Emily Shapiro ATID 1999

Approaching the Avot

The characters of the Bible have always intrigued me. I, like many, have always been

particularly attracted to the characters in בראשית ספר . The attraction to this text and its

characters has been described by Naomi Rosenblatt:

Genesis is populated by surprisingly modern personalities living in the real world – imperfect human beings inspired by a lofty spiritual ideal, but whose feet of clay drag plaintively along the ground. They are husbands and wives, parents and children, constantly torn between their highest aspirations and their basest instincts. They are at once bold visionaries engaged in direct dialogue with God and frail human beings trapped in their own self-destructive behavior. The greatest heroes of Genesis are often the most deeply conflicted, and the children of each generation, like our own, are obliged to work through the same personal problems that plagued their parents.1

I intuitively related to these personalities and appreciated the Bible’s total candor in

portraying them with both their highest and lowest human drives. My personal and family

background may have contributed to this understanding. As a תשובה בעלת , who gradually

became observant through and beyond my high school years, I was reassured by the

knowledge that one could err and still be loved and great. I saw a striking dissonance

between the actual text, in which the characters are often portrayed as flawed or weak, and the

tradition, in which the same characters are popularly perceived as great heroes and saints. I

believe it was this dissonance that I found inspirational, as Burton Visotzky explains:

Like Genesis there is a disparity between who we really are and who we wish to be, the face we present to everyone else. The gap between those two parts of us, if you will, the profane and the sacred, is what draws us so powerfully to Genesis…We wish to make our own narrative as well respected, as universally acclaimed, as canonized as Genesis. It is this possibility of mediating the dissonance that is the powerful appeal of Genesis. When we observe the disparity between the storied in Genesis and their sacred reception, we yearn to accomplish the same for ourselves. 2

Therefore, when I began teaching, I was naturally inclined to teach the Biblical

characters. First, I taught a course entitled “Women in the Bible” to the women in my local

1 Naomi Rosenblatt and Joshua Horowitz, Wrestling with Angels, (New York: Dell, 1995), p. xxvi.

2 Burton Visotzky, The Genesis of Ethics, (New York: Crown, 1996), p. 11.?

Jewish community. Then, in Israel, I began teaching a course entitled “Biblical

Personalities,” in an all female post- high school seminary in Jerusalem. I combined both the

literal text and the aggadic literature, to present my overall impressions of the particular

character. Following the method of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, I presented them as “Biblical-

historical characters and also archetypal figures in some way relevant to the inner life of the

modern society and politics as well.”3

The study of the Biblical characters proved to be exciting and stimulating for teacher and

pupil alike. I invited my students to be creative and analytical. However, my experiences in

both of the above settings forced me to reevaluate my approach to the Biblical characters. I

began to confront many religious, philosophical, psychological, and educational challenges.

Although I had personally been religiously inspired by my approach to the characters, I

became confused by how I should present the same material to my students. On the one hand,

I encountered students who were quick to call Jacob a “liar” for misleading his father and

Avraham “disgusting” for leaving his wife in Egypt.4 In addition to this outright criticism, the

middle aged women were prone to diagnose the Biblical characters with some Pop-

psychological disorder from a recent Self-help best seller they had read. On the other hand, I

taught students who were outraged by even the suggestion that the אבות could be anything but

perfect. I once suggested that Yosef did not contact his father when he was in Egypt because

he mistakenly believed that his father had intentionally rejected him. I did not intend to

criticize Yosef, but simply to explain his possible insecurities. Nevertheless, one student was

furious and responded “Yosef was not just any stupid seventeen year old who would be

overly sensitive to his father’s rebuke! He could not make a mistake or misunderstand. He

was הצדיק יוסף !”5

3 Adin Steinsaltz, Biblical Images, (New York: Basic Books, 1984), p xvi.4 All quotes are taken from actual classes that I taught this year. 55 Student reaction must also be evaluated based on their relationship with and view of his/her particular teacher. This paper will not cover the variety of issues involved in the student-teacher relationship. It is understood that the student must have faith and respect for the teacher in order to accept his/her interpretation.

Both of these extremes bothered me religiously and educationally. I found both to be

reflective of a simplistic and offensive understanding of both literature and theology. On the

one hand, I did not want my students to read בראשית as an “ugly little soap opera about a

dysfunctional family.”6 I wanted to instill respect and love for the characters. I began to

question my original assumptions that “the men and women of Genesis are very much like

you and me – lusting for pleasure and power, dealing with sibling rivalry, and learning from

trial and error…”7 Avraham, Yizchak, and Yaakov were not just “like you and me.” God

spoke to them, performed miracles for them, and promised them to be the founders of our

great nation. Maybe in allowing myself, and my students, to identify with and relate to the

:I was deserving of Rabbi Wolpin’s condemnation ,אבות

And then there are silver-tongued preachers who hope to inspire their flocks with all sorts of homilies drawn from Bible stories, making the Avos hakedoshim “jes’folks,” with the same kind of personal weaknesses and domestic problems that you and I have. Their agenda is commendable: to make us better people. But the price – in terms of cutting down Biblical personalities to “accessible” size – is much, much too high.8

On the other hand, I wanted my students to read the text literally and objectively. I

wanted them to relate to and learn from the characters’ accomplishment and defeats. I

believed that there was value in encouraging my students to use their lives to illuminate the

text.

Although this discussion is relevant to the study of all Biblical characters, such as

Moshe, David, and Shimshon, it is particularly controversial in reference to the אבות. There

is greater hesitance in judging the actions or traits of the אבות for a number of reasons.

Howard Deitcher is correct in noting that “by virtue of the fact that Bible study generally

begins with the narrative portions of the book of Genesis, the child’s initial exposure is to the

Biblical characters.”9 Unfortunately, for many, this exposure is the last they formally receive

in their Jewish education. “Many people continue to view the Avos from their kindergarten 6 Visotzky, p. 9 .?

7 Rosenblatt, p. xviii.? 8 Nisson Wolpin, “Approaching the Avos – Through Up-Reach or Drag-Down?” The Jewish Observer XXIV,2 (March 1991) p. 48.9 Howard Deitcher, “The Child’s Understanding of the Biblical Personality,” Studies in Jewish Education (Jerusalem: Magnum, 1990), p. 168.

perspective of good people who happened to talk with God. Indeed, Rabbi Yaakov

Kaminetzky often pointed out how we fail to have our concept of the Avos mature along with

us as we grow older."10 In addition, the אבות, more than any other Biblical figures, hold a

special place in our hearts and minds. They are our founding fathers; we are the Chosen

People because they were chosen. We evoke their names so that God will answer our prayers

in their merit, אבות בזכות , even if we are not deserving. If we denigrate them, it is felt, we are

destroying our own national and personal self image. Finally, there is no condemnation of the

found explicitly in the verses of Genesis. In Samuel II 12, following David’s affair with אבות

Batsheva, Natan the prophet proclaims, “why did you disgrace the word of Hashem to do

evil?” and David himself responds “I have sinned against Hashem.” There also seems to be a

clear formula of sin and punishment found in the life of Moshe. “And the Lord said to Moses

and Aaron: ‘Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of

Israel, therefore you will not bring this assembly into the Land which I have given them.’”11

An explicit evaluation of the behavior of the אבות, by God or one of his prophets, does not

appear in בראשית ספר . We may feel uneasy when Sarah expels Hagar or when Yaakov takes

Esau’s birthright. However, we are wary to judge, because the text itself does not seem to

indict them for these actions.

