Was Abraham a Lamdan?
On the rabbinization of the Biblical patriarchs; whether the patriarchs had a halachic status of Jews or non-Jews; harmonizing the actions of the patriarchs with the accepted halacha
Revised version of a piece published on the Seforim Blog in 2012
In 2010, there was a discussion in cyberspace regarding whether the Avot kept all of the mitzvot.[1] The discussion was started when a video on YouTube poked fun at the idea, and a response to the video was published on the Hirhurim blog, as well as a counter-response. I'd like to discuss some of the basic issues involved.
Isaiah Gafni writes (“Rabbinic Historiography and Representations of the Past”, in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, 2007):
The rabbinic ideal of "Talmud Torah" as the driving force in Jewish religious behavior is projected as a constant factor in the lives of the patriarchs: The children of the patriarchs study in the batei midrash of Shem and 'Ever, Jacob strives to establish "a house of Talmud where he might teach Torah" in Egypt (Genesis Rabbah 95:3); Abraham was well versed in the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat without an 'eruv, Joseph kept the Sabbath in Egypt (Genesis Rabbah 95:3); Abraham was well versed in the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat without an 'eruv, Joseph kept the Sabbath in Egypt, and therefore prepared his Sabbath needs on Friday (Genesis Rabbah 92:4); he and his father Jacob even studied Torah together before they were separated, and because both remembered the last chapter they had covered together, it could serve as a sign through which Joseph made himself known to his father (Genesis Rabbah 94:4) […]
The phenomenon of rabbinization has been noted by numerous scholars, with the most succint and cogent discussion being that of Izhak Heinemann (1940, 35- 39), as in so many other aspects of aggadic literature. Heinemann notes that the very same rabbis who impose their contemporary rabbinic ideals on the biblical figures also express a keen awareness of this anachronistic approach. To his mind, these seemingly opposite approaches do not suggest two opposing schools of thought, but rather the tension created by the dual goals of attempting, on the one hand, to describe the heroes of the past in historical terms while simultaneously searching for the timeless truths of their acts and words, on the other.
The Mishnah at the end of Kiddushin says that Abraham kept the whole Torah [2] The Rambam (Hil. Melachim 9:1) states the mitzvot that each of the Avot innovated. Many laws are gleaned from the stories in Genesis, even though they happened before the giving of the Torah.[3]
However, Chazal do not discuss any of the questions on the statement that the Avot “kept the Torah.”[4] Here and there, the commentators discussed some of the more obvious questions. For example, the Ramban in his commentary on the Torah (Gen. 26:5) famously asks how Jacob could have married two sisters, something prohibited by the Torah. This question in particular seemed to have intrigued many commentators.
The later commentators discussed whether the Avot and their children had a status of Jews or non-Jews, since they lived before the revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai. This question is discussed extensively by R’ Yehudah Rosanes (1657–1727), author of the Mishneh L'melech in his sefer P'rashat D'rachim.
Later, this question was discussed at length by R' Yosef Engel (1858-1919) in the first volume of the encyclopedia he started to write, called Beit Ha'otzar, under the entry “Avot.”
An interesting question that was first posed by R' Pinchas Horowitz (1731-1805), one of the teachers of the Chatam Sofer, in his commentary on the Torah, Panim Yafot, is the following: According to the opinion that the Avot were inherently non-Jews, how could they keep the whole Torah, which includes keeping Shabbat? We know that a non-Jew is prohibited from keeping Shabbat, so what did they do? Many ingenious answers are given to this question.[5]
A few hundred years ago, a popular method of learning was the “pilpul” method. In short, this method consisted of explaining difficult passages in the Talmud by connecting the passage under discussion with other seemingly unconnected passages of Talmud in other places. This style was not limited to Talmud, but was also used when explaining the Torah. This method was attacked by R' Yair Chaim Bachrach (1639-1702), author of the Chavot Yair, as well as by others.[6]
In any case, in these seforim, pilpul was used to answer questions on the actions of the Avot.[7] To quote the Encyclopedia Judaica (1st edition, Volume 13, entry “Pilpul,” pg. 527):
“Criticism was much more lenient regarding the application of pilpul to the exposition of the Bible and the homiletic literature, since this was considered irrelevant to a true understanding of halakha. Consequentially, popular preachers used to strain their imagination by adducing the most complicated Talmudic passages and controversies in order to throw new light on a story from the Bible or the Midrash.”
