Behind the Bible
The True Story of Biblical Heroes
Yehuda Kraut
PDF Version | Print Version
Historians and biographers have long grappled with the thorny question of whether, how, and to what extent they should criticize legendary founders of a particular people or nation. As early as the turn of the Common Era, Plutarch, the Greek author widely considered the world’s first biographer, occasionally censored various episodes from the biographical accounts he composed. Though he enjoys a (perhaps exaggerated) reputation for comprehensive reporting, Plutarch, as one historian has noted, “followed his heroes to the recesses of private life…yet generally left in the shade what tended to diminish their greatness, or sully their virtues.”1 That same tendency to idealize heroes of the past often manifests itself in modern America, as many politicians and journalists lament the moral and political decline from the supposedly utopian age of the American Founders.2
The general motivation for this phenomenon seems simple enough to identify and comprehend. Inasmuch as a person or group of persons is maintaining a tradition, belief system, or community, founded by people who lived long ago, the actions and behavior of a founder are widely understood as reflections upon his modern protégé. The better the behavior of the founder, the more justified is maintenance of the founder’s traditions or beliefs in the modern world. Conversely—and I use the extreme only to illustrate the point— if the founders were rotten, why maintain their traditions today?
Given this consideration, which was as evident in the pre-modern world as in our own, it should not surprise us that criticism of the Patriarchs and of biblical heroes in general would pose particular problems for Jewish expositors of the Hebrew Bible.3 Indeed, from early rabbinic times to the contemporary Jewish world, rabbis and commentaries have strained to reconcile the biblical text with doctrinal beliefs concerning the righteousness of Judaism’s biblical founders and heroic personalities.
However, as some astute observers have noted,4 the rabbinic evidence is not monolithic. It is true that, at times, early rabbinic literature either showers hyperbolic praise upon biblical heroes or resolutely defends, excuses, or denies their apparent misdeeds. But in numerous instances the Rabbis take biblical heroes to task, often for actions that on their face seem wholly innocuous. This inconsistent, almost confused, approach to the judgment of biblical heroes in the Midrash and Talmud has led rabbis in subsequent centuries to radically different views regarding what sort of criticism of biblical heroes may be tolerated.
On one extreme stands the pietist approach typified by the view of R. Aharon Kotler, a renowned twentieth-century Torah scholar who headed a yeshiva in Lakewood, NJ. In Kotler’s view, criticism of biblical heroes cannot be justified under any circumstances:
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 [kindness] and the full range of positive attributes, for the entire world, for all of mankind.5
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, one of the pre-eminent leaders of Orthodox German Jewry in the nineteenth century, may be thought of as representing a view of the opposite extreme-—one that views criticism of biblical heroes as justified, necessary, and didactically useful. In his commentary to Genesis 12:10, Hirsch contends that only by relating to biblical heroes as men—with full disclosure of their weaknesses and struggles alongside their triumphs—can the Bible’s audience appreciate their greatness:
The Torah never presents our great men as being perfect, it deifies no man, says of none, “here you have the ideal.”…The Torah is no “collection of examples of saints.” It relates what occurred, not because it was exemplary but because it did occur. The Torah never hides from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men…by knowledge which is given us of their faults and weaknesses, our great men are in no ways made lesser but actually greater and more instructive….Were they without passion, without internal struggles, their virtues would seem to us the outcome of some higher nature, hardly a merit and certainly no model that we could hope to emulate.6
As mentioned above, substantial evidence for both views, Kotler’s and Hirsch’s, can be amassed from the vast corpus of early rabbinic writings. The incongruous nature of this evidence demands that one question be addressed, if not resolved: what criteria, if any, do the Rabbis of the Midrash and Talmud employ, consciously or not, when they criticize biblical heroes in certain instances and defend them in others? Is there any factor (or combination of factors) that would account for the disparate treatment biblical heroes receive in early rabbinic literature?