For the above reasons, there is a popular assumption that “…genuine Jewish

fundamentalists would not easily shed their inhibitions about criticizing the pariarchs”12

Although this may be found in a large portion of Jewish literature, there has never been one

unified approach. Rather, the interpreters of the text, from the midrash until modern day,

presented the Biblical personalities based on various religious, educational, and societal

factors. The Biblical interpreters understood the importance of knowing their audience. Their

interpretations reflect what they assumed to be the spiritual and intellectual stage of their

10 Wolpin, p. 48. 11 Numbers 20, 12.?

12 David Silber, “On the Morality of the Patriarchs in Jewish Polemic and Exegesis,” Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah (New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1996) pp. 131-146.

particular audience. The world of the patriarchs was not permanently fixed but varied with

the context of society.

Throughout history, the image that inspires and entertains has varied. Marshall Fishwick

writes, “Style in heroes, as in everything else, changes.”13 Even the meaning of the word has

evolved.

In Greek, “hero” came to mean a superhuman or semidivine being whose special powers were put forth to save or help all mankind or a favored part of it. The Greek hero was normally less than a god and yet more than merely human …by about the seventeenth century, ‘hero’ in English could mean any notable or great human being, while at the same time keeping its more restricted Greek sense…today any admirable human being can be called a hero – a saint or business man, baseball player or writer. 14

Throughout the history of literature there have been shifts in the definition and perception of

the hero.

In the early Middle Ages the heroic dominates; in the Latter Middle Ages and early Renaissance the anti-heroic dominates. In the later Renaissance the heroic once again comes to the fore, even though its opposite is by no means dead… This period is followed by a dry-period of anti-heroism in the eighteenth century… Then the cynical hero and the anti-heroic hero of the post war period follow. Finally, very recently the tide seems to be turning again and we find new heroes – in the old sense – gurus and the like.15 The period and location of the Biblical interpreters has also effected what type of heroes they

chose to create for their readers.

The treatment of Biblical characters is extensive in the midrashic texts.

…in the laconic style of the Bible, we find a significant cause of the necessity for midrash. Midrash comes to fill in the gaps, to tell us the details that the Bible teasingly leaves out: what did Isaac think as his father took him to be sacrificed? The Bible doesn’t tell us, but the midrash fills it in with rich and varied descriptions. Why did Cain kill Abel? Once again the Bible is silent, but Midrash is filled with explanation. How tall was Adam as he walked in the garden? Look to the midrashic materials, not to the Bible for such details. The human mind desires answers, motivations, explanations. Where the Bible is mysterious and silent, the Midrash comes to unravel the mystery. 16

Many popular images of the Biblical characters are based on the Midrashic version and not

necessarily the Biblical one. Nechama Leibovitz’s famous story is a good example of this

phenomenon:

13 Marshall Fishwick, The Hero, American Style (New York: McKay, 1969), p. 10. 14 Norman Burns and Christopher Reagan, Concepts of the Hero in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Albany: New York Press, 1975), p. 22.15 Burns, p. 32.16 Barry Holtz, Back to the Sources (New York: Summit Books, 1984), p 54.

She recalls asking a group of lieutenants to open their Bibles and locate the story in which Avraham smashes his father’s idols. The soldiers feverishly leafed through the Book of Genesis, eager to show their renowned teacher their extensive knowledge of Scripture. They became increasingly frustrated as they failed to find the story that they remembered so vividly from their early childhood. Finally one soldier looked bewilderedly at Professor Leibovitz, and asked her if the Bible they were currently using was the same edition as the one they had studied at school.17

The impression of the אבות that we obtain from the midrashim is obviously very powerful.

Yitzchak Heinemann notes that the style in the midrash is often contrastive. “From here

developed the schematic contrasts of ‘צדיקים’ and ‘רשעים’ that the Aggadah desired no less

than the early stoics. One group is absolutely different from the next…the צדיקים say little

and do much, the רשעים say much and do little; they differ in life: the beginning for the

:they differ even in death ;רשע is strife and their end happiness, the opposite for the צדיקים

the רשעים are choked and ‘their deaths are not in heavens or earth,’ while the צדיקים are

buried in the earth and their souls are bound in the binds of life in the heavens.”18 The

midrash also creates epithets to emphasize these polarized stereotypes such as “ הצדיק יוסף ”

and “ הרשע טיטוס .” The midrash will forgo the פשט in order to uphold the image that “the

:were not controlled by the evil inclination.”19 In this vein, Baba Batra 109 rules that אבות

“Anyone who mentions the צדיק and does not praise him and anyone who mentions the רשע

and does not curse him transgresses a positive commandment.” Therefore, the trickery of

Jacob, the jealousy of Rachel, and the participation of Aaron in the sin of the Golden Calf are

all justified in the midrash.20 The most extreme example of this approach may be illustrated

by Rabbi Yonatan’s opinion in Shabbat 55b that anyone who says that Reuben, the sons of

Eli, the sons of Samuel, David and Shlomo sinned “is nothing but mistaken.”

The midrash does not only make the “good guys” look really good, it makes the “bad

guys” look really bad. The aggadah adds to the evilness of the “רשעים.” The midrash often

portrayed any gentile as evil. Even characters who did not do anything explicitly negative in

17 Howard Deitcher, “The Child’s Understanding of Aggadic Literature,” Studies in Jewish Education (Jerusalem: Magnum, 1992), p. 84.

18 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1954 ,)p. 47. אגדה דרכי Yitzchak Heinemann ,? 19 Baba Bathra 17a?

20 Bereshit Rabbah 65,18; Bereshit Rabbah 71,6; Seder Eliyahu Zuta 4?

the text, like the wife of Lot, Pharoah in the Josef story, and Vashti are all judged negatively

in the midrashic report.21 The gentiles that are clearly portrayed as righteous in the text, such

as Rachav, Bat Pharoah, the sailors in Yonah,22 are deemed exceptional by the midrash

because they converted to Judaism.

Heinemann calls this contrastive approach “ המוסרי ניגוד .” Like wisdom literature, which

often presents an ideal religious-ethical image (“the wise man who also has fear of Heaven

and controls his evil inclination and is speedy is his work) versus his opponent (the lazy

wicked fool). These unrealistic images were created to inspire both the individual and

national spirit.

…Abraham, Jacob, Moses and other Biblical figures were held up as models of conduct, their stories as a guide given to later human beings for the leading of their own lives. Some interpreters saw the figures themselves as moral exemplars, others as allegorical representations of virtues to be emulated – it matters little, since the point in any case is that these historical figures are not merely historical but instructional. 23

On an individual level, the אבות were raised up on pedestals so that we would yearn to reach

their spiritual greatness, following the advice of the כה אליהו דבי תנא , “A man is obligated to

say: when we reach those of my אבות – Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov?” On a national

level, the praise of Jewish ancestry versus the condemnation of Gentile roots was encouraging

for the Jewish community which continuously faced anti-Semitism and specifically the

violence of the Hellenistic period.

