. Such cruelty to his flesh and blood was very difficult even though it was the right thing to do.

    A parent that has to take a hard-line with a rebellious child for the good of the rest of the family can surely look to Avraham for inspiration.

    #1040402

    If I sound monomaniacal about ascertaining the internal battles of Avraham, it’s because I’m trying to write a novel and I really have no idea how to portray his emotions. As for the idea of being like a malach, Tehillim 90 calls Moshe “??? ??????” which Devarim Rabbah 11:4 interprets as saying Moses attained the status as a malach. As for David, the Tanach itself says he sinned (such as when he made the census at the very ends of Divrei HaYomim and Sh’muel Bet). I’m pretty certain what happened was he sinned when sending Uriyah to his death, which David was punished with the death of his first baby who came from Batsheva, and Chazal was saying that he didn’t actually sin with Batsheva.

    #1040403
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    A few clarifications about my last post:

    1) I wrote it before the previous two posts went up – it seems that I was incorrect about what thechoiceismine meant.

    2) Only the first two paragraphs were specifically addressed to writersoul.

    3) ????? ?????? ???? should be ????? ??????? ????

    4) I didn’t really explain the Gemara in Kesubos and what I was doing with it. So here goes: R’ Elazar says that a woman becomes assur to her husband if she was warned about and was then secluded with another man (????? ??????), just like in the ???? ???? of David and Batsheva. The Gemara questions this since in the ???? ???? there was no ????? ?????? and Batsheva didn’t become assur to her husband. The Gemara proceeds to clarify what R’ Elazar actually said and then asks why l’maaseh didn’t Batsheva become assur to her husband. The Gemara answers that Batsheva was taken unwillingly. The Gemara offers an alternative answer that Batsheva was not an eishes ish since Uriah gave her a some type of get before going to war. The first answer definitely seems to be assuming that she was an eishes ish, just that an eishes ish who is taken unwillingly does not become assur to her husband. The Chelkas Mechokek (and the Rashash as well) use this answer as the halachic source that an eishes ish does not become assur to her husband if taken unwillingly. This can only be a source if Batsheva was actually an eishes ish. (The Chelkas Mechokek grants that the Gemara gave an alternative answer but that the halacha of the first answer is still true.) I haven’t seen any mefarshim use this Gemara against the Gemara in Shabbos (although I have seen people say this – but not people who qualify as mefarshim).

    5) The Abarbanel’s main point is that the Gemara in Shabbos is completely against what it actually says in the pesukim.

    #1040405
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    6) I left out the eord “meant” in “I think he/she that we can’t necessarily take the literal story at face value”.

    #1040406
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Also, I don’t understand the Gemara’s proof that from the fact the pasuk says that the Shechina was with Dovid, it is clear that he didn’t sin. Why is that so? Maybe he sinned and did Teshuva? And anyway, the Gemara in Berachos 5a asks how Dovid could call himself a chasid if he wasn’t sure if he would have a chelek amongst the tzadikim l’asid lavoh, and answers that he only wasn’t sure because he might have sinned and therefore lost it. That shows, though, that even if he sinned, he would still be considered a chasid.

    #1040407
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    When the ????? is with someone it doesn’t let him sin. So, unless the person went sour it can’t be that he fell upon such a sin.

    The ???”? explains that since this was the only reason he didn’t sin it was counted as if he did. He gives an example of someone about to steal from you and since you don’t want him to be ???? the ??? of ????? you are ????? the object. Now, the only reason you were ????? the object was because of the impending ?????. Therefore it’s not as if it never took place. Had the case been that he tried to sneak in and steal but found everything locked, that would indeed be as if it never happened, since it never came to fruition. (Similar to the ???? of ????? ???? ????. )

    #1040408
    Chortkov
    Participant
    #1040409
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    It must be noted thought that the Abarbanel is a major daas yochid in this and the Malbim already somewhat castigated him for this

    I just saw this today in M’pininei Harav by R’ Herschel Shachter:

    ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????-???????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????”? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????-??????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????”? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????”? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??????

    ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ??????

    ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??”? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????-??????????

    ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????”? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???

    This was probably one of the Abarbanel’s comments that ???? (R’ Soloveitchik) didn’t approve of.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.