Difference between revisions of "Avot and Mitzvot – Was Avraham the First Jew/2/he"
m |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<point><b>דת האבות</b> – עמדה זו טוענת כמובן מאליו כי האבות קיימו את כל מצוות התורה.<br/><br/>This position takes for granted that the Patriarchs observed all of the Torah's commandments.<fn>Cf. the formulation in <multilink><a href="BavliNedarim32a" data-aht="source">Bavli Nedarim</a><a href="BavliNedarim32a" data-aht="source">Nedarim 32a</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> "שאין לך מי שנתעסק במצות כאברהם אבינו".</fn></point> | <point><b>דת האבות</b> – עמדה זו טוענת כמובן מאליו כי האבות קיימו את כל מצוות התורה.<br/><br/>This position takes for granted that the Patriarchs observed all of the Torah's commandments.<fn>Cf. the formulation in <multilink><a href="BavliNedarim32a" data-aht="source">Bavli Nedarim</a><a href="BavliNedarim32a" data-aht="source">Nedarim 32a</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> "שאין לך מי שנתעסק במצות כאברהם אבינו".</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>עבירותיהם של האבות</b> – גישה זו נתקלת בקשיים בהסבר המקרים בהם נראה כי אבותינו הפרו איסורי תורה, בייחוד אלו המתייחסים ליחסי מין אסורים. כתוצאה מכך, יפת מרחיק לכת וטוען כי לאה ורחל היו רק קרובות משפחה ולא אחיות, וכי יוכבד הייתה בת דודו של עמרם ולא דודתו. לו רחל ולאה היו אחיות ויוכבד אכן הייתה דודתו של עמרם, נישואיהן של הנשים הללו בעייתיים ביותר. <br/>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.<fn><a href="Yefet" data-aht="source">Yefet</a> 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.</fn> Thus, <a href="Yefet" data-aht="source">Yefet</a> goes so far as to assert that Leah and Rachel were merely relatives and not sisters,<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="RYBSBereshit30-9" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSBereshit18-8" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:8</a><a href="RYBSBereshit30-9" data-aht="source">Bereshit 30:9</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanYevamot98a" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanYevamot98a" data-aht="source">Yevamot 98a</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>, and Sefer Nizachon Yashan 34 that they were born from two different mothers.</fn> and that Yocheved was Amram's cousin rather than his aunt.<fn>This matches the position of the LXX, 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 <a href="Duration of the Egyptian Exile" data-aht="page">Duration of the Egyptian Exile</a>.</fn> Alternatively, these actions were, in fact, problematic.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="BavliPesachim119b" data-aht="source">Bavli Pesachim</a><a href="Pesachim119b" data-aht="source">Pesachim 119b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="DaatZekeinimBereshit37-35" data-aht="source">Daat Zekeinim</a><a href="DaatZekeinimBereshit37-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit 37:35</a><a href="DaatZekeinimShemot6-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 6:20</a><a href="Daat Zekeinim" data-aht="parshan">About Daat Zekeinim</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="MinchatYehudaVayikra20-19" data-aht="source">Minchat Yehuda</a><a href="MinchatYehudaVayikra20-19" data-aht="source">Vayikra 20:19</a><a href="R. Yehuda b. Elazar (Minchat Yehuda)" data-aht="parshan">About Minchat Yehuda</a></multilink>.</fn></point> | <point><b>עבירותיהם של האבות</b> – גישה זו נתקלת בקשיים בהסבר המקרים בהם נראה כי אבותינו הפרו איסורי תורה, בייחוד אלו המתייחסים ליחסי מין אסורים. כתוצאה מכך, יפת מרחיק לכת וטוען כי לאה ורחל היו רק קרובות משפחה ולא אחיות, וכי יוכבד הייתה בת דודו של עמרם ולא דודתו. לו רחל ולאה היו אחיות ויוכבד אכן הייתה דודתו של עמרם, נישואיהן של הנשים הללו בעייתיים ביותר. <br/>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.<fn><a href="Yefet" data-aht="source">Yefet</a> 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.</fn> Thus, <a href="Yefet" data-aht="source">Yefet</a> goes so far as to assert that Leah and Rachel were merely relatives and not sisters,<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="RYBSBereshit30-9" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSBereshit18-8" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:8</a><a href="RYBSBereshit30-9" data-aht="source">Bereshit 30:9</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanYevamot98a" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanYevamot98a" data-aht="source">Yevamot 98a</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>, and Sefer Nizachon Yashan 34 that they were born from two different mothers.</fn> and that Yocheved was Amram's cousin rather than his aunt.