In the discussion that follows, I attempt to isolate the primary variables that seem to govern the Rabbis’ moral judgment of prominent biblical figures. A few cautionary notes, however, need be mentioned. First, this essay in no way constitutes a comprehensive examination of the topic. The evidence which will be examined here constitutes only a sample—though hopefully a representative sample—of the wealth of material that must be analyzed before absolute conclusions can be reached. Second, although we are of course interested in both praise and criticism of biblical heroes, it is the latter category that demands more consideration. Although, we can easily understand why the Rabbis would be inclined to praise and defend biblical heroes, it is much more difficult to understand why the Rabbis would criticize ostensibly righteous biblical personalities, particularly in instances in which the text does not seem to demand such an interpretation. As such, we will deal in a more limited fashion with examples of rabbinic praise and defense of biblical heroes and, instead, focus the bulk of our attention on the more anomalous situations in which the Rabbis criticize biblical heroes.
I. The Rabbinic Evidence – Praise and Apologetics
Rabbinic literature is rife with examples of hyperbole extolling the virtues of biblical heroes. In Vayikra Rabbah, a compilation of Midrashim redacted in 500 CE, (26:1), for example, the Rabbis debate the extent of Jacob’s (and the other Patriarchs’) greatness. In the most lavish formulation, we are told: “R. Joshua son of R. Nehemiah in the name of R. Hanina son R. Isaac said: The heaven and earth were only created for the sake of Jacob.” R. Aha demurs and contends that it was Moses—not Jacob—for whom “the heaven and the earth were…created.”
In Bereishit Rabbah, another compilation of Midrashim, (17:22), when discussing Abraham’s audience with God, Resh Lakish comments “the Patriarchs are [God’s] Heavenly Chariot [merkavah]. Thus it is written: ‘And God went up from upon [“me‘al”] Abraham…’”7 Although the specific import of Resh Lakish’s comparison between the Patriarchs and the Heavenly Chariot remains somewhat elusive, it certainly must be considered an emphatic endorsement of the Patriarchs’ righteousness. Indeed, modern polemicists have made liberal use of this midrashic comparison in their argument for the perfection of biblical heroes.8
One succinct statement made by the author of Eliyahu Rabbah (25)— itself repeatedly invoked by those who endorse Aharon Kotler’s worldview— would seem to encapsulate the degree to which the Patriarchs served, in the early rabbinic mind, as paradigms of righteousness: “Each and every Israelite is required to say [to himself ]: when will my actions reach the [level of the] actions of my forefathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?”9
Perhaps even more revealing than the Rabbis’ extravagant praise for biblical heroes are instances in which the Rabbis seem to minimize, or even excuse, the heroes’ apparently sinful behavior. I say “more revealing” because dismissal of the sins of biblical heroes seems to demonstrate rabbinic commitment to the notion of the heroes’ flawlessness (or near-flawlessness) to an extent that even fulsome praise does not. “Anyone who says that X sinned is mistaken” (BT Shabbat). The Babylonian Talmud in the fifth chapter of Tractate Shabbat contains one of the most sustained, egregious examples of rabbinic “whitewashing” of the behavior of biblical heroes. As it begins its defense, the Talmud provides a convenient mnemonic to help remind the student of the identity of the six “biblical personalities regarding whom Scripture gave a false impression of having sinned grievously.”10 This group of six includes Reuben, the sons of Eli, the sons of Samuel, David, Solomon, and Yoash.11 The Talmud proceeds to investigate each of these figures (or pairs of figures) individually, analyzing the verses that ostensibly prove their guilt and reinterpreting them to mean something very different from the literal text. The Talmud here is nothing if not ambitious. Reuben, son of Jacob, is charged in the Torah for “lay[ing] with Bilhah, the concubine of his father.” The Talmud (Shabbat 55b) amends the charge from incest to some sort of impropriety in moving Jacob’s