לקוטי שיחות חלק ל״ה - תולדות ב

Parshas Toldos

1. We learned at the end of Kiddushin: "We find that Avraham our father did the entire Torah before it was given, as it says, 'Because Avraham listened to My voice and kept My charge, My mitzvos, My statutes and My teachings.'"

And in Yoma it is taught: Rav said, Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah, as it says, "Because Avraham listened to My voice…" (and the Gemara asks: But say it refers to the seven mitzvos? There is also circumcision, etc.).

The question has already been raised: since there is an explicit Mishnah at the end of Kiddushin that Avraham did the entire Torah, what does Rav come to teach us in his statement in tractate Yoma? (Further: rather than asking on Rav's statement here, "But say it refers to the seven mitzvos," why not ask this on the Mishnah in Kiddushin?)

The Maharsha answers that the Mishnah uses the expression "Avraham our father did," which "implies only that he did all the mitzvos, namely the positive ones. But Rav's expression 'fulfilled the entire Torah' implies also the prohibitions of the Torah" (and that is why the Gemara asks on Rav, "But say it refers to the seven mitzvos").

This needs examination. Although the wording of the Mishnah is "did… the entire Torah," why should it occur to us that Avraham fulfilled only the positive commandments and did not guard himself from transgressing the prohibitions? Surely Avraham tried to fulfill the entire Torah as far as was possible for him (especially according to the version of the Mishnah before us: "Avraham our father did the entire Torah").

[That the Gemara at the end of Kiddushin does not ask "But say it refers to the seven mitzvos," as it asks in Yoma on Rav, may be said simply because in Kiddushin this is not the main place of this matter (Avraham's fulfilling Torah and mitzvos), and it is brought in the Mishnah only as an added proof of the effect of Torah "in his old age" (after the first proof, "(in his youth, what does it say? 'Those who hope in the L‑rd shall renew their strength') in his old age, what does it say? 'They shall still bear fruit in old age.'" And it should be noted that in the Baraisa there only the first proof is brought, and not the proof from Avraham).]

Simply one may say that the novelty in Rav's statement over the Mishnah is that the Mishnah refers only to Avraham's Torah study, whereas Rav teaches that he also fulfilled all the mitzvos.

This is also understood from the continuation of the matters. In the Mishnah this is brought at the conclusion of the statement of Rabbi Nehorai: "I set aside every trade in the world and teach my son only Torah, for a person eats of its reward in this world and the principal remains for him in the World to Come. All other trades are not so: when a person comes to illness, to old age or to suffering and cannot occupy himself with his work, he dies of hunger. But the Torah is not so… And so it says of Avraham our father, 'And Avraham was old, and the L‑rd had blessed Avraham in everything.' We find that Avraham our father did the entire Torah before it was given…" — meaning that the subject is Torah study. Rav's statement in Yoma, however, comes in continuation of what is explained there just before, that Avraham was old and sat in the yeshivah (and in the days of our forefathers the yeshivah never departed from them…). On this the Gemara brings Rav's statement: besides Avraham's studying Torah, there is this further point, that Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah (and on this the Gemara asks how we know that Avraham our father fulfilled the mitzvos…).

But although this interpretation fits well with Rav's wording "Avraham our father fulfilled," it is nevertheless difficult to interpret the wording of the Mishnah (in Kiddushin), "Avraham our father did the entire Torah," as referring only to Torah study and not to actually doing the mitzvos. For it brings proof from the verse, "Because Avraham listened to My voice and kept My charge, My mitzvos, My statutes and My teachings," which explicitly states the keeping and doing of mitzvos.

2. Some explain that the Mishnah implies that Avraham did this of his own accord (as is emphasized in the Mishnah, "Avraham our father did the entire Torah before it was given"), but Rav uses "fulfilled," which implies that he was commanded about this and fulfilled the command, inferring this from what is written, "because Avraham listened to My voice," which implies that G‑d commanded him so.

This is also implied in Rashi on Yoma there: on the Gemara's question on Rav's statement, "But say it refers to the seven mitzvos," Rashi explains, "the seven mitzvos commanded to all other descendants of Noach, but the Torah was not given to him" — "from this it is proven that he interprets Rav's words to mean that Avraham fulfilled the Torah after it was given (and on this stands the question of Rav Shimi)."

