Avot and Mitzvot – Was Avraham the First Jew/2/en

Avot and Mitzvot – Was Avraham the First Jew?

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

In discussing to what extent the Patriarchs kept the Torah's commandments, commentators offer a full range of possibilities, from full observance to no observance at all. Some sources portray the founding fathers as voluntary pioneers of performance and not just faith, with some even going so far as to claim that they kept even rabbinic ordinances. Others attempt to demonstrate that the Torah is eternal, and that the mitzvot were given already to Adam.

As these earlier positions encounter difficulties in explaining the Patriarch's apparent violations of some Biblical prohibitions, other commentators take the opposite tack, suggesting that the vast majority of the Torah's commandments began only at Sinai. Additionally, a few different variations of a compromise approach suggest that there was partial observance by the Avot. This has the advantage of being able to explain away most transgressions, while simultaneously maintaining a portrait of some early ritual observance.

Full Observance

All of the mitzvot existed and were observed before their transmission at Sinai. This position subdivides over whether there was a pre-Sinai Divine obligation to keep the mitzvot or whether it was man's voluntary initiative.

Hashem Commanded

Sources: Sifre DevarimDevarim 41About Sifre Devarim,¹ TargumimTargum Yerushalmi (Neofiti) Bereshit 2:15Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) Bereshit 2:15About Targum Yerushalmi (Neofiti)About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan), Avot DeRabbi NatanVersion 2, Chapter 21About Avot DeRabbi Natan, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer11202131About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer,² Anan and other Karaite exegetesKirkisaniYefet b. EliOtzar NechmadKaraite CommentaryKaraite Tract³

Who was commanded? This position maintains that the Torah and its commandments were given already to Adam.⁴ The Midrashim derive this by reading the words "לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ" in Bereshit 2:15 as referring to the Torah.⁵

Evidence of early adherence – Some exegetes⁶ point to the Torah's use of the term "הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה" in the Noach stories⁷ as proof that the laws of Kashrut were known already at that time.⁸

Punishments for violators – Some Karaite sources assert that the bringing of the Flood, the punishment meted out to the Canaanites for their sins, and the verses in Yechezkel which say that the Israelites deserved to be wiped out in Egypt demonstrate that the commandments existed before Sinai.⁹

Religiosity of the Patriarchs – This position takes for granted that the Patriarchs observed all of the Torah's commandments.¹⁰

Patriarchal transgressions – This approach encounters difficulties in explaining the instances in which our forefathers seem to have violated the Torah's prohibitions, particularly those of forbidden sexual relationships.¹¹ Thus, Yefet goes so far as to assert that Leah and Rachel were merely relatives and not sisters,¹² and that Yocheved was Amram's cousin rather than his aunt.¹³ Alternatively, these actions were, in fact, problematic.¹⁴

Polemical motivations – The implication of this position is that the laws of the Torah are immutable and eternal. It thus served as a direct response¹⁵ to both Christian contentions that the precepts were given only as a corrective for the sin of the Golden Calf, and Islamic claims that the Law is always subject to change.¹⁶

Human Choice

Sources: Mishna KiddushinKiddushin 4:13Chulin 7:6About the Mishna,¹⁷ Tosefta KiddushinKiddushin 5:21About the Tosefta, Bereshit Rabbah16:534:961:164:495:3About Bereshit Rabbah,¹⁸ TanchumaLekh Lekha 1Vayigash 11About the Tanchuma

Sources which are ambiguous – Bavli YomaYoma 28bZevachim 116aZevachim 116a ManuscriptsAbout the Bavli, Shemot Rabbah1:1About Shemot Rabbah, Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Bereshit 32:5About Midrash Aggadah (Buber), RashiBereshit 7:2Bereshit 26:5Rashi Yoma 28bAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, as well as other sources, all speak of the Patriarchs fulfilling all of the commandments, but it is difficult to determine whether they think this was obligatory or voluntary.¹⁹

Who observed? These sources ascribe general performance of the mitzvot only to Avraham and his descendants. Avraham's initiative explains his selection to be the father of Hashem's chosen nation. Only a select group of commandments was fulfilled by earlier generations such as Adam and Noach.²⁰

Knowledge of the mitzvot – R. Shimon in Bereshit Rabbah attempts to address the question of "אב לא למדו ורב לא היה לו, ומהיכן למד את התורה". He describes in figurative language how Hashem provided Avraham's kidneys with the intuition to teach him Torah.²¹