marriage bed to his own mother’s tent. One of the lines of arguments “proving” Reuben’s innocence from the more serious charge is the blanket negation of the alternative; is it possible that Reuben could have transgressed so greatly? Surely not. This same logic is employed to rule out the apparent sins of David— first, sleeping with Bathsheba, a married woman, and then having her husband Uriah killed. Could David have committed these heinous crimes? Surely not. David’s offenses are reduced to his having thought of (but not actually) committed adultery with Bethsheba and having summarily executed (the rebellious) Uriah (who was deserving of death) without first consulting the judiciary. This same pattern is extended in order to absolve the other biblical figures enumerated above.12
A classic, much derided, example of the manner in which the Midrash defends the actions of biblical heroes is the torturous exegesis suggested by the Midrash in defense of Jacob’s deception of his father Isaac. In verse 19, Midrash Tanhuma (Buber) takes Jacob’s statement—“I am Esau your firstborn”—and divides it into two sentences, to spare Jacob the indignity of actually having lied: “Even though you may say Jacob lied, he did not lie…[He said] merely... I am Jacob; Esau is your firstborn.…”13 Concerning a later portion of the same Genesis narrative, Bereishit Rabbah cannot countenance the possibility that Isaac is impugning Jacob’s integrity when he reports (27:35) that Jacob came “with guile” (“b’mirmah”). What Isaac was really saying, says the Midrash in the name of R. Johan is: “He [Jacob] came with the wisdom of his Torah.”14
II. The Rabbinic Evidence – Criticism
Until now, we have reviewed cases in which early rabbinic literature either showers praise on biblical heroes or defends their apparent misdeeds. However, as we have mentioned, there are numerous instances in which biblical heroes are taken to task, sometimes for actions that on their face seem entirely harmless.15 As we note some of these instances, we will seek to identify a common thread that can illuminate the conditions under which the Rabbis see fit to criticize their biblical heroes. We will then propose general guidelines that seem to govern the variant early rabbinic responses—the praise and apologetics as well as the critiques—to the task of evaluating the behavior of biblical personalities.
In a Talmudic discussion in Tractate Nedarim (BT 32a), the Rabbis seek to understand why Abraham’s descendants seem to have been punished by being enslaved in Egypt for more than two centuries.16 Three possibilities are suggested: (1) Abraham disturbed his men from studying Torah when he asked them to assist him in battle [Genesis 14:14]. (2) Abraham asked God for a sign that he would indeed inherit the Land of Israel [Genesis 15:8]. (3) Abraham could have positively influenced more people but he refused to take any spoils of war, including prisoners of war whom he could have inspired to follow God’s ways [Genesis 14:21].17
Now, while one could argue that Abraham is rightly criticized for questioning God’s promise about inheriting the land—example (2)—it is difficult to discern any wrongdoing in the other two cases. On its face, the text provides no indication that Abraham did anything wrong by rallying his troops to rescue his nephew. Furthermore, Abraham’s refusal to profit from the war should redound to his credit. Why, then, do the Rabbis see fit to criticize him?
In Bereishit Rabbah (55:4) on Genesis 22:1, the Rabbis seek to identify the specific events that led to Abraham’s trial during Akeidat Yitzhak (the Binding of Isaac). R. Leazar proposes that Abraham’s trial follows on the heels of the recent story of the weaning of Isaac, which Abraham celebrates by throwing a party:
According to R’ Leazar…it was the ministering angels who spoke thus: ‘This Abraham rejoiced and made all others rejoice [at the party], yet did not set aside for God a single bullock or ram.’ Said the Holy One, Blessed Be He, to them ‘even if we tell him to sacrifice his own son, he will not refuse.’18
In the Midrash Tanhuma (Buber) on Vayyetse (7:11), the Midrash identifies the reason why Leah was “hated” (Genesis 29:31) by Jacob; namely, because Leah had scolded him regarding Jacob’s earlier deception of Isaac in Genesis 27.
