sources on avot

8/8/2019 Sources on Avot

1/13


2/13

Perspectives on the Avot and lmahotAvishai David

Ed's Note: The following is an approach to the question ofhow to present Biblicalfigures to ourstudents: As larger than life or as very human. Ten Da'at invites additional perspectives andapproaches.TIle Ramban in his commentary on the Torah has repeatedly articulated the dictum "maaseh ovot

siman I 'vanim ". The footsteps of ourAvot and Imahot are writ large on the pages of Jewish historyfor they blazed the contours of our future. We, their descendants. are mandated to flesh out thoseoutlines and parameters. They functioned in a "creative" capacity, designing the course of history;we, by precise scrutiny of their lives can glean for ourselves patterns of our history, but we are onlytreading in their footsteps. A concomitant but equaUy significant component of this principle is thefaith and strength displayed by the Avot and Imahot. Just as they confronted trials and tribulationsand emerged spiritually unscathed so, too, we can be confident of our ultimate ability to survive thelong night of galut and ultimately merit tilegeulah.

How should Je\\'ish educators present these role models to their students? A cursory examinationof the Ramban in his commentary on the Torah seems to reveal conflicting outlooks. In parshatHayei Sarah. the Ramban, commenting on tile verse that describes Eliezer. the servant of Abraham.removing the muzzles from the camels. notes that it is impossible to conceive that the piety of RavPinhas Ben Yair was greater than tIlat displayed by Avraham A\


3/13

and Sarah with all types of afflict ion." Again the Ramban has connected the actions of Avrahamand Sarah with the maltreaUnent of generations of the Jews at the hands of the descendants ofYishmael.

The Ran in his Drashot asks the following questions on the Ramban's comment regarding thefamine: I) Later on we encOlUlter a famine during the days ofYitzhak (26: I), and he too wanted togo to Egypt to escape the throes of the famine. The Almighty commanded him to remain in EretzYisrael. The Ran asks, if Avraham's descent to Egypt constitutes a transgressiol then why wouldYitzchak want to follow such a course: ipsofacto, we must assume that Yitzhak was unaware thatthis was tantamount to a sinand therefore chose to do so as a rational choice given the exigency ofthe moment. I f so, how did the Ramban know that it was a transgression? 2) Furthermore ifjeopardizing his wife's situation also constituted a transgression, why then did Yitzhak simulate thisbehavior?

To resolve these questions, one must probe the aforementioned principlemaaseh avot siman/'vanim. The first seventy-five years of the life ofAbraham aren't subject to the principle of maasehavot. Every subsequent event transcribed by the Torah has signal relevance for the future unfoldingdevelopment of kneset Yisrael. Avraham and Sarah are the roots of the t ree and we are the branchesand foliage. The frenetic hakhnasat orhim of Abraham, of "I pray you. le t a little water bebrought" is related to the well that sustained the Je\\ ish people in the desert: the morsel of breadgiven to the orhim by Abraham, to the manna in the desert; the aff lict ions suffered by Pharaoh inEgypt during the days of Abraham, to the afflictions given out to Pharaoh, King of Egypt; Avrahamleaving Egypt laden with material goods. to the booty taken by the Jews when they left Egypt. Thefootprints of the Avot and fmaho( are therefore indelibly etched into our historical psyche.Therefore. even though the Ramban takes Abraham to task, once the .t4vot chose to act as they did. itautomatically assumed the cosmic dimensions of maaseh avol simon /'vanim. Similarly Hazalcritique Yaakov in initiating the encounter with Esav, described in the begilming of porshatf/ayish/ah cited by the Ramban. Yet even though Yaakov could and perhaps should have chosen analternate approach and modus operandi, once he opted for a particular methodology it becamehallowed in our value system. The shtad/anut of Yaakov became a paradigm for Jews throughouttheir sojourn ga/Uf.

The query of the Ran is therefore resolved. Even though Abraham and Yaakov should haveemployed a different path, the maaseh avof simon I'vonim dictated that the identical course befollowed by their descendants. Therefore, Yitzhak initially chose, during a period of famine. tofollow his father until he received theDi\ine directive enjoining him to remain and dwell in thisland The position of the of Ramban is inherent in the precise terminology of the Midrash Rabah hecites in chapter 12, verse lOin Bereishit: "Rabbi Pinhas in the name of Rabbi Oshaya by stated: The

3


4/13

Almighty told Abraham, go and pave tlle road for your children." The midrash continues, It And youfind that all that is written regarding Abraham is written regarding his children." Therefore, theRamban suggests, perhaps the descent to Egypt was a transgression, but once Abraham blazed tlletrail, Yitzhak had to follow suit.

