The Significance of Avraham Avinu’s Performance of the Mitzvot
The Significance of Avraham Avinu’s Performance of the Mitzvot
By Michael Landy
Perfection for a Jew can only be realized through the performance of the mitzvot [commandments] of the Torah, which were given from G-d to Moshe on Sinai [Matan Torah]. Since man is finite, his thinking and understanding is limited and constrained to factors of time and space. Man is not capable, and it is beyond his intellectual reach, to calculate a finite system that can relate to the infinite ruchaniyut world—existence beyond time and space. Man needed a revelation from G-d that would give him such a system whereby in the physical world man could affect and achieve perfection in the ruchaniyut existence. Torah is this system given by G-d to the Klal Yisroel, and its function is realized through the performance of the mitzvot.[1] The mitzvot are an “interface” from finite physical existence to the ruchaniyut existence. It is our emunah [belief], and a rational deduction, that only through the performance of the mitzvot, given from G-d to Moshe on Sinai, that a Jew can reach completeness and perfection in this world and in his ruchaniyut existence.
The Talmud in Yoma 28b[2] states: אמר רב קיים אברהם אבינו כל התורה כולה שנאמר עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי וגו’ – Avraham Avinu (performed and) fulfilled all the commandments of the Torah.[3] In a responsum, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) writes that this statement of the Talmud refers only to Avraham, to the exclusion of Yitzchak and Yaakov.[4] What is the overall intent of the Talmud stating and proving that Avraham kept the mitzvot? Since Avraham lived before Matan Torah, what would be the implication if Avraham did not observe all the mitzvot? Additionally, why is the emphasis on Avraham to the exclusion of Yitzchak and Yaakov
Early church theology dealt with a dilemma as to the status of Divine Law—Torah: the function of the mitzvot [commandments] as written in the Torah.[5] Historically, in order to counter judaization of the Galatian Church, then comprised of pagan converts to Christianity, and, as a general attack on Jewish converts who still kept to traditional Jewish observance of the mitzvot, Paul declared that belief in[6] ישוע הנוצרי [Jesus of Nazareth, the historical central figure in Christianity] alone was sufficient for man’s perfection.[7] As a consequence of this supposition, the observance and performance of Divine Law—the mitzvot of the Torah—would no longer be necessary for a person’s completeness or perfection.
The fundamental proof for this assertion was the Torah’s description of Avraham who lived prior to Matan Torah.[8] Avraham referred to as righteous (Bereshit 15:6) and his attainment to the level of navi [prophet] (Bereshit 20:7), all occurring before Matan Torah, were used as proofs that performance of the mitzvot was not essential and not necessary for man’s perfection. In their view, Matan Torah with the requirement of the performance of mitzvot, was a temporary necessity only for the generation exiting Egypt into a wilderness and for a number of subsequent generations, culminating with the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and with the introduction of Jesus of Nazareth [יש”ו]. They postulated: with the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, Torah Law and mitzvot became obsolete and were no longer necessary for a Jew’s performance. The basic requirement for a man’s completeness and perfection was only a type of identification with Jesus of Nazareth.
The Torah is completely opposed to this outlook. As stated above, perfection for a Jew can only be realized through the performance of the mitzvot [commandments], which were given from G-d to Moshe on Sinai [Matan Torah], and defined in the Torah she-ba’al peh. This is one of the main ramifications of Matan Torah for the world, that only through the performance (or non-performance) of mitzvot can a Jew’s ruchaniyut existence be affected. Any pronouncement of such a system existing outside the realm of the Torah and the function of its mitzvot is avodah zarah (עבודה זרה). (Therefore, the Chassidic legend that by whistling during Yom Kippur prayers the “gates of heaven” opened, and the prayers were elevated and accepted,[9] is in concept avodah zarah. The Torah gave man a mitzvah of Tefilla, and Chazal defined its structure and system.) Before Matan Torah one’s perfection was realized through observance of the seven Noahide commandments. According to the Talmud, the seven Noahide commandments were G-d given,[10] and before Matan Torah were communicated to mankind through a type of prophecy to specific individuals. What the Greeks and others refer to as Natural Law (or sometimes referred to in our literature as nemusi’im [נימוסים]) is in reality the seven Noahide commandments. Non-Torah philosophers throughout history have erred by denying the necessity that the seven Noahide laws also had to be G-d given.[11]
This supposition that man can achieve perfection through belief in Jesus of Nazareth, as well as the belief that Jesus of Nazareth became a prophet[12] lacking the necessary Halachic requirements, is an intentional distortion and outright rejection of the fundamentals of the Torah, as explained above. Their main proof from the Torah: the statement that Avraham was righteous, and the statement “All the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you” Bereshit 12:3), were used as examples of one who lived before Matan Torah, and yet had the ability to achieve spiritual completeness without the performance of the mitzvot. In a direct refutation of these distortions, the Talmud states emphatically: Avraham performed and fulfilled all the mitzvot in the Torah, which include the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Talmud brings a proof for this assertion from the verse: עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקלי וישמור משמרתי מצותי חקותי ו [Because Avraham obeyed My voice and observed My mishmarti, My commandments, My decrees, and My Torah] (Bereshit 26:5). The achievement of completeness and perfection of Avraham Avinu would not have been possible without the performance of the same mitzvot given at Matan Torah. Since before Matan Torah the only obligation for man was the fulfillment of the seven Noahide commandments, Avraham’s knowledge of the complete Torah and the mitzvot could only have been realized through prophecy, as explained and defined by the Rishonim.[13] The Talmud specifically references Avraham because the proof offered for this antinomic argument only mentions Avraham, and does not mention Yitzchak or Yaakov. It is probable that this issue was a prevalent theological debate of that era.14 Therefore, besides being a testimony of Avraham’s religious devotion and adherence to the mitzvot, the Talmud’s statement as to Avraham’s fulfillment of the entire Torah was a theological declaration as to the necessity of Matan Torah and the function of the mitzvot. And, consequently to categorically dismiss and deny what contemporary and current detractors of the Torah were and are teaching.
[1] [HaRav] Dr. Chaim Zimmerman, Torah and Reason: Insiders and Outsiders of Torah (Jerusalem: Tvuno, 1979), 20.
[2] This statement of the Talmud is also found at the end of a Mishnah in Kiddushin 82a, with a text variant. Yoma: Avraham קיים the whole Torah. Kiddushin: Avraham עשה the whole Torah. Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Eidlisz [מהרש”א] in Yoma unites the two texts: קיים refers to fulfillment of the negative commandments, and, עשה refers to performance of the positive commandments. Therefore, Avraham performed and fulfilled all 613 commandments of the Torah—positive and negative commandments—including the Torah she ba’al peh (תורה שבעל פה).
[3] The author of the Yoma 28b statement is Rav, or רב אבא בר איבו. There is no mention in Yoma of this statement having a Mishnaic source, even though it is referenced and included in the Mishnah in Kiddushin 82a. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (גליון הש”ס קדושין שם) references Perush Kuntarus at the end of Tractate Kinim stating that sometimes a baraita [ברייתא] will be inserted at the end of a Mishnah. Rav is referred to in some places in the Talmud with the status of a Tanna: רב תנא הוא ופליג. Rabbi Aaron Hyman in Toldoth Tannaim Ve’Amoraim [תולדות תנאיים ואמוראיים] (I:17) quotes Rabbenu Hai Gaon that there are three baraitot [ברייתות] that should be attributed to Rav.
[4] שאלות ותשבות הרמ”א סימן י’
[5] Antinomianism (Epistles: Gal 3; Rom 4).
[6] This Hebrew spelling is in accordance with the Rambam (משנה תורה הלכות עבודה זרה פרק י’ והלכות מלכים פרק י”א). There are examples in rabbinic literature where the spelling has been changed to יש”ו. These authors probably follow the Talmud dictum לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה [one should teach in the most concise language] (Pesachim 3b) and Megillah 25b.