[Jacob said to Leah] “Daughter of a swindler, why did you trick me [by impersonating Rachel]?” She said to him: “What about you! Why did you trick your father? When he said to you: ‘Is this my son Esau?,’ you said to him (27:19): ‘I AM ESAU YOUR FIRSTBORN.’ Now you are saying: ‘Why have you tricked me?’”…So because of these things with which she scolded him, he began to hate her.19
On the surface, this Midrash simply provides an explanation for a question that the text does not specifically elucidate—the reason why Leah is hated. However, implicitly, the Midrash also addresses a deeper issue—the meaning behind Leah’s deception of Jacob. According to the Midrash, Jacob now reaps what he had earlier sown. He becomes victim to the same kind of deception that he had employed in convincing his blind father that he was the eldest offspring.20
In passage 79:8, Bereishit Rabbah investigates the curious juxtaposition of Genesis 33—which ends with Jacob traveling to Shechem and building an altar there for God—and Genesis 34, the story of how Jacob’s daughter Dinah is sexually assaulted by the prince of the city of Shechem. In seeking to explain the connection between the two biblical stories, the Midrash levels a rather astonishing claim against Jacob:
AND HE ERECTED THERE AN ALTAR AND CALLED IT EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL (33:20). He [Jacob] declared to Him: “Thou art God in the celestial spheres and I am a god21 in the terrestrial sphere.” R. Huna commented in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: [God reproved him]: “thou didst take authority to thyself. Tomorrow thy daughter will go out and be dishonored!”
Incredibly, while the Torah tells us only that Jacob dedicated an altar to God, the Midrash concludes that Jacob’s daughter Dinah was punished because Jacob had developed a presumptuous attitude concerning his own power that—we might add—bordered on theological heresy.22
The next passage in the Midrash (80:1) focuses not on Jacob’s misdeed but rather upon the questionable behavior of Dinah herself and the emphasis of the verse upon her being Leah’s daughter. Here, too, the Midrash is rather extreme in its condemnation:
Behold, every one that uses proverbs shall use this proverb against thee, saying: As the mother, so the daughter (Ezekiel 16:44)… [Jose of Maon says,] ‘Like the daughter so is the mother…a woman is not immoral until her daughter is immoral…’ [Resh Lakish replies,] ‘If so…then our mother Leah was a harlot!’ ‘Even so,’ he replied [i.e. yes, she was]: ‘because it says (30:16), And Leah went out to meet him [Jacob, whose conjugal rights she had purchased], which means that she went out to meet him adorned like a harlot’; therefore AND DINAH THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH WENT OUT.23
Taken in full, the Midrash is clearly convinced that someone’s misbehavior is to blame for the sexual assault upon Dinah. Moreover, in an analysis that (almost) anticipates the ongoing feminist/anti-feminist debate, the Midrash alternates between blaming the patriarchal society—that is to say, Jacob, the Patriarch— and the victim herself.
In Genesis 38, just after the story of the sale of Joseph, Judah undergoes personal tragedy, as his wife and two sons die and he is trapped in an affair with his ex-daughter-in-law Tamar. The Midrash (85:2, 11) seeks to explain why these episodes occurred. With regard to Judah’s sons dying, we find:
R. Simon and R. Hanan said in R. Johanan’s name: He who commences a good deed but does not finish it, buries his wife and children. From where do you learn this? From Judah: And Judah said to his brethren: What profit is it etc.? (Genesis 37:26) now he should have led him [Joseph] home in person to his father. What was the result? He buried his wife [the death of whom is also mentioned in Chapter 38] and children.24
Later, when Tamar attempts to prove that Judah was the man who impregnated her—by presenting the objects that he had given to her as collateral—the Midrash notes that she had deceived Judah just as Judah (and his brothers) had deceived Jacob concerning the sale of Joseph:
DISCERN (haker), I PRAY THEE, WHOSE ARE THESE, THE SIGNET, etc. R. Johanan said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah: “Thou didst say to thy father, Discern (haker) I pray thee (Genesis 27:32) [asking Jacob if he recognized Joseph’s torn, bloody clothing]; as thou livest, Tamar will say to thee, DISCERN, I PRAY THEE.”25