The superstructure that undergirds the history of kneset Yisrael was established by the Avot andImahat and we can only understand our strengths and weaknesses by studying their lives withexceeding care. The Ramban, throughout his commentary on Bereishit, doesn't fail to accentuatethe righteousness of the Avot and Imahot, in general, and Abraham and Sarah in particular TheRamban focuses on their impeccable faith and piety. their stalwart commitment and their consuminglove of God.

The position of the Ramban, tllerefore, is tllat even if a particular position posed by the Avot andImahot was lacking in appropriateness, it still has eternal validity and fits into tlle schemata ofmaaseh avot siman /'vanim. The source the kedushah of the Ava! and Imahat and in their saintlycharacter. They were human beings who by dint of their extraordinary efforts developed andnurtured their personalities. Ramban in his commentary on the Torah has e:-..1ensively developed theTalmudic notion (Yevamot 121b) that the Almighty deals witll the righteous utilizing a differentbarometer and standard. Harav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (Bereishil 12: 10-13) in commenting onthe Ramban regarding the transgression of Abraham, poignantly notes that the Tomh never defiesour great leaders and tzadikim but presents tllem as human beings who struggled violently to achieveprofound virtues. By honestly describing their characters we are able to relate to them and viewthem as our role models. It is in that vein that Hazal instruct us itA person is obligated to say. whenwill my actions reach those of Abraham. Yitl.h.ak and Yaakov." If we view them as tmnscendentdemigods, they will be beyond our intellectual and emotional purview. If we view them as humanbeings who achieved dizzying spiritual heights through their indefatigable self-discipline. tllen wecan begin to comprehend their attainments. Indeed. it is a subtle distinction but a profoundlyimportant one. It's enormously difficult. ifnot well nigh impossible. to gain parity with the Avot andImahot, but we are and instructed to attempt to reach (mauwyageea) or touch their heavenly boundfootsteps (Sefat Emet). The Mishnah in Masekhet Megila (25a) states: "The episode of Tamar isread in tlle synagogue and tmnslated." It's explained in the Talmud that one might have deemed tllisimproper out of respect for Yehudah, but the conclusion is that the passage only redounds to hiscredit for it underscores the middah of confession exhibitedby Yehudah. Harav Solveitchik shlitahhas, in this vein, contrdsted the personalities of Yosefand Yehuda in light of a dual typologyemployed by the Ramban in his Shemonah Perakim. Yosef is the "congenital (zadik and hasi(l" whosuccessfully defeats the yetzer horo at every juncture. Yehuda is the courageous individual who mayhave faltered but ultimately rose to the challenge and as a result of those qualities merited kingship.

4


5/13

There exists a tendency to either portray the Avot and Imahot as angels that we cannot relate to orto depict them as finite mortals "'ith foibles and weaknesses that we encounterdaily. The firstposition engenders the problem described above; the second, however, reveals an egregious lack ofunderstanding of individuals whom the Ramban often characterizes in kabbalistic terms as being"the chariotof the Almighty." The Ramban was able to carve out a position, which accords themthe ultimate derekh eretz for their kedushah and piety, while simultaneously demonstrating theirpristine humanity. In hisGuide for Ihe Perplexed (part 3. chapter 51), the Ramban states:

When we have acquired a true knowledge ofGod and rejoice in that knowledgein such a manner, that while speaking to others or attending to our bodily wants,our mind is all that time with G o d ~ when we are with our heart constantly near God,even while our body is in the society ofmen...then we have attained not only theheight of ordinary prophets, but ofMoses, our teacher. ..The Patriarchs likewiseattained this degree of perfection.... Their mind was so identified with theknowledge ofGod that He made a lasting covenant with each of them.... When wetherefore find them also engaged in ruling others, in increasing their property, andendeavoring to obtain possession of wealth and honor, we see in this fact a proofthat when they were occupied in these things, only their bodily limbs were at work,while their heart and mind never moved away from the name ofGod....