[7] Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956), 69, 91.
[8] Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament, 89.
[9] See Shmuel Agnon, Ya’mim Nora’im (Jerusalem; Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing, 1968), 369.
[10] Sanhedrin 56b
[11] See Rambam, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot M’lachim 8:11. According to what is written here, the text does not necessarily have to be amended. The correct text can be: “and NOT from their scholars” (ולא מחכמיהם).
[12] See also Alexander Altmann, “Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas: Natural or Divine Prophecy?” AJS Review 3 (1978): 1-19, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1486419.
[13] Concerning the specific level of prophecy of Avraham, the Ramban in his commentary on Bereishit 26:5 uses the term ruach ha-kodesh (רוח הקדש). The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 2:39 uses the term chazon (חזון). The Abarbanel in his commentary to Shmot 20 uses the term nevuah (נבואה).
[14] As seen by its explicit inclusion in Gal 3; Rom 4.
58 thoughts on “The Significance of Avraham Avinu’s Performance of the Mitzvot”
There are a lot of things here which one can comment on, I’ll just point out one basic issue. The author writes:
“This Hebrew spelling is in accordance with the Rambam (משנה תורה הלכות עבודה זרה פרק י’ והלכות מלכים פרק י”א). There are examples in rabbinic literature where the spelling has been changed to יש”ו. These authors probably follow the Talmud dictum לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה [one should teach in the most concise language] (Pesachim 3b) and Megillah 25b.”
The author is apparently unaware that יש”ו is written such as an acronym for ימח שמו וזכרו. The attempt to explain shortening the name by one letter as לעולם ישנה דרך קצרה is laughable.
Look in מגילה as referenced in your remark. המבין יבין.
When the Talmud refers to Jesus it writes ישו. The name ישוע does not appear there and some have suggested that the Sages deliberately altered his name, as we do not accept him as a savior (which is what ישוע means). For this point, see my article about Torah study on Christmas Eve.
As you note, the Rambam uses his complete name. יש”ו was used as a negative acronym. It has nothing to do with לשון קצרה.
ישוע was connected to המושיע rather than יהושע
The name ישוע appears in Ezra and Nehemiah.
When I say the Talmud writes ישו we actually don’t know what the Talmud originally had. The fact that the Rambam writes ישוע would, I think, imply that in his version of the Talmud it had the complete name. Perhaps Jews altered the name so they could claim that the Talmud is not referring to Jesus of Nazareth.
“ישו” is probably also an original form, from whence Latin Iesu, Greek Iesus, English Jesus.
In my note to the commentary of Rabbenu Avraham b. HaRambam p. 626 (fn. 177) I pointed out that though there the name is ישו is used, it is nevertheless followed by י”ש which is an acronym for ימחה שמו, leading one to conclude that to Rabbenu Avraham, ישו is not itself an acronym for ימח שמו וזכרו.
General question: What does this have to do with seforim?
Second, what evidence do you have that the early Church would have looked to Avraham in particular as a representation of the lack of need to follow the Torah?
And why do you accept the Rema’s interpretation out of the many interpretations of in what way and how the forefathers kept the commandments in accordance with the Talmudic statement? Is this essay trying to suggest an understanding of the Rema’s intent, or an attempt to understand the Talmud’s statement?
While it is important to refute the antinomian and anti-Judaism polemics of some Christian theologians, one should not distort Torah and halakhah in order to do so.
This essay makes a number of unfounded claims and errors:
(1) The Talmud does NOT “state emphatically” that Avraham kept all the mitzvot. That is only the opinion of Rav, after which the Talmud immediately brings the opposite opinion of R. Shimi bar Hiya.
(2) Rambam states explicitly (Hil. Melakhim 9:1) that Avraham observed ONLY the 7 mitzvot b’nai Noach plus brit milah and tefillat shacharit.
(3) Rambam is not the exception. Also Radak, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Seforno and Hizkuni agreed with R. Shimi bar Hiya against Rav’s contention. (See their perushim on Gen. 26:5.) Rav Joseph Soloveitchik also contended that Avraham “did not have a system of mitzvot.” (“Abraham’s Journey” p. 58). Among the classic meforashim, only Rashi agrees with Rav.
(4) It goes without saying that the peshat of the Torah text itself indicates that neither Avraham, Yitzhak nor Yaakov kept the 613 mitzvot that Jews keep today.
(5) The authoritative manuscripts, e.g. Yemenite ms, indicate that the correct text of HIl. Melakhim 8:11 is “but their chakhamim” (“ELA Chakhamim”) (See Frankel edition of Mishneh Torah. ) The majority of academic scholars also maintain this. (See Twersky, “Introduction to the Mishneh Torah”.)
(6) Rambam makes clear in a number of places in Moreh Nevukhim that human perfection can be attained in ways other than observing mitzvot. Mitzvot only give Jews an advantage in gaining perfection, i.e. knowledge of God, but gentiles and Jews can also gain such perfection through wisdom and philosophy, however hard that is. One cannot legitimately claim that Rambam was guilty of avodah zarah for maintaining this. Moreover, there is no evidence anywhere in Torah sources to my knowledge that one claiming that there exists a system for attaining perfection outside mitzvot constitutes avodah zarah.
(7) The reason Rambam wrote “ELA m’chakhmeihem” in MT was precisely because he did believe that people could gain wisdom and perfection without believing in Mosaic revelation.
(8) Finally, the reason that whistling opens the gates of Heaven constitutes avodah zarah is more likely that it is simply superstition and that it detracts from the emphasis on tefillah and teshuvah as the proper behavior on Yom Kippur and as ways to achieve kapparah.
Rabbi Korn
Thank you for saving many of us the trouble of making (at least some) of these points.
I can only assume the author intended to present a particular viewpoint but forgot to note that at the beginning.
BH
There is a lot to write on this comment. A lot to argue about. Alas there is not much time, so I will just make a few points.
The idea that the Avos practiced the Mitzvos, is not considered at all to be a controversial idea in most Rabbinic circles. I can understand that some academics would scoff at such an idea, but for all those who learn according to the same Mesorah that we have learned for generations (just like all those who Pasken according to Mesorah), then they would not have any such difficulty with the concept.
The question is only: did they keep every Halocho to the tee, in its most literal sense, or did they do something which may have been similar to the concept, but after Matan Torah it would not pass muster as an actual Kiyum Mitzvah.
Don’t worry, it is fine, no one will ostracize you if you don’t accept this idea. no,it is not from the Ikarim. However, do understand that you are coming from the left field.
The fact of the matter is, that from the time of Chazal till the latest times, there has been many discussions in regards to many practices that the Avos did, in regards to it’s Halachik standing.
As a matter of fact, Rav Yehudah Rosanes (the Ba’al Mishne Le’Melech), has an entire Sefer called Peroshas Derochim, that deals with this concept.
It is also important to note that Rav Yosef Engel, in Bais Ho’Otzar Ma;areches 1 Klal 1 discusses the issue at length with much discussion from Kol HaTorah Kuloh.
What I would really like to know is, why we ignored an open Mishna in Kidushin 82 A ?!! I still cannot comprehend it, the Mishna clearly says that Avrohom Avinu Kept the entire Torah!!
In regards to the Fact that Rav Shimi argued with Rav, it should be pointed out, that in the next line, it is brought that Avrohom Avinu kept everything including Eruv Tavshilin. I think it is clear from the way the Gemara puts it together, that the Gemarah accepts the opinion of Rav and not Rav Shimi.
Here are a few pointers (due to the lack of time, this is not in specific order).