In Bereishit Rabbah 87:3-4 (on Genesis 39:6), the Midrash tries to determine the reason why Joseph is tested by the advances of Potiphar’s wife. A number of suggestions are offered. R. Simeon posits that Joseph’s original tale bearing against his brothers must have included a charge of licentiousness; as a result, Joseph himself was subjected to the test of resisting a licentious woman:
What then is the workmanship of the Holy One, blessed be He?—For the work of a man will He requite unto him, and cause every man to find his ways (Job 34:11). R. Meir, R. Judah, and R. Simeon discussed the passage “And Joseph brought evil report of them” (Gen. 37:2)…R. Simeon said: They [the brothers, according to Joseph’s slanderous report] cast their eyes on the daughters of the land…R. Judah b. R. Simon said: With respect to all three [suggestions as to the topics of Joseph’s slander], A just balance and scale are the Lord’s (Proverbs 16:11)…[God says to Joseph] “Thou didst say, ‘They cast their eyes upon the daughters of the land’: I will incite a bear [i.e. Potiphar’s wife] against thee.” HIS MASTER’S WIFE CAST HER EYES UPON Joseph.26
III. Conclusions
Having examined numerous examples of early rabbinic treatment of biblical figures, we are now in position to extract from the data some general conclusions about the early rabbinic approach. As I interpret the evidence, the early rabbinic exegetes were moved primarily by two considerations. The first, which should not strike anyone as surprising, can be thought of as an operating assumption, appended by a corollary:
a. In the absence of other evidence, biblical heroes are admirable and worthy of extravagant praise.
i. Biblical heroes are never guilty of outrageous sins.
This principle inspires the fawning approbation that biblical figures often enjoy at the hands of the Midrash and the Talmud. Moreover, because the biblical heroes are so extraordinarily righteous, it is simply unthinkable that they should have grievously transgressed prohibitions such as idolatry, adultery, or even rank deception. The verses that seem to imply such a thing must be reinterpreted, as we have had occasion to observe.27
However, despite the importance and entrenchment of the rabbinic belief in the piety of biblical heroes, there exists, nevertheless, an overriding principle trumping all others, to which the biblical narrative must adhere:
b. It is the case that, God’s justice being perfect, every calamity or negative episode in the life of a biblical hero or his family (or his nation, in certain cases) must be understood as the divinely orchestrated comeuppance for some sort of misdeed committed by the biblical hero.
This principle, too, contains a corollary of sorts, which is generally, but not always, upheld:
i. In enforcing His justice and punishing the biblical heroes, God chastises the righteous in a manner that highlights the nature of their sin—a manner of punishment colloquially referred to as midah k’neged midah (“measure for measure”).
Every example of rabbinic criticism of biblical heroes cited heretofore features one common element: each is cast in the Midrash or the Talmud as a theological explanation for some sort of suffering undergone by the biblical hero or his family. These examples, I believe, present us with a rather lucid picture of the Rabbis’ motivation for criticizing, in certain instances, the Patriarchs and other biblical heroes. In short, the Rabbis resort to criticism when it serves to explain why various bad things happen to biblical heroes, their families, or to the nation of Israel.28 In the rabbinic view, only sin suffices as an explanation for God’s allowing (or causing) calamity to occur. All this despite the fact that—as we have noted—the Rabbis’ default assumption regarding biblical heroes is that they are worthy of extravagant praise and never grievously sin.
Now, for the most part, the Rabbis’ two principles of treating biblical heroes—admiring the heroes while recognizing God’s perfect justice—do not intractably conflict. However, tension does exist between them. Even when bad things happen to good biblical heroes, so to speak, the Rabbis prefer to highlight relative trifles in the hero’s behavior (e.g. Abraham disturbed his men’s Torah learning, Joseph enjoyed Potiphar’s house too much, etc.) that would explain why the hero is being punished.29 In this way, the Rabbis are able to maintain their reverence for the hero while allowing that God was displeased with some minor imperfection in his character.