The clearest example is the midrashic presentation of Jacob and Esau.

Jacob is the immediate ancestor of the people of Israel. He is, in this sense, the embodiment of the people as a whole, the national hero. Yet in reading this first part of his story, early interpreters could not but be a little disturbed by Jacob’s behavior, particularly with regard to his brother, Esau…interpreters naturally tried to find evidence of Jacob’s goodness wherever they could, and to prove whatever the evil that happened to Esau, it was entirely justified…Jacob was made out to be altogether virtuous and studious, Esau’s image was . He likewise modified by early interpreters – if anything, in even more radical fashion. He became utterly wicked, a crafty, bloodthirsty embodiment of evil. 24

21 Bereshit Rabbah 50:14; Bereshit Rabbah 90:2; Targum Esther 1:9? 22 Sifrei Devarim 356; Midrash Mechilta (?) 31:15; Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 10?

23 James Kugel, The Bible As It Was (Massachusetts: Harvard, 1998), p. 5424 Kugel, p. 204 .?

The famous midrash in Genesis Rabbah 63:6: “When she [Rebekkah] passed the houses of

idol-worship, Esau would squirm about trying to get out…when she would pass synagogues

of study-houses, Jacob would squirm to get out…” shows the fundamental struggle between

good and evil, Jacob and Esau. This personal struggle is abstracted in the midrash as the

struggle between the Jewish people and their enemy.

Genesis Rabbah, in its final form emerges from the momentous first Christian century, the century when the Roman Empire passed from pagan to Christian rule…Rome now claims to be Israel, that is, Christian and heir to the testament of the founders…in Genesis Rabbah, Rome is symbolized by Esau…there is natural enmity between Israel and Rome. Rome hated Israel even when in the womb. Jacob, for his part, revealed from the womb those virtues that would characterize him later on, eager to serve God as Esau was eager to worship idols.25

Despite the “ המוסרי ניגוד ” trend in Midrashic literature, Heinemann claims that there

is another approach within midrash which he calls הדרגה. In these examples, the midrash is

not hesitant to point out the flaws and weaknesses of the Biblical צדיקים as well as the

strengths and merits of the רשעים. In an attack against Rabbi Avigdor Nevenzal’s assumption

that “there is a main line in "ל that justifies the sins of the great people of the nation,” Rabbi חז

Medan responds that “we are familiar with more statements by "ל which reveal the sins of חז

the great ones that are not explicit than those that cover up their sins… the approach of "ל חז

that ‘if the earlier generation was like angels we are like human beings’ (Shabbat 112b) did

not prevent them from finding harsh sins by the great leaders of the nation.”26 In various

places the midrashim enumerate the sins or faults of Jacob, Josef, David and others.27 In

Nedarim 32a, there is a surprisingly long dispute in which the Rabbis offer many suggestions

regarding the sins of Abraham. There are also midrashim which praise the “רשעים.” There

are midrashim which praise the repentance of Cain and Ishmael, the good traits of

Nevuchadneser, Nimrod, and Achav.28 Even the prototypical villain, Esau, is praised for

respecting his father.29

25 Jacob Neuser, The Midrash:An Introduction (New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1994) p. 148. 26 (Alon Shvut: Machon Herzog, 1996 ,)p .שבע" בת מגילת", מגדים Yaakov Medan ,?

27 Pirke Drabbi Cahana 24,151; Sotah 36b; Megilah 14b ? 28 Baba Batra 4a; Targum Jonathan Bereshit 10:11; Sanhedrin 102b29 Bereshit Rabbah 82,14; Targum Yonatan Bereshit 32:12; Devarim Rabbah 1:15

Heinemann explains that the midrash always has an educational agenda. The midrashim

which reveal the sins of the אבות may be offering a sort of theodicy to explain apparent cases

of לו ורע צדיק in the text. For example, the midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 72:3 says that since

Rachel scorned a צדיק she did not merit to be buried with him. The midrash here is willing to

point out a flaw in one of the foremothers (even one not found explicitly in the text) in order

to rationalize her tragic death. Thus, the reader is encouraged to view the events of his/her

life as consequences to his/her actions. Nechama Liebovitz explains, “Our Rabbis of the

Talmud were scrupulous with our forefathers like a string of hair. When they found a flaw –

they immediately pointed to it, and revealed in the continuation of the text, that the צדיק was

punished for his sin.”30 The message of these midrashim is that personal and national

suffering should lead us to spiritual introspection. In addition to this important message,

midrashim which point out the sins of the אבותmay also serve to demonstrate and encourage

the תשובה process.

It is clear that there exists great diversity within the midrashic literature. Isaac’s absence

in the verse in Isaiah 63:16, “Surely you are our Father: though Avraham regard us not, And

Israel recognizes us not…,” is interpreted differently within the midrashim. On the one hand,

Rabbi Jose explains in Bereshit Rabbah 67:7 that Isaac did not deserve to be included with the

other אבות. On the other hand, Rabbi Shmuel in Shabbat 89b uses this verse to show that

only Isaac was successful in defending the nation in front of God. Heinemann does not

believe that the diversity found in the midrash is necessarily connected to different time

periods. Rather, the diversity can be explained simply by understanding that the midrashim

were directed at a wide and varied audience who must have been in need of different

messages. As Yosef Heinemann explains, “The אגדות בעלי were not only motivated by

exegetical problems in the text but rather conceptual, theological, and educational factors

encouraged them to say their words…Agadah was aimed at its era. It tried to reveal in the

holy scriptures a reflection of its own period.”31

30 Nechama Leibovitz, Studies in Sefer Bereshit (Jerusalem: Hemed), p.231 31 Yosef Heinemann, ותולדותם אגדות (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), p. 8.