Evidence of adherence – The central prooftext for this position is Bereshit 26:5 which describes Avraham's special reward due to his fulfilling of Hashem's commandments.²² The verse refers to three categories of precepts ("מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֹתַי חֻקּוֹתַי"). While earlier Rabbinic sources do not distinguish between the terms in this verse, Rashi identifies each with a different group of laws.²³

Even Rabbinic enactments? R. Yochanan²⁴ in Bereshit Rabbah deduces from the plural of "וְתוֹרֹתָי" that Avraham kept even the later ordinances of the sages such as הלכות עירובי חצרות.‎²⁵ The standard printed edition of the Tosefta, though, applies the plural merely to the reasons for the mitzvot and their details.²⁶ There is also room for discussion as to the scope of what is included according to the Bavli.²⁷

Punishments for violators – According to this approach, the generation of the Flood, the inhabitants of Sedom, and the Canaanites were punished for violating the select group of Noachide laws which were given explicitly or considered to be natural law.²⁸

Religiosity of the Patriarchs – This approach emphasizes the uniqueness of the Patriarchs in that they voluntarily assumed responsibility for keeping all of Hashem's commandments.

Patriarchal transgressions – In explaining cases like Yaakov's marrying sisters and Amram's marriage to his aunt, these sources have a couple of options open to them:

• Torah observance was still optional and not yet obligatory – This appears to be the approach adopted by Bavli PesachimPesachim 119bAbout the Bavli, and is explicitly taken by Daat ZekeinimBereshit 37:35Shemot 6:20About Daat Zekeinim.
• The details of the implementation of these laws were affected by Noachide status – See Bavli YevamotYevamot 98a-bAbout the Bavli that there is no paternal lineage or familial relationships for Noachides. This principle is applied by Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 58bAbout the Bavli and R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 18:8Bereshit 30:9About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and RambanYevamot 98aAbout R. Moshe Nachmanides to dispose of the apparent Patriarchal violations.²⁹

Polemical motivations – This position may have been intended to counter Christian claims that the mitzvot were given only in the aftermath of the sin of the Golden Calf.³⁰ It thus emphasizes that the mitzvot existed and were observed centuries before that, and that the Patriarchs performed them voluntarily and not because they were an imposed penalty.³¹

No Observance

The Patriarchs fulfilled only what they were explicitly commanded in Sefer Bereshit, and these did not include mitzvot other than circumcision.

Sources: R. Yeshayah MiTraniTosafot Rid Bava Batra 120aAbout R. Yeshayah MiTrani, R. Avraham b. HaRambamBereshit 35:4About R. Avraham Maimonides, R. Yosef ibn KaspiTirat Kesef p. 96About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi

Evidence of adherence – Bereshit 18:19 and Bereshit 26:5 refer merely to ethical laws or to ad hoc instructions given to the Patriarchs.³²

Punishments for violators – The generation of the Flood, the inhabitants of Sedom, and the Canaanites were punished for violating natural law.³³ This position is presented by ChizkuniBereshit 7:21Bereshit 26:5About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach.

Religiosity of the Patriarchs – The religiosity of our forefathers was manifest in their monotheistic dedication to following Hashem's instructions and in their moral and ethical standard of behavior, but it did not generally reflect itself through ritual performance.

Patriarchal transgressions – These commentators explain that the Patriarchs and their families were not yet bound by Torah laws.³⁴

Partial Observance

The Patriarchs only partially observed the commandments. The multiple variations of this approach maintain that distinctions existed between different Patriarchs, types of commandments, and locations.

Only Avraham

Sources: Vayikra Rabbah2:10About Vayikra Rabbah,³⁵ RemaResponsa 10About R. Moshe Isserles, MaharalGur Aryeh Bereshit 46:10About R. Judah Loew of Prague³⁶

Who observed? According to this position, only Avraham chose to keep all of the mitzvot, while his descendants observed, at most, only selected commandments.

Evidence of adherence – Bereshit 26:5 speaks specifically of Avraham's performance of all of the various types of mitzvot. According to the Rema, Bereshit 18:19, which describes Avraham's legacy to his descendants, is referring only to the seven basic Noachide laws.

Punishments for violators – The generation of the Flood, the inhabitants of Sedom, and the Canaanites were punished for disregarding the basic Noachide laws.

