English translation — תולדות ב

Talk b^*

<pg>107</pg>

A.

We learned at the end of Kiddushin¹

: "We find that Abraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, as it is said²

Because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My teachings."

And in Yoma³

We learn: Rav said, Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah, as it is said, "Because Avraham listened to My voice, etc."

(And he asks: But say [only] the seven commandments,

there is also circumcision, etc.).

And they already asked⁴,

that since it is a complete Mishnah at the end of Kiddushin that Avraham fulfilled the entire Torah,

what did Rav come to teach us in his statement in tractate Yoma⁵?

(And further: Here he asks on Rav's statement "But say seven commandments",

let him ask on the Mishnah of Kiddushin?)

And it is explained in Maharsha&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;,

that in the Mishnah it states "who performed&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

our father Abraham",

that "it does not imply except that he performed all the commandments,

and that is the positive commandments,

but the language of Rav 'fulfilled the entire Torah' implies also the negative commandments of the Torah"

(and therefore he questions Rav "and say seven commandments").

And it requires examination,

for although the language of the Mishnah is "performed

..

the entire Torah",

Why should it enter our mind that Abraham fulfilled only the positive commandments and did not guard against transgressing the negative commandments?

But surely Abraham certainly endeavored to fulfill the entire Torah as much as was possible for him&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

(And particularly according to the version of the Mishnah before us&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

— "Abraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah").

[And that the Talmud does not ask at the end of Kiddushin "But say the seven commandments" as it asks in Yoma on Rabbi,

one can simply say,

because in Kiddushin this is not the main place of this matter

(the fulfillment of the Torah and commandments by Abraham),

and it is brought in the Mishnah only as additional proof of the effect of the Torah "in his old age"

(after the first vision "

(In his youth what does he say&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

And those who wait for the Lord shall renew strength)

In his old age what does he say&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

They shall still bring forth fruit in old age".

And to note,

that in the baraita there&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;pg&gt;108&lt;/pg&gt;

was brought only the first proof and did not bring the proof from Avraham)]&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;.

Simply, one can say,

that the novel point in the statement of Rav on the Mishnah is,

that in the Mishnah it stands only regarding the Torah study of Avraham,

but Rav innovates that with him there was also fulfillment of all the commandments.

And so it is also understood from the continuation of the matters,

that in the Mishnah it is brought at the conclusion of the statement of Rabbi Nehorai&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

"I abandon all occupations in the world and I teach my son only Torah,

for a person eats from its reward in this world and the principal remains for him for the World to Come, and all other occupations are not so; when a person comes to illness or to old age or to sufferings and cannot engage in his craft, he dies of hunger, but the Torah is not so, etc. And so it says about Abraham our father: 'And Abraham&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

was old, and the Lord blessed Abraham with everything.' We find that Abraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, etc." — meaning that it speaks about the matter of Torah study; but the statement of Rav in Yoma comes in continuation of what was explained there previously, that Abraham was old and sat in the study hall

(and from the days of our forefathers, the study hall never ceased from them, etc.),

about which the Talmud brings the statement of Rav,

that in addition to this that Abraham learned Torah,

there is also this,

Abraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah

(and about this the Talmud asks: from where [do we know] that Abraham our father fulfilled the commandments, etc.).

But even though this explanation fits well with the language of Rav, "Abraham our father fulfilled",

nevertheless, it is difficult to explain the language of the Mishnah

(in Kiddushin)

"Abraham our father performed the entire Torah" that it refers only to Torah study and not to the actual performance of the commandments.

And behold, he brings a proof from the verse "Because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Torahs",

which is explained therein&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

as the keeping and performance of the commandments&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;.

B.

There are commentators¹⁷,

that the Mishnah implies that Abraham did so of his own accord

(And as emphasized in the Mishnah "Abraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given"),

but Rav stated "fulfilled",

which implies that he was commanded about this and fulfilled the command,

and he deduced it from what is written "because Abraham listened to My voice" and it implies that Hashem commanded him thus.

And so it implies in Rashi in Yoma there¹⁸

: On the difficulty of the Talmud on the statement of Rav "and say the seven commandments" Rashi explained "the seven commandments that were commanded to all the other descendants of Noah,

but the Torah was not given to him" — "it implies¹⁷

that he explains the words of Rav that Abraham fulfilled the Torah after it was given

(And upon it the difficulty of Rav Shimi rests)

".

But at first glance it is a great novelty to say that Rav holds that Avraham was commanded regarding the observance of the entire Torah,

And as the Chida¹⁹ asked,

That "there is no one who says that Avraham Avinu, peace be upon him, was commanded more than circumcision and the seven commandments,

Rather he himself accepted and observed them."

3.

