If so, then why are genealogical lineages described in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)?

That’s the only thing in the Hebrew Bible that bothers you? As far as I’m concerned, it’s hard to understand why it was written at all (aside from the halakhic part). On the other hand, if you’re already writing a historical work, why should the genealogies be left out?

Is the Rabbi claiming that the Hebrew Bible is made up of a halakhic part of importance and a historical part lacking importance?
I definitely agree that attributing holiness to a historical book is a strange move. If so, perhaps the conclusion we should draw is that this is not a historical book?

I would be very happy to understand some other meaning for the historical sections. So far I haven’t found one. It may be that it is not a historical book, but I do not understand what its importance is. It is holy because it was given from the mouth of the Almighty, but I am still uncertain about the reason for that.

With God’s help, 15 Iyar 5780

To Benjamin — hello,

Being descended from the great ones of the world obligates us to ask of ourselves: “When will my deeds reach the deeds of my ancestors?” Since parents pass traits on to their descendants, one may assume that the great talents our ancestors had also exist potentially within us, and if we invest in it, we can at least come close to “the deeds of our ancestors.”

And sometimes, on the other hand, the great failings of our ancestors point to a potential weakness that exists in us as well, and it is especially incumbent upon us to repair it.

So for example, Mordechai, who fought Haman the Agagite with all his strength, thereby corrected what his great-great-grandfather Saul had failed in when he spared Agag. And in Mordechai and Esther’s instruction to the Jewish people not to lay a hand on the plunder of their enemies, there is also a correction for the people’s failure in Saul’s time, when they spared the best of Amalek’s sheep.

Best regards,
S. Tz.

“It is holy because it was given from the mouth of the Almighty” — the Rabbi means the Five Books of the Torah and not the Prophets and Writings, since the Prophets and Writings certainly were not given from the mouth of the Almighty.
I’m trying to understand whether the Rabbi sees a difficulty in the historical narrative in the Torah as he does in the historical narrative in the Hebrew Bible, or whether the difficulty is only in the Torah, or alternatively only in the Prophets and Writings?

The Prophets and Writings were also given according to the Almighty. Through prophecy or divine inspiration.
A historical story, simply by virtue of being such, seems to me devoid of value. It doesn’t matter where it appears — in a high-school history book, in the Torah, or in the Hebrew Bible. There may be value as something that binds a nation together and so on, but not intrinsic value.

Rabbi Michi, the only reason the Hebrew Bible became holy is canonization; prophecy or divine inspiration are not conditions for holiness — that is an explicit Talmudic passage in Megillah 7a. And of course it matters where the historical story is found; its location indicates its purpose, not necessarily its accuracy. After all, many books remained outside the canon. The canonization had a clear purpose: to define what is included within the norm and model of Judaism and what lies outside them. So it seems to me that the discussion should focus only on the historical narrative in the Five Books of the Torah, which were given from the mouth of the Almighty.
If the Rabbi disagrees, I’d be happy to hear more on the subject.

What did you find there in Megillah? I don’t see any hint in your direction there. On the contrary, even Esther was said with divine inspiration; all the more so the other books. Moreover, the Talmud there says that Esther renders the hands impure because it was said with divine inspiration. In other words, the two are dependent on one another. It’s true that there were other books that were not included, but those that were included were indeed said with divine inspiration or prophecy.
And the fact that the Sages established the canon (as Third Isaiah says) also does not contradict what I said. They determined what would enter from among those that were said with divine inspiration or prophecy.

The Hebrew Bible tells us how the Divine Presence that was revealed in the wilderness continued to be revealed upon entering the Land, and how it departed from reality (a simple literary analysis of the books of the Prophets). Within that framework, the Hebrew Bible also completes halakhic elements, such as the question of when we arrived at “the resting place and the inheritance” (and where the inheritance is = Jerusalem). How should we conduct ourselves when we are in exile, and what should we pray for so that the story may be completed once again. Prayer, of course, instills in us an awareness of an incomplete reality, from which we can aspire to return to a complete one.

Within the tradition of this site, I am not sure what meaning can be derived from this, but it seems that the early halakhic authorities attributed some importance to it, from which they derived practical instructions. Perhaps one could say that if the commandments have a purpose, then their purpose is to create a reality in which the Divine Presence will return to dwell in the Land and not depart again — but here I may already be getting carried away.

I wrote that in the past they probably did see importance in this. Today I do not.

The baraita in Bava Batra 14a: “Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes” — from where do we know that these books were written with divine inspiration?
From the Talmud in Megillah it seems that even if Esther was said with divine inspiration, that was not what caused it to be included in the canon, since the Sages refused to include it; so the Rabbi’s a fortiori argument regarding the other books has collapsed completely.

What does the baraita prove? On the contrary, the Men of the Great Assembly wrote Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther because they were said outside the Land. It follows that one cannot write them outside the Land. If these were just ordinary wisdom books, why not write them outside the Land? Clearly they were said with divine inspiration; otherwise what prophecy is there here? And regarding Esther too, the Talmud asks why it does not render the hands impure, since it was said with divine inspiration. So we see that this is the criterion. As for their not wanting to include it, I already explained: not everything written with divine inspiration was included, but everything that was included was written with divine inspiration.