But seemingly it is a great novelty to say that Rav holds that Avraham was commanded to fulfill the entire Torah. As the Chida asks, "There is no one who holds that Avraham our father, peace be upon him, was commanded more than circumcision and the seven mitzvos; rather, he reasoned and accepted it on his own."

3. It appears to me regarding this, by first noting that the status of Torah and mitzvos in the days of the Patriarchs, before it was given, can be explained in two ways: a) that the object (cheftza) of Torah and mitzvos exists (for the Torah preceded the world by two thousand years), but there was not yet a command to the person (gavra) (since it had not yet been given below). According to this, fulfilling mitzvos before the Giving of the Torah has the status of "one who is not commanded and does" (as we find after the Giving of the Torah), for Torah and mitzvos exist but the person is not commanded regarding them. b) Before the Giving of the Torah there is no object of Torah and mitzvos in the world: not only was there no command to the person, but the object itself was newly introduced (into the world) at the time of the Giving of the Torah.

It may be said that this is the novelty in Rav's statement over the statement of the Mishnah:

In the statement of the Mishnah, which is precise in saying "Avraham our father did the entire Torah before it was given," the intent is that before the Giving of the Torah the action of the Patriarchs in Torah and mitzvos did not have the status of fulfilling a mitzvah, but simply an act, since the whole object was newly introduced at the time of the Giving of the Torah.

But Rav teaches a novelty, that Avraham our father "fulfilled" the entire Torah: although the Torah had not yet been given, there nevertheless exists the object of Torah and mitzvos, only that he was not commanded to fulfill them. So the name "fulfillment" of a mitzvah can indeed apply to Avraham's act [similar to women fulfilling positive time-bound commandments, who, although not commanded, can nevertheless fulfill them and it is regarded as fulfilling a mitzvah; and we hold like the opinions that women can recite a blessing on fulfilling positive time-bound commandments, "who has sanctified us with His mitzvos and commanded us"].

4. But an explanation is still needed: how is it relevant to the content of the Mishnah's words to emphasize that "Avraham our father did the entire Torah before it was given," that even the object of Torah did not exist, while in the discussion in Yoma the emphasis (in Rav's statement) is relevant, that Avraham had also the object of Torah?

This will be understood by first explaining the addition in the proof from Avraham, "And so it says of Avraham our father," to the first proof from the verse "They shall still bear fruit in old age":

The proof from the verse "They shall still bear fruit in old age" could be explained in this way: that "the Torah is not so (like other trades); rather it guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age" — as Rashi explains, "But the Torah is not so, for even one who comes to old age or suffering and cannot occupy himself with it eats of the giving of its reward, as it is written, 'They shall still bear fruit in old age'" — has the status of a reward for his Torah study (and fulfillment of mitzvos) in the days of his youth; or at least the merit of the Torah itself, the very object of Torah, which protects and saves also in his old age. On this the second proof teaches that this is also on account of (the merit of) the person's deed, as we find with Avraham, "that Avraham our father did the entire Torah before it was given," although there was then no status of Torah at all, and of him too it is said, "And Avraham was old, and the L‑rd had blessed Avraham in everything."

It may be said that likewise in Rav's statement in Yoma, the precision "Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah" is relevant, that there was already an object of mitzvah, and consequently Avraham's action had the status of fulfilling a mitzvah:

Earlier in the Gemara there it says: "The prayer of Avraham was from when the walls turned dark. Rav Yosef said, Shall we arise and learn from Avraham? (And the Aruch explains: How can we learn from Avraham, who fulfilled the Torah before it was given, when we should learn only from the custom of prophets, since they acted according to a law given to Moshe at Sinai?) Rava said, A Tanna learned from Avraham, and shall we not learn from him? For it was taught: 'And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised' teaches that the whole day is fit for circumcision, but the zealous hasten to mitzvos, as it says, 'And Avraham arose early in the morning and saddled…' Rather, Rava said, this is what troubled Rav Yosef… Alternatively, Avraham is different, for great astrological wisdom was in his heart. Alternatively, because he was old and sat in the yeshivah…"

According to the above interpretation of the Aruch, it may be said that this is why the Gemara next brings Rav's statement, "Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah." It is not merely in passing, in the discussion of Avraham's Torah study and fulfilling of mitzvos. Rather, since Avraham's deed had the status of fulfilling a mitzvah, for there was an object of Torah, it is therefore possible to learn (also) from Avraham, although it was before the command to fulfill them [and according to this it is explained that one can learn from Avraham not only the matter of zeal in fulfilling mitzvos, but also regarding the fulfillment of mitzvos itself].

