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.
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 exegetes
6 point to the Torah's use of the term "הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה" in the Noach stories
7 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 response
15 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 Sources which are ambiguous –
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.
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. Yochanan
24 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 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.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