In the past 150 years, literature on the attempted synthesis of the Torah Sheb’chtav (Written Torah) and the Torah Sheba’al Peh (Oral Torah) has exploded. This literature was meant to show that the explanations of Chazal, Torah Sheba’al Peh, are in truth hinted to in the Torah Sheb’chtav itself. Originally, the reason for this was the attacks of the Maskilim on the tradition of Torah Sheba’al Peh.
This led to the commentaries of R' Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888), the Malbim, R’ Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg’s Hak’tav V'Hakabbalah, and R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk’s Meshech Chochma. In addition, many anthologies of the words of Chazal regarding the written Torah were collected and put in the order of the Torah. Examples of this include R’ Baruch Epstein’s Torah Temimah, as well as the never-completed Torah Shleimah by R’ Menachem Mendel Kasher.[8]
However, these commentaries, in their comments on Genesis, do not systematically try to harmonize the actions of the Avot with the accepted halacha.[9] This is somewhat surprising, since the point of their commentaries is to harmonize the Torah Sheb’chtav with the Torah Sheba’al Peh, and this would seem to be a part of that job description.
With the contemporary stress in the yeshivot on the learning of Talmud, to the exclusion of almost everything else (excluding maybe mussar seforim), and the great stress on “lomdus”, some recent seforim have followed the trend of harmonizing Torah Sheb’chtav with Torah Sheba’al Peh to the extreme. (“Lomdus” is an expression used in yeshivot to refer to the Brisk-style of explanations of concepts. The Yiddish term “reid” is also used to mean the same thing.) These modern seforim will treat the verse like a piece of Talmud, ignoring possible theological or philological explanations, and only answer using lomdus.
This lomdus can be taken to such extremes that it is often very similar to the aforementioned “pilpul” commentaries on the Torah of the 17th century. These seforim basically spend a long time trying to answer a question in any possible way, without trying to fit the explanation into the verse in any way.
The sefer Chavatzelet Hasharon by R' Mordechai Carlebach (on Bereishit, Jerusalem 5765) is the most popular of this genre. This sefer essentially contains essays of lomdus based on the parshah, including many questions on the halachic acceptability of the Avot's actions.
Even more recently, the sefer Arugat Habosem by R' Menachem Ben-Yaakov (on Bereishit and Shemot, Jerusalem 5772) is almost an exact copy of Chavatzelet Hasharon, not only in content but also in the physical layout. A sefer by a nephew of R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, R' Baruch Rakovski, called Birchas Avot (Jerusalem 5750), is entirely devoted to questions on the Avot's actions, as is the sefer Mili D'Avot (by R' Shmuel Yaffah, Lakewood 5770).
Recently, seforim which collect divrei torah on the parshah from different sources have gained popularity.[10] One of the first of this genre is the Pardes Yosef (by R' Yosef Pazanavski, incomplete, Bereishit, Piotorkov 5690, Shemot and Vayikra, Lodz 5697)[11]. This was followed many years later by R' Yisachar Rubin's very popular Talelei Orot (10 volumes, Bnei Brak 5753-5757).
Another sefer of this genre is K'motzei Shallal Rav. K'motzei Shallal Rav collects divrei torah on the parshah from places one would normally not expect to find them, such as in introductions to a halachic work. Since these divrei torah are in the context of a halachic work, many times they are very halachically oriented. Hence, these divrei torah also fall into the category of trying to synthesize. Pilpula Charifta, by R' Natan Margolis (on Bereshit, volume 1, Jerusalem 5755, volume 2, Jerusalem 5750), also collects divrei torah in the same manner.