1. We learn the Din of Zrizim Makdimin Le’Mitzvos from Avrohom Avinu’s actions with regards to his guests, Sdom, and with regards to the Akeda.
2. It is traditionally accepted (Yes I know you will claim that Rashi is the one who popularized this idea), that Ya’akov Avinu said Krias Shma. Much ink has been spilled over this throughout the generations.
There is an entirely sepparate discussion as to why Yosef did not say Kriah Shma.
3. There has been extensive discussion as to why Yosef Ha’Tzadik took a haircut on Rosh Hashono.
4. The Gemara in Boba Basra learns the Din of Arvus from Yehuda’s actions.
See also Dovev Meisharim 1, 19, and the Bais Ho’Otzar I mentioned above Ois 7 where he brings sources from everywhere.
5. There have been extensive discussions as to the fact that Ya’akov Avuinu married two sisters. (As a matter of fact the Ramo quoted by Rabbi Landy is brought to answer this question. But he took as a given that Avrohom Avinu did keep the Mitzvos.)
So too there is an extensive discussion with regards to Yehudah marrying Tamar.
The Ramban Rashba and Ritva (in Yevomos 98-100) Ran (Sanhedrin 58) take it as a given that the Avos kept the Mitzvos before Matan Torah, and because of this, have to come up with different Lomdishe idea to explain these concepts.
From the Chizkuni’s discussion in regards to Yehudah and Tomor and Yibum, it is clear that he held that in principle Yehudah was keeping the Mitzvos. (He is by far not the only one obviously, I am just pointing him out, because you wanted to use him out to claim that he does not hold that the Avos kept the Mitzvos).
[BTW in regards to Ya’akov marrying two sisters, see the Teshuvos Horashb”o (1, 94) and Teshuvois Radvaz (696) for some interesting ideas, which I will not get into here]
6. There is extensive discussion (going back to Chazal) with regards to Shlichus in Kidushin, and in regards to Birchas Erusin (or Nisuin), from the way in which Yitzchok’s Shiduch took place.
7. There has been extensive discussion as to why Avrohom Avinu had to wait for Hashem to command him to circumcise himself, if he was always trying to keep all the Mitzvos. According to the idea that Avrohom Avinu anyways did not keep the Mitzvos, then we are talking about a lot of ink being spilled in vain.
8. The Rambam in Hilchos Erchin (6, 33) learns from the behavior of Ya’akov Avinu that one can be Makdish, something which is She’lo Bo Le’Oilom. The Ra’aved there agrees. As a matter of that there is a discussion as to why the Rambam learned this Halachah from something which is before Matan Torah when he could have used a Posuk in Parshas Chukas.
See also Rambam Hilchos Mechirah 22, 15 and the CHasam sofer Yoreh De’ah 310 in this regard.
9. The Gemara (Chulin 91 A see there Tosfos and Rishonim) clearly discuss how the Shevotim practiced Shechita.
10. Much ink has been spilled on the idea (yes I know you will say it comes from Rashi) that Yosef gave his wife a Shtar Kidushin and Kesubah (And how it can work without Eidim and many other questions etc etc). I
11. There is an additional long discussion (with more ink being spilled on this topic), if the Avos and Shvotim had a Din of a Jew, and if was Lekula and not only Le’Chumra. The above mentioned Sefer Proshas Derochim discusses this at length.
There are many Nafke Minos which come out of this discussion.
11/2 Something which is discussed in this matter is, if the Avos and Shevotim had the Name “Bnei Yisroel” even before Matan Torah. I would just like to quote the Ramban who writes:
רמב”ן ויקרא פרק כד פסוק י
ואין דעתי כך, כי מעת שבא אברהם בברית היו ישראל ובגוים לא יתחשבו, וכמו שאמר בעשו (קידושין יח א) ודילמא ישראל מומר שאני. וק”ו הדבר, אם לאחר מתן תורה שהכותי הבא על בת אברהם מחייבי לאוין ואין לו בה קידושין היא מקוה טהורה לאומות להכשיר את ולדה להיות כמוה, לא כל שכן קודם התורה שתהא מטהרת ולדה להיות כמוה לחייבו במילה כזרעו של אברהם ויהיה מכלל בני ישראל:
12. Much discussion has been spilled in regards to the Loshon Horo that Yosef said on his brothers in regards to what they ate Etc Etc.
13. In the Medrash it says that Yaakov kept Shabbos. In another Medrash we find that Yosef kept Shabbos.
As a matter of fact much ink has been spilled, as how were they allowed to have kept Shabbos, since before Matan Torah they were like Goyim, and a Goy is not allowed to keep Shabbos.
14. The Ramban famously says in multiple places (Toldos 26,5 and in Sefer Vayikra 18, 25) that the Avos only kept the Torah in Eretz Yisroel, while in Chutz La’aretz they were only involved in the Sodos and Ta’amei Ha’Mitzvos.
He adds that Yosef kept the Mitzvos even in Chutz lo’oretz
This is actually the Ramban you quoted, and I am not sure why it was not quoted accurately.
15 The Nefesh HaChaim (Shaar 1, Perek 21) explains that much of this was more Beruchnius then Begashmius.
There is much discussion about this concept in many seforim about this, and in CHassidus it brings from the Zohar that the Avos were Mekayem Mitzvos Tehiflin with sticks
16. The Maharal holds that the Avos were only Mekayem the positive Mitzvos and not the NEgative Mitzvos.
17. The Oir Ha’Chaim (Vayechi 49 3) held, that while they did certain Mitzvos, there were certain Mitzvos which they were told by Nevuah not to do.
18 Tosfos in BM 71A learns how a Goy should do certain actions, from the way the Avos kept the Mitzvos.
19. Chazal learnt many Halochos from the Akedo. Besides for Zrizim Makdimim, we learn that about listening to a Novi for a Ho’roas sho’o (Yitzchok listening to his father, to allow himself to be sacrificed, that one needs a knife for Shechitas Kodshim, that Shechitas Chulin has to be with something hwich is Tolush min Ha’Karka, that there is a problem to use wormy pieces of wood for a korban, and many other Halochos.
———-
In regards to the Rambam in Hilchos Melochim, and the lechem Mishna and many commentaries ask one the Rambam. I believe that Rav Avrohom Ben Horambam addresses it somewhere in his Pirush Al Hatorah (one of the Commentators here, Rav Moshe Maimon has published this Pirush, and maybe he can help us).
In the Oruch Ha’Shulchan Ho’Osid (see inside in Hilchos Melochim 78, 6) he explains that the Rambam only brings down Halochos, which the avos did as an obligation and commandment, and not just on their own volition.
Other explanations given are, that the Rambam is only including the Mitzvos which are mentioned explicitly in the Torah.
There can be other explanations, like applying the Nefesh HAchaim mentioned above or other answers. It is certainly not a slam dunk.
—
The Radak actually says that Avrohom Avinu Kept all Mitzvos including Eruv Tavshilin, he just says that even in regards to the 7 Mitzvos there is a concept of Chukim.
The radak says the opposite of what you took out of it.
—
I am not sure what you took from the Ibn Ezra.
–The Chizkuni does not argue with Rav, he just explains a specific Posuk according to Peshuto Shel Mikra, not that it contradicts Rav. The same can be explained in Regards to the Sforno and the Rashbam.
We have all the times, many Pirushim Al Hatorah, where there is the plain simple meaning of Pshat, and then there is Torah SHe’baal peh. This is exactly what it says here (The Chizkuni himself writes that this is al Pi Peshuto Shel Mikra).
…………….
I wanted to write each point mentioned above more at length, and write many points, and also deal with some of your other comments. However this itself has already sapped much of my strength.
