Anachronistic Avot and time-travelling Talmudists

One burgeoning genre of divrei Torah which appears to be enjoying increasing popularity in recent years perceives revered biblical figures – typically the Avot – as having been bound by Biblical and Talmudic law, and then proposes ingenious resolutions as to why certain laws appear not to have been fully observed. This style of dvar Torah, which allows brilliant yeshiva students to draw upon their well-honed Talmudic reasoning even when studying the written Torah, can be traced back to a verse in yesterday’s reading:

“Because Abraham listened to My voice, and kept My charge, My mitzvot, My chukkot, and My Torot."

How are we to understand the meaning of mitzvot, chukkot and Torot?

Rashi, drawing on an aggadic passage, suggests that this means that Avraham observed – presumably with the aid of prophecy – not only the Torah’s Biblical commandments, but even later Rabbinic restrictions such as Eruv Tavshilin. The primacy accorded to Rashi in Torah interpretation has led to this position being viewed as mainstream or even unanimous. At a recent event I heard a learned rabbi introducing his dvar Torah with the words: “Everyone know that the Avos kept the whole Torah…”. He proceeded to examine how Avraham could have married Hagar, an Egyptian princess, despite the Torah’s later prohibition against such a relationship (perhaps, he suggested, Avraham had the status of a convert and was therefore not bound by this rule).

While this approach is certainly pursued by a number of commentators and has caught the popular imagination in recent times, it was not always seen as so mainstream. While the above speaker was confident that “everyone knows the Avos kept the whole Torah”, there was a time when this was quite openly disputed. A quick survey of traditional commentaries to this verse shows that Sforno, Chizkuni, Rashbam – and even Ramban in his “derech hapeshat” – all interpreted these terms to refer only to commandments and character traits which had been revealed to Avraham up until this point. Radak goes further, showing how the aggadic source which Rashi draws upon does not mean that Avraham observed all Rabbinic and Biblical ordinances which would only be legislated (and bear relevance) millennia later. Rather it teaches that Avraham acted strictly and set careful boundaries within those specific laws which he did observe.

This in turn leads us to more profound underlying questions, which are explored in Judaism Reclaimed and Talmud Reclaimed: What function and benefit might there be in the observance of various forms of mitzvot which had not yet been commanded – particularly observances which were only later commanded to commemorate national events which had not yet taken place (for example the Avot were said to have eaten matzot on Pesach). And how many of these finer details of Talmudic law are understood to have been transmitted from Sinai and which are likely to have been developed by later Sanhedrin-type courts? (see further www.TalmudReclaimed.com).

One style of Aggadah which would seem to bolster this genre of apparently anachronistic divrei Torah involves later Talmudic attempts to recast biblical episodes as relating to delicate details of Talmudic debate. In its chapter on Aggadah, Talmud Reclaimed cites a passage from Sanhedrin 19b which interprets an episode from the book of Shmuel as a prime example.

The subject of this passage is a promise made by Shaul to give his daughter, Michal, in marriage to David for the price of 100 Philistine foreskins. Shaul subsequently reneges on his promise, while David continues to demand that Shaul permit him to marry Michal. While the biblical storyline appears to revolve around palace intrigue, alliances and jealousies, the Talmud rereads it entirely as an intricate legal debate as to whether marriage can be formalized through forgiveness of a loan in combination with the provision of an object of some value.

After highlighting a number of other similar Aggadic accounts, Rabbi Yisrael Moshe Hazan (Iyyei HaYam #187) argues that such Aggadic traditions date back to an era when the Oral Tradition was not generally written down. Attaching intricate legal rulings and debates to popular biblical passages served therefore as a memory aid to recall these complex Talmudic principles.

It is striking that for many this situation is now turned on its head, with Talmudic scholars often only acquainted with biblical passages and verses that are cited in Talmudic discourse – along with the accompanying Aggadic interpretation.

First posted on Facebook 19 November 2023, here.