Avishai David[1]
Ed's Note: The following
is an approach to the question of how
to present Biblical figures to our students:
As larger than life or as very human.
Ten Da'at invites additional perspectives and approaches.
The
Ramban in his commentary on the Torah has repeatedly articulated the dictum "maaseh
avot siman l’vanim”. The
footsteps of our Avot and Imahot are writ large on the pages
of Jewish history for they blazed
the contours of our future. We,
their descendants, are mandated to flesh out those outlines and parameters. They functioned in a
"creative" capacity, designing the course of history; we, by precise
scrutiny of their lives can glean for ourselves patterns of our history, but we
are only treading in their footsteps. A concomitant but equally significant component of this
principle is the faith and strength displayed by the Avot and Imahot.
Just as they confronted trials and tribulations and emerged spiritually
unscathed so, too, we can be confident of our ultimate ability to survive the
long night of galut and ultimately merit the geulah.
How should Jewish educators
present these role models to their students? A cursory examination of the
Ramban in his commentary on the Torah seems to reveal conflicting outlooks. In parshat Hayei Sarah,
the Ramban, commenting on the verse that describes Eliezer, the servant of
Abraham, removing the muzzles from the camels, notes that it is impossible to
conceive that the piety of Rav Pinhas Ben Yair was greater than that displayed
by Avraham Avinu. Just as the
donkey of Rav Pinhas Ben Yair was afforded Heavenly protection in his diet, a
fortiori, were the camels of Avraham. This fact obviated the need to muzzle them, for a righteous
person such as Avraham couldn't possibly be subject to mishap of any sort. In sharp contradistinction, the Ramban,
in two different contexts, takes Avraham and Sarah to task. Commenting on verse 10 in chapter 12 of
Bereishit that describes Avraham going to Egypt as a consequence of a famine in
Eretz Yisrael, the Ramban notes:
Know that Avraham Avinu inadvertently
committed a great transgression by placing his righteous wife in a stumbling
block of sin because of his fear lest they kill him; he should have relied on
the Almighty that He would save him and his wife and all his possessions....
Also his departure from the land that he was commanded about at the outset,
because of famine, was a sin he committed, for the Almighty in famine would
redeem him from death. Because of
this incident the decree of galut in the land of Egypt at the hands of
Pharaoh was imposed on his seed; the place of judgment is the place of
transgression and wrong.
The Ramban, in
this striking comment, has linked the exile in Egypt with the actions of
Avraham. Later (16:6), the Torah
notes that Sarah afflicted Hagar, and the Ramban comments: "Our mother
sinned with this act of affliction, and also Avraham by permitting her to do
this. God heard her [Hagar's]
affliction and gave her a son that would be a 'pereh adam’ to afflict
the seed of Avraham and Sarah with all types of affliction." Again the Ramban has connected
the actions of Avraham and Sarah with the maltreatment of generations of the Jews
at the hands of the descendants of Yishmael.
The Ran in his Drashot asks the
following questions on the Ramban's comment regarding the famine: 1) Later on we encounter a famine during
the days of Yitzhak (26:1), and he too wanted to go to Egypt to escape the
throes of the famine. The Almighty
commanded him to remain in Eretz Yisrael. The Ran asks, if
Avraham's descent to Egypt constitutes a transgression, then why would Yitzchak want to follow
such a course: ipso facto, we must assume that Yitzhak was unaware
that this was tantamount to a sin and therefore chose to do so as a rational
choice given the exigency of the moment. If so, how did the Ramban know that it was a transgression? 2) Furthermore if jeopardizing his
wife's situation also constituted a transgression, why then did Yitzhak
simulate this behavior?
To resolve these questions, one must probe the aforementioned principle maaseh avot
siman l'vanim. The
first seventy-five years of the life of Abraham aren't subject to the principle
of maaseh avot. Every subsequent event transcribed by the Torah has
signal relevance for the future unfolding development of kneset Yisrael.
Avraham and Sarah are the roots of
the tree and we are the branches and foliage. The frenetic hakhnasat orhim of Abraham, of "I pray you, let a little water be brought," is related to the well that sustained
the Jewish people in the desert; the morsel of bread given to the orhim
by Abraham, to the manna in the
desert; the afflictions suffered by Pharaoh in Egypt during the days of
Abraham, to the afflictions given out to Pharaoh, King of Egypt; Avraham
leaving Egypt laden with material goods, to the booty taken by the Jews when
they left Egypt. The footprints of the Avot and Imahot are
therefore indelibly etched into our historical psyche. Therefore, even though
the Ramban takes Abraham to task, once the Avot chose to act as they
did, it automatically assumed the cosmic dimensions of maaseh avot
siman l'vanim. Similarly
Hazal critique Yaakov in initiating the encounter with Esav, described in the
beginning of parshat Vayishlah cited by the Ramban. Yet even
though Yaakov could and perhaps should have chosen an alternate approach and modus
operandi, once he opted for a particular methodology it became hallowed
in our value system. The shtadlanut of Yaakov became a paradigm for Jews
throughout their sojourn galut.
