Did the Patriarchs Keep the Torah?
TALMUDIC AGGADA
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
*********************************************************
This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Ruchy Yudkowsky
in memory of Yehuda Yudkowsky
*********************************************************
Shiur #03: Did the Patriarchs Keep the Torah?
Rava, and some said it was Rav Ashi, said: Avraham fulfilled even [the mitzva
of] eruv tavshilin[1] (Yoma 28b).
Midrashim
frequently express the idea that our patriarchs kept the Torah as we know it. Yaakov kept the six hundred
and thirteen mitzvot despite the difficult environment in Lavans house
(Rashi Bereishit 32:5), Lot apparently learned from Avraham to serve
matza on Passover (Rashi Bereishit 19:2), Yaakov and Yosef jointly
studied the laws of egla arufa[2]
(Bereishit Rabba 94:3), and Yosef observed Shabbat (Beresihit Rabba
92:4).
This position presents several difficulties.
Could Jews celebrate Passover before the exodus actually occurred? Furthermore, the narratives of
Bereishit do not portray the patriarchs as functioning based on a halakhic
code equivalent to the Shulchan Arukh.[3] The patriarchs violate principles of
Jewish law; Yaakov marries two sisters and builds a matzeva.[4] It seems that Avraham, Yitzchak, and
Yaakov did not observe our Jewish legal system.
God tells Yitzchak that he will receive blessings due to Avraham keeping my
charge, my commandments, my statues and my laws (Beresihit 26:5). This verse serves as a source for
the midrashic approach. The four terms
refer to different categories of mitzvot, indicating that Avraham indeed
observed the totality of Torah.
Rashi outlines the various categories which include rational and non-rational
mitzvot as well as biblical and even rabbinic ordinances.
Commentators provide alternative interpretations of these categories of laws. Chizkuni suggests that all the terms
refer to mitzvot specifically commanded to our first patriarch such as
circumcision, leaving his homeland, and the binding of Yitzchak. Rashbam adds that some of the terms
relate to the basic moral decency demanded by the Noahide laws such as
refraining from theft and sexual immorality.
Similar approaches appear in the commentaries of Ibn Ezra and Ramban. These rishonim (medieval
rabbinic authorities) do not assume that the patriarchs observed all six hundred
and thirteen mitzvot.
The four terms in the verse include chukotai and mishpatai,
words traditionally associated with rational and nonrational commandments. If we limit the verse to the
rational Noahide laws, what would chukotai refer to?
Radak explains that chukotai
includes prohibitions on grafting trees or crossbreeding animals, actions not
proscribed as part of basic human decency but still prohibited to Noahides.
Perhaps some of these midrashim agree that the avot (patriarchs)
did not keep the entire Torah. Our patriarchs had a robust religious life
including a personal relationship with God, and these midrashim express
our patriarchs religious life. For
example, Shabbat represents recognition of a divine creator, an idea that was
relevant before the revelation at Sinai.
When Chazal attribute Shabbat observance to Yosef in Egypt, they
are claiming that he transmitted the idea of creatio ex nihilo to his
children. Ramban offers this
explanation, noting that Yosef has to counter idolatrous ideas rampant in
Egyptian culture.
If we adopt this approach, we should ask why the Gemara specially selects
eruv tavshilin as a rabbinic institution adopted by Avraham. Some commentators connect the choice
with a close reading of associations present in the biblical text. R. Tzvi Hirsch Chajes emends the
text to read eruv techumin.[5] The verse employs the word ekev,
which also means heel, a reference to the walking proscribed by the laws of
techumin (boundaries). R. Barukh
Epstein cites the same idea before ultimately rejecting the emendation.
Other commentators explain that eruv tavshilin is a relatively minor
rabbinic mitzva; if Avraham kept that, he surely kept everything. What makes this mitzva more lenient? Ritva explains that we allow
one small piece of bread to suffice for the entire town, indicating that we do
not treat eruv tavshilin with great stringency. Avraham even observed those rabbinic
mitzvot that carry less legal weight.