Religiosity of the Patriarchs – According to this approach, there is a fundamental difference in character between Avraham, as the first Patriarch and the founder of monotheism, and the other Patriarchs and their descendants.³⁷

Patriarchal transgressions – Rema notes that this opinion entirely avoids the problem raised by Yaakov's marrying two sisters. Only cases regarding Avraham would still be an issue, and see Maharal's discussion of Avraham's possible marriage to his half sister.

Polemical motivations – This position is able to maintain that the mitzvot predate Sinai and the Golden Calf, without being forced to defend each and every action of the Patriarchs and their households.

Only Selected Commandments

Sources: JubileesChapter 4:17-25Chapter 6:14-34Chapter 7:22-54Chapter 15:1-2Chapter 16:26-41Chapter 18:20-22Chapter 21Chapter 22:13-34Chapter 45:22About Jubilees, R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 4About R. Saadia Gaon, RashbamBereshit 26:5About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraBereshit 26:5Vayikra 18:18About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, ChizkuniBereshit 7:21Bereshit 26:5About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, SfornoBereshit 26:5About R. Ovadyah Sforno, MaharalGur Aryeh Bereshit 46:10About R. Judah Loew of Prague³⁸

Who observed? According to this approach, all of the Patriarchs observed the commandments only selectively. Jubilees attributes the performance of certain mitzvot already to Noach.

Which commandments?

• Rashbam suggests that only rational mitzvot which relate to a moral ethic were observed.³⁹
• According to the Maharal, since the mitzvot had not yet been commanded, there was a constructive purpose in keeping only the positive, but not the negative, commandments.

Knowledge of the mitzvot – Jubilees maintains that books and traditions were transmitted through the generations forming an unbroken chain from Chanokh⁴⁰ all the way down to Levi.⁴¹ For Rashbam, though, Avraham could have deduced ethical commandments on his own.

Evidence of adherence – This position maintains that Bereshit 18:19 and Bereshit 26:5 constitute proof only for certain precepts being observed. Jubilees and R. Saadia also find numerous additional verses which hint at the observance of other individual mitzvot.

Punishments for violators – The generation of the Flood, the inhabitants of Sedom, and the Canaanites were punished for their immoral behavior.⁴²

Patriarchal transgressions – With regard to the actions of Reuven and Yehuda, Jubilees notes that their violations were not punished because the Torah was not yet given.

Polemical motivations – Some maintain that Jubilees was motivated to associate various commandments with characters going as far back as Noach, in order to combat Hellenist claims that the Jewish people's difficulties with the nations of the world began when the Israelites began to observe the mitzvot.⁴³

Only In Israel

Sources: RambanBereshit 26:5About R. Moshe Nachmanides

Who observed? Avraham and his descendants kept all of the commandments of their own volition ("as one who is not commanded but nevertheless does"), but they did so only while living in Israel.⁴⁴

Knowledge of the mitzvot – Ramban says that Avraham learned the Torah and its commandments through Divine inspiration.

Evidence of adherence – Bereshit 26:5 refers to all of the commandments.⁴⁵

Punishments for violators – The generation of the Flood, the inhabitants of Sedom, and the Canaanites were punished for disregarding the basic Noachide laws.

Religiosity of the Patriarchs – According to this approach, part of the greatness of the Patriarchs lies in their voluntarily keeping all of Hashem's commandments.

Patriarchal transgressions – Ramban explains that the Patriarchs did not abide by the commandments only when they were outside the Land of Israel, where obligations that are not "חובות הגוף" are not enforced.⁴⁶ This is consistent with Ramban's overall take on the connection between observance of mizvot and living in the Land of Israel.⁴⁷

¹ Cf. Sifre BemidbarBemidbar 111About Sifre Bemidbar which implies that there were commandments which were only given to Moshe and not to the Patriarchs.

² See also Lekach TovBereshit 2:15Bereshit 43:16About R. Toviah b. Eliezer which links Bereshit 2:15 to the following verse which serves as the source of Noachide laws in many Rabbinic sources.

³ See also R. Mubashir HaLeviCritique of the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon (p. 78)About R. Mubashir HaLevi and the opinions cited by R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 4About R. Saadia Gaon and R. Yehuda ibn BalaamAbout R. Yehuda ibn Balaam.

⁴ The earliest extant source for this position and for its interpretation of Bereshit 2:15 may be the pseudepigraphic work, 2 Enoch.