I am reading the rishonim I quoted on what they say, not what I want them to say to fit another theory. A prime example: Rambam makes very clear in Hil. Avodat Kochavim, end chapter 1, that he believes God gave Torat Moshe to Am Yisrael in response to, and a future innoculation against, the idolatrous ideas that Am Yisrael adopted while slaves in Mitzrayim. If so, Rambam believed that HKBH gave us mitzvot after yitzi’at Mitzrayim–not before. Of course one can claim that Rambam was only talking about being mitzuvim while the avot observed and were ainom mitzuvim, but nothing he says even remotely hints at this and much of what he says implicitly contradicts this notion.
Similar close sober readings of the words to the other rishonim I quoted yield similar conclusions.
You are correct that we have different mesorot. What I find objectionable is your disparaging claim that a more rational approach is (merely) “scholarly” and comes “from the (sic!) left field.” My mesorah is a time-honored one that honors reason and history and is the same as that of Saadyah, Rambam, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Meiri, and modern authorities like Seredei Aish and R. Soloveitchik, to name only a few. I am proud to be “in left field” with them.
Defending the idea that the Avos kept all the mitzvot forces one to accept irrational, astounding, ahistorical and incredible conclusions. (Did Avraham eat matzah l’zecher the Exodus that had not yet occurred? Did Yitzhak sit in the sukkah to commemorate
Am YIsrael’s 40 years in the midbar that had not yet occurred? Did Yaakov keep Shabbat and kashrut when he worked for Lavan for 20 years? Did Yosef observe Rosh Hashannah when HKBU gave us the calendar only hundreds of years after Yaakov lived? Did the Avos really observe the mitzvah of tefillin with sticks? The claims become more and more bizarre and more and more absurd to anyone who wants to be rational and historical–or be faithful to the written text. In other words, insisting on the notion that the Avos had the same mesorah that we do and kept the same mitzvot drive more and more thinking Jews away from Torah and mitzvot.
This is an old problem, and on this point, we do well to heed the words of the greatest gadol and ba’al halakhah in our history, Rambam (Perush ha-mishnayot, Hakdamah to Perek Helek):
וממה שאתה צריך לדעת כי דברי חכמים ז”ל נחלקו בם בני אדם לשלוש כיתות:
[כת ראשונה – מקבלים דברי חכמים כפשטם]
הראשונה והוא רוב מה שראיתי, ואשר ראיתי חיבוריו ומה ששמעתי עליו
הם מאמינים אותם על פשטם, ואין סוברין בהם פירוש נסתר בשום פנים. והנמנעות כולם הם אצלם מחויבות המציאות.
ואמנם עושים כן, לפי שלא הבינו החוכמה והם רחוקים מן התבונות, ואין בהם מן השלמות כדי שיתעוררו מאליהם, ולא מצאו מעורר שיעורר אותם. סוברין שלא כוונו החכמים ז”ל בכל דבריהם הישרים והמתוקנים, אלא מה שהבינו לפי דעתם מהם, ושהם על פשטם. ואע”פ שהנראה מקצת דבריהם יש בהם מן הדיבה והריחוק מן השכל, עד שאילו סופר על פשוטו לעמי הארץ – כל שכן לחכמים – היו תמהים בהתבוננתם בהם, והם אומרים היאך יתכן שיהיה בעולם אדם שיחשוב בזה או שיאמין שהיא אמונה נכונה, ק”ו שייטיב בעיניו.
וזו הכת עניי הדעת, יש להצטער עליהם לסכלותם, לפי שהם מכבדין ומנשאין החכמים כפי דעתם, והם משפילים אותם בתכלית השפלות, והם אינם מבינין זה. וחי השם יתברך כי הכת הזה מאבדים הדרת התורה ומאפילים זהרה, ומשימים תורת ה’ בהיפך המכוון בה. לפי שהשם יתברך אמר בתורה התמימה “אשר ישמעון את כל החוקים האלה ואמרו רק עם חכם ונבון הגוי הגדול הזה”, והכת הזאת מספרים משפטי דברי החכמים ז”ל מה שכששומעים אותו שאר האומות, אומרים “רק עם סכל ונבל הגוי הקטן הזה”.
ורוב מה שעושים זה הדרשנים שהם מפרשים ומודיעים להמון העם מה שאינם יודעים. ומי יתן אחר שלא ידעו ולא הבינו שיהיו שותקים. כמו שאמר “מי יתן החרש תחרישון ותהי להם לחכמה”. או שיהיו אומרים אין אנו מבינים כוונת החכמים בזה המאמר ולא היאך יתפרש. אבל הם מחשבים שהם מבינים אותו ומשתדלים להודיעו לפרש לעם מה שהבינו הם עצמם, כפי דעתם החלושה, לא מה שאמרו חכמים, ודורשים בראשי העם דרשות ממסכת ברכות ופרק חלק וזולתם על פשטם מלה במלה.
Rabbi Korn, generally speaking you are firmly in the right here, however the claim you attribute to the Rambam at the end of Chapter 1 of Hil. Avodah Zara is not “made very clear” at all. I believe you are indeed correct in your understanding of his words, but this understanding is only reached by conflating the Rambam’s well known approach (which is the underlying thesis for his reasons for the commandments enumerated in Part 3 of the Guide) with his words in Hil. Avodah Zara.
All he says in Avodah Zara is that the Jewish nation was almost subsumed by the mistaken notions they picked up in Egypt, but fortunately Moshe was created and sent, and by his “crowning” of the Jewish nation with the Torah’s commandments, they were saved from the perils of idolatry. Taken on its own, this quotation has no bearing on the question of whether the commandments were previously known and adhered to by the forefathers.
It seems to me that the plain reading of Hil. AZ, end chapter 1, is that it is not merely “fortunate”, i.e, fortuitous, that Moshe was sent to give Am Yisrael the Torah after slavery, but that in fact it was a divine decision precisely to overcome the idolatry that Am Yisrael had adopted in Egypt. I believe this is a fair, indeed the most plausible, reading.
Quibbling over whether the timing of Moshe’s arrival was “merely” fortuitous or was the result of a predestined decision is besides the point. I certainly did not intend by the use of my “fortunately” that the great historical machinations that were in place were anything short of immense divine precision – as indeed all of history is to the true believer.
The sole point in contention was whether a straightforward reading of this section – and this section alone – yields the conclusion that the commandments were an innovation first formulated after the redemption. In this regard, I stick with my contention that, divorced from the Rambam’s well known formulations in the Guide, this section yields no such conclusion.
If you are inclined, you might simply argue that if God only saw fit to formally endow the Jewish people with the commandments after the redemption, it must be that they were crafted only then for the specific needs of the Jewish people at that moment. Whatever the merits of this argument may be, to my view it finds no particular foothold in the words of the Rambam in Avodah Zara.
You should read the book גישת התמורות from ישיבת מעלה גלבוע
It addresses this very issue.
The Rambam knew that the Torah existed before the world was created.
He also knew that the Torah was not only the blueprint for the world, but that the world is meant to reflect that Ratzon HaShem which is embodied in the Torah.
That being the case, it is logical to accept that the Avos wished to express that Ratzon through their actions.
So much more to write, but the hour is very late.
I accept most of your comment as correct, but I must quibble with your description of the Rambam as “the greatest gadol and ba’al halakhah in our history.” Says who? (I’m sure some do say it, I really mean who says they are in the right and not those who considered the baalei Tos. [for example] to be greater?)
I believe that Rambam merits as the greatest ba’al halakhah in our history because he wrote the most comprehensive and systematic halakhic treatise (Mishneh Torah) in all of rabbinic history. The ba’ale Tosefot–who were actually a number of different authorities–wrote only on isolated halakhic cases as they appeared in Shas, and even Yosef Karo as author of the Shulkhan Arukh did not write about every area of halakhah (e.g. beit hamikdash, korbanot, yemot ha-meshiach) as did Rambam.
