Perfect Heroes?
In one of my favorite passages, Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (on Bereishit 12:10 – when Avraham behaves surprisingly in Egypt, long before this week’s parsha) addresses the question of fallibility of biblical heroes and argues emphatically that:
The Torah never presents our great men as being perfect… it may never be our task to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past, to appear as apologists for them. They do not require our apologies, nor do such attempts become them.
Yet, in his comments on Parshat Vayeshev, Rav Hirsch echoes an explanation of the sale of Yosef that certainly sounds like whitewashing.
What does the brothers’ plot against Yosef say about them?
Seforno (Bereishit 37:18) writes:
They thought…that Yosef had come to them not to inquire of their welfare but to find a pretext against them or cause them to sin, so that their father would curse them or God would punish them… in that they were all completely righteous…and the Torah tells us: “one who comes to kill you [kill him first]” (Sanhedrin 72a).
Through an intricate analysis of the grammar of verse 18 (too much to include here), Seforno concludes that the brothers planned to kill Yosef because they believed – mistakenly, but honestly – that he fell into the category of a rodef, a pursuer, to whom the law of self-defense applies.
Rav Hirsch follows in Seforno’s footsteps, both in explaining the grammatical nuances and in his conclusion:
When Joseph came up to them, they imagined him to be a person most highly dangerous to all their highest and noblest interests, lahamito, that one would be allowed to kill him, that, in self-protection it seemed to them right to kill him.
Why whitewash the brothers’ terrible treatment of Yosef, if biblical figures “do not require our apologies, nor do such attempts become them”? Why not simply accept that jealousy and hatred led to a terrible sin?
Perhaps because this is not whitewashing, but careful analysis.
Making Sense of the Facts
Although Rav Hirsch is fiercely supportive of the fallibility of our biblical heroes, he goes on in his comments to 12:10:
…All this, if we would have to say with Ramban: “Avraham our father sinned a great sin [by going to Egypt and by putting his wife into a terrible situation].” But before we come to this decision, let us consider more closely the facts which are told us of this event.
Rav Hirsch reminds us that before assuming the worst, we must consider the facts. We must look carefully at the narrative, at the larger picture of both the individual and his or her story.
In the case of Avraham in Egypt, Rav Hirsch points out that Avraham played the exact same “game” in Gerar (chapter 20), and so did Yitzchak (chapter 26). It cannot be that claiming one’s wife as his sister was the strange course of action it seems to us; if it were, it would not make sense that they did it again – especially after it backfired so royally. There must have been some real logic to it, some clever strategy – within that historical and societal context – such that it made sense to claim they were siblings. And it is our task to read closely and determine what that might have been. (See Rav Hirsch there.)
And so too in our parsha
To quote further from Seforno,
They thought… And with this [we can explain how this happened], in that they were all completely righteous, to the extent that their names were a remembrance before Hashem (Shemot 28:29, and see Seforno there) – how could they have determined together to kill their brother, or to sell him…?!
Seforno doesn’t just wave his arms and yell “They were perfect!” Rather, he says: We have clear evidence that all twelve brothers were chosen by God and deemed righteous, including the fact that their names were inscribed on the priestly breastplate as a constant “remembrance” before God. That status doesn’t seem to fit with a group of thugs who would sell their brother because they’re jealous of him! Therefore, we have to read closely; there must be more to it.
As Rav Hirsch writes (37:11-12):
Following the precedent of Sforno…we think it our duty to look, if not for a justification, still for an explanation for the event which now follows. After all we have not to do with a band of robbers and murderers who would lightly commit murder for the sake of a coat.
We don’t need to assume our ancestors or heroes were perfect, or that they weren’t. What we need to do is read, and try to make sense of what we read, and uncover the meaning in it all.