<fn>This matches the position of the LXX, 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 <a href="Duration of the Egyptian Exile" data-aht="page">Duration of the Egyptian Exile</a>.</fn> Alternatively, these actions were, in fact, problematic.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="BavliPesachim119b" data-aht="source">Bavli Pesachim</a><a href="Pesachim119b" data-aht="source">Pesachim 119b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="DaatZekeinimBereshit37-35" data-aht="source">Daat Zekeinim</a><a href="DaatZekeinimBereshit37-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit 37:35</a><a href="DaatZekeinimShemot6-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 6:20</a><a href="Daat Zekeinim" data-aht="parshan">About Daat Zekeinim</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="MinchatYehudaVayikra20-19" data-aht="source">Minchat Yehuda</a><a href="MinchatYehudaVayikra20-19" data-aht="source">Vayikra 20:19</a><a href="R. Yehuda b. Elazar (Minchat Yehuda)" data-aht="parshan">About Minchat Yehuda</a></multilink>.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>מניעים פולמוסיים | + | <point><b>מניעים פולמוסיים</b> – המשמעות של עמדה זו היא כי חוקי התורה הם בלתי משתנים ונצחיים. היא שימשה אפוא, תגובה ישירה לטענות הנוצריות, שהמצוות ניתנו רק כתיקון לחטא העגל, ולטענות אסלאמיות שהחוק נתון תמיד לשינוי.<br/>The implication of this position is that the laws of the Torah are immutable and eternal. It thus served as a direct response<fn>See <multilink><a href="DialogueTrypho20" data-aht="source">Trypho</a><a href="DialogueTrypho20" data-aht="source">Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 20</a></multilink>'s argument in his debate with Justin Martyr.</fn> 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.<fn>This is made explicit by <a href="Kirkisani" data-aht="source">Kirkisani</a>. 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.</fn></point> |
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
<opinion>הבחירה האנושית | <opinion>הבחירה האנושית | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
<point><b>אפילו תקנות דרבנן?</b> בבראשית רבה רבי יוחנן מסיק מהשימוש בלשון רבים במילה "וְתוֹרֹתָי", שאברהם שמר גם על צווים מאוחרים יותר של חכמים כגון הלכות עירובי חצרות. אולם, המהדורה המודפסת של התוספתא מיישמת את ההבחנה הזו בריבוי רק לצורך לימוד טעמי המצוות ופרטיהן. על פי הבבלי יש גם מקום לדיון על היקף המצוות הכלולות.<br/>R. Yochanan<fn>Cited by R. Yonatan.</fn> in Bereshit Rabbah deduces from the plural of "וְתוֹרֹתָי" that Avraham kept even the later ordinances of the sages such as הלכות עירובי חצרות.‎<fn>Similarly, Rav (or Rava/R. Asi/R. Ashi) in <multilink><a href="BavliYoma28b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yoma</a><a href="BavliYoma28b" data-aht="source">Yoma 28b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> and R. Yonatan (cited by R. Shemuel b. Nachmani) in the Tanchuma say that Avraham fulfilled the Oral Law, including עירובי תבשילין.</fn> The standard printed edition of the Tosefta, though, applies the plural merely to the reasons for the mitzvot and their details.<fn>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.</fn> There is also room for discussion as to the scope of what is included according to the Bavli.<fn>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". <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit26-5" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBereshit26-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 26:5</a><a href="RashiYoma28b" data-aht="source">Rashi Yoma 28b</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> in his Torah commentary writes "להביא תורה שבעל פה הלכה למשה מסיני" and it is possible that this comes to disinclude later Rabbinic ordinances. However, Rashi in his Talmudic commentary understands Rav to be including even later Rabbinic enactments which were not given at Sinai.</fn></point> | <point><b>אפילו תקנות דרבנן?</b> בבראשית רבה רבי יוחנן מסיק מהשימוש בלשון רבים במילה "וְתוֹרֹתָי", שאברהם שמר גם על צווים מאוחרים יותר של חכמים כגון הלכות עירובי חצרות. אולם, המהדורה המודפסת של התוספתא מיישמת את ההבחנה הזו בריבוי רק לצורך לימוד טעמי המצוות ופרטיהן. על פי הבבלי יש גם מקום לדיון על היקף המצוות הכלולות.<br/>R. Yochanan<fn>Cited by R. Yonatan.</fn> in Bereshit Rabbah deduces from the plural of "וְתוֹרֹתָי" that Avraham kept even the later ordinances of the sages such as הלכות עירובי חצרות.‎<fn>Similarly, Rav (or Rava/R. Asi/R. Ashi) in <multilink><a href="BavliYoma28b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yoma</a><a href="BavliYoma28b" data-aht="source">Yoma 28b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> and R. Yonatan (cited by R. Shemuel b. Nachmani) in the Tanchuma say that Avraham fulfilled the Oral Law, including עירובי תבשילין.