⁵ Avot DeRabbi Natan and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer argue that "לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ" cannot refer to the Garden of Eden because it had no need for toil or guarding (see Bereshit 3:23). This would appear to also be the argument in the Sifre.

It is possible that the Midrashic motif is also motivated by the fact that גן is a masculine noun in its other Biblical occurrences (see Yeshayahu 58:11, Yirmeyahu 31:11, Shir HaShirim 4:12,16). Cf. Bereshit Rabbah16:5About Bereshit Rabbah for a different but related figurative interpretation which limits the scope of the command to observing Shabbat (also feminine), but see below for alternative explanations of the verse and gender.

⁶ See R. Abraham of Baghdad cited by R. Yehuda ibn BalaamAbout R. Yehuda ibn Balaam as well as some of the Karaite sources above.

⁷ See Bereshit 7:2,8 and Bereshit 8:20. Other sources attempted to adduce evidence for the early existence of Kashrut laws from the phrases "אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי" (see Karaite Commentary which renders "חַי" as ritually pure) or "כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב" (see TryphoJustin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 20's claim that not all herbs are fit for consumption) in Bereshit 9:3.

⁸ However, see R. Yehuda ibn BalaamAbout R. Yehuda ibn Balaam who argues that if this was true, there would have been no need for the Torah to later specify which animals were permitted to be eaten, as this would have been well known. See also below for alternative interpretations of the verses by Noach.

⁹ Contrast with commentators below who explain that these punishments resulted from a violation of only a select group of laws, rather than the entire Torah.

¹⁰ Cf. the formulation in Bavli NedarimNedarim 32aAbout the Bavli "שאין לך מי שנתעסק במצות כאברהם אבינו".

¹¹ Yefet attempts to also address why Avraham did not circumcise himself until he was 99 years old, by drawing a parallel to the Children of Israel not performing circumcision in the desert.

¹² Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 18:8Bereshit 30:9About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanYevamot 98aAbout R. Moshe Nachmanides, and Sefer Nizachon Yashan 34 that they were born from two different mothers.

¹³ This matches the position of the LXX, Targum Yerushalmi (Neofiti), and Peshitta who translate "דֹּדָתוֹ" in Shemot 6:20 as "daughter of his aunt" rather than just "aunt". The earliest source for this position is Demetrius the Chronographer. For more on this position and its chronological implications, see Duration of the Egyptian Exile.

¹⁴ Cf. Bavli PesachimPesachim 119bAbout the Bavli, Daat ZekeinimBereshit 37:35Shemot 6:20About Daat Zekeinim, and Minchat YehudaVayikra 20:19About Minchat Yehuda.

¹⁵ See TryphoJustin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 20's argument in his debate with Justin Martyr.

¹⁶ This is made explicit by Kirkisani. For the possible influence of polemical concerns on Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, see M. Zucker, על תרגום רס"ג לתורה, (New York, 1959): 450 n.6.

¹⁷ See, though, J.N. Epstein, מבוא לנוסח המשנה (Jerusalem, 1948): 977 who suggests that this passage, like various others found at the conclusion of tractates, is a later addition to the Mishna.

¹⁸ Note, however, that Bereshit Rabbah 16:5 states that Hashem commanded Adam to observe Shabbat, and 61:1 speaks of Hashem's role in facilitating Avraham's knowledge of the laws.

¹⁹ From the Bavli and Rashi, it is clear that Noach's observance was voluntary.

²⁰ Thus, for example, Bereshit Rabbah limits the scope of "לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ" in Bereshit 2:15 to the observance of Shabbat. Regarding "הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה" specified in the Noach stories, Rashi and his version of the Bavli ZevachimZevachim 116a ManuscriptsAbout the Bavli read this as referring to their future status under Torah law. [Rashi assumes that Noach was aware of this because he learned Torah, however, this additional aspect is not found in the Bavli.] Alternatively, the term refers not to later status under dietary laws but to what was already then permitted to be brought as a sacrifice.

²¹ Cf. the Tosefta's more ambiguous formulation "שנתגלו לו".

²² Were Avraham not the first to do so, his unique status would be somewhat diminished.

²³ Rashi, here, is conflating various Talmudic passages (Bavli Yoma 28b, Yoma 67b, and Yevamot 21a), and he is consistent with his definition of "חק" elsewhere. For further discussion of Rashi and his sources, see Miracles and Mitzvot at Marah.