5. The above explanation of the wording of the Mishnah, "Avraham our father did the entire Torah before it was given," also fits the inner interpretation of "did": that he acted upon it and made something new in it (like the wording of the verse, "and the souls they made in Charan," and as our Sages plainly explain this, referring to the "making" of converts, for "Avraham converts the men and Sarah converts the women"). That is, Avraham, through his deed and service, "did" — brought about and drew down the Torah for the Jewish people. As our Sages say regarding several things, "The deeds of the Patriarchs are a sign for the children," which means an empowerment for the children. So it is regarding the matter of Torah as a whole: through Avraham's service in self-sacrifice for Torah and mitzvah, he "did" and drew down the Torah for his children, all the Jewish people after him.

[As it is in connection with the souls of the Jewish people: since "the Patriarchs are the chariot ('for all their limbs were holy and separated from the matters of this world, and they became a chariot only for the Supernal Will alone all their days'), they therefore merited to draw down nefesh, ruach and neshamah for their children after them forever, from the ten holy sefiros."]

6. It may be said that even in our own Torah study there is something like these differences of levels: Torah as it is from the standpoint of the command; where there is no command regarding it but the object exists; and a mode that has no relation to any command, as if even the object were not there:

a) Study from the standpoint of the general obligation that applies to everyone: each person "fulfills his obligation by setting times for Torah study… by day and by night, in order to study and remember well the study that leads to deed alone, which is an obligation on all, namely the Shulchan Aruch, of the laws that every person must know… and the rest of the day he should occupy himself in business, so that he can support Torah scholars."

b) Fulfilling "this mitzvah (of Torah study) properly (by this, that) he does work every day a little, only enough for his livelihood, and removes desires and the pleasures of the time from his heart, as the Sages said, 'This is the way of Torah: eat bread with salt…'" That is, he makes "his work incidental." This obligation does not rest on every Jew, for "he is not obligated to live a life of hardship and make his work incidental in order to increase study that he does not understand thoroughly… unless he does so out of the measure of piety and love of the Torah." But if he does so, he merits "the crown of Torah."

c) Torah study in such a way that a person trusts completely in G‑d and does no work at all, like those who ate the manna, and as Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, "Is it possible that a person plows…? What will become of the Torah? Rather, when the Jewish people do the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by others…"

It may be said that the last two modes, for which there is no command to everyone, are like the two modes above in the status of Avraham's Torah — whether the object of Torah exists but he was not commanded. This is like the second mode, for there is such a status of study, where one's Torah is fixed and one's work wholly incidental ("every day a little, enough for his livelihood… incidental work will suffice for him with G‑d's salvation and success, without mention of a miraculous event"), only that a person is obligated in this only from the standpoint of the measure of piety and love of the Torah. Above this is the mode of one who trusts completely in G‑d to supply all his needs and occupies himself only with Torah. The status of such study is like the Torah "before it was given," for not only is there no obligation in this, but according to halachah we do not find such a reality of relying on a miracle.

This is the precision in Rabbi Nehorai's words, "I set aside every trade in the world and teach my son only Torah." He does not come to dispute the words of Rabbi Meir just before, "A person should always teach his son a trade." Rather, he comes to teach us his own personal practice: "I set aside every trade in the world and teach my son only Torah" (as explained in the commentators). He specifically, through his great trust in G‑d, teaches his son only Torah, but this is not the way demanded of every person. Every person must have his Torah fixed and his work incidental, as above, according to the words of Rabbi Meir.

It is also precise in the words of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "When the Jewish people do the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by others": the Jewish people "do," and make new, the will of the Omnipresent. For from the standpoint of G‑d's command there is no place for this conduct. Rather, unique individuals, through their great trust in G‑d, do and make new the will of the Omnipresent, and then automatically their work is done by others: the Holy One, blessed be He, supplies all their needs in a miraculous way, entirely above nature.

(From a talk of 6 Tishrei, 5745)

Key Lesson

Avraham did not wait for a command. He "did" the Torah before it was given, and thereby drew it down for all his children. So too in Torah study: there is what is required of everyone, what one takes on out of love of the Torah, and the rare individual whose trust in G‑d is so great that he does the will of the Omnipresent in a new way, and his work is done by others. The same measure is not demanded of all, but each level reflects a further bond with the Torah.