The great medieval commentaries, printed alongside the Biblical text, continue to

serve as the major companions to the Bible. As Edward Greenstein explains, “the most

distinctive personalities amongst the medieval commentators virtually sit in the room and

share their opinions with the serious student. One encounters something odd or perplexing,

and one turns to Rashi, to Ibn Ezra, to see what this or that one has to say about it.”32

Therefore, it is important to understand the general approach of these commentators to our

issue. These commentators chose which midrashic interpretations and approaches they

wanted to incorporate or reject in their own writings. It is commonly believed that “whereas

ל" contradict one another…in the middle ages, the Biblical characters are solidified and חז

their images are much more one-sided, either all good or all bad, than found in "ל חז

Characters like Josef, Aaron, Solomon, who the midrash saw as multi-faceted, were turned

into one-sided stereotypes in the middle ages.33 Many medieval commentators did attempt to

glorify the אבות even if they need to rationalize the apparent sins or flaws attributed to them

in the text.34 Scholars have observed that this phenomenon may be related to the effect of

Anti-Christian polemics on the Biblical commentaries. Abraham Grossman writes that “in

general the Jewish Biblical commentators avoided explicitly stating that their commentaries

were anti - Christian, however they were often really polemicizing against these

interpretations to disprove them and their ideological message.”35 He suggests that the

polemic influenced both the style and content of many commentaries, specifically the French

commentators like Rashi, Rashbam, Ri Kra, and Bchor Shor. Both Grossman and David

Berger suggest that the polemics of the middle ages influenced their interpretations of the

Biblical characters. According to Berger, “most medieval Jews were understandably sensitive

about ascriptions of sin to the patriarchs, and the situation was rendered even more delicate by

32 Barry W. Holtz, Back to the Sources (New York: Summit, 1984), p. 213.? 33 Dov Raffel, Rashi, (Jerusalem: Board of Religious Education, 1995), p. 16.34 B.Barry Levy in his article “The State and Directions of Orthodox Bible Study” mentions a related debate whether or not the אבות kept all of the מצוות, even Rabbinic מצוות, or if they only observed societal norms. He contends that “Orthodox teachings suggests that the patriarchs should serve as models of rabbinic-type piety and practice,” therefore there are medieval commentators who will try to explain passages where the patriarchs seem to be in violation of what later became normative expectations.

35 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1955 )p. 488.הראשונים צרפת חכמיAbraham Grossman , ?

the fact that the issue of patriarchal morality often arose in a highly charged context in which

Jews were placed on the defensive in the face of Christian attack” 36 Grossman makes a clear

distinction between the French commentators, who tried to lessen the sins of the אבות, and

the Spanish commentators, who allowed themselves to criticize certain patriarchal behavior.

A primary example of a Christian attack on Jews and their forebears was that “Jacob, they

said, was a thief and a trickster; the implications concerning his descendents hardly needed to

be spelled out.” The Christian attack called for refutation. The Rashbam on Bereshit 25:31

explains that Jacob paid in full right for his birthright. Rashi also defends Jacob’s veracity in

his commentary “I am the one who is bringing this to you and Esau is your first born son.”37

There are numerous examples where the medievals seem to chose a difficult interpretation in

order to uphold the lofty spiritual image of the patriarchs.38

In contrast to Berger’s opinion that the medieval commentators generally displayed

“inhibitions against criticizing Biblical morality,” Nechama Leibovitz insists that:

It is commonly believed…that these [commentators] attempt to justify the actions of our forefathers and their deeds, that they attempt to rationalize the [forefathers’ actions at any cost. And there is no greater mistake. Beginning with the rabbinic midrashim and especially in them, and until the end of the Middle Ages, we find great liberty taken in the criticism of the biblical characters, and there [the characters] include the greatest and most revered leaders of our nation. All of their actions are scrupulously criticized. 39

There are many examples which can be cited to support this thesis. Even Rashi, who “did

accept from his surrounding and from those in his generation the method of ‘filtering’…

interpreted in a way which contradicted the stereotype which he himself presented.”40

36 Berger, p. 132.?

37 Genesis 27:1938 The אבות are also glorified in the Kabbalistic literature. Gershom Scholem explains that in Jewish mysticism, “‘The patriarchs are the Chariot’ (Genesis Rabbah), for Abraham represents the attribute of which is a combination of the other ,רחמים and Jacob the attribute of ,דין Isaac the attribute of ,חסדtwo…” All of the sins in the Bible and in Jewish history exiled the שכינה from her people, but “the good deeds of the biblical heroes, on the other hand, especially those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, came to set this fundamental fault in creation aright and to serve as a paradigm for those who came after.” Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1988), p. 164. 39 Nechama Leibovitz, להורתם ודרכים התורה פרשני לימוד (Jerusalem, 1978), p.33. 40 Raffel, p. 17

Throughout his commentary, Rashi quotes harsh criticism against Avraham, Sarah, Yosef,

and others.41

The most startling example is the Ramban’s commentaries on both Abraham’s and

Sarah's behavior. The Ramban comments that:

Avraham sinned a great sin inadvertently in bringing his righteous wife into the threat of sin because of his own fear lest he be killed. And he should have had faith in God that he would save him and his wife…his leaving the Land that he was commanded to in the beginning because of the famine was also a sin which he sinned.42

Sarah our mother sinned in dealing harshly with her handmaid and Abraham too by allowing her to do so.43

The Ramban is willing to attack both Avraham and Sarah for their inappropriate behavior,

even when the other commentaries are silent. In both instances, he explains that their sins are

not only judged in relation to their private lives but that they have national consequences.

The Ramban traces the Jewish enslavement in Egypt and violent struggle with the Arabs back

to these sins of our forefathers. As Adin Stiensaltz has explained, “the sin may not always

lead to a negative outcome in the context of family, society, or state. In the Bible, events are

measured in relation not only to the time in which they occur, but also to the whole spectrum

of historical time.”44

David Berger observes that the hesitance towards criticism in the medieval period has

since waned:

As the middle ages gave way to the modern period, the content and context of this issue were radically and fundamentally altered. Inhibitions against criticizing biblical morality began to crumble, and both Enlightenment ideologues and nineteenth-century scholars gleefully pounced upon biblical passages that appeared morally problematical.45

41 In Bereshit 20:2, Rashi comments, “This time he did not ask her consent but forcibly and without her best interests he stated that she was his sister.” In Bereshit 17:17, Rashi comments that “Sarah did not believe and she sneered and therefore God was angry with her. In Bereshit 39:6, Rashi comments that “When he (Yosef) saw himself as ruler he began to eat and drink and curl his hair. The Holy One Blessed Be He said, “Your father is in mourning and you curl your hair!?” Although Rashi based these comments on midrashim, he could have chosen other more favorable midrashim or avoided them altogether. 42 Genesis 12:1043 Genesis 16:644 Stiensaltz, p. 11 45 Berger, p. 137

Although there have always been two streams of interpretation throughout Jewish History,

there is an increased interest in the modern period to “identify with the characters in the "ך תנ

their greatness is revealed to us in them being like human beings, with their struggles,

sometimes failing, with problems and temptations that exist in our paths today, then they

contribute as our role models and we can learn from their experience.46 For example, in the

late nineteenth century Germany, Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch preached that:

The Torah does not present the ישראל גדולי as the perfect ideals, the Torah does not idolize man, and does not say about any man: this before you is the ideal…the Torah does not present any man's life as the model in order that we should learn what to do and what not to do…the Torah is not a collection of good deeds…the Torah does not ignore the mistakes and weaknesses of the ישראל גדולי …it is not our duty to defend the ישראל גדולי , they do not need and will not tolerate our defense.47

Rabbi Hirsch believed that the enlightened man could be observant and that traditional

Judaism and secular education could co-exist. Hirsch tried to find solutions to the political

and cultural challenges presented in modern life to Judaism. He wanted to appeal to reform

Jews as well as traditional Jews. The אבותthen, in the portrait of Hirsch, could not be

characters separate from this world. He wanted to prove that one could be involved in this

world and still maintain holiness. He used the אבות to prove this message.

