“And the Children of Israel traveled from B’eiros B’nei Ya’akun to Moseira; there Aharon died, and he was buried there, and his son Elazar took over his priestly duties” (D’varim 10:6). This verse says rather explicitly that Aharon died at Moseira, while previous verses (Bamidbar 20:22-28, 33:37-39) state explicitly that he died at Hor Hahar. In order to explain this discrepancy, Rashi (on our verse and on Bamidbar 26:13), based on Chazal (Yerushalmi Soteh 1:10), says that after Aharon died at Hor Hahar and the protective “clouds of glory” left, the nation was attacked, which led to much of the nation retracing their steps with the intention of returning to Egypt. The Tribe of Levi chased after them to bring them back, and a civil war ensued, causing much loss of life (several prominent families — from both sides — were wiped out in this war). This war occurred at Moseira, so although the Levi’im were able to bring everyone (at least those who didn’t die in the civil war) back, since the tragic consequences of the civil war were the result of Aharon’s death, the nation mourned for him (again) at Moseira, and considered it as if he had died there rather than at Hor Hahar.

Rabbi Isaac S. D. Sassoon (“Destination Torah”) points out that the Torah says Aharon died in Moseira even though this was not literally true, based on the nation’s perception of where his death took place. Or as Rabbi Sassoon put it, “this explanation enshrines a cardinal principle, viz., that the Torah may report an event the way it is perceived by the people or remembered in their collective memory. It is a principle that should probably be seen as an offshoot of that other great hermeneutical law: ‘the Torah uses language after the manner of people.” Put a different way, perception becomes reality, and a statement that would not normally be considered true or accurate is now considered a “true” statement.

That the Torah may teach things in a way that is, on its surface, misleading, is evident from how Rashi explains the death of Avraham’s father, Terach, being stated well before it actually occurred: “And Terach died in Charan” (B’reishis 11:32); “[he died] after Avram left Charan and came to the Land of Canaan and was there for more than 60 years.” Rashi then proves this chronology before continuing: “and why did the Torah discuss Terach’s death before discussing Avram leaving [Charan] (if he left so many years before Terach died)? So that it not be obvious to all [whereby] they will say that Avram did not fulfill [the commandment of] honoring his father,  abandoning him in his elderly years and went away.”

[It should be noted that Rashi’s Midrashic source (B’reishis Rabbah 39:7) has it as Avraham being concerned that others would think he didn’t honor his father. This is significant because rather than G-d trying to “hide” the true chronology in order to mislead those who might use Avraham leaving Terach behind as a way of rationalizing not honoring their parents, G-d was placating Avraham by minimizing his concern about how he would be perceived. Additionally, the Midrash (and Rashi) make it a point to add that technically Terach could have been considered “dead” since “the wicked are considered dead even while they are still (physically) alive,” which could make the chronological impression (that Terach “died” before Avraham left Charan) a “true” one even if not literally true. Nevertheless, we do see that the Torah sometimes presents things in a way that is purposely misleading, in this case giving the impression that Terach died before Avraham left Charan even though in reality Avraham left many decades before Terach died.

It should also be noted that this need not be the reason Terach’s death is recorded here, as it is normal for the Torah to finish a topic or sequence, even if part of it is not in chronological order, before moving on to the next topic (see Ramban). By the same token, there are other approaches that attempt to explain the discrepancy regarding where Aharon died (see Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Ramban). Even so, the approach put forth by Rashi, with Midrashic backing, gives validity to the notion that the Torah is sometimes purposely misleading; how much more mainstream then Rashi can one get?!]

An interesting aspect of Terach’s death being presented in a misleading manner is that Rashi “spills the beans,” as now we all know that Terach died well before Avraham left Charan. Nevertheless, after all is said and done we not only know the true chronology, but that honoring parents is of such primary importance that the Torah presented things inaccurately in order to protect it. Additionally, we may be blessed with a widespread study of Rashi, whereby the true chronology is now widely known, but this was not always the case (and still isn’t always necessarily the case). [This is true of many concepts in the Talmud as well, where it is clear that it was assumed the “masses” would not become aware of them, but with the widespread study of Daf HaYomi have become known to a much higher percentage of the population than seems to have been intended.] What becomes clear is that the Torah assumed a multi-tiered level of knowledge among those who study it, with a more superficial and possibly misleading layer intended for some, and a deeper, more complex layer for others. This places a certain level of responsibility upon those who can see beyond the superficial layer, as sharing some of the complexities may be detrimental to those ill-equipped to process them.

Rabbi Sassoon gives numerous other examples where the Torah (and Tanach in general) presents things in a way that isn’t literally true, but is how they were perceived. For example, the three “men” who came to visit Avraham after his circumcision did not actually eat, even though the Torah says they did, since it appeared as if they did (see Rashi on B’reishis 18:8). Pharaoh really did “know” Yosef, even if he pretended he didn’t, yet the Torah says he didn’t because that’s how he acted (see Rashi on Sh’mos 1:8). The King of Arad is described as a Canaanite king even though he was really a descendant of Eisav/Amalek because he disguised himself as a Canaanite and was therefore mistaken for one (see Rashi on Bamidbar 21:1; see Yalkut Shimoni for more details). Which leaves us wondering about other possible examples where the Torah describes the perception rather than the reality.

Did Chava really have a conversation with a talking snake, or was that just how she perceived it (seehttp://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/parashas-berashis-5772/)? Did the flood really cover the entire globe, or was it presented that way because that was how Noach and his family perceived it? Although Lot’s daughters thought the whole world was being destroyed (B’reishis 19:31) yet that’s not how things are described, in the context of the entire story, everyone else (including Lot) knew it was only S’dom (and its environs) that was destroyed. Did the Egyptians really make us work unreasonably hard, or was that just our perception? Based on how we are required to celebrate Passover (including the “bitter herbs”) and the way our sages describe the torturous tasks the Egyptians made us do, it would be difficult to say this was just our perception. But without such guidance, how are we to know? Are we supposed to assume things are literally true unless there is a tradition that they may not be, or are we mature enough to think objectively and responsibly about what might or might not be literally true? By indicating that not everything in the Torah’s narratives (as opposed to its halachic requirements and obligations) has to be taken at face value, a myriad of possibilities have been made available; it us up to us to make the best, and most appropriate, use of these possibilities (even if that means ignoring them).