The query of the Ran is therefore resolved. Even though Abraham and Yaakov should
have employed a different path, the maaseh avot siman l'vanim
dictated that the identical course be followed by their descendants. Therefore, Yitzhak initially chose,
during a period of famine, to follow his father until he received the Divine
directive enjoining him to remain and dwell in this land. The position of the
of Ramban is inherent in the precise terminology of the Midrash Rabah he cites
in chapter 12, verse 10 in Bereishit: "Rabbi Pinhas in the name of Rabbi
Oshaya by stated: The Almighty told Abraham, go and pave the road for your
children." The midrash
continues, "And you find that all that is written regarding Abraham is
written regarding his children." Therefore, the Ramban suggests, perhaps the descent to Egypt was a transgression, but once Abraham blazed the trail,
Yitzhak had to follow suit.
The superstructure that undergirds the history of kneset
Yisrael was established by the Avot and Imahot and we can
only understand our strengths and weaknesses by studying their lives with
exceeding care. The Ramban, throughout
his commentary on Bereishit, doesn't fail to accentuate the righteousness of
the Avot and Imahot, in general, and Abraham and Sarah in
particular. The Ramban focuses on
their impeccable faith and piety, their stalwart commitment and their consuming
love of God.[2]
The
position of the Ramban, therefore, is that even if a particular position posed
by the Avot and Imahot was lacking in appropriateness, it still
has eternal validity and fits into the schemata of maaseh avot siman
l'vanim. The source the kedushah
of the Avot and Imahot and in their saintly character. They were human beings who by dint of
their extraordinary efforts developed and nurtured their personalities. Ramban in his commentary on the Torah
has extensively developed the Talmudic notion (Yevamot 121b) that the Almighty
deals with the righteous utilizing a different barometer and standard. Harav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch
(Bereishit, 12:10-13) in commenting on the Ramban regarding the transgression
of Abraham, poignantly notes that the Torah never defies our great leaders and tzadikim
but presents them as human beings who struggled violently to achieve profound
virtues. By honestly describing
their characters we are able to relate to them and view them as our role
models. It is in that vein that Hazal
instruct us "A person is obligated to say, when will my actions reach
those of Abraham, Yitzhak and Yaakov." If we view them as transcendent demigods, they will be beyond
our intellectual and emotional purview. If we view them as human beings who achieved dizzying
spiritual heights through their indefatigable self-discipline, then we can begin to comprehend their
attainments. Indeed, it is a subtle distinction but a profoundly important one.
It's enormously difficult, if not well nigh impossible, to gain parity with the
Avot and Imahot, but we are and instructed to attempt to reach (matay
yageea) or touch their heavenly bound footsteps (Sefat Emet). The Mishnah in Masekhet Megila (25a)
states: "The episode of Tamar is read in the synagogue and
translated." It's explained in the Talmud that one might have deemed this
improper out of respect for Yehudah, but the conclusion is that the passage
only redounds to his credit for it underscores the middah of confession
exhibited by Yehudah. Harav
Solveitchik shlitah has, in this vein, contrasted the personalities of
Yosef and Yehuda in light of a dual typology employed by the Ramban in his Shemonah
Perakim. Yosef is the
"congenital tzadik and hasid" who successfully defeats
the yetzer hara at every juncture. Yehuda is the courageous individual
who may have faltered but ultimately rose to the challenge and as a result of
those qualities merited kingship.
There exists a tendency to either
portray the Avot and Imahot as angels that we cannot relate to or
to depict them as finite mortals with foibles and weaknesses that we encounter
daily. The first position engenders the problem described above; the second,
however, reveals an egregious lack of understanding of individuals whom the
Ramban often characterizes in kabbalistic terms as being "the chariot of
the Almighty." The Ramban was
able to carve out a position, which accords them the ultimate derekh eretz
for their kedushah and piety, while simultaneously demonstrating their
pristine humanity. In his Guide
for the Perplexed (part 3, chapter 51), the Ramban states:
When we have acquired a true knowledge of God and rejoice in that knowledge in such a manner, that while speaking to others or attending to our bodily wants, our mind is all that time with God; when we are with our heart constantly near God, even while our body is in the society of men...then we have attained not only the height of ordinary prophets, but of Moses, our teacher...The Patriarchs likewise attained this degree of perfection.... Their mind was so identified with the knowledge of God that He made a lasting covenant with each of them.... When we therefore find them also engaged in ruling others, in increasing their property, and endeavoring to obtain possession of wealth and honor, we see in this fact a proof that when they were occupied in these things, only their bodily limbs were at work, while their heart and mind never moved away from the name of God....
One must, therefore, be extraordinarily careful
not to approach the Avot with an intellectual arrogance that would
equate them with everyday mortals, but simultaneously one must not catapult
them to heights where any attempt to relate to them and learn from them would
constitute an impediment to relatively spiritual Liliputians. It's a tensile balancing act that must
be utilized recognizing the pitfalls in both approaches. If we succeed however, we will achieve
recognition that there is no conflict and the Avot and 1mahot
will become our guides and role models in our lives. As the prophet Isaiah (51:1-2) expressed: "Look unto the
rock from where you were hewn and to the hole of the pit from where you are
digged. Look onto Avraham your
father and onto Sarah that bore you, for I called him alone and blessed him and
increased him."