During the same period, the "ב Rabbi Naphtali Zevi Yehuda of Berlin, one the ,נצי

leading rabbis and Rosh Yeshiva of Volzhin in the late nineteenth century, approached the

Biblical characters from a psychological perspective. For example, in Bereshit 24:65 he

discusses the lack of communication between Yitzchak and Rivka which caused the dramatic

rift and hatred between their two sons.

[She covered herself] out of embarrassment and fear when she understood that she was not worthy of being his wife and from then on there was fear in her heart and she was not with Yitzchak like Sarah was with Avraham and Rachel was with Jacob. When they were angry they were not embarrassed to express it. Not so with Rivka - Yitzchak and Rivka were of different opinions yet Rivka did not tell Yitzchak…

46 Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, 1997 המקרא" פרשן של חירותו" אקדמות , p. 72.47 Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch on Berehit 25:27. Rabbi Hirsch also emphasized that Moshe was a human being like us (Exodus 6:14).

Traditionalists in our generation have also analyzed the biblical characters.. Nechama

Leibovitz, in her commentaries on the weekly Torah portion, uses the behavior of Biblical

characters, both positive and negative, as a source for moral and religious education. For

example, in her commentary on Parshat Lech Lecha she analyzes Sarah’s treatment of Hagar.

“She should have been magnanimous and not taken advantage of her power over her

handmaid…No appraisal of Sarah’s character could condone the sin of ‘Sarah dealt harshly

with her’”48 Professor Leibovitz does not condone judging the characters by human values

but rather she encourages understanding and explaining their deeds according to the desired

messages of the Torah. For example, she uses Sarah’s flaw here to teach the reader a

meaningful message. “Perhaps the Torah wanted to teach us that before man takes on a

mission that will tax all his moral and spiritual powers he should ask himself whether he can

maintain those same high standards to the bitter end.”49

While Leibovitz uses the Biblical characters to teach moral lessons, Rav Yosef

Soloveitchik used the Biblical characters as prototypes in his Jewish thought and philosophy.

Avraham is the “knight of faith.” Moses is the “Rebbe figure.” In his famous “Five

Adresses,” the Rav uses the Josef story as a metaphor for the Mizrahi movement. Josef was

separated from his brothers because he felt that their lifestyle could no longer continue; they

needed to prepare for the Exile. Similarly, the religious leadership had estranged themselves

from the Zionist movement, which believed that the life of Eastern Europe could not

continue, rather preparations to settle the survivors of the Holocaust in Israel must begin.50

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin insists that the text must be interpreted “it is permissible, even

obligatory to explain the text according to one’s personal understanding and sensibilities…the

Bible has an amazing ability to talk to us in different voices at one time.”51 Therefore, he

believes that the text can tolerate different understandings of the Biblical characters

depending on the audience being addressed. For example, to an audience of prisoners, Riskin

48 Nechama Liebovitz, Studies, p. 156.49 Ibid.

50Riskin, p. 79. ? 51 Ibid., p. 80.

portrayed Yosef as a תשובה בעל who repents during his years of confinement. When writing

his weekly column that appears in a number of American newspapers that reaches many

unaffiliated Jews, he explains that Josef was a:

Truly successful, assimilated Jew…[He] never even considers returning to his homeland [from Egypt] to seek his wife from his people…Josef is now Tzofnat Paneah and perhaps not that different from Joan Perske becoming Lauren Bacall or Isadore Demsky polishing his image into Kirk Douglas. If it’s true in Hollywood, Nashville, Washington, and Wall Street, why should it be any different in Nile Country?52

The above mentioned scholars have all interpreted the Biblical characters in line with

their sociological, psychological, educational, or philosophical agenda. These approaches,

however, have not passed without the criticism of their contemporaries. Rabbi Shach, the

Rosh Yeshiva of Ponovitch, rejected the Rav’s mode of interpretation. “I am amazed how

someone in our generation could comment from his own ideas and opinions that which was

not passed down from the generations before him.”53 Similarly, Rabbi Aaron Kotler protested

against what he considered to be the trivialization and profanation of the אבות in “Chumash

Motifs,” an ongoing Yiddish newspaper series. In Warsaw’s Der Judishe Togblatt, Poland’s

only religious daily newspaper, Rabbi Kotler wrote the following in 1935:

How shocked I was to see the terrible blasphemies and the violation of the sanctity of our Holy Patriarchs and Matriarchs that they contained… The holy forefathers-who were the most luminous, loftiest, and purest personalities, the holiest creatures-represent the foundation of eternal spiritual vitality, the wellsprings of chessed and the full range of positive attributes, for the entire world and all of mankind.54

It is evident that throughout Jewish history there has been a spectrum of different

approaches within the traditional circle to the presentation of the אבות. Yet, even if one is to

assume that he/she is at liberty to chose from this pool of opinions in his/her own personal

study, the presentation of Biblical personalities in the classroom must take into consideration

the different levels of maturity - religious and intellectual – of the student audience. The

verse in Proverbs “ דרכו לפי לנערו חנוך ,” is explained by Rabbi Yonah that the student must be

52 November 24, 1990. Riskin is even willing to doubt the morality of Avraham’s involvement at the He may have even failed his tenth and final test for not having resisted, pleaded, and begged on“ עקדהbehalf of Yitzchak (November 1, 1990).” 53 Riskin, p. 79.54 Wolpin, p. 50.

taught “according to his intellectual capability because we do not reach completion of the

,in one time.” Similarly, the contemporary educational scholar Kieran Egan explains מידות

“educational developmental is a process. We reach an advanced stage only by passing

through prior and prerequisite stages.”55 The four stages which Egan posits are the mythic,

the romantic, the philosophical, and the ironical.

In the mythic stage, children’s storied are populated by strange monsters and humanized animals; they tend to be based on binary opposites most important in their own lives like love/hate, big/little or good/bad. This is the stuff fairy tales are made of…To make something really meaningful at this stage it should be built upon, and elaborated from, clear binary opposites.56

This stage is clearly reminiscent of the first approach that Heiniman found in the midrash of

הצדיק יוסף At this stage, children need clear distinct images of .ניגוד and הרשע טיטוס .

Therefore, at this stage, the midrash which "adds flavor and detail to the binary opposites in

the biblical text”57 can be very helpful in creating clear role models or heroes for the young

student.

However, according to Egan, the student is meant to develop and advance beyond this first

stage. This development in the student’s understanding of his own world, which is reflective

in his understanding of literature.

In romantic stories, therefore, heroes or nations, etc., struggle and achieve glory against odds, against threatening nature, villains or sinister ideas. The plots are more compex and more realistic than in mythic stories, but their meanings are, perhaps unrealistically clear. One know what one should feel about the persons and forces involved and how matters should turn out…the stuff of adolescent adventures, from Superman to Jack London stories and beyond to soap operas and series, is tailored to the romantic temperment.

The major defining characteristic of the philosophic stage, then is the search for the truth about human psychology, for the laws of historical development, for the truth about how societies function…the general laws whereby the world works. By knowing them the students will know their own proper place and roles, and so they will securely know themselves.