BH
While the Rambam does not need my approbation, and as a Lubavitcher, no one needs to tell me about the greatness of the Rambam, I still need to point out something which should be obvious.
Anyone who learns Halocho will know, that while the Rambam was one of the greatest Halachist ever alive, his word is not the final word on so many matters. And while he affect every second Se’if in Shulchan Aruch, we in turn Don’t Pasken like him, in numerous cases.
One has to realize, that you would be acting totally different in many many matters in Taharas Mishpacha, SHabbos Kashrus and myriads of other Halachos, if you only strictly fallowed the Psakim of the Rambam.
This alone shows, that while the Rambam was from the greatest Poskim ever alive, he was not the final word.
BH
One correction: He was not the final word, when other Rishonim argued. Not when no Rishonim argue, and then when we would like to argue. Then of course, that is not accepted.
not sure that “of course” it’s not accepted to argue on the Rambam when no Rishon does so. I think the Gra (among others) famously argues on Rishonim and not simply when paskening like other Rishonim. I don’t know whether he does that with the Rambam specifically, although I doubt that would make a difference to him.
To add to this a bit: Is there anything at all binding the Acharonim to the rulings of the Rishonim? There are plenty of shtiklach Torah dedicated to explaining why we are even bound to the views of the *Gemara* and those don’t apply (to my knowledge) to the Rishonim (nimnu v’gamru, sanhedrin etc.) As far as I can tell, it’s merely an accepted *convention* not to dispute the Rishonim, which, in certain circumstances, is broken.
I was (cheekily) referring to the fact that the Rosh said (purportedly) that the baalei Tos. (I think Ri and R”T specifically) were “gadol b’chachma u’v’minyan vis a vis the Rambam.” (I assume many in the Rambam’s camp would disagree vigorously). Your definition of “greatest” i.e., most comprehensive is pretty narrow. For example, perhaps the Aruch HaShulchan was the greatest halachist of his day but I certainly wouldn’t say that’s (only) because he wrote on almost all of it.
BH
” What I find objectionable is your disparaging claim that a more rational approach is (merely) “scholarly” and comes “from the (sic!) left field.” ”
And what I find objectionable, is that you had the outstanding audacity to make the bizarre disparaging claim, that a view which is accepted by almost all of Chazal (starting from the Tano’im), Rishonim and Achronim, is based on “unfounded claims and errors”, which are a “distortion of Torah”.
Furthermore: It is quite clear from your entire tone, that your real issue here, is not what is or is not unfounded, but rather, that the entire notion that the Avos kept the Torah is: irrational, astounding, ahistorical and incredible.
In other words: You really have an issue with the entire method which such statements are based upon and really cannot tolerate it, and you therefore will turn over every rock, just in order to get to your preferred conclusion.
Yet the language you used is one, which conceals this real underlying issue which you have, and tries to convince the reader, that this is really the overwhelmingly accepted option, and any other view is wrong (not because you did not like the method, but because it is officially “unfounded”.
“My mesorah is a time-honored one that honors reason and history and is the same as that of Saadyah, Rambam, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Meiri, and modern authorities like Seredei Aish and R. Soloveitchik, to name only a few. I am proud to be “in left field” with them.”
I would like to see the entire piece from Rabbi Soloveitchik in its complete context, before relying on your say, as I have seen other quotes, are not accurate.
I would also like to see, where one can see the Meiri or Sridei Aish inside.
I have already responded in regards to the Rambam and Rashbam, and will not repeat myself (besides for dealing later on, with the specific quotes which you have quoted in your latest response).
In any event, as I have shown conclusively in my previous comment, that the idea that the Avos kept the Mitzvos (in some form), has never really been a controversial opinion at all within traditional Rabinic circles. I will come back to this soon, but for our purpose, the point is, that most certainly, it is really astounding, that you tried to make the inverted claim, that the majority accepted opinion in all generations was actually a minority opinion. That is a true perversion of the facts, from any objective point of view.
“I am reading the rishonim I quoted on what they say, not what I want them to say to fit another theory. “”Similar close sober readings of the words to the other rishonim I quoted yield similar conclusions.”
This is really fascinating.
You claim to quote Rishonim based on what they say, not based on what you want them to say, and yet you have the Ramban included in your list. The ramban which you quoted clearly says black and white, that the Avos kept the Mitzvos in Eretz Yisroel, and the Yosef kept it also in Mitzraim. Furthermore, as I pointed out, the Ramban on Shas, clearly says that the Avos kept the Mitzvos even in Chut La’Aretz. How do you claim to be quoting these Rishonim accurately?!
I have also seen, that the other Rishonim you quote, dont say outright what you say, only if you want them to say, do they have to say it. The only thing is the Rambam which you quoted, and even then it is not a slam dunk at all (even though his son understood it that way. This is especially true, since the Rambam clearly says black and white in Hilchos Erchim and seems to say the same in Hilchos Mechira, that we can learn Halochos from the behavior of Yaakov Avinu.
The real issue here is, that you not only ignored what I have quoted from the Rambam, but rather all the extensive proofs which I have quoted, which in total is quite conclusive.
The idea is to ignore it all, as if it does not exist, and rather repeat the original claim in a louder tone.
I will just add more topics in this discussion, since you asked about it.
While you wonder about the the Matzos, there is a opinion (which while brought in Medrash, is quoted in many Rishonim, like Tosfos and the Ritva in ROsh Hashono 11A), that the guests visited Avrohom on PEsach, and Avrohom was serving them Matzos. Clearly these Rishonim (including Rabenu Bchayei al Hatorah) were once again operating under the assumption that the Avos kept the Torah.
And since we are discussing the guests, another one of the discussions in the Rishonim, is regarding how Avrohom gave the guests Milk and meat, which would be Basar Be’Chalav. Big rationalists like the Abravanel discuss this.
However I would like to discuss your claim, that I explain the Rambam, in the way which I would like him to say.
This is fascinating. Everyone who opens every Gemara, will see Mishna after Mishna being explained by the Gemara differently then we might have thought from the outset, based on the analysis which the Gemara will engage in.
It will compare one Mishna to another Mishna. It will compare one understanding we may have to what other Beraisois or Amoiro’im may have had. It will see which interpretation in each Mishna is more compelling, and then it will come to a conclusion. The Rishonim do the same all the time, and so to does the Bais Yosef. This has affected our Psak till this day.
So if we have two Rambam’s, one in Melachim and the other in Erchin, and most Rishonim learn like most of chazal and like the conclusion of the Misha (or beraiso) in Kidushin and the conclusion of the Gemara (like the Rishonim on the Gemarah understood it) in Yuma like rav, and one can explain the Rambam in Melochim in a plausible way which fits, then there is no reason not to do so, especially since his words in Erchin go in that way.
“Rambam makes very clear in Hil. Avodat Kochavim, end chapter 1………..”
your reading of the Rambam which you claim to be pshat, is actually not what the Rambam says.
Here is what he actually says: 1. Avrohom Yitzchok and Yaakov Sat and learned, wrote Seforim, set up Yeshivos, and asked that his descendants keep on learning , through Shevet Levi.
2. Unfortunately most Jews (besides for Shevet Levi) turned to Avodo Zoro in Mitzraim.
3. Because of Hasems great love of the Yidin, Hashem reversed the situation, by sending Moshe Rabenu. Moshe Rabenu said over prophecies, and jews then became Hashems chosen נחלה, through them being crowned with Mitzvos and way to serve Hashem.
(as an aside this itself serves as another answer to Natan Slifkins question below).
The rambam clearly says, that in this case the Mitzvos were given as a Nevuah, not just as something which they decided to do on their own. The Rambam clearly says, this is what defined the Jews as Hashems נחלה, and the idea of doing Mitzvos crowned the Jews. I think the Rambam is clearly not talking about any Kiyum Hamitzvos that could ahve been done beforehand.
