<HTML>Ethics and Parshat Hashavu'a revisited:
I was very flattered by the passionate responses to my posting,
unfortunately it was misinterpreted. I didn't and still don't want to get
into a local discussion of Ya'akov's treatment of his elderly father.
There are many different and valid interpretations. Certainly the ones
that were sent in were presented forcefully and convincingly. There is
also a lovely and brilliant explanation offered by Rav S.R. Hirsh.
However to the best of my knowledge this is a list which deals with
educational issues, not parshanut. The question was one of ethics and
Parshat Hashavu'a and the questioner specifically mentioned the issue of
Ya'akov (which I noted was not such a good example). Of course one
approach would be to deflect each and every local example which obviously
could not be treated within the context of this list. The postings of
Kosofsky and Zweiter fall into this category (and on a local level I may
agree with them). On the other hand what I attempted to show was a more
general method, which I will repeat for those who didn't catch it the
first time.
The questioner was bothered by lack of what appears as proper moral
behavior on the part of the Avot in certain instances. The teacher is
faced with a dilemma of either being forced to consider such behavior
acceptable, perhaps with the inclusion of certain apologetics, some more
convincing and some less. This has clear-cut educational drawbacks both on
the moral level as well as the one of faith. On the other hand the teacher
can suggest criticism, cover his ethical flank, but tarnish the shining
picture the students have of the avot, with obvious consequences. (In our
case; perhaps Esav not Ya'akov should have really received the brachot.)
I suggested (for certain audiences) the possibility of separating the
basic questions of the stature and destiny of the avot which must be
forcefully taught and universally accepted, from local incidents which can
(and at times should) be criticized. Within this context we can
distinguish between the means Ya'akov employed versus the clear-cut
legitimate end, without resorting to some flimsy mutation of the ends
justify the means.
This however is connected to a broader issue of whether the Avot should be
portrayed as human beings, suffering from human passions and frailties,
despite the great heights they attained both on the plain of faith as well
as the one of human sensitivity. Or perhaps we should paint a picture of
beings which totally transcend the human condition, whose heavenly images
are graven into the "kisei hakavod".
Of course "eilu v'eilu", and the mefarshim and the midrashim vary
regarding this issue. However within this context it should be noted that
the latter approach, does not allow for any real level of identification,
and the ma'ase avot cannot be used as a siman for the banim we are trying
to educate. However the first approach, if followed with caution, can help
us and our talmidim identify in much more profound way with the Avot their
experiences hopes and tragedies.
It is no secret that Rav Lichtenstein adopted the human approach, and that
in this regard he followed the commentary of the Ramban who treated the
Avot with deep human insight. Of course, if human, limited failure is
possible, without necessarily diminishing from their overall greatness.
These "failings" must also be taught within the context of human
greatness, and can be a very effective and positive educational venture,
both as far as morality is concerned as well as faith.
However, despite making a passing reference that a teacher must know one's
audience, I should have been more explicit. In my opinion this approach is
not necessary or wise when dealing with young children. They should be
taught that Yaakov is a tzaddik and Esav is a rasha without any ifs ands
or buts. It is doubtful that on that level the story cannot be presented
in such a way that ethical questions wouldn't even arise.
Furthermore, a frum audience would consider the human approach
blasphemous. The frum community is perfectly satisfied with the ideal view
of the avot, and in general wouldn't even be aware that there is a moral
issue at stake. If the issue does arise, the local approach justifying
behavior is probably the best response, and" eilu v'eilu..."
One must also be cautious with an audience that is looking for an excuse
to attack tradition and rabbinic Judaism. No matter how much caution is
employed, any critique of the avot will fuel the negative opinion which
they already have and legitimize further attacks on basic Jewish
institutions.
Nevertheless, there is a wide range of talmidim who don't fall into any
one of the above categories. For them portraying the avot as great human
beings (despite limited failings) is not only a legitimate position but a
very fruitful one as well.
Rav Yair Kahn</HTML>