In the fourth, the ironic stage, one learns to appreciate that "no general scheme can adequately reflect the richness and complexity of reality…it (the ironic stage) represents a clear appreciation of where we end and the world begins…(whereas) at each of the previous stages

55 Michael Rosenak, Roads to the Palace (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1995) p. 75.56 Ibid.57 Howard Deitcher, “The Child’s Understanding of the Aggadic Literature,” Studies in Jewish Education VI, ed. Asher Shkedi (Jerusalem: Magnus, 1992) p. 89.

there is some confusion about this, in which things that are a product of our modes of perception or manner of organizing knowledge are assumed to be part of the world.58

Rosenak suggests that the beauty of the Torah is that ‘the Torah speaks in the language of

people’, all of them, at all stages.” The teacher must evaluate the students’ stage in order for

his/her presentation to be understood and inspirational. For example, the story of the Garden

of Eden can taught in both the mythic and the ironic stages.59 The presentation and

interpretation however will change based on the level of intellectual and moral development.

There is great educational value in the study of the Biblical characters. In general, “when

we teach a story to children or adults, the most salient issues to be remembered involve the

character’s makeup.” As Northrop Frye has stated:

The actions, thoughts, and feelings of the various characters are the basic story elements, rather than words, propositions, and paragraphs. When we remember a story, we almost always recall the goals of the characters, the resulting alliances and conflicts, and the reaction of the characters to unexpected challenges…consequently a theory of story should focus onj the relationships among characters rather than among prepositions.60

If this is true of literary characters in general, it is certainly true of “Biblical personages [who]

are presented as the ‘relatives’ or ‘ancestors’ of the authorial audiences, rather than fictional

characters.”61 According to Morson, the moment-to-moment decisions made in the course of

reading-including whether to judge or extend sympathy to a character – allow readers to

“practice” their reactions to people and situations in a way which affects their conscious

moral judgements in daily life.62 Mailloux also notes that “having the reader judge the

character often has a didactic function, because it is 'only a step on the way to having the

reader judge himself…in his everyday life.”63 When the student confronts the Biblical

characters their experiences in life he/she is, in effect, striving to deal with these basic

situations and how they affect his/her own life. In focusing on the biblical figure and his/her

confrontation with some of the ultimate issues, we are allowing the student to grapple with

58 Rosenack, p. 77.59 Ibid., p. 8060 Howard Deitcher, “The Child’s Understanding of the Biblical Personality.” Studies in Jewish Education, (Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 1990), pp. 169-170. 61 Stuart Lasine, “Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading,” Hebrew Studies 30, 1989, p. 57

62 Ibid.? 63 Ibid., p. 55

several critical philosophical and theological issues that may trouble him/her.64 As Visotzky

has observed, "Genesis is rich in moral dilemmas, the study of which promotes moral

development. Story after Story in Genesis serves as a moral dilemma worthy of careful

consideration…since scripture is such a rich mirror of daily dilemmas that confront us…it

serves eloquently as the sourcebook for moral education.”65

My original interest in researching this topic stemmed from my personal experience

teaching seminary students. As I described above, I encountered different reactions to my

presentation of the patriarchs. Students in seminary are at a pivotal point in their intellectual

and religious development. I wanted to understand the orientation of my student population

better. How had they been taught to view the אבות in their high schools? Which stories of

the אבות had they learned? Which episodes in the Biblical narrative troubled them morally or

religiously? To what extent were they open to or inhibited from judging and criticizing the

Were their reactions reflective of their intellectual or religious stage? In an attempt to ?אבות

answer some of these questions, I devised a questionnaire66 and a mock lesson to test my

students’ reactions. I ultimately decided to distribute the questionnaire and deliver the lesson

at two other seminaries as well. I conjectured that the responses in each institution would

vary reflecting the השקפה of the students and the faculty.

I tested the students at Midreshet Moriah (Midreshet), Midreshet Lindenbaum

(Lindenbaum), and Bnot Torah Institute (Sharfmans). The schools draw from a similar pool

of students mainly from the United States. However, the students that apply and that are

accepted differ based on the schools’ academic and religious reputations and expectations.

Sharfmans is considered the farthest to the “right.” The students mainly attended all girls

64 Dietcher, “Child’s Understanding of the Biblical Personality,” p. 170.? 65 Visotzky, p. 7.?

66 The questionnaire is attached at the end of this document. Although I distributed it to many students and did glean some helpful information from them, I was generally disappointed by the quality of the answers and therefore will not be referring to it extensively. The most interesting information that I culled from this survey was in reference to the students’ high school education. There were students who did not learn בראשית ספר at all in high school. There were many students that had learned בראשית ספר but at most the first three פרשיות which avoids most of the moral questions found in the later פרשיות. Finally, many students complained that they felt their high school teachers had glossed over the more troublesome stories or had presented them with unacceptable justifications.

religious high schools. The school is situated in a חרדי neighborhood in Jerusalem and many

of the teachers are themselves חרדי. The classes are mainly conducted as lectures with little

or no independent preparation time allotted. The school is not outwardly Zionistic, praises

the Kollel lifestyle, and emphasizes the study of מוסר. On the “other extreme,” Lindenbaum

encourages women's learning of Talmud and independent thinking through חברותא learning

in a מדרש בית setting. Many of its graduates go to secular colleges after their year of study.

The school is also strongly committed to the modern State of Israel. Although Midreshet is a

strongly Zionistic school committed to the philosophy of the Rav Soloveitchik, it offers its

student a potpourri of courses and השקפות. The students do have some חברותא hours in the

מדרש בית and Talmud study is optional. They are exposed to a spectrum of both “left-wing”

and “right-wing” teachers.

I originally assumed that the students at Lindenbaum would be the most open to a

critical approach to the אבות for a number of reasons. During their year of study, they had

been encouraged to think about Jewish texts creatively and critically. In addition, they were

more familiar with the secular fields of psychology and literature. I also assumed that they

would be the most “modernized” students and would therefore be the most attracted to a

humanized image of the אבות instead of a glorified one. Finally, I assumed that they were the

least indoctrinated with the notion of the superiority of the Jewish people. In contrast, I

thought that the students at Sharfmans would be the most inhibited in expressing criticism of

the אבות. I assumed that the emphasis in learning had been to respect precedence and steer

away from innovation in learning. I also believed that the impact of מוסר learning would

make them more inclined to relate to a lofty image of the patriarchs.