As an aside, I am very curious as to what the Avos learned all day, and what they had seforim on? (what did Yaakov avinu do by the Yeshivos of Shem and Ever, and what did they learn in the Yeshiva that Yehuda set up in Goshen). Was it all the Sheva Mitzvos and all about The wonders of Hashem? (I guess you will say that the Rambam would hold that in yesodei Hatorah, that they were probably learning that definition as prescribed there).
“You are correct that we have different mesorot. What I find objectionable is your disparaging claim that a more rational approach is (merely) “scholarly” and comes “from the (sic!) left field.” My mesorah is a time-honored one that honors reason and history and is the same as that of Saadyah, Rambam, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Meiri, and modern authorities like Seredei Aish and R. Soloveitchik, to name only a few. I am proud to be “in left field” with them.”
To come back to this. I will only say as follows: You made the claim, that the opinion that believes that the Avos kept the Mitzvos was unfounded, and a minority opinion. While the truth is, that this is an overwhelming majority opinion, accepted by almost all, besides for but a few, so yes it is certainly from left field.
Only the real issue is something else, and that is:
“Defending the idea that the Avos kept all the mitzvot forces one to accept irrational, astounding, ahistorical and incredible conclusions. ”
“My mesorah is a time-honored one that honors reason and history”
“The claims become more and more bizarre and more and more absurd to anyone who wants to be rational and historical–or be faithful to the written text. In other words, insisting on the notion that the Avos had the same mesorah that we do and kept the same mitzvot drive more and more thinking Jews away from Torah and mitzvot.”
Basically you have a general approach to all of these matters, and in turn it colors your look at this specific matter. This is also connected to the quote which you quoted later on from the Rambam.
So you need to be honest, that you personally have a general opinion on all of such matters, and because of that, you approached this discussion with tinted glasses (whether your intentionally trying to be apologetic or not, you certainly have to engage in many mental acrobatics, to make the claims which you made) . You also have to realize, that the idea of having a special Mesoro in approaching everything in a rational manner, has nothing to do with the accepted Pshat in Rabinic circles in regards to this specific topic.
And this is exactly, why I claimed that that a more rational approach “is (merely) “scholarly” and comes “from the (sic!) left field.””
As an aside, I am very curious, as your special Mesoro from Rabbi Soloveitchik, in how to approach these passages in Torah.
How often did he apply such an approach when teaching his students?
BH
I want to add something else, in Rav Rosenas’s piece, in his דרך האתרים in his Sefer פרשת דרכים, he has many long discussions on many topics, and keeps on invoking the Rambams opinion on this or that topic.
I however sort of feel bad for him, instead of trying to reconcile the opinion of the Rambam in discussion, he should have just realized that the Rambam does not even hold that the Avos kept the Mitzvos!
How sad, that this great commentator on the Rambam, did not even realize this basic and obvious truth, that the Rambam does not even subscribe to the view that the Avos kept the Mitzvos.
Keeping mitzvos has far more to do with connecting to the Ribono Shel Olam (to “know Him) than it does with commemorating a particular historical happening (besides the fact that very few mitzvos “commemorate”).
“Istakeil b’Oraisa’ u’bara alma” I believe it was Rav Chaim Brisker (I am quite certain HaRav Y. B. Soloveitchik z”l would accept what he says) who said that while it is true that we eat Morror al shum she’mariru es chayeihem . . . it is LIKEWISE TRUE that the Mitzriyim made our lives bitter BECAUSE there is a mitzvah (a Ratzon HaShem) to eat marror.
The Zohar, I believe, writes that the 613 Mitzvos correspond to 613 aivarim/gidim (k’vayachol) of the RBSh”O. The Shl”a brings that the mishkan – the dwelling place of HaShem’s shechinah – was somehow comprised of 613 components. I understood that to mean that that was necessary so it could “contain” ki’vayachol the entire shechinah. Adam is comprised of 248 / 365 BECAUSE He is created b’Tzelem E-lokim. The mitzvos connect the two!
Clearly, the mitzvos, as expressions of the Ratzon of the “ein sof” (physical expressions of His Ratzon – only a fraction of eternity and only that which HE wished to reveal and through which He wished to connect to this world) – and therefore were always part of the world He created as a physical expression of the Torah.
There is absolutely no reason why the Avos could not have, on some level, recognized that ratzon and connected to it. Avrohom can easily connect to the inyan of cheirus by eating Matzos and Rivka / Yaakov and Yitzchok can related to Pesach though eating shnei gidayei izim.
Nowhere does the Rambam say the Avos kept only the seven Noachide laws. An agenda-less reading of that Rambam sees it as discussing which Mitzvos were commanded and to whom; 1 to Adam, 6 more to Noach, Bris Milah to Avrohom, Maaser to Yitzchok, Gid HaNasheh to Yaakov . . . ad she bo ben Amram vi’nishlimah Torah al yado. But the Rambam ALSO writes that WE do NOT do bris milah because of Avrohom nor do we not eat the gid ha’nasheh because of Yaakov’s fight with Eisav’s malach. Clearly he is saying that the commands – making us all into a mitzuveh v’osheh as HaShem’s people happened at/with Matan/Kabbolas HaTorah. But certainly the Avos could have, and indeed did, keep all the mitzvos, most out of EINO mitzuveh v’oseh. (Milah, as I believe it was previously mentioned, was not kept until AFTER a command was given, because if not the command could never be fulfilled as a mitzuveh.)
I would write more and probably with greater clarity, but it is 2:30 AM, but these points had to be made.
Let’s not forget Daat Zekenim’s approach – the Avot kept the mitzvot they felt like keeping:
מה שהיו רוצין היו מקיימין ומה שהיו רוצין היו מניחין
And that the Rambam writes in the Guide 3:49 that Judah was fine sleeping with (what he thought was) a prostitute because prostitution was considered permitted before the giving of the Torah…
בעילת ה’קדשה’ קודם ‘מתן תורה’ היה כבעילת האדם אשתו אחר ‘מתן תורה’ – רצוני לומר שהיה מעשה מותר לא היה אדם מרחיק אותו כלל
NOT that they FELT like keeping! Those which they understood, with their deepest and most profound grasp of HaShem’s world, needed to be kept.
BH
So someone reached out to me, and asked me, what is bothering me so much in general, and specifically there is a certain tradition among certain Rishonim in how they approach Pshat and Peshuto Shel Mikrah (even though this approach had been sort of ignored by almost all commentaries for centuries, till the advent of modern academic scholarship in Judaic studies) , so why have I expended all this time and energy (Especially, when currently at this moment I really don’t have this time or energy).
So I will explain, what it is that bothered me.
1. The first issue is, that officially the discussion seemed to be predicated, on a discussion as to what do the commentaries hold to be the actual Pshat in this specific case.
But the real truth is, that it is really a discussion as to how one approaches all such Pirushim all across the board.
In other words, it was not a a question if “the Chazal and Meforshim” hold that the Avos kept the Mitzvos, but rather the discussion is if it makes sense “to us” that the Avos could have kept the Mitzvos (or if we should accept all other “irrational, astounding, ahistorical and incredible contentions, and we are only attempting to claim the support of certain Meforshim, because of this is discussion.
This question and point of contention, was clearly obscured.
What is truly fascinating is, that not only was this specific Pshat (which is held by the vast majority)in regards to the Avos keeping the Torah, considered by this commentator to be unfounded and and a distortion of Torah, but that rather the entire approach was considered as such, but the commentator, could not deign to make that claim outright, until he had no choice.
2. The Second issue is, that we are not only obscuring and being disingenuous as to what is the real issue at hand, but that we are not really attempting to reach an objective objective conclusion as to what these Meforshim held in regards to the question, but rather we have a certain narrative which is cut out for us beforehand.