5


6/13

One must, therefore, be eX1raordinarily careful not to approach the Avot with an intellectualarrogance that would equate them with everyday mortals, but simultaneously one must not catapultthem to heights where any attempt to relate to them and learn from them would constitute animpediment to relatively spiritual Liliputians. It's a tensue balancing act that must be utilizedrecognizing the pitfalls in both approaches. I f we succeed however, we will achieve recognition thatthere is no conflict and the Avot and imahot wiII become our guides and role models in our lives.As the prophet Isaiah (51: 1-2) expressed: "Look unto the rock from where you were hewn and tothe hole of the pit from where you are digged. Look onto Avraham your father and onto Sarah thatbore you, for I called him alone and blessed him and increased him."

RABBI DAViD;s the Rosh Yeshiva ofthe Yeshivat Ohr Chaim / Ulpanat Drat High School in Down.sview,Ontario.See Ramban, Bereishit, 13: 13; 15:6; 17: 1,22; 18: 1,18,19; 21:9; 22: I; 24:32; 25: 17.

6


7/13

Another Perspective on the Avot and ImahotZvi GrumetI

In the Spring 1991 issue ofTen Da'at, Avishai David took a bold step fonvard by opening forus the thorny issue of teaching about the Avol and Imahol. Indeed, we ow e him gratitude for hisinsights and thoughts. As the editor's prefatory note indicates, however. additional perspectivesan d approaches are invited and.. may I add, needed. Relying almost entirely on the Ramban'snotion of ma'aseh avof simon I'vanim, Rabbi David treads very carefully, willing to admit humanfallibility of the A vot. while maintaining that "even though Ya'akov could an d perhaps shouldhave chosen a different modus operandi [regarding his confrontation with Esav], once he optedfor a particular methodology it became hallowed in ou r value system." Similarly, he suggests,"Perhaps the descent to Egypt was a transgression. Once Avraham blazed the trail, Yitzhak ha dto follow suit."

A closerreading of the Rarnban (and the rnidrashim which serve as his foundation) yield, Ibelieve. a different approach regarding this particular point. Generally, "ma'aseh avol simonI'vanim is understood by the Ramban as a predictive principle (that is. that the actions of the Avot,md the consequences of those actions will. perforce, be repeated in history), an d not as aprescriptive one (meaning, that their descendants should follow in the footsteps o f theirforefathers). Th e only exception is that ofYa'akov. where Hazal inform us that Ya'akov shouldnot have instigated Esav, but he at least compensated for his error in his modus operandi. Th emessage for eternity is not to be understood as, "from now on we are to 'start up' withEsav"sdescendants" (as Rabbi David would have us believe) rather, "once we are already involved withEsav's descendants, how should we go about dealing with the situation."

Would anyone dare to suggest that the terrible gO/lit in JIitzrayim. which the Ramban ascribesto (read: blames on) Avraham's trip to Alitzrayim, was something that we should strive to repeatagain in ou r history? The actions of the Avot may indeed be predictive o f ou r own destiny. bu t itis difficult to claim that once they erred (as the Ramban and others do not hesitate to point outthat they did), their "particular methodology, become[sj hallowed in ou r value system."Particularly troublesome is Rabbi David's need for the principle of ma'aseh omt siman !'vanim tolearn lessons from the Aval. Why can't the Avot simply serve as role models. without resorting tomystical principles? If we, indeed, assume that this principle is the foundation of ou r learninglessons from ou r forefathers, does that imply that, since Moshe Rabbenu, Shmuel HaNavi andDavid HaMelekh were not AVOI that we can't learn lessons from them?1/

Before we proceed to suggest an alternate approach to the A vot, we must be willing to askourselves a critical question. Why ar e we afraid to ascribe human weakness and fallibility to theAvo!? Do we think that we would not be able to learn from the Avo! if they were mortals? Rabbi

7


8/13

David rightly notes that this reasoning rings hollow. "Ifwe view them [theAvotJ as transcendentdemigods, they will be beyond our intellectual and emotional purview." TIlis being the case,why are we so unnerved by the notion that the Avot were human. with strengths and weaknesses,who strove to overcome their weaknesses while capitalizing on their strengths? Are thefoundations of our beliefso shaky that we must immortalize those who preceded us to justifyourselves? Are we so insecure that discovering a blemish in our forefathers would shatter thereligious edifices we have constructed? (Indeed, a brief survey of current popular biographies ofTorah luminaries, both present and past, reveals a tendency to portray them as anything buthuman.)

