[Avodah] Reuven's sin

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

RDE:
> R' Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
>> It is pretty clear that Ralbag (in the thirteenth To'eles at the end of
>> Mikez) understands Reuven's sin literally.

> It is clear that the Abarbanel (Shmuel 2 11:11) understood Dovid as
> literally sinning. It also seems that R' Shimon bar Yochai also had this
> understanding (Avoda Zara 4b). The Be'er Sheva (Sanhedrin 107a)
> explicity says the two gemoras are in conflict. Rashi in Yoma (22b)
> seems to state that Dovid committed adultery. Regarding Reuven - the
> Abaranel (Bereishis 35:22) says it is a dispute among Chazal whether it
> is understood literally.

I would like to emphasize the possibility that the gmara's use of "eino
ela to'eh" did not necessarily imply that the literal understanding was
a solutely wrong

Rather:
One should not point out the literal sin (v'al kol pesha'I'm techaseh
b'ahava)

There may be shades of understanding of this


1 Hazal wanted to wipe out the original peshat and sub substitute a
kinder, gentler read.

2 sheetos did absolutely dispute the peshat in favor of a drash approach

3 as per the above abarbanel - a synthesis. IOW since the degree of sin
was disputed therefore why not be dan lekaf zechus?! Viz. it is "to'eh"
to assume the worst case scenario as fact, but to suspect it is OK.

EG So it is OK to say Reueven allegedly lay with Bilhah, but the passuk
is not proof positive so we should not further the allegation...

This is a case of the Hessed and Rachamim of TSBP versus the midas hadin
of Mikra. Xtians who read the "Old Testament" see a harsh treatment of
humanity and of sin.
But with TSBP we Jews see that this is tempered and balanced.

GS
-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile