Genealogical research

So why is genealogy described in the Bible?

Is that the only thing that's hard for you about the Bible? For me, it's hard to see why it was written at all (except for the halakhic part). On the other hand, if you're writing a historical work, why would you omit the genealogical lineages?

The rabbi claims that the Bible consists of an important halakhic part and an unimportant historical part?
I certainly agree that attributing sanctity to a historical book is a strange move, so perhaps the conclusion we should draw is that it is not a historical book?

I would be very happy to understand another meaning for the historical parts. So far I haven't found one. It may not be a historical book, but I don't understand its importance. It is sacred because it was given by the mouth of a hero, but I am confused about the meaning of it.

On the 15th of Iyar 5771

To Benjamin, Greetings,

The lineage to the great men of the world requires us to ask ourselves: "When will my deeds reach the deeds of my fathers?" Since parents pass on traits to their offspring, it must be assumed that the great talents that our fathers had, potentially exist in us as well, and if we invest in them, we can at least come close to the "deeds of our fathers."

And sometimes, on the other hand, great failures of our fathers indicate a potential failure that also exists in us and that we are especially charged with correcting.

For example, Mordechai, who fights with all his might against Haman the Haggai, This corrects what his great-grandfather Saul failed to do, who had mercy on Agag, and also in Mordechai and Esther's instruction to the people of Israel not to lay hands on the plunder of their enemies - this corrects the failure of the people in the days of Saul who had mercy on the best of the Amalekites' flock.

With blessings, Sh”t

“It is holy because it was given from the mouth of the hero” – The rabbi is referring to the five books of the Torah and not to the book of Nech, for the book of Nech certainly was not given from the mouth of the hero.
I am trying to understand whether the rabbi sees a difficulty in the historical story in the Torah as in the historical story in Nech or whether the difficulty is only in the Torah or alternatively only in Nech?

The same is given according to the heroism. In prophecy or the Holy Spirit.
A historical story by its very nature seems to me to be worthless. It doesn't matter where it is found, in a high school history book, in the Torah or in a book. There may be a value of connection to a nation, etc., but not an intrinsic value.

Rabbi Michi, the only reason why the book was canonized is canonization, prophecy or the Holy Spirit are not a condition for holiness, this is an explicit Gemara in Megillah 7:1. Of course, it doesn't matter where the historical story is located, its location indicates its purpose, not necessarily its accuracy, there were many books that remained outside the canon, canonization had a clear purpose, the definition of what is included in the norm and example of Judaism and what is outside them. So it seems to me that the discussion should focus on the historical story in the five Torah books alone that were given by the mouth of the hero?
As much as the Rabbi disagrees, I would be happy to expand on the subject

What did you find in the scroll there? I don't see a hint in your direction there. On the contrary, even Esther was spoken in the Holy Spirit, unlike other books. Furthermore, the Gemara there says that what Esther defiles the hands of is because it was spoken in the Holy Spirit. That is, it is dependent on each other. It is true that there were other books that were not included, but those that were included were spoken in the Spirit or in prophecy.
And what the sages determined the canon (as Isaiah III said), does not contradict my words either. They determined what would be included from those that were spoken in the Spirit or in prophecy.

The Nakh tells us how the Divine Presence that appeared in the desert continued to appear upon entering the Land and how it departed from reality (a simple literary analysis of the books of the Prophets). In this framework, the Nakh also completes halakhic parts such as the question of when we reached rest and the inheritance (and where is the inheritance = Jerusalem). How should we behave when we are in exile and what should we pray for so that the story can be completed again. Prayer, of course, instills in us a consciousness of an incomplete reality from which we can strive to return to a complete reality.

In the tradition of the site, I am not sure what meaning can be derived from this, but it seems that the ancient halakhic scholars attributed some importance to it from which they derived practical instructions. Perhaps we can say that if the commandments have a purpose, then their purpose is to create a reality in which the Divine Presence will return to be present in the Land and will not depart again, but here I am getting carried away.

I wrote that in the past they probably saw importance in this. Today I don't see it that way.

The Baraita in Bava Batra 14: “Hezekiah and his assistant wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes” – From where does it follow that the books were written by the Holy Spirit?
The Gemara in the Megillah implies that even if it was said by the Holy Spirit, this is not the reason for its inclusion in the canon, since the Sages refused to include it, so that the rest of the Rabbi's books fell into deep confusion.

What is proven from the baraita? On the contrary, the Great Knesset wrote Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther because they were spoken in the Bible. This means that they cannot be written in the Bible. If these are ordinary books of wisdom, why not write them in the Bible? It is clear that they were spoken in the Bible, otherwise what prophecy is there here? And in Esther, the Gemara also asks why one does not defile one's hands, since it was spoken in the Bible. It seems that this is the criterion. And what they did not want to include, I have already explained. Not everything that was written in the Bible was included, but everything that was included was written in the Bible.