Ifwe validate our beliefs based not on the conviction of our own convictions andunderstanding, but solely on the authenticity and authority of our predecessors, thenwe can certainly understand the need to perceive and portray those predecessors asinfallible for any fault of theirs reveals our own weaknesses.Perhaps it is because we live in an age of general irreverence for authority and irreverence for

religion. that we feel a need to hold on to the she'eirit ha'pleitah, the last vestige of that whichwe hold as sacred. Perhaps, as our halakhic and theological systems have come under attack wehave responded defensively, by standing on the shouJders ofour forefathers, ourAvot,establishing them as unquestionably correct in all of their actions, motivations and beliefs.

A variation on the above would read as follows: If our Avot can err. then surely so can Hazal.I f Hazal can err, then why should people listen to them? After all, any particular decision oft11eirs might be in errorl! Hence, we must maintain theAvot as infallible in order to protect ourhalakhic system and respect for the authority of Hazal. (TIlis logic. of course. is flawed in manyways. The authority of Hazal does not emanate from their inability to be wrong. rather. from aDivine decree that they have authority even if their decision goes against God's original intent.)

If either of the above motivations is true. then we must investigate whether our perceptions ofour national and religious heroes are. indeed, accurate, or self-made images created to satisfy ourown needs. Indeed, young children need to see their parents (and all of their heroes) asinfallible. t requires emotional maturity to recognize that our parents do. in fact make mistakes.yet that does not detract from our feelings of love and admiration for them. Perhaps we need tobe religiously mature to accept the fallibility of our Avot. without letting that awareness detractfrom our reverence of them.III

In light of the above, let us then ask the quest ion anew. How are we to view. and to teachabout the Avo/? Let it be clear that it is critical to distinguish between two issues. which areobviously different, but are all too often confused. One is the issue of how to perceive theAvotthemselves were they in fact super-humans or merely inspired mortals. The second is an

8


9/13

educational i s s u e ~ e s p i t e wh o the Avot really were, how should we b e p resen ti n g t h em to ou rstudents?

We must not s coffat the separation o f these two issues, o r a t the formulation o f theeducational question. In halakha we sometimes employ the principle halakha v'ein morin keinjust because th e halakha isa certain way does not necessari ly mean it should be taught as such.Sometimes, educational issues take precedence over determination o f absolute truth. Even werewe to discover that theAvot were humans with many weaknesses, is it appropriate to teach thatnotion to ou r students? Perhaps ou r students need to believe that th e Avot were infallible. Th etwo issues are by no means synonymous, although resolution o f on e may help us resolve theother. Perhaps the most cri tical issue relates to the role of d'rash within ou r learning of TorahSneBikhtav. I f we accept d'rash as the only authoritative interpretation o f th e text, then we haveno question regarding the Avot, for we ca n selectively learn only those midrashim that willsupport the perspective we wish to present If, on th e other hand, we go back to the Gemara'sprinciple o f ein miTcra yotzei miydei peshuto, then it becomes more c om pl ic at ed T he straightreadings of many pesukim (the p'shat) seem to point to mistakes an d failings o f the Avot (forexample: Yitzhak's choice o f Esav for a blessing, Sarah's treatment o f Hagar, Avraham'sdeclaration to Avimelekh, and many others). Indeed, as wa s noted by Rabbi David, the Rambandoes not hesitate to cri ticize Avraham and Sarah when he deems it appropriate, an d otherparshanim champion the cause ofp'shat in the face of d'rash (Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ibn Caspi.Bekhor ShoT. an d others), even i f it means finding fault with the Avot

What we must always keep in mind, that the Torah chose to tell us these particular storiesabout ou rAvot, even when they are apparently uncomplimentary. Had the Torah wanted towhitewash them an d present them as pristine models. it would have done so in a manner tha twould be undeniably clear to all. This is not the case. Th e very tales that the Torah chooses torelate are tile ones God thought would be instructive to us, and it is our jo b to discover themessage(s) in each anecdote. Rather than see the stories o f the Avot as problems to whichanswers must be found, we must see those very stories as God's plea with us to look even morecarefully at the text and discover the message hidden therein. If we find ourselves engaging inapologetics or looking for ways tojustify the actions o f the Avot, then we have clearly missed thepoint. If. on the other hand, we see anomalies an d problems as clues to a greater idea. then we'vebegun to hear the song o f the Torah.

