Difference between revisions of "Avot and Mitzvot – Was Avraham the First Jew/2/en"
(Original Author: Rabbi Hillel Novetsky) |
(Original Author: Rabbi Hillel Novetsky) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
<h1>Avot and Mitzvot – Was Avraham the First Jew?</h1> | <h1>Avot and Mitzvot – Was Avraham the First Jew?</h1> | ||
− | |||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
<p>As these 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. 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 transgressions, while simultaneously maintaining a portrait of some early ritual observance.</p> | <p>As these 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. 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 transgressions, while simultaneously maintaining a portrait of some early ritual observance.</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | |||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
− | |||
<category name="">Full Observance | <category name="">Full Observance | ||
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
Line 23: | Line 20: | ||
<multilink><aht source="AvotDRN2-21">Avot DeRabbi Natan</aht><aht source="AvotDRN2-21">Version 2, Chapter 21</aht><aht parshan="Avot DeRabbi Natan" /></multilink>, | <multilink><aht source="AvotDRN2-21">Avot DeRabbi Natan</aht><aht source="AvotDRN2-21">Version 2, Chapter 21</aht><aht parshan="Avot DeRabbi Natan" /></multilink>, | ||
<multilink><aht source="PirkeiDRE11">Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer</aht><!--<aht source="PirkeiDRE8">8</aht><aht source="PirkeiDRE10">10</aht>--><aht source="PirkeiDRE11">11</aht><aht source="PirkeiDRE20">20</aht><aht source="PirkeiDRE21">21</aht><aht source="PirkeiDRE31">31</aht><aht parshan="Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer" /></multilink>,<fn>See also <multilink><aht source="LekachTovBereshit43-16">Lekach Tov</aht><aht source="LekachTovBereshit2-15">Bereshit 2:15</aht><aht source="LekachTovBereshit43-16">Bereshit 43:16</aht><aht parshan="Lekach Tov">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</aht></multilink> which links <aht source="Bereshit2-15">Bereshit 2:15</aht> to the following verse which serves as the source of Noachide laws in many Rabbinic sources.</fn> | <multilink><aht source="PirkeiDRE11">Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer</aht><!--<aht source="PirkeiDRE8">8</aht><aht source="PirkeiDRE10">10</aht>--><aht source="PirkeiDRE11">11</aht><aht source="PirkeiDRE20">20</aht><aht source="PirkeiDRE21">21</aht><aht source="PirkeiDRE31">31</aht><aht parshan="Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer" /></multilink>,<fn>See also <multilink><aht source="LekachTovBereshit43-16">Lekach Tov</aht><aht source="LekachTovBereshit2-15">Bereshit 2:15</aht><aht source="LekachTovBereshit43-16">Bereshit 43:16</aht><aht parshan="Lekach Tov">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</aht></multilink> which links <aht source="Bereshit2-15">Bereshit 2:15</aht> to the following verse which serves as the source of Noachide laws in many Rabbinic sources.</fn> | ||
− | <multilink><aht source="Kirkisani">Anan and other Karaite exegetes</aht><aht source="Kirkisani">Kirkisani</aht><aht source="Yefet">Yefet b. Eli</aht><aht source="OtzarNechmad">Otzar Nechmad</aht><aht source="KaraiteCommentary">Karaite Commentary</aht><aht source="KaraiteTract">Karaite Tract</aht></multilink><fn>See also <multilink><aht source=" | + | <multilink><aht source="Kirkisani">Anan and other Karaite exegetes</aht><aht source="Kirkisani">Kirkisani</aht><aht source="Yefet">Yefet b. Eli</aht><aht source="OtzarNechmad">Otzar Nechmad</aht><aht source="KaraiteCommentary">Karaite Commentary</aht><aht source="KaraiteTract">Karaite Tract</aht></multilink><fn>See also <multilink><aht source="RMubashir">R. Mubashir HaLevi</aht><aht source="RMubashir">Critique of the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon (p. 78)</aht><aht parshan="R. Mubashir HaLevi" /></multilink> and the opinions cited by <multilink><aht source="RasagCommentaryBereshit4">R. Saadia Gaon</aht><aht source="RasagCommentaryBereshit4">Commentary Bereshit 4</aht><aht parshan="R. Saadia Gaon" /></multilink> and <multilink><aht source="IbnBalaamBereshit8-2">R. Yehuda ibn Balaam</aht><aht source="IbnBalaamBereshit8-2"></aht>Bereshit 8:2<aht parshan="R. Yehuda ibn Balaam" /></multilink>.</fn> |
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Who was commanded?</b> This position maintains that the Torah and its commandments were given already to Adam.<fn>The earliest extant source for this position and for its interpretation of <aht source="Bereshit2-15">Bereshit 2:15</aht> may be the pseudepigraphic work, <aht source="2Enoch31-1">2 Enoch</aht>.</fn> The Midrashim derive this by reading the words "לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ" in <aht source="Bereshit2-15">Bereshit 2:15</aht> as referring to the Torah.<fn>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.<p>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. <multilink><aht source="BereshitRabbah16-5">Bereshit Rabbah</aht><aht source="BereshitRabbah16-5">16:5</aht><aht parshan="Bereshit Rabbah" /></multilink> 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.</p></fn></point> | <point><b>Who was commanded?</b> This position maintains that the Torah and its commandments were given already to Adam.<fn>The earliest extant source for this position and for its interpretation of <aht source="Bereshit2-15">Bereshit 2:15</aht> may be the pseudepigraphic work, <aht source="2Enoch31-1">2 Enoch</aht>.</fn> The Midrashim derive this by reading the words "לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ" in <aht source="Bereshit2-15">Bereshit 2:15</aht> as referring to the Torah.<fn>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.<p>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. <multilink><aht source="BereshitRabbah16-5">Bereshit Rabbah</aht><aht source="BereshitRabbah16-5">16:5</aht><aht parshan="Bereshit Rabbah" /></multilink> 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.</p></fn></point> | ||