However, at times, the Rabbis’ second principle, their belief that sin must precede negative events, overwhelms their inclination to minimize the sins of the biblical heroes. For instance, as we saw in the most extreme example, the Rabbis attribute heretical presumptuousness to Jacob—which is not even hinted to anywhere in the text—as they explain how God allowed the righteous man’s daughter to be raped.
It is this very issue—God’s justice as manifested by His involvement in the world—that reveals the calculus animating the Rabbis’ approach. For, so long as the righteous prosper, God’s system of justice appears intact and no harm can arise from unencumbered adulation of biblical characters. However, the situation is different when trouble arises in the life of the biblical hero. Because of the Rabbis’ understanding of God’s active role in the life of man (and particularly in the lives of Israel’s leaders,) the stakes have been raised; the concern lies not with the reputation of say, Moses or the Patriarchs—but with God’s own reputation! Any misfortune suffered by the biblical hero is viewed by the Rabbis as a direct assault upon God, who would not allow the righteous to suffer unless some manner of sin had been perpetrated. Backed into a theological corner by their assumptions about God’s justice, the Rabbis have little option but to criticize the Bible’s human heroes. As they see it— criticizing the Patriarchs may be unappealing, but criticizing God and His system of justice is unthinkable.
And so, to return to the modern exemplars with which we began, which view accurately reflects the early rabbinic approach to criticizing biblical heroes—that of Aharon Kotler or that of Samson Raphael Hirsch? The answer, we have seen, is both and neither. Kotler is correct that the Rabbis prefer to view biblical heroes as faultless; but he glosses over the instances in which the Rabbis sacrifice their view of the blamelessness of the righteous in order to account for misfortune, which God would allow only as recompense for sin.
And Hirsch adheres to early rabbinic precedent in his agreement that criticism of biblical heroes can be justified. However, Hirsch’s approach is much more textual and less ideologically driven than that of the Rabbis. For Hirsch, the fact that the Torah seems to describe the sins of biblical heroes is sufficient proof of sin. The Rabbis demand much more. For them, criticism of biblical heroes can be countenanced only when the suffering of the righteous—and God’s apparent injustice—demands an explanation. Forced to choose between the two, the Rabbis will always censure the Bible’s human characters. For in the end, there can only be one conclusion: “A just balance and scale are the Lord’s (Proverbs 16:11)…the work of a man will He requite unto him”(Job 34:11).30
I wish to thank Dr. Jacob J. Schachter for generously allowing me access to his vast compilation of sources relevant to criticism of (biblical) heroes; most particularly, my references to modern rabbinic responsa and scholarly consideration of hagiography in fields other than Judaica owe directly to his input. I also would like to thank my dear friend Avraham Yeshuah Rabenstein for his insightful comments on an earlier draft of this essay, and I wish him a speedy refuah sheleimah min ha-shamayim.
Yehuda Kraut is a third year PhD. student in Bible in Penn’s department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations.
Notes
1. Clifford, James. “How Much Should a Biographer Tell?” in Essays in Eighteenth Century Biography, ed. Philip B. Daghlian (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968) 67.
2. On this phenomenon, see – for instance – Gordon Wood. “An Affair of Honor.” New York Review of Books. AprilApril13, 2000. I thank Dr. J. J. Schachter for access to the references he has compiled on this topic. 3. For a valuable discussion of the phenomenon, see, for instance, David Berger’s “On the Morality of the Patriarchs in Jewish Polemics and Exegesis,” in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, ed. Shalom Carmy, (Aronson: New Jersey, 1996), 131-146.
4. See Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Bereshit (Genesis), trans. Aryeh Newman (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1974) 331. See also Yitzchok Adlerstein. “On Football, the Avot and Recent Disputes in Israel.” Jewish Action 50:2 (Spring 1990): 35.