Fo r example. regarding the differing accounts o f the creation of man, Rashi suggests(according to the p'shat) that the first account is merely the abbreviated version o f what comeslater. TIus is a reasonable justification o f two, apparently contradictory, texts, but does not leaveus with a message (which may b e w hy Rashi felt a need to also quote the d'rash). In hisexposition of Adam I an d is Adam II, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik not only resolves the

9


10/13

contradiction.. but highlights the fact that the contradiction had to be written to teach us about thetwo typologies of man.

The Torah, therefore, (even in its style) is dynamic not static. Clearly, one of the centralthemes in the Torah is that of development and growth, starting with the development andgrowth of the world itself at the beginning of Breishil. The Torah is, therefore, a model for ourown growth. 'This being the case, finding the Avot occasionally stumbling on tlleir patll towardtheir own development is exactly what we would expect to find. Rather than feel compelled to"explain away" these "stains" on tlleir reputation, we should eagerly and joyously grasp at tlleopportunity to understand why and how they fell and how they grew through the experience. not(God forbid) for tlle purpose of denigrating tllem, rather, so that we can learn from them. TheAvol are a reflection of each and every one of us and we of them, and the lessons gleaned fromtheir misfortunes, along witll their successes, are our national and religious treasures. earned andlearned the hard way.

It is no accident that Avraham starts out as Avram-his name is changed after two parashiotof development. It is no accident that the blessings given to Avram/Avraham change continuallyas he changes. It is also no accident tllat Ya'akov needs more than two parashiot of development,making many mistakes along tlle way and leMning from those mistakes, before he is calledYisrael, whose name we carry to this day. In fact, it is only after his name is changed a secondtime that God Himselfconfirms Yisrael's worthiness of the b'rakha. Even Ramban's mysticalquote describing the Avol as "tlle chariot of tlle Almighty" fits this pattern, for tlle Torah textwhich originally sparked tllis comment and was the catalyst for tllis idea appears only afterAvram becomes Avraham and after Ya'akov becomes Yisrael and. not surprisingly, isconspicuously missing regarding Yitzhak. who never undergoes a name change.IV

The A vot, tlleo, rather than being pristine angels or corrupt mortals, are humans involved in adesperate struggle to rise above their weaknesses, occasionally stumbling along the way butlearning from tlleir errors, eventually reaching di72ying heights. They are paradigms. not ofhuman perfection. but of the struggle for that perfection. They are the models the Torah has setfor us. showing us that we too can overcome obstacles in our own, indi"idual paths. We too can.if we want, achieve great moral and spiritual stature. and we need not tread that path alone norblaze our own patlls. Our Avat have been tllere already. and they are ready to accompany us onour own journeys.

At tins point, the only educational question is not whether to present the Avol to our studentsas the Torah presents them to us but when to do so. Young children need heroes. Youngchildren need the security of infaJlible and perfect parents. It can be argued tllat tlley need to seetlle 5anle way. Yet as our students filature emotionaUy. they need to mature religiously as well.When appropriate tlley shouJd be encouraged to take a fresh look at their heroes. In the course of

10


11/13

their own struggles with frustration and disillusionment, they will achieve a greater and deeperappreciation of theirAvo!. With proper guidance, they will gain a new understanding of themodels set by their forefathers, and recognize \\-ith greater clarity how relevant those models areto their own lives.

Can we afford not to show our students the true greatness of those who came beforethem? We dare not.