Are these kinds of explanations part of the “Seventy Faces of Torah”? Do the authors of these explanations themselves think there is any truth to the explanations they are presenting? The author of the Klei Chemda writes in his introduction that much of what he wrote in the sefer is "לחדודי בעלמא”, to sharpen the mind. This idea comes from the Talmud, which says that sometimes teachers who say a false din in order to get their students thinking, and ultimately to correct them.[12]
I think that a similar question has to be asked on many Chassidic explanations, as well as the common “vort.” Did the authors of these explanations really think this was a possible explanation of the text? I think not. In fact, many times authors will write that their explanation is “בדרך צחות". So why do they bother writing them?
There are two possible explanations. First of all, even if the explanation is not true, the parts leading up to it are. (Assuming there is more than one part to the explanation.) The vort is an enjoyable way to teach people the intermediate parts. In addition, they will be able to remember the intermediate parts more easily, since they are logically connected to an interesting end.[13] A second possible explanation for why the authors wrote such explanations is that there is an underlying moral message (assuming there is an underlying moral message). As with the first explanation, the vort is an enjoyable, and therefore effective, way of getting across a moral lesson.
Would a Chassidic Rebbe admit that his “Toyreh” is not the true explanation of the verse? That is a question that I cannot answer.[14]
[1] I would like to thank Eliezer Brodt for reviewing this article and discussing it with me, and my father for editing this article.
[2] See also Yoma 28b; Yerushalmi Kiddushin chapter 2 halacha 12; Vayikra Rabbah 50:10; Tanchuma Lech L'cha 11; and many more places. See Encylopedia Talmudit, vol. 1, entry "אבות”, pg. 36-37.
[3] See Encylopedia Talmudit, vol. 1, entry “אין למדין מקודם מתן תורה”, pg. 635ff. However, see the Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid. that quotes the Yerushalmi that says that we don't derive laws from stories of events that happened before the giving of the Torah. See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid. for various attempted explanations.
[4] See Bavli Sanhedrin 58b where the Talmud discusses some of the marriages of the Avot in the context of discussing the laws of incest for b'nei no'ach. However, the laws of b'nei no'ach are far less than what a Jew must keep. The Talmud in Yoma (referenced in note 1) says that Abraham even kept rabbinically mandated laws.
[5] Regarding all this see Encyclopedia Talmudit referenced in note 2. See also Maharatz Chajes in Toras Hanevi'im, chapter 11, pg. 63-72; Nefesh Hachaim, sha'ar 1, chapter 21; Leket Yosef (available here); Steven Wilf, The Law Before The Law, 2008.
[6] R' Bachrach attacked the pilpul method in Shu”t Chavot Ya'ir, siman 123, and at length in an unpublished sefer of his called Ya'ir Netiv. Parts of it were published by Jellenik in the journal Bikurim, Vienna 5624, pg. 4. Pilpul was also attacked by the Maharal and the Shelah. See also the anonymous K'tav Yosher, published in 5544, p. 9b, (available here).
[7] I'd like to point out at this point that much of what I will write also applies to the Jews after matan torah. There are many questions on how their actions fit with the commonly accepted halacha. However, I am mainly focusing here on the actions of the Avot. As for the actions of the B’nei Yisra’el after matan torah, the Talmud discusses these questions in many places. In many cases the answer of the Talmud is that the action was a “hora'at sha'ah,” i.e., a temporary waiver of the prohibition. See at length Encyclopedia Talmudit, vol. 8, entry “הוראת שעה”. R' Yitzchak Halevy in his monumental Dorot Harishonim, in the volume discussing Tanach and aimed at refuting academic Bible critics, tries to answer many of the questions of the Maskilim on the Torah Sheba’al Peh based on Tanach. Another sefer that I am aware of that discusses these questions is the commentary Mussar Hanevi'im, on Nevi'im Rishonim (by R' Yehuda Leib Ginzburg, vol. 1, St. Louis 5705, vol. 2, Jerusalem 5736, available at HebrewBooks here and here).