5. Aharon Kotler. “From the Archives,” Trans. Moshe Kolodny. The Jewish Observer. March 1991, 50. Other modern-day proponents of this approach include Eliyahu Dessler and the former chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, Haim Dovid Ha-Levi, among many others. See, respectively, Dessler’s Mikhtav Me’eliyahu. (Jerusalem, 1963) Vol. 3, p160 and Ha-Levi’s ‘aseh Leka Rav (Jerusalem, 1983) Vol. 5, Ch. 115.
6. Levy, Isaac. The Pentateuch; translated & explained by Samson Raphael Hirsch. Rendered into English by Isaac Levy. (London: 1963).
H. Freedman and Maurice Simon.
7. Midrash Rabbah, Volume 1, 403. Similarly formulated praise for Adam can be found in Bereishit Rabbah 2:7. See also Mechilta (R’ Ishmael) to Exodus 14:15, concerning Abraham. Joseph is likewise praised in the Mechilta to 13:19.
8. See, for instance, Shlomo Aviner. “Tanakh bi-govah ha-‘eynayim.” Bi-Ahavah ube-’ emunah 32. 4 February 2002. See also Yitzchok Adlerstein. “On Football, the Avot and Recent Disputes in Israel.” Jewish Action 50:2 (Spring 1990): 33-36.
9. Admittedly, the use of Eliyahu Rabbah as a source is somewhat complicated by the fact that no fixed date is known for when the work was originally composed – with estimates ranging all the way from the 3rd to 10th centuries CE. Still, even on the assumption of a late date for the work, the passage quoted here illustrates just how completely – for at least some authors – the notion of the righteousness of the Patriarchs permeated the rabbinic consciousness.
10. Shlomo Fox Ashrei, Tractate Shabbos, Volume II. (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1996) 55b3.
11. I should note that the views in the Talmud regarding Reuben, David, etc., are not unanimous; indeed, some rabbis seem to have held biblical figures culpable for the deeds that the Bible seems to describe. Still, the unmistakable thrust of the passages in Shabbat is to clear the heroes of their alleged wrongdoings.
12. Most notably, Solomon – whom Scripture describes as having built an altar for the idol Kemosh, and about whom it states: “his wives turned his heart after other gods” [I Kings 11:4] – is criticized for merely tolerating, but not imitating or contributing to, his wives’ idolatrous practices.
13.S. Buber, Midrash Tanhuma, Trans. John Townsend. (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989) 154. Midrash Rabbah, 593, has a slightly different variation on the same theme: “[Jacob answered his father]: ‘I am to receive the Ten Commandments, but Esau [is] thy firstborn.’” It seems that the Midrash Rabbah is basing itself on the first word of Jacob’s statement – ’anoki – to be reminiscent of the same first word of the Decalogue.
14. Similarly, when Jacob’s sons are said to act with mirmah as they deceive the people of Shechem following the rape of Dinah, the midrash defends them. Bereishit Rabbah offers further defense of Shimon and Levi for their massacre of the city of Shechem. See also its defense of the brothers’ hatred of Joseph (Genesis 37:3) and Judah’s affair with Tamar (Genesis Chapter 38).
15. Adlerstein emphasizes this point (35, column 4). More generally, Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Bereshit (Genesis), trans. Aryeh Newman (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1974) 331, comments: “Our sages were very exacting in their standards where the Patriarchs were concerned. If they found their conduct wanting, they had no qualms about drawing attention it.” See the discussion in Howard Deichter. “Between Angels and Mere Mortals: Nehama Leibowitz’s Approach to the Study of Biblical Characters.” Journal of Jewish Education 66:1-2 (2000) 15ff.
16. This same issue is addressed in Bereishit Rabbah (54:4); there, the exile is blamed on the (unwarranted) gift of seven ewes that Abraham gives to Abimelech (Genesis 21:30). Certain rabbis claim that Abraham’s descendants suffered other punishments for that gift. A different possibility is raised in Tractate Shabbat (BT) 10b, in which Jacob is held responsible for causing the exile because he favored Joseph over his brothers, leading to the sale of Joseph to Egypt and, eventually, the migration of the entire family to Egypt. I thank my good friend Avraham Yeshuah Rabenstein for this reference and wish him a speedy refuah sheleimah min ha-shamayim.
