Torah Role Models

by R. Gil Student

Who should be our Torah role models from history? Put differently, what characteristics of the great Torah leaders of the past should serve as our guides? Every individual teaches many lessons through his long life and multi-faceted personality. Avraham was known for his kindness; David exemplified bravery; the Rambam was a profound thinker; the Vilna Ga’on studied with incredible diligence. None of these traits are contradictory. However, we can certainly order our priorities while allowing ourselves to learn different lessons from different people. The answer might be found in Ya’akov’s strange violation of a Torah law.

I. Commandments and Israel

Ramban (Gen. 26:5) asks how Ya’akov could marry two sisters (Gen. 29:16-30) which the Torah forbids (Lev. 18:28). Similarly, Amram married his aunt (Ex. 6:20). However, the Torah says that Avraham kept God’s law: “All this is because Avraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My decrees, and My laws” (Gen. 26:5). How, asks the Ramban, did Ya’akov and Amram violate the laws that Avraham so fastidiously observed and for which God rewarded him?

Ramban answers (expressly in the midrashic, and not peshat, vein) that the patriarchs only observed the commandments in the land of Israel. Ya’akov and Amram lived outside of Israel when they married a woman otherwise forbidden to them. Indeed, Rachel died in childbirth on entering Israel, as a divine prevention of violating the Torah law. Ramban writes that “the commandments are laws of the God of the land [of Israel].”

Ramban explains further elsewhere (Lev. 18:25). In Israel, God directly guides events while elsewhere God has intermediaries provide oversight. This gives the land of Israel greater holiness and less tolerance for religious misbehavior. Perhaps more importantly, this places God, the Jews and the Torah in a unique connection with the land of Israel. While we Jews in exile must certainly observe the commandments, we only fully achieve their potential in Israel. This theme appears repeatedly in Ramban’s commentary (e.g. Gen. 24:3, 28:17; Deut. 4:28, 11:18).

Ramban’s view that the patriarchs only observed the commandments in the land of Israel is very surprising. This would mean that he began his marriages with Rachel and Leah, and raised his children, while not observing commandments. They ate non-kosher food in their childhood, until they entered the land of Israel. Later, Ya’akov and his entire family spent the last years of their lives in Egypt, eating non-kosher again. This all seems quite strange.

II. Challenges

Later commentaries challenged Ramban on other grounds. The literature discussing this issue in general, and specifically Ramban’s view, is quite large. ^[1]For example, see Or Ha-Chaim, Gen. 49:3; Maharsha, Yoma 28b sv. mitzvosai; Parashas Derakhim, no. 1; Pardes Yosef, Gen. 25:6; Chiddushei Ha-Griz al Ha-Torah (stencil), Lekh Lekha. Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi (Gen. 26:5) asks from the Gemara (Pesachim 119b) which describes the messianic meal God will serve. Afterward, he will ask a number of patriarchs to recite the blessing over a cup of wine (lead bentching) and each will decline for his own reason until David agrees to lead. According to the Gemara, Yaakov will refuse to say the blessing because he married two sisters, which the Torah forbids. However, asks Rav Mizrachi, if Ya’akov did not claim to observe the commandments outside the land of Israel, why is this deemed problematic? For that matter, Ya’akov could also have said that he ate non-kosher. Why specify marriage?

Rav Yeshayahu Horowitz (Shenei Luchis Ha-Beris, vol. 2, Vayigash, Torah Or) ^[2]Quoted in Rav Ya’akov Ettlinger, Minchas Ani, Vayechi. See an approach similar to Rav Ettlinger’s, but consistent with the Ramban, in Rav Shlomo Fanzfried, Apiryon Al Ha-Torah, Vayechi, … Continue reading argues that even outside of Israel, Ya’akov received God’s direct attention. Therefore, for Ya’akov there was no difference between living in or out of Israel. He must have observed the commandments equally while in the diaspora.

Rather, most commentators suggest that Ya’akov’s wives effectively underwent conversion before marrying him. These conversions rendered them like newborns without family relationships that would have otherwise made the marriages forbidden. ^[3]See Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh, Gen. 26:5.

III. Commandments and Connection

Rav Horowitz’s objection is hard to understand. His argument seems to be that the land of Israel’s uniqueness is the close relationship between its inhabitants and God. The patriarchs maintained that relationship even outside of Israel and therefore should not have exhibited any difference regarding commandments inside or outside of Israel.

However, Rav Horowitz assumes that the land of Israel’s only relevance is in its direct divine guidance. Ramban seems to be saying more. He is saying that the Jewish people have a unique connection to the land. Every nation has its own place and Israel is the place for Jews to live as Jews. Even if the patriarchs experienced direct divine providence outside of Israel, they were still in the diaspora, still exiles from their own land. Only when in the land of Israel would they observe the Torah of Israel.

IV. Role Models

Rav Mizrachi’s challenge can be understood if we consider the different patriarchs and their reasons for rejection. After this heavenly, messianic meal, God asks Avraham, Yitzchak, Ya’akov, Moshe, Yehoshua and David to lead. Only David accepts. Avraham, Yitzchak and Yehoshua decline because they either have a wicked son or no son at all (Yehoshua). Ya’akov declines because he married two sisters and Moshe declines because he did not enter Israel.

The connection between all five seems to be transmission of the Jewish tradition. While all the patriarchs were Jewish heroes who accomplished great things for Torah, Avraham, Yitzchak and Yehoshua failed to exemplify the transmission of Torah tradition, of the Mesorah. Certainly, you cannot blame a father if his son leaves the Jewish faith. Those deviant children are expressing their God-given free will. Nor can you blame Yehoshua for his tragic childlessness. Despite all that, these three did not succeed in transmitting the Mesorah to their entire next generation.

Ya’akov succeeded; all his children remained religious. However, his marriage did not follow the strict letter of the Torah law, even though he committed no crime. Like Avraham and Yitzchak, Ya’akov did nothing wrong. However, we still cannot hold him as the foremost example of transmitting the tradition because his family–his primary form of transmitting the Mesorah–did not conform to the tradition. Similarly, Moshe never observed the commandments in the land of Israel, which according to the Ramban is the primary observance of the Torah. While Moshe certainly exemplifies the transmission of Torah knowledge, he cannot be the highest example of the experiential Mesorah. Although he tried to be. He begged God to let him into Israel, not to eat the fruits and vegetables but to fulfill the commandments, as the Sages explain (Sotah 14a).

Only David completely transmitted the Mesorah. He established a permanent dynasty, an eternal chain of transmission. David was not necessarily greater than any of the other patriarchs. Each was great in his own way and each should serve as role models to us.

However, in order to reach the messianic era, we have to transmit the Mesorah. We have to continue in the paths of the patriarchs and Sages. When the great meal arrives, we will celebrate the new era by heralding David’s accomplishment in transmitting the Mesorah all the way to the Mashiach.