One is entitled to hold that view, but then he has to be open with the fact, that he is has certain predicates, and that he is not looking at these Meforshim in a totally objective fashion as it applies to this case.
In addition, it becomes a joke, to start quoting the Ramban, who obviously does not take the approach of Reb Avrohom Ben Horambam (or others) in regards to Pshat and Peshuto Shel Mikrah.
Because again, you are not looking here at this specific case, but rather we are discussing a general argument in how to approach certain things.
The Ramban does not subscribe to your general view, and he cannot be quoted in this regards (unless we were officially trying to analyze this specific discussion on its own. But we are of course not doing so).
And this is how it becomes a joke, that a אולי נאמר Of the Ramban becomes the main real opinion of the Ramban, while his lengthily preferred Pshat according to the Chazal is completely ignored as it never happened. (and the commentator of course is completely unaware of the Ramban;s view on Shas).
It becomes fascinating, because the commentator writes with open derision, while using certain Rishonim (like the Rambam), to buttress the Ramban against his own preferred opinion.
3. Another issue is, that the commentator, writes as if the idea that the Avos kept the Mitzvos was a two way Machlokes in the Amoro’im, and that besides for Rashi all Rishonim don’t hold like Rav.
As I have shown conclusively, this cannot be further then the truth.
And yet, while a real perversion of Torah took place, the commentator staked the claim, that the opinion which he does not hold of, is unfounded and a distortion of Torah and is a minority view. We know this is not the case.
Had he been honest, he should have said, that while the majority opinion holds that the Avos kept the Mitzvos, we should take note, that there is a small minority of commentators, which take up the minority view of Rav Shimi.
—
I would just like to point a few more things.
A. I would be remiss if I did not make note to the famous Rambam in the end of his Pirush Ha’Mishnayos to Perek 7 to Chulin, where the Rambam is clear, that we don’t do even the Mitzvah ofMilah today because of the commandment to Avrohom Avinu, but rather only because it was commanded to us by Hashem at directly at Matan Torah at Har Sinai.
I would like to bring out specific points with this, but I don’t have time and energy, and either one will get it or not.
B. In the Beis Ho’Otzar I mentioned in the first comment, in Ois 7, he shows that besides for the examples of Arvus or Hekdesh, there many other examples where we learn a number of Halochos from the Avos,
C. One can have some issues with the article at hand (for instance see the comment above from S S), however over here, we see an overreaction to the entire article.
We have one commentator write:
Every Seforim Blog article: Information or reflection on Torah publications or Torah sages.Today’s Seforim Blog article: An idiosyncratic, polemic or diatribe in behalf of “mitzvah perfection.”This is of course not true, not every “single” other Seforim Blog article is defined as “Information or reflection on Torah publications or Torah sages” which is not “An idiosyncratic, polemic or diatribe” on behalf of any topic.
Another asks: “General question: What does this have to do with seforim?”
As if every “single” article here is all about Seforim
Then we have this comment, which openly claimed that this article is based on unfounded notions which are a distortion in Torah, even though it is based on the views of a majority. To this comment, we have two more anonymous people applauding it.
It is clear, that this article has irritated some people to their very core, based on certain predicates which the article is based on (And not just with a detail here or there)
What I am really trying to understand is, what is it that some commentators here, think that this is a blog, where one is not allowed to tolerate traditional learning.
D. Officially this commentator was championing a certain approach to explaining Tanach according to Peshuto Shel Mikra.
But that is not the case, the real issue is, that to approach everything with the eyes of modern academic scholarship.
Which means, that not only do these people have no issue in quoting day and night when ever it suits them. various commentators who explaining various passages of Tanach in a way which is not congruent with Peshuto Shel Mikrah. But more so: when it does not suit them, they will not go by a Peshuto Shel Mikrah approach.
A typical example will be the issue of the Ake’das Yitzchok, where we will discount the Peshuto Shel Mikrah (Even though for time immemorial, we have Davened to Hashem every day, that Hashem remember Avrohom Avinu;’s sacrifice and be kind to us in return).
They are entitled to call this Academic scholarship, but it really has nothing to do with hanging ones hat on a solely Peshuto Shel Mikra approach.
—
As of now I have maxed out on the amount of time and energy which I can expend on this topic at this movement.
Chazak u’Baruch!
Dear Rabbi Korn,
Thanks for this learned comment.
Every Seforim Blog article: Information or reflection on Torah publications or Torah sages.
Today’s Seforim Blog article: An idiosyncratic, polemic or diatribe in behalf of “mitzvah perfection.”
So if Avraham already knew all the Torah and mitzvot from prophecy, why did Hashem have to give it over at Sinai? (And if it had been forgotten, why couldn’t Moshe just get it from prophecy – he was a greater prophet than Avraham!)
BH
This is a famous question with many answers given.
The most prominent one is also the Pshat, that beforehand they did it on their own, without it being actual commandment,
As we know there is a difference between a מצווה ועושה and a אינו מצווה ועושה
However there are other answers, including the one given (At much great Length) in Chassidus, that after Matan Torah, the Mitzvos done actually permeate and effect an actual change in the world, and cause a transformation in the world. Beforehand the Avos did a Mitzva, which effected them and themselves, but it did not effect a change in the world and did not create a dwelling place for Hashem here in this world.
It is for this reason, that the Avos did not convert their Tefilin and other things which they used to be Mekayem Mitzvos, into Tashmishei Kedusha, and one was allowed to throw it in the garbage right after use. The reason was, because they did not cause a actual affect in the object.
This is all written in shorthand, as I spent more than enough time on the previous comment.
. . . and why didn’t this get get passed down to the shevatim, and last through the stay Mitzrayim? It was only a few generations. The entire Torah should have been preserved, especially through Levi, who were never enslaved!
Why did the Jews who left Mitzrayim not have the slightest inkling of what the Torah was?
I see the prolific “N S Zajac” has mysteriously clammed up . . . 😉
1) גדול מצווה ועושה מאינו מצווה ועושה
2) חכם עדיף מנביא
3) משה רבינו היה אב הנביאים
4) משה רבינו ראה באספקלריא המאירה
5) מאיזה טעם שיהיה – the RaMBa”M writes openly that we don’t do mitzvos “BECAUSE THE AVOS WERE COMMANDED TO DO THEM (bris milah to Avrohom, maasros to Yitzchok, gid ha’nasheh to Yaakov), but rather because we were commanded, as Klal Yisorel at Har Sinai.
6) With Matan Torah the hanhagah of the RBSh”O with this world changed from that of Chesed Vitur to that of Chesed Mishpat.
7) בשביל ישראל שנקרא ראשית ובשביל התורה שנקרא ראשית
With all due respect R Slifkin, not much of a question. We find in Chazal many instances where mitzvos were given or taught earlier(e.g. shabbos at Mara) and repeated by Sinai. The revelation at Sinai doesn’t necessarily preclude knowledge of the Mitzvos.
That’s not the same thing. Obviously some mitzvot pre-existed- it’s explicit. That’s not the same as saying that, say, Yaakov knew all the details of eglah arufa.
Did Moshe Rabbenu know all the halachos revealed at Sinai??(see menachos 29)
Obviously this is a broad topic which won’t break any new ground in the comments section of this blog. The point is, like other commentators noted, that there are many reasons offered for the purpose of Matan Torah, knowledge of the Mitzvos is not necessarily one of them.