17. In Bereishit Rabbah (41:8) on Genesis 13:14, R. Nehemiah says that Abraham sinned in assuming that Lot would be his rightful heir. The Midrash then implies that Abraham is punished (immediately) for this sin as two coalitions of kings battle for control of the very land that God had earlier promised to Abraham: “if so [i.e., if Abraham believes that Lot would be his heir,] let him go and bring two common people from the marketplace and let them inherit his [land], just as he desires [for] his brother’s son.”
18. Bereishit Rabbah, 484.
19. Bereishit Rabbah, 185.
20. For further discussion of this matter, see Berger 141ff. and the extensive bibliographical resources listed in his footnote 25.
21. It is conceivable that the word ’el refers to some sort of “power” rather than to actual divinity, and Jacob is claiming only that he maintains some sort of power over the earth. But even this reading would, seemingly, portray Jacob as challenging God’s absolute authority.
22. Another midrash—Tanhuma Vayishlah 8—ascribes a different sin to Jacob, delaying the fulfillment of the vows he undertook in Genesis 28.
23. Bereishit Rabbah, 736.
24. Bereishit Rabbah, 790.
25. Bereishit Rabbah, 796-7.
26. Bereishit Rabbah, 807. Virtually the same midrash is cited in Midrash Rabbah 84:7 (774-5). A different midrash in Bereishit Rabbah explains that Joseph was tested by the wife of Potiphar because he had become too comfortable in Potiphar’s house. The Tanhuma, argues that Joseph was punished because he had become too preoccupied with his own physical appearance. In Genesis 40, the Torah records that the butler with whom he is imprisoned forgets, for two years, to mention Joseph’s plight to Pharaoh. Bereishit Rabbah (89:3) comments that the butler’s forgetfulness represents a punishment of Joseph for having placed his trust in the butler rather than in God.
27. Adlerstein notes that there is a Talmudic principle that could explain why the Bible would portray the sins of its heroes to be more serious than they actually were – namely, “The Holy One, blessed be He, is exacting with those who surround him, even to [the extent of ] a hairsbreadth.” (From BT Bava Kamma 50a; Yevamot 121b). In other words, God is more demanding of the righteous, and so a righteous person’s minor indiscretion is considered by God as a great sin and is punished. This principle, Adlerstein argues, also explains why the Bible chooses to exaggerate the sins of its heroes. I would note, however, that there is a gap between the existence of an abstract principle – which is invoked by the Talmud to explain why a certain rabbi was punished, despite his righteousness – and Adlerstein’s notion that the Bible will describe sins in an exaggerated manner in order to fulfill this principle. I have not seen this principle applied by the rabbis of the Talmud to explain why the Tanakh, in their view, exaggerates the sins of the righteous. Importantly, the Talmudic passages, especially those in tractate Shabbat, make no mention of this “hairsbreadth” principle; they simply reinterpret the verses without enunciating any motivating principle that would justify the reinterpretation (e.g. When the Talmud asserts that David only wanted to – but didn’t – commit adultery, it does not claim that the Bible exaggerated the incident because of the “hairsbreadth” consideration. Indeed, no reason for the exaggeration is given). I believe that, without any evidence, it is too great a leap to assume that the Talmud means to imply that the Bible operates according to the principle that Adlerstein [among others] so liberally invokes.
28. I wish to emphasize that I am not identifying the only factor that leads the rabbis to criticize biblical heroes. In certain cases, it is possible that the rabbis were motivated by their own sense of morals in addition to, or even independent from, considerations of God’s justice. However, in my survey of the evidence, I have found that a concern for explaining why the righteous suffer underlies most criticisms of biblical heroes.
29. See the discussion in the previous footnote.
30. See Bereishit Rabbah 87:3, quoted above.