Line 32: | Line 29: | ||
<point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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><aht source="DialogueTrypho20">Trypho</aht><aht source="DialogueTrypho20">Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 20</aht></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 <aht source="Kirkisani">Kirkisani</aht>. 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> | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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><aht source="DialogueTrypho20">Trypho</aht><aht source="DialogueTrypho20">Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 20</aht></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 <aht source="Kirkisani">Kirkisani</aht>. 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 name="">Human Choice | <opinion name="">Human Choice | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Line 62: | Line 58: | ||
<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> | ||
− | |||
</category> | </category> | ||
− | |||
<category name="">No Observance | <category name="">No Observance | ||
<p>The Patriarchs fulfilled only what they were explicitly commanded in Sefer Bereshit, and these did not include mitzvot other than circumcision.</p> | <p>The Patriarchs fulfilled only what they were explicitly commanded in Sefer Bereshit, and these did not include mitzvot other than circumcision.</p> | ||
Line 77: | Line 71: | ||
<point><b>Patriarchal transgressions</b> – These commentators explain that the Patriarchs and their families were not yet bound by Torah laws.<fn>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.</fn></point> | <point><b>Patriarchal transgressions</b> – These commentators explain that the Patriarchs and their families were not yet bound by Torah laws.<fn>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.</fn></point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
− | |||
<category name="">Partial Observance | <category name="">Partial Observance | ||
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
Line 94: | Line 87: | ||
<point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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.</point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
− | |||
<opinion name="">Only Selected Commandments | <opinion name="">Only Selected Commandments | ||
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
Line 122: | Line 114: | ||
<point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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.<fn>For further discussion, see <aht parshan="Jubilees" />.</fn></point> | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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.<fn>For further discussion, see <aht parshan="Jubilees" />.</fn></point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
− | |||
<opinion name="">Only In Israel | <opinion name="">Only In Israel | ||
<p></p> | <p></p> | ||
Line 135: | Line 126: | ||
<point><b>Patriarchal transgressions</b> – 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.<fn>Regarding the transgression of making a מצבה, Ramban suggests a different solution, that this prohibition was only introduced later.</fn> This is consistent with Ramban's overall take on the connection between observance of mizvot and living in the Land of Israel.<fn>See, for instance, his comments on Vayikra 18:25, Devarim 4:5 and Devarim 11:18.</fn></point> | <point><b>Patriarchal transgressions</b> – 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.<fn>Regarding the transgression of making a מצבה, Ramban suggests a different solution, that this prohibition was only introduced later.</fn> This is consistent with Ramban's overall take on the connection between observance of mizvot and living in the Land of Israel.<fn>See, for instance, his comments on Vayikra 18:25, Devarim 4:5 and Devarim 11:18.</fn></point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
− | |||
</category> | </category> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
</approaches> | </approaches> | ||
− | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
<multilink><aht source="MidrashTannaim14-4">Midrash Tannaim</aht><aht source="MidrashTannaim14-4">Devarim 14:4</aht><aht parshan="Midrash Tannaim" /></multilink> | <multilink><aht source="MidrashTannaim14-4">Midrash Tannaim</aht><aht source="MidrashTannaim14-4">Devarim 14:4</aht><aht parshan="Midrash Tannaim" /></multilink> | ||
--> | --> | ||
− | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
<opinion name=""> <span class="unbold"> – There are two variations of this possibility:</span> | <opinion name=""> <span class="unbold"> – There are two variations of this possibility:</span> | ||
− | |||
<point><b>Who observed?</b> </point> | <point><b>Who observed?</b> </point> | ||
<point><b>Knowledge of the mitzvot</b> – </point> | <point><b>Knowledge of the mitzvot</b> – </point> | ||
Line 163: | Line 148: | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
--> | --> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
</page> | </page> | ||
</aht-xml> | </aht-xml> |
Version as of 02:49, 26 June 2014
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 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. 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 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
Human Choice
- 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
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.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.