Do You Trust Midrashim?
And More Specifically: Who Is Abraham?
This past week we were introduced to Avraham a little bit.
Or were we?
I mean, sure, we learn who his father was and his siblings and his wife and that she was barren. We learned that Terach, Avraham, Lot, and Sarai went to Canaan and went to live in Haran.
I feel like we know more about Charan (who dies) than we do Avraham. What's the deal? It seems a bit odd. Like, we're about to go into this whole story and Avraham (he's technically Avram now) who's going to be the father of Judaism. We have practically no background check on this guy, we hardly know anything about him!
And then the Midrash hops along...
Rashi brings up a midrash that supposedly resembles the pshat. Though he rejects its textual reference, he still thinks its true. The midrash is on the words "al pnei aviv". There's this whole elaborate story about how Avraham wouldn't worship idols and Terach allowed them to put him in the fire and he survived so then Haran follows suit and he dies, and so that was his father's fault for letting that happen. I don't know, but I just don't buy it. There's no proof for this whatsoever. Why would we get insight onto Avraham when the torah is telling us something about his brother?
Right now I feel a little bit lost because I feel like I know nothing definite about Avraham. I know that there are a lot of things that aren't definite, but it would be nice to have a little background on him, right? He is the father of Judiasm.
Nachmonodies has this whole explanation as to why the kivshon ha'esh thing really did happen and- as opposed to what Rashi said- how it fits into context. I give him props for his efforts, but I disagree with him. It's very well thought out, but it's still pretty much coming from nowhere.
My only comfort comes with the Rambam. He always has something smart to say, probably because he's such a logical guy. What's interesting about what the Rambam says is that he actually brings in proof from other sources. As opposed to just going with the Midrash, he pulls in sources from the other side, from a book called The Nabatean Agriculture. He gives a little more information as to the background of Abraham: about how Avraham lived among idol worshipers but didn't believe in that, so he gathered his own followers, but then got arrested, and then there was a miracle and he got out of jail and escaped.
What I like most about the Rambam's explination is that unlike the other commentators, he doesn't try to come up with a loophole and pretend like this was actually mentioned in the Torah. He says that Avraham is specifically not mentioned in the text to distinguish between Torah and Philosophy. Had it given us the story, people might conclude that there's only one way to worship God.
In conclusion, I find it hard to believe Midrashim because, although they are interesting, they are hardly backed up by context. Though the Rambam's answer is sufficient for now, I would still like have liked to know a little more about Avraham before we jump into a whole story about him becoming the leader.
-What do you guys think about Midrashim? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
-Whose explanation did you like the best?
-Are you content with the whole Avraham situation? Would you like to know more about him? Or is there enough?
Right now I feel a little bit lost because I feel like I know nothing definite about Avraham. I know that there are a lot of things that aren't definite, but it would be nice to have a little background on him, right? He is the father of Judiasm.
Nachmonodies has this whole explanation as to why the kivshon ha'esh thing really did happen and- as opposed to what Rashi said- how it fits into context. I give him props for his efforts, but I disagree with him. It's very well thought out, but it's still pretty much coming from nowhere.
My only comfort comes with the Rambam. He always has something smart to say, probably because he's such a logical guy. What's interesting about what the Rambam says is that he actually brings in proof from other sources. As opposed to just going with the Midrash, he pulls in sources from the other side, from a book called The Nabatean Agriculture. He gives a little more information as to the background of Abraham: about how Avraham lived among idol worshipers but didn't believe in that, so he gathered his own followers, but then got arrested, and then there was a miracle and he got out of jail and escaped.
What I like most about the Rambam's explination is that unlike the other commentators, he doesn't try to come up with a loophole and pretend like this was actually mentioned in the Torah. He says that Avraham is specifically not mentioned in the text to distinguish between Torah and Philosophy. Had it given us the story, people might conclude that there's only one way to worship God.
In conclusion, I find it hard to believe Midrashim because, although they are interesting, they are hardly backed up by context. Though the Rambam's answer is sufficient for now, I would still like have liked to know a little more about Avraham before we jump into a whole story about him becoming the leader.
-What do you guys think about Midrashim? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
-Whose explanation did you like the best?
-Are you content with the whole Avraham situation? Would you like to know more about him? Or is there enough?
 |
| I feel like it's awkward getting a drawing of Abraham, so here's another Abraham: Lincoln that is! Hey, maybe they looked the same! We'll never know... |
No comments:
Post a Comment