כל חידוש שעתיד תלמיד ותיק לחדש כבר נגלה למשה רבינו בהר סיני
Rabbenu Avraham b. HaRambam makes it clear in his commentary (most notably in Vayetze 35:4) that the Talmudic statements about the forefathers keeping the commandments are not to be taken literally. In the notes to my edition (pp. 404-406) I have demonstrated that this position was evidently taken by R. Saadia and Ibn Ezra before him as well, and understandably, also seems to be the position of the Rambam, although, as N S Zajac has observed, it would appear that other commentators operated under the assumption that the Rambam too took these statements at face value.
Why are we ignoring the an entire genre of Jewish literature (ie Mesha Chachma) that is dedicated to proving that avos kept all of Torah in all of its details.
Because that ‘entire genre’ makes no sense.
How many mitzvot could they have kept?
Pesach? No. Yetziyat Mitzrayim hadn’t happened.
Shavuot? No. No Matan Torah yet.
Sukkot? No. No travelling through the desert yet.
Chanukah? Purim? Nope. Nope.
Tuma and Tahara? Nope, no Bet HaMikdash, so no need to be Tahor.
Shabbat? No Mishkan, so no definition of the 39 Av Melachos.
Gid HaNahshe? No Yaakov (at least for Avraham)
Tefilla? Nope. They weren’t written until later.
Not to mention the Pshat that makes such an interpretation difficult (serving treife, marrying sisters, etc)
As a non-expert, I’ve never understood the drive of some people to show that the Avot keep the mitzvot. There’s no need to do so. What do you gain from it? And the enterprise falls apart rapidly when you start thinking about it for more than a few minutes.
Plus, I see that R. Korn made the same point (and others) better than I did just above. Apologies for the repetition.
As the Bais Halevi explains the day causes the event not the other way around.
So the 14 of Nissan and adar were mesugol for redemption always. As we say in Nissan we were redeemed and in Nissan we will be redeemed.
It’s why we mention תחית המיתים three times a day when it has not happened yet….BTW nice to see you here Dovber…Amshinover.
That should be easy to test for… look at all the 14th of Nissan and see what other things happened on that date throughout history…
But more importantly are you the famous Amshi of the Golden Period of Jewish Blogging!!!???!! Hello!
(I’m not Dovbear, though….)
I should have checked before responding so thoughtlessly.
The 14th of Nissan 1943 was the day (at least according to Wikipedia) that the Germans entered the Warsaw Ghetto to stamp out the uprising.
I say this with absolute sadness, but it does show the problem of the Bais HaLevi’s approach.
History doesn’t work like that.
May the memory of the fallen Jews be sanctified by Hashem.
And also, the Bais HaLevi seems to be suggesting that the future is pre-determined. Which is also problematic…
I mean, was Jeremiah simply wasting his time?
As the Bais Halevi explains the day causes the event not the other way around.
So the 14 of Nissan and adar were mesugol for redemption always. As we say in Nissan we were redeemed and in Nissan we will be redeemed.
While the following idea makes the contemporary man uncomfortable, it is one which past generations of Jews and non-Jews alike adhered to and on which fundamentals of Torah are based. Past generations were not “some people” compared to our generation. From CHaZa”L down to Rebbe Akiva Eiger, the CHaSa”M Sofer, the Vilna Gaon, and so on were all from what Rav Shlomo Freifeld z”l used to called an extinct race . . . humans.
If we wish to discuss other cultures, belief systems, philosophies, or even “religions”, that’s fine. But if the forum is Torah-based Judaism, trhen there are ideas which are axiomatic.
Sure, there is no dogma or taboo topic. All questions are welcome. But as one great mind put it, there are no answers to answers, only to questions.
Would a “non-expert” physician treat a patient? Would a “non-expert” builder erect a house? Would a “non-expert” plumber or electrician attempt to install a kitchen or wire a house? And SHOULD they? Of course not.
Now as far as WHY should one keep mitzvos without a direct command: Many great minds have explained this and their explanations do not fall apart rapidly. If you are honestly seeking answers to these deep questions, and you certainly sound like you yearn to know, ask the experts, not those who seem to ignore some very basic teachings of the very Torah they are purporting to understand and explain.
בחדש השלישי.
[א] ר’ יודה בר’ סימון פתח רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על כלנה (משלי לא:כט). אדם הראשון נצטווה על שש מצות, ואילו הן, על עבודה זרה ועל ברכת השם ועל הדיני’ ועל שפיכות דמים ועל גילוי עריות ועל הגזל, וכולהם בפסוק אחד, הד”ה דכת’ ויצו י”י אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל (בראשית ב:טז). ויצו, זה ע”ז, כמה דאת אמ’ כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו (הושע ה:יא). י”י, זו ברכת השם, כמה דאת אמ’ ונקב שם י”י מות יומת (ויקרא כד:טז). אלהים, אילו הדיינין, כמה דאת אמ’ אלהים לא תקלל (שמות כב:כז). על האדם, זו שפיכות דמים כמה דאת אמ’ שופך דם האדם (בראשית ט:ו). לאמר, זה גילוי עריות, כמה דאת אמ’ לאמר הן ישלח איש את אשתו וג’ (ירמיה ג:א). מכל עץ הגן, זה הגזל, כמה דאת אמ’ ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו (בראשית ב:יז). נח נצטווה על אבר מן החי, שנ’ אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו (שם ט:ד). אברהם נצטווה על המילה, שנ’ ואתה את בריתי תשמר (שם יז:ט). יצחק חינך לשמנת ימים, שנ’ וימל אברהם את יצחק בנו בן שמונת ימים (שם כא:ד). יעקב על גיד הנשה, שנ’ על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה (שם לב:לג). יהודה על היבמה, שנ’ ויאמר יהודה לאונן בא אל אשת אחיך ויבם אתה וג’ (שם לח:ח). אבל את בסיני נצטווה תרי”ג מצוות, מאתים וארבעים ושמנה מצות בעשה, ושלש מאות וששים וחמש מצות בלא תעשה. מאתים וארבעים ושמנה מצות בעשה, כנגד מאתים וארבעים ושמנה איברים שיש באדם, כל אבר ואבר אומר לאדם בבקשה ממך עשה בי את המצוה הזאת. ושלש מאות וששים וחמש מצוות בלא תעשה, כנגד ימות החמה, כל יום ויום או’ לאדם בבקשה ממך אל תעש בי את העבירה הזאת.
Perhaps the wisdom is to be found in being able to determine which rabbinic statements were intended to be taking literally and which were not.
thank you for the info.
Looking for a Private Tours to Jerusalem?
israeli-tour.com
wow!
i recommend to order Jewelry from Israel. they are the best.
thank you for the info
faithjewelry.co.il
See Arthur Green, *Devotion and Commandment: The Faith of Abraham in the Hasidic Imagination* (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1989)
https://www.academia.edu/38227536/Arthur_Green_Devotion_and_Commandment_The_Faith_of_Abraham_in_the_Hasidic_Imagination_Cincinnati_Hebrew_Union_College_Press_1989_
1. Sticks? Source, please.
1B. What parshiyot were in the tfillin in the midbar? Generally, chassidim say two batim were empty, and yeshivish/litvaks say shma, veheyah. Even though those date to 40th year.
2. Mara: only certain aspects of Shabbat.
2B. What were the 39 melachot of the mishkan, if the mishkan was a kapparah of sorts for chet haEgel? Which postdated Mattan Torah. (Correction: alluded to above by Aryeh)
3. Alot of this touches on Ibn Ezra and others regarding dating of Torah writing.
4. Matzah and sukkah and others: Eino metzuva anyway, so can do it.
4B. Rambam in MT says before Mattan Torah, one can be intimate with a woman he meets in a “shuk” (not in the shuk). First, that refers to pick up dating, second it can be interpreted to mean just this type of pick-up. Also, note tosfot in BB Chezkat haBatim regarding Ba al Naarah haMearasah regarding next week’s parsha (not nice thing to do, but permissible, here it’s mutual consent, and no prohibition)