[8] Interestingly, a hundred years before the publishing of the Torah Temimah, R' Dov Ber Trivish, who was on the beit din of Vilna at the time of the Gra, also wrote a commentary on the Torah bringing down many of the saying of the Talmud in order of the Torah. In fact, the Torah Temimah was accused of plagiarizing from the Revid Hazahav. Another lesser-known work of this sort is the Be'er Heiteiv (Vayikra, Vilna 5627), available here. The Chazon Ish writes on this work:
"וראיתי להגאון האדיר ר' אריה ממינסק בספרו באר היטב [...]" (חזון איש, קדשים סימן כו אות טז).
[9] They do, however, discuss these questions in many places, especially the Meshech Chochma. The Netziv in his commentary on the Torah, Ha'amek She'eilah, also incorporates much from Torah Sheba'al Peh, and answers questions on the Avot's actions.
[10] There is a similar phenomenon of seforim collecting the different explanations of the commentators on the Talmud, such as Machon Yerushalayim's Otzar Mefarshei HaTalmud, Frankel's Mafte'ach, and many others.
[11] For a description of the Pardes Yosef, see an earlier post on the Seforim Blog, here.
[12] Bavli Eiruvin 13a, and other places. This is one of the contexts in which it is permitted to lie. See R' Yosef Chaim, Shut Torah Lishmah, siman 364, Yerushalayim 5736, pg. 250 s.v. ובגמרא דעירובין. R' Yosef Chaim in that response collects all the places in which it is permitted to lie. Contrary to popular belief, it permitted to lie in far more than the three places the Talmud in Bava Metzia 23b says. One of the most surprising cases in which it is permitted to lie, is the following: If a person knows that a certain halacha is true, but because of his low standing in people's eyes, when he says it, it will not be accepted, he is permitted to say that a certain gadol said that halacha, even if that gadol never said such a thing. See at least four examples of this in Torah Lishmah there (pg. 250, s.v. ובגמרא דשבת; ibid. s.v. עוד שם בדף נא; pg. 251. s.v. ובגמרא דפסחים; pg. 252, s.v. עוד שם בדף כ.(E.B update 2023: See on all this my recent study, “A Preliminary analysis of stories of deception in the Talmud”, with bibliography of previous scholarship.)
[13] This is akin to what the Rambam writes in the introduction to his Peirush Hamishnah (Mossad HaRav Kook edition pg. 10) regarding asmachtot. He writes that the Talmud never intended to say that asmachtot are true explanations of the verse. Rather, the asmachta is a formula to help people remember the halacha, as in the times of Chazal it was prohibited to write down Torah Shebaal Peh. This view is attacked harshly by the Ritva, Rosh Hashanah 17a. See Encyclopedia Talmudit, Volume 2, entry "אסמכתא”, pg. 106, footnote 16 and 28.
[14] A possible nafkah minah (halachic ramification) is whether it is permitted to learn the explanation in the bathroom, where learning Torah is generally prohibited. However, this nafkah minah is mostly theoretical, because, as was pointed out, even if the explanation itself is not true, many times the constituent steps are Torah. See Yisroel Bazenson, Messilat Hak'sharim (Tel Aviv 5766), (this sefer is written by a follower of Breslov and attempts to formulate “rules” for learning Likutei Moharan) p. 153, where the author asks this question regarding the teachings of R' Nachman of Breslov; he points out that many times R' Nachman's explanations even go so far as to contradict the simple meaning of the phrase he is coming to explain. Bazenson answers:
"ברוב הפסוקים ומאמרי חז"ל שהוא שהוא מפרש על פי דרכו הפנימית , לאף שנראה כמשנה או אפילו כסותר הפירוש הרגיל, אם יזכה המעיין ישיג את המקום שבו שני הפירושים מתחברים ועולים בקנה אחד. ואז הפירוש הרגיל יקבל, כתוצאה מחיבור זה, תוספת בהירות שמעולם לא היתה לו."
Bazenson then goes on to bring three examples of such places in Likutei Moharan, and attempts to show how in fact the nistar complements the nigleh. (I would like to thank Eliezer Shore for pointing out this source to me.) I have not studied his explanations in depth to see if they are convincing.