</fn> The standard printed edition of the Tosefta, though, applies the plural merely to the reasons for the mitzvot and their details.<fn>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.</fn> There is also room for discussion as to the scope of what is included according to the Bavli.<fn>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". <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit26-5" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBereshit26-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 26:5</a><a href="RashiYoma28b" data-aht="source">Rashi Yoma 28b</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> in his Torah commentary writes "להביא תורה שבעל פה הלכה למשה מסיני" and it is possible that this comes to disinclude later Rabbinic ordinances. However, Rashi in his Talmudic commentary understands Rav to be including even later Rabbinic enactments which were not given at Sinai.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>עונשים לעוברי עבירה</b> – על פי גישה זו, דור המבול, אנשי סדום, והכנענים נענשו בשל עבירות על שבע מצוות בני נח אשר ניתנו במפורש או נחשבו לחוק טבעי. <br/>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.<fn>See Seder Olam Rabbah 5, Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8:9, Bavli Sanhedrin 56a-b, Bavli Chulin 92a. Cf. <multilink><a href="IbnEzraVayikra18-18" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit26-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 26:5</a><a href="IbnEzraVayikra18-18" data-aht="source">Vayikra 18:18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="ChizkuniBereshit7-21" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniBereshit7-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:21</a><a href="ChizkuniBereshit26-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 26:5</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>.</fn></point> | <point><b>עונשים לעוברי עבירה</b> – על פי גישה זו, דור המבול, אנשי סדום, והכנענים נענשו בשל עבירות על שבע מצוות בני נח אשר ניתנו במפורש או נחשבו לחוק טבעי. <br/>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.<fn>See Seder Olam Rabbah 5, Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8:9, Bavli Sanhedrin 56a-b, Bavli Chulin 92a. Cf. <multilink><a href="IbnEzraVayikra18-18" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit26-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 26:5</a><a href="IbnEzraVayikra18-18" data-aht="source">Vayikra 18:18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="ChizkuniBereshit7-21" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniBereshit7-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:21</a><a href="ChizkuniBereshit26-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 26:5</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>שמירת המצוות של האבות</b> – גישה זו מדגישה את ייחודם של האבות בכך שהם קבלו על עצמם את עול מצוות ה' ברצון. <br/>This approach emphasizes the uniqueness of the Patriarchs in that they voluntarily assumed responsibility for keeping all of Hashem's commandments.</point> |
<point><b>Patriarchal transgressions</b> – 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: | <point><b>Patriarchal transgressions</b> – 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: | ||
− | + | <ul> | |
− | + | <li><b>Torah observance was still optional and not yet obligatory</b> – This appears to be the approach adopted by <multilink><a href="BavliPesachim119b" data-aht="source">Bavli Pesachim</a><a href="Pesachim119b" data-aht="source">Pesachim 119b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, and is explicitly taken by <multilink><a href="DaatZekeinimBereshit37-35" data-aht="source">Daat Zekeinim</a><a href="DaatZekeinimBereshit37-35" data-aht="source">Bereshit 37:35</a><a href="DaatZekeinimShemot6-20" data-aht="source">Shemot 6:20</a><a href="Daat Zekeinim" data-aht="parshan">About Daat Zekeinim</a></multilink>.</li> | |
− | + | <li><b>The specifics of the implementation of these laws was affected by Noachide status</b> – See <multilink><a href="BavliYevamot98a" data-aht="source">Bavli Yevamot</a><a href="Yevamot98a" data-aht="source">Yevamot 98a-b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> that there is no paternal lineage or familial relationships for Noachides. This principle is applied by <multilink><a href="BavliSanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sanhedrin</a><a href="Sanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Sanhedrin 58b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RYBSBereshit30-9" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSBereshit18-8" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:8</a><a href="RYBSBereshit30-9" data-aht="source">Bereshit 30:9</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="RambanYevamot98a" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanYevamot98a" data-aht="source">Yevamot 98a</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink> to dispose of the apparent Patriarchal violations.