If we reject textual emendations and do not view eruv tavshilin as a less
serious institution, we can attempt to find symbolism in the choice of eruv
tavshilin. In his commentary on
this gemara, R. Yaakov Reisher (Iyyun Yaakov) says that the real
reason a Jew can cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat is that additional guests might
come before Yom Tov ends, rendering the cooking for Shabbat permissible. The rabbinic allowance for an
eruv tavshilin is based on the possibility of guests arriving. Chazal (the sages) may have
chosen eruv tavshilin since the theme of hospitality to guests is central
to Chazals portrait of Avraham.
[My presentation differs from how R. Reisher utilizes the guest theme].
R. Kook explains (Iggerot Ha-raaya 3: p. 92) that the eruv
reminds us of the difference in sanctity between Shabbat and the festivals. Without this institution, we
might equate the two and even end up cooking on Shabbat. When these two types of holy
days fall on subsequent days, the eruv reminds us of crucial
distinctions. According to R. Kook,
Avraham understood not only the obvious difference between holy and mundane, but
also the more subtle distinction between levels of holiness. The Gemara conveys this point by
stating that Avraham observed eruv tavshilin.
We can broaden the analysis by citing a relevant midrash about our third
patriarch. He pitched his tent
before the city (Bereishit 33:18).
Playing on the verb va-yichen, the midrash suggests that
Yaakov set techumin (boundaries) for the city (Bereishit Rabba
11:7). If we do not adopt R.
Chajes textual emendation, then the midrash associates Avraham with
eruv tavshilin and Yaakov with eruv techumin.
R. Meir Simcha Ha-kohen from Dvinsk sees
each mitzva as reflective of the life mission of particular patriarchs. Avraham mixed disparate items
whereas Yaakov drew boundaries and distinctions (see Meshekh Chokhma
Bereishit 33:18).
Avraham adopted a universal program of spreading the monotheistic ideal. Several
midrashim outline his educational strategy, and the repeated biblical
refrain of calling out in the name of the Lord (Bereishit 12:8) may
refer to spreading his religious ideas.
God changes Avrahams name to indicate that he will be a father to many
nations (Bereishit 17:5).
According to R. Meir Simcha, Avraham intentionally went down to Egypt,
then the center of human wisdom, to bring his message to an important audience.
Yaakov had a different calling.
Avraham and Yitzchak both transmitted Jewish destiny to only one of their
children; Yaakov was the first to set up an entire family included in the
covenant. In the words of the
Sifra (Bechukotai), Yaakovs bed was complete. Building a family sometimes calls
for an inward turn and a more concentrated focus. Yaakovs life story indicates
greater separatism. He does not
attempt to wean Lavan away from idol worship and even becomes upset with Rachel
for stealing her fathers idols.
When he moved to Egypt, he set up residence in Goshen far from the Egyptians. Yaakov focused on the
parochial religious quest of his family and minimized the universal mission. Where Avraham made
combinations and connections, Yaakov established boundaries and borders.
This idea highlights an important balance in Judaism between the universal and
particular. We care about the
physical and spiritual welfare of the entire world, and yet we have particular
concern for the Jewish people. The
requests inserted in the third blessing of the amida each Rosh Hashana
include a paragraph about the entire world (vi-yadukha kol ha-maasim) and a paragraph about the Jewish
people (ten kavod le-amekha).
We need to integrate the task of Avraham and that of Yaakov. Certain times may call for
emphasizing a single task, and various individuals may divide their commitment
between these two tasks in different ways, but every Jew should feel both
callings.
[1]
Preparing a cooked food prior to a Yom Tov (festival) that is followed by
Shabbat. This rabbinic device
enables cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbat.
[2]
Ritual of breaking a heifers neck in order to expiate for an unsolved murder.
[3]
Legal code by Yosef Karo written in 1563 in Tzfat. The Shulchan Arukh is
arguably the most authoritative legal code in the Jewish tradition.
[4]
Monument commonly used in Canaanite worship that the Canaanites built beside
their sacrificial altar.
[5]
Preparing a food prior to Yom Tov or Shabbat that allows one to travel
more than is usually allowed on those days.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!