I chose to teach the episode in לך לך פרשת in which Avraham gives Sarah away to

the Pharaoh in Egypt:

There was a famine in the Land and the Avram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the Land. As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, ‘I know what a beautiful woman you are.’ If the Egyptians see you, and think, ‘She is his wife,’ they will kill you and let me live. Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may remain alive thanks to you…And because of her

it well with Avram; he acquired sheep, oxen, asses, male and female slaves, she-asses and camels. But the Lord afflicted Pharoah and his household with mighty plagues on account of Sarai, the wife of Abram. Pharoah sent for Abram and said, “what is this you have done to me! Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say ‘She is my sister,’ so that I tool her as my wife? Now, here is your wife; take her and begone!”67

During the many times that I have read this story, I have been troubled by the what

seems to be Avraham’s self-serving deception. However, it is a story that is easily explained

in Avraham’s favor.68 There are many reasons why this example is exceptional. First,

tradition, based on the Biblical text, has ascribed many virtues to Avraham. He is considered

to be the founder of Judaism, the first monotheist. The outstanding attributes attributed to

him are those of hospitality, righteousness, peace-seeking, and obedience to God’s will.69

More than any other character, the image in the Bible and the Midrash, is nearly one of

perfection. Second, there is no hint at condemnation for this act in the text. Avraham is not

punished; on the contrary, he is rewarded with “great property” and his enemy is stricken with

“great plagues.” In addition, this basic story line is repeated two other times in Genesis 20

and Genesis 26 which indicates that there was no hesitance in repeating this same behavior.

Just as God does not seem angry, the other characters in the story seem equally

nonjudgmental. Sarah, who is quick to rebuke Avraham in relation to Hagar, is silent in this

story. The Pharaoh’s rebuke does not indicate moral condemnation but rather self concern.

Therefore, our “right” to criticize Avraham’s actions seems very limited. We are naturally

inclined to justify his behavior, just as Visotsky describes:

In one study group I taught, a literary agent, Jewish only in name, with very little formal Jewish education, passionately defended Abraham… Why, I asked, had he passionately defended Abraham, especially if he had no vested interest in it? His answer…He defended Abraham because that was his notion of Judaism..70

After reading the text aloud with the students, I allowed the students to ask whatever

questions they had in order to see if they would raise the moral issue in this story on their

67 Genesis 12:14-20? 68 In retrospect, I think I should have chosen a different text to test the students’ attitude to criticizing the אבות. In this case, even מפרשים typically willing to criticize the אבות here find justification for Avraham’s behavior within the פשט(Hirsch, Abarabanel) with the exception of the Ramban.69 Benjamin Goodnick, “Abraham’s Great Sin,” Dor Le Dor Vol. XV, No. 3, Spring 1987, p. 187.Interestingly, the last question on my questionnaire was ‘who is the greatest hero in Genesis?” and the majority of students answered ‘Avraham.’70 Visotzky, p. 29.

own. In all three schools, the students did wonder about the ethicality of Avraham’s

behavior. However, they dealt with their doubts in different ways. In Sharfmans, the uniform

response was that, “obviously” we do not fully understand the story. “Obviously they must

know something we don’t know.” “Avraham is going to look toward God for ישועה and עזרה.

He is walking with God.” The immediate assumption in the class was that there must be a

justification for Avraham’s actions that would quickly return him to a saintly image. They

were most comfortable with the explanation that Avraham’s actions were justified because

they were divinely inspired. In a sense, they were attributing Avraham’s behavior to a

teleological suspension of morality. To us, his action seems problematic, but from

Avraham’s vantage point, the same deed becomes righteous. These students rejected the

position of the Ramban, that “Abraham sinned a great sin…” asking me to justify the Ramban

in an appropriate way because again we “obviously we are not understanding the Ramban

because he obviously couldn’t mean that!”

The students at Lindenbaum also wanted to justify Avraham’s actions but not in the

same way. They did not suggest that his saintly nature placed him above standard morality.

Rather, they opted for the more practical approach of the Abarabanel and Rabbi Hirsch that

Avraham intended a temporary ruse with Sarah’s best interests in mind. Despite what I

anticipated, the girls at Brovenders were not willing to accept the approach of the Ramban

that Avraham’s behavior had simply been wrong.

Although some of the responses at Midreshet were similar to those at Sharfmans like

“Avraham had אמונה that God would come at the end” and “there must be stuff going on

that’s not here because I do not believe that Avraham would do this,” there were also

students who openly challenged Avraham’s behavior – “Why didn’t he ask God?” “How

could he be so selfish in his treatment of Sarah?” These questions came naturally from the

students without probing. Some were satisfied with the rationalization that Avraham did the

best he could under pressure to save both himself and Sarah. However, some students at

Midrshet were willing and more comfortable with the interpretation of the Ramban. Some

explained that they were comfortable with the fact that the אבות were complicated figures

who may have made mistakes along the way. Others explained that they understood that the

actions of the אבות must be viewed as a blueprint for future Jewish history. 71 Even those who

were critical of Avraham’s actions here did not shatter their original image of him.

The responses at Midreshet were much harsher when examining the blessing of Jacob

and Esau. “Our whole nation could be just one big lie – we got it through trickery!” “Yaakov

is just a mama’s boy – he does whatever his mom says without challenging, questioning,

thinking?!?” “Yaakov takes advantage. He is tricky and deceitful.” These questions arose

because in the text, Jacob is portrayed as having acquired the birthright, first, by the heartless

exploitation of the suffering of his own brother and then by the crafty deception practiced

upon his blind old father. However, in the entire corpus of premodern Jewish exegesis there

is hardly a whisper of criticism.72 As we have mentioned above, Rashi on this pasuk cites the

midrash “I am the one that brings to you and Esau is your oldest son.” According to this

interpretation, there was no falsehood in Jacob’s speech. Alternatively, the Radak explains

that there was a falsehood but that it was justifiable. “There are those who wonder how could

Jacob who was righteous and God fearing speak words of falsehood. And this is not

wondrous…because switching words like this is not disgraceful for צדיקים …because they

spoke out of fear.” Many of my students were not satisfied with either of these approaches.

One student asked, “does anyone just say he did something wrong?” Many modern scholars

have noted patterns in the text which indicate the Torah’s evaluation. There is no condoning

Jacob’s deception, rather the guilt of deceiving his father and brother haunts him for the next

twenty years.

The implicit condemnation of the patriarch’s unethical conduct is powerfully brought out through the cycle of biographical tales…[in contrast to Abraham and Isaac] This patriarch could only report that the years of his life had been “few and hard” … …the biographical details of Jacob’s life read like a catalogue of misfortunes… When he was finally able to make his escape and set out for home after two decades in the service of his scoundrelly uncle, he found his erstwhile employer in hot and hostile pursuit of him. No sooner had his

71 The Ramban explains that Avraham’s experience is somehow reproduced in the Jewish enslavement in Egypt.

72 Berger, p. 141

troubles passed than he felt his life in mortal danger from his brother Esau. Arriving at last, at the threshold of Canaan, Jacob experiences the mysterious night encounter that left him with a dislocated hip. His worst troubles awaited him in Canaan. His only daughter Dinah, was violate, his beloved Rachel died in childbirth, and the first son she had born him was kidnapped and sold into slavery, an event that initiated a further series of misfortunes. All the foregoing makes quite clear Scripture’s condemnation of Jacob’s moral lapse in his treatment of his brother and father. In fact, an explicit denunciation could hardly have been more effective or more scathing than this unhappy biography.73

In addition to this “unhappy biography,” many scholars have pointed out specific events in

Yaakov’s life which parallel (measure for measure) his unethical behavior. For example,

He must work for his ‘brother’ Laban instead of having his brothers work for him;he is deceived by the subtiution of one sibling for another in the darkness and is pointedly informed that ‘in our place’ the younger is not placed before the older; his sons deceive him with Joseph’s garment and the blood of a coat just as he deceived Isaac with Esau’s garments and the skin of a goat; his relationship with Esau is precisely the opposite of the one that was supposed to have been achieved – Esau is the master to whom his servant Jacob must bow.74

Viewing Yaakov’s entire life span, one can easily claim that he was at fault in his deception.