Zvi Grumet is Chainnan of the Bib[e department at the Hillel Y.:shiva in Oc.:an. New Jersey, and teaches at DrishaInstitute and Columbia University's Scit MidrashRegarding Yitzhak's following in Avraham's footsteps. nowhere in the midrash or the Ramban could I f ind the suggestionlhat Yilzhak was doing so as a resuh ofmaaseh avor siman l'vamm. In l3t the Tanhuma understands thatthe era of thebanim ~ 1 a r t s with Ya'akov's children. Yitzhak, no matter how similar his behavior may be to Avraham's. is an av and nota ben.See Rarnban OI l Breishit [2:6, 14:[,32:26,33: 18.48:22, and Introduction to Sh'mo!. See also Tanhuma on Breishil LekhLekha 9.See Ramban on Breishit 12: 10.See Ramban on Breishit 12:6.Further on this issue. Rabbi David e:>.1ends the principle ma'aseh avot siman l'vanim to Yosef and Yehudah. To the bestofmy knowledge, this principle applies exclusively to Avraham, YitzhaJc and Ya'akov (see Ramban ibid.) as they. andthey alone, ace call.:d AvolRamban's kabbalistic description of the Avol as "the chariot oflhe Almighty" (Breishit 17:22) was quol"d by RabbiDavid to e ~ 1 a b l i s h the "kedushah and piety" of the ..IVaI. yet he never ventures to explain what th" quote actually means.How can an unexplained concept be cited as a proolle:>'1? In fact, Ramban's comment was actually made 10 limit thec'oncept to Ihe Avor. as opposed to Rashi. who gC'Tlcralized the n'ltion to all Izadlidm. I believe Ihat a careful analysis willreveal that the Ramban's comment has nothing a ta ll to do the "kedushah and piety" of the Avat. but with a much deepe rand more protound idea relating 10 the uniqueness of each of the Aval and their role in the unfolding of Divine revelation.-mis, however, is not the appropriate forum for that discussionSee Bava I..fetzia 5%I e m p b a ~ i z e Ihe word selecllve!y. I\fany II/Idrash1ln do not hesitate to f ind l imit with the Avol. Even Rashi. who generallytends to give our role models in Tanakh the bendit oflhe doubt. sometimes linds it necessary 10 quote opposingopinions. For exanlp1e. see Rashi on Banlidbar II :22Shabbat 63aI3reishit I:26 and 2:6,21-24: and Rashi on 1:26I was delighted to find a beautiful articulation of this appruach in Mordechai Breuer's Plrkel .Ifo'ador. k>fUsalem: HorevPublications. 1989III Breishit Ihe locus is on personal growth, in Sh'mot and Barnidbar on national gro\\ 'tn. Pcrhaps II/o'aseh avol s/II/onJ'va.nill1 is what cOlmects the IWo.Breishit 17:22. See not e 5,\\'Tam's name is ehanged in Breishil 17:5. the Tor.lh lext which 'parked R;unban's comment appears fifteen verses lakrin 17:22Ya'akov's name is changed in Breishit 35:10. Torah lext identical [0 the one which originallY inspired Ramban'sconunent regarding ehe AvOl can be tOund in 35:13.The question of when it is appropria te to introduce this is a diff icuhone. and Jdo not propose to have ehe solution.Perhaps. somewhere between grades 7 and 9 theteacher should respond to students ' questioning of Biblical figures withan openness to sensitively introducing the possibility of imperfections in our fordathd's. again while explaining theimplications ofthis approach. In grades 9-12. where cTitical thinking is (or cffiainly should be) introduced 10 the studentsin other dis


12/13

0paJ diS


13/13

In 1960, Rav Aharon Kotler zt"l delivered a major address on thistheme at a convention of educators. Following are a few salientpoints from that speech. "The foundation of Torah chinuch is togive children a proper appreciation for the holiness of Torah.Every letter of the Torah encompasses all of Creation, both inspace - from the depths of the seas to the highest heavens, and intime - from eons prior to the creation of the world until the end ofeternity. Every event that has occurred since the beginning of timeand that will occur in the future - to Klal Yisrael as a whole and toeach individual - is contained in the Torah, as well as the solutionto all our problems. Vilna Gaon was able to take any line in the fullbody of Torah works - Mishna, Gemara, Midrash, Zohar, etc - andshow an explicit source for it in the Torah, clearly and easily. "Justas our physical senses are restricted, we cannot hear, see or smellmiles away, so too our mental faculties are limited. The wisdom ofthe Torah is beyond our comprehension. And if this holds true forthe various laws, how much more so for the stories of the Torah.The lofty level of the Patriarchs, the twelve Shevatim, MosheRabbeinu - about which there is so much misunderstanding - is notwithin human intellect to grasp. These were no ordinary people.They were free of any kind of personal aspiration or desire, livingonly to serve Hashem. Just as we have no yardstick to measureangels, so do we lack the means of evaluating our forefathers.Giving children an understanding of these principIes will grantthenl a solid foundation of faith and a correct perspective of what itmeans to be a Torah Jew.

sources on avot

Documents