²⁴ Cited by R. Yonatan.

²⁵ Similarly, Rav (or Rava/R. Asi/R. Ashi) in Bavli YomaYoma 28bAbout the Bavli and R. Yonatan (cited by R. Shemuel b. Nachmani) in the Tanchuma say that Avraham fulfilled the Oral Law, including עירובי תבשילין.

²⁶ The printed edition (and Vienna manuscript) read "טעמי תורה ודקדוקיה" (and cf. Tanchuma Lekh Lekha). See, however, the Erfurt manuscript of the Tosefta which reads "דברי תורה ודברי סופרים", like the manuscripts of the Bavli Yoma in the note below.

²⁷ The Venice and Vilna printings of the Bavli read "אחת תורה שבכתב ואחת תורה שבעל פה", however all extant manuscripts read "אחת דברי תורה ואחת דברי סופרים". RashiBereshit 26:5Rashi Yoma 28bAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki in his Torah commentary writes "להביא תורה שבעל פה הלכה למשה מסיני" and it is possible that this comes to exclude later Rabbinic ordinances. However, Rashi in his Talmudic commentary understands Rav to be including even later Rabbinic enactments which were not given at Sinai.

²⁸ See Seder Olam Rabbah 5, Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8:9, Bavli Sanhedrin 56a-b, Bavli Chulin 92a. Cf. Ibn EzraBereshit 26:5Vayikra 18:18About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and ChizkuniBereshit 7:21Bereshit 26:5About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach.

²⁹ See also R. Chaim PaltielBereshit 23:9About R. Chaim Paltiel.

³⁰ While sources from the pre-Christianity era, such as Jubilees below, already speak of specific commandments being performed before the revelation at Sinai, they do not attempt to consistently apply this concept to all mitzvot.

³¹ The emphasis on voluntary acceptance of the mitzvot is found also in the Midrashic interpretations of "נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע".

³² This is similar to the "peshat" interpretation offered by RambanBereshit 26:5About R. Moshe Nachmanides below.

³³ This approach would likely maintain that Noachide laws were also not given explicitly, but rather were part of natural law.

³⁴ Although many of the prohibitions regarding improper relations are described by the Torah as "abominations", making it difficult to understand how the forefathers could engage in such actions even if not yet prohibited, this approach would posit that marrying two sisters or an aunt did not fall under this category.

³⁵ This is true only for the Vilna edition of Vayikra Rabbah which reads "אברהם קיים את התורה כולה" as opposed to the other characters who observed only specific mitzvot. However, all manuscripts of Vayikra Rabbah, as well as the Ish Shalom edition of Seder Eliyahu Rabbah7About Seder Eliyahu, read "אברהם קיים את התורה", and it is Yosef who fulfilled "כל התורה כולה". See also the earlier edition of Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 6 which conflates both possibilities. [Note that M. Margulies, in his edition of Vayikra Rabbah, asserts that the entire passage is a later addition.]

³⁶ See below that Maharal also differentiates between positive and negative commandments.

³⁷ It is unclear, though, what purpose there was in Avraham observing the mitzvot, if his immediate descendants were not going to follow in his footsteps.

³⁸ See above that Maharal also distinguishes between Avraham and his descendants.

³⁹ See other variations of this position in Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, and Sforno, and cf. RadakBereshit 26:5About R. David Kimchi.

⁴⁰ Chanokh received his instructions through a heavenly revelation.

⁴¹ The texts of the Testaments of Kehat and Amram discovered at Qumran add the missing links from Levi to Kehat to Amram.

⁴² See Chizkuni who explains that some prohibitions derive from common sense and do not need an explicit command.

⁴³ For further discussion, see About Jubilees.

⁴⁴ Ramban points out that Yosef was exceptional and kept Shabbat even when in Egypt. As Shabbat serves as a testimonial to God's creation, observing the commandment helped Yosef teach his children to believe in Hashem.

⁴⁵ Ramban also suggests a "peshat" alternative that the verse refers merely to belief, ethical behavior, the Noachide laws, and ad hoc instructions given to the Patriarchs, and not to all 613 eternal commandments.

⁴⁶ Regarding the transgression of making a מצבה, Ramban suggests a different solution, that this prohibition was only introduced later.

⁴⁷ See, for instance, his comments on Vayikra 18:25, Devarim 4:5 and Devarim 11:18.