However, one must evaluate whether or not there is a benefit in teaching this approach.

Why not, in this case, only teach the commentaries which glorify Yaakov’s behavior? The

advantages to this approach are numerous. First, the students are encouraged to deal with the

literal meaning of the text. They are able to connect the broader story to this one event. More

importantly, the religious message is much more meaningful. From this event, the students

can learn the important concepts of ועונש שכר and מידה כנגד מידה . Ultimately, they can learn

the power of change, growth, and repentance. Nechama Leibovitz explains that Yaakov

could not achieve greatness until he atoned for his original behavior.

The outcome of the struggle [with the angel] was that the blessing which he had come through ‘guile and deceit’ was now conferred on him as of ‘princely’ right…the angel’s purpose was to make Jacob admit that he had supplanted his brother and that not for nothing had he been dubbed the supplanter. After he made the admission and uttered his name, the messenger announced the removal of the stain on his character symbolized in the adoption of a new name – Israel… [However] before the name symbolic of his act of supplanting his brother could be dropped, he had to appease his brother. Only after he said to Esau ‘Take, I pray thee, my blessing, could the Almighty reveal himself to him and announce the fulfillment of the promise made by the angel: Thy name shall be no more called Jacob (supplanter) but Israel (prince of God).75

73 Nachum Sarna, p. 183 74 David Berger, p. 142

75 ? Leibovitz, “Studies,” p. 268

The admission that Yaakov erred in deceiving his father and his brother allows the student to

appreciate the greatness later achieved by the individual and national Israel.

Upon completion of this paper, I am left frustrated by the amount left there is to

research on this topic. Each literary period needs to be studied on its own in depth. An

analysis of the subtle distinctions between location and time of composition must be made in

both the midrash and the medieval commentary. For example, there may be a significant

difference between the approach in ישראל ארץ and בבל. There may be a significant change

between the early and late middle ages. While I only looked at a sampling of commentators,

each respective commentator’s approach to the אבות should be traced throughout the Bible, in

an attempt to understand the social and educational motivations for his particular

interpretation. Each forefather and the particular stories and traits associated with him needs

to be probed exclusively. The image of each one throughout post-Biblical literature needs to

be explored and compared to the other two אבות. The question of criticizing the אבות also

needs to be broadened to the question of criticizing other Biblical characters. King David’s

character, particularly his sin with Batsheva, deserves the most serious attention. The

standards and expectations for the אבות may not be the same for other Biblical characters.

Also, a curriculum which is designed to suit the different presentations of the אבות for

different age groups should be designed. I would also be interested in looking at what

modern non-traditionalists have done to the Biblical characters, particularly the אבות. The

study of the Bible has become “in” which encourages every group, from homosexuals to

criminals, to “find themselves in” or “read themselves into” the Bible. Although I am

endorsing an open and critical approach to the Biblical characters, it is important to see where

my “red line” would be drawn.

“If Style in Heroism, like everything else changes,” it has been suggested that today,

“heroism is not our style.”76 In both the secular and religious world, there seems to be a

76 Fishwick, p.11.

dramatic shortage of leaders and role models of great moral integrity. There are those who

claim that any criticism of the אבות is also a manifestation of this sad phenomenon. This

need not necessarily be the case. We can continue to present the אבות as heroes while

presenting them as complex real characters. As educators, we need to develop images of the

which are both relevant and inspirational to our students. It is our responsibility to make אבות

the stories of the אבות sacred, not by denying their contents, but by understanding their

eternal relevance to our individual and national existence.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBerger, David. “On the Morality of the Patriarchs in Jewish Polemic and Exegesis” in

Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, ed. Shalom Carmy, pp. 131-146. NewJersey: Jason Aronson, 1996.

Burns, Norman and Christopher Reagan. Concepts of the Hero in the Middle Ages and theRenaissance. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1975.

Dietcher, Howard. “The Child’s Understanding of the Aggadic Literature.” Studies in JewishEducation VI, ed. Asher Shkedi, pp. 84-99. Jerusalem: Magnus Press 1992.

Deitcher, Howard. “The Child’s Understanding of the Biblical Personality.” Studies in Jewish

Education, ed. H. Deitcher and AJ Tanenbaum , pp. 167-181. Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 1990.

Deitcher, Howard. “. המקראיות הדמויות בהצגת ליבוביץ נחמה של גישתה ” Jerusalem: Hebrew

University, May 1998.

Goodnick, Benjamin. “Abraham’s Great Sin.” Dor Le Dor XV no. 3 , pp. 186-189, 1987.

Grossman, Avraham. הראשונים צרפת חכמי . Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1995.

Heinemann, Yitzchak. אגדה דרכי . Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1954.

Heinemann, Yosef. ותולדותם אגדות . Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1974.

Holtz, Barry. Back to the Sources. New York: Summit Books, 1984.

Kugel, James. The Bible as It Was. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Lasine, Stuart. “Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading.” Hebrew Studies 30, pp. 49-67, 1989.

Leibovitz, Nechama. להורתם ודרכים התורה פרשני לימוד (Jerusalem, 1978), p.33

Leibovitz, Nechama. “Towards teaching Tanach in the Upper Grades.” Ma’ayanot I, pp. 34-44, 1963.

Leibovitz, Nechama. Studies in Bereshit. Jerusalem: Hemed Press.

Levy, B. Barry. “The State and Directions of Orthodox Bible Study” in Modern Scholarshipin the Study of Torah, ed. Shalom Carmy, pp. 39-80. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1996.

Marshall Fishwick.. The Hero, American Style. New York: McKay, 1969.

Medan, Yaakov. “ יח מגדים” .בתשבע מגילת . Alon Shvut: Machon Herzog, 1996.

Neuser, Jacob. The Midrash: An Introduction. New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1994. Raffel, Dov. "י .Jerusalem: Board of Religious Education, 1995 .רש

Riskin, Shlomo. “ אקדמות ”המקרא פרשן של חירותו , pp. 367-81, 1997.

Rosenak, Michael. Roads to the Palace. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1995.

Rosenblatt, Naomi and Joshua Horowitz. Wrestling with Angels. New York: Dell Publishing,1995.

Sarna, Nachum. Understanding Genesis. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1967.

Scholem, Gershom. Kabbalah. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1988.

Steinsaltz, Adin. Biblical Images. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Visotzky, Burton. The Genesis of Ethics. New York: Crown Publishers, 1996.

Wolpin, Nisson. “Approaching the Avos – Through Up-Reach or Drag-Down?” The Jewish Observer XXIV,2, pp. 48-51, March 1991.