Avraham Avinu

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.

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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/kashas-on-the-parsha/page/3#post-412934