<fn>See also <multilink><a href="RCPaltielDevarim23-9" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielDevarim23-9" data-aht="source">Bereshit 23:9</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink>.</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.<fn>The emphasis on voluntary acceptance of the mitzvot is found also in the Midrashic interpretations of "נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע".</fn></point> | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.<fn>The emphasis on voluntary acceptance of the mitzvot is found also in the Midrashic interpretations of "נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע".</fn></point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> |
Version as of 01:12, 23 May 2019
אבות ומצוות
גישות פרשניות
סקירה
בדיון אודות ההיקף בו האבות קיימו את מצוות התורה, פרשנים מציעים שלל אפשרויות, החל בשמירה מלאה על מצוות וכלה בהעדר מוחלט שלהן. חלק מהמקורות מתארים את האבות המייסדים כחלוצים מרצון של עשייה ולא רק של אמונה, וחלקם אף מרחיקים לכת וטוענים שהם שמרו אף על תקנות דרבנן. אחרים מנסים להמחיש כי התורה היא נצחית, וכי המצוות ניתנו כבר לאדם הראשון.
כאשר עמדות אלה נתקלות בקשיים בתירוץ העבירות של האבות על איסורים מקראיים, פרשנים אחרים נוקטים בגישה הפוכה ומציעים כי הרוב המכריע של מצוות התורה החלו רק בסיני. כמה חלופות לגישה מפשרת מציעות שהאבות שמרו על חוקי התורה באופן חלקי. לפתרון זה יש את היתרון ביכולת להסביר את העבירות, בד בבד עם שמירה על תמונה של קיום פולחן מוקדם.
קיום מצוות מלא
כל המצוות היו קיימות ונשמרו לפני שניתנו בסיני. בעמדה זו שיטות חלוקות בשאלה האם הייתה מחויבות אלוקית לקיים את המצוות טרום-סיני או שמא מדובר ביוזמה מרצון של האדם.
ה' ציווה
ספרי דברים
Sifre Devarim,1 Targumim, Avot DeRabbi Natan, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer,2 Anan and other Karaite exegetes3
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
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
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.
This position takes for granted that the Patriarchs observed all of the Torah's commandments.9
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.10 Thus, Yefet goes so far as to assert that Leah and Rachel were merely relatives and not sisters,11 and that Yocheved was Amram's cousin rather than his aunt.12 Alternatively, these actions were, in fact, problematic.13
The implication of this position is that the laws of the Torah are immutable and eternal. It thus served as a direct response14 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.15
הבחירה האנושית
Bavli Yoma, Shemot Rabbah, Midrash Aggadah (Buber), Rashi, 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.18
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.19
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.20
The central prooftext for this position is Bereshit 26:5 which describes Avraham's special reward due to his fulfilling of Hashem's commandments.21 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.22
R. Yochanan23 in Bereshit Rabbah deduces from the plural of "וְתוֹרֹתָי" that Avraham kept even the later ordinances of the sages such as הלכות עירובי חצרות.24 The standard printed edition of the Tosefta, though, applies the plural merely to the reasons for the mitzvot and their details.25 There is also room for discussion as to the scope of what is included according to the Bavli.26
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.27
This approach emphasizes the uniqueness of the Patriarchs in that they voluntarily assumed responsibility for keeping all of Hashem's commandments.
- Torah observance was still optional and not yet obligatory – This appears to be the approach adopted by Bavli Pesachim, and is explicitly taken by Daat Zekeinim.
- The specifics of the implementation of these laws was affected by Noachide status – See Bavli Yevamot that there is no paternal lineage or familial relationships for Noachides. This principle is applied by Bavli Sanhedrin and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ramban to dispose of the apparent Patriarchal violations.28
No Observance
The Patriarchs fulfilled only what they were explicitly commanded in Sefer Bereshit, and these did not include mitzvot other than circumcision.
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
Only Selected Commandments
- Rashbam suggests that only rational mitzvot which relate to a moral ethic were observed.38
- 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.