And it seems to me regarding this,

And with the introduction that regarding the nature of Torah and commandments in the days of the Patriarchs before they were given²⁰

There is<pg>109</pg>

To explain in two ways²¹

: a)

There is the object-ness of Torah and commandments

(for two thousand years Torah preceded the world²²),

except that there was not yet a command to the subject

(since it had not yet been given below),

and according to this, fulfillment of the commandments before the Giving of the Torah is in the category of one who is not commanded and does

(which we find after the Giving of the Torah),

that there is an object-ness of Torah and commandments except that the subject is not commanded upon them; b)

Before the Giving of the Torah there is no object-ness of Torah and commandments in the world,

for not only was there no command to the subject,

but the object-ness was innovated

(in the world)

at the time of the Giving of the Torah²³.

And it may be said,

that this is the innovation in the statement of Rav over the statement of the Mishnah:

In the Mishnah statement,

that he is precise "that Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given",

his intention is that before the Giving of the Torah, the action of the Torah and commandments of the Patriarchs did not have the definition of fulfillment of a commandment,

but rather a plain act,

since the entire object was renewed at the time of the Giving of the Torah²⁴

;

Whereas Rav innovates that Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah,

that even though the Torah was not yet given,

nevertheless the object of Torah and commandments exists,

except that he was not commanded to fulfill them,

and properly the name "fulfillment" of a commandment can apply to the act of Avraham²⁵

[And analogous to women in the fulfillment of positive time-bound commandments,

that even though they are not commanded concerning them²⁶,

nevertheless they can fulfill them²⁷

and it is considered a fulfillment of a commandment,

and the halachic ruling is²⁸

like the opinions that women can recite a blessing over the fulfillment of positive time-bound commandments "Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us"].

4.

And still needs explanation: what does it matter for the content of the words of the Mishnah the emphasis that "Avraham Avinu fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given",

that there was not even the object of Torah,

whereas in the sugya of Yoma the emphasis matters

(in the statement of Rav)

that there was with Avraham also the object of Torah?

And this will be understood with an introduction of the explanation of the addition in the proof from Avraham "and so it says about Avraham Avinu" on the first proof from the verse "they shall still bring forth fruit in old age":

The proof from the verse "They shall still bring forth fruit in old age" there is room to explain that this that "the Torah is not so

(like other crafts)

but rather preserves him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age",

and as Rashi explains²⁹

"But the Torah is not so,

that even one who comes to old age or suffering and cannot engage in it, he eats of the reward of its fulfillment, as it is written 'They shall still bring forth fruit in old age'",

it is in the category of reward for the study of Torah

(and fulfillment of the commandments)

in the days of his youth,

<pg>110</pg>

Or at least the merit of the Torah in and of itself,

the essence of the object of Torah that protects and saves³⁰

also in his old age; and on this it teaches us the second proof,

that this is also from the aspect of

(merit)

the action of the person,

and as we find by Avraham "that Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given",

even though there was not then the entire definition of Torah,

and about him it is said "And Avraham was old, and Hashem blessed Avraham with everything."

And it is to say,

that likewise in the statement of Rav in Yoma there the precision touches "Avraham Avinu fulfilled the entire Torah",

that there was already a physical object of the mitzvah,

and consequently that there is in Avraham's action the definition of fulfillment of a mitzvah:

Above in the Gemara there it says "The prayer of Avraham from when the walls become dark. Rav Yosef said: We from Avraham we will arise and learn

(And the Aruch explains³¹

how we learn from Avraham who fulfilled the Torah before it was given, and we have to learn only from the custom of prophets because they acted according to the Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai),

Rava said: A Tanna learned from Avraham and we do not learn from him, as it is taught: And on the day³²

the eighth, he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, it teaches that the entire day is valid for circumcision, except that the zealous hasten to mitzvot, as it is said³³

And Avraham arose early in the morning and saddled etc. But Rava said: Rav Yosef, this is what is difficult for him etc. Or alternatively, Avraham is different because great astrology was in his heart. Or alternatively, because he was an elder and sitting in the academy etc."

And according to the explanation of the Aruch mentioned above, it can be said,

that this is what the Gemara brought afterwards the statement of Rav "Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah entirely",

and that is that this is not only incidentally along the way of the sugya of the study of Torah and the fulfillment of the commandments of Avraham,

but rather since in the deed of Avraham there was in this the category of fulfillment of a commandment, for it was a cheftza of Torah,

therefore it is possible to learn

(also)

from Avraham,

even though it was before the commandment regarding their fulfillment

[And according to this it is explained what it is possible to learn from Avraham not only the matter of alacrity in the fulfillment of the commandments but also in the matter of the fulfillment of the commandments themselves].

5.

And behold the above explanation of the wording of the Mishnah "Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah entirely before it was given" also fits with the inner interpretation of "asah" — that he acted and innovated in it

(in the manner of the language of the verse&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

"and the souls which they made in Charan",

and according to the simple meaning of its explanation in our Sages, may their memory be blessed,&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

that it refers to the "making" of converts,

that "Avraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women").

And this is that Avraham, in his doing and his service, "made" — he effected and drew down the Torah for the sake of the children of Israel,

and as the saying of our sages regarding several matters "the deeds of the fathers are a sign for the children"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;,

and its explanation is that it is a giving of strength to the children&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

so it is regarding the entirety of the matter of the Torah&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;,

that through the service of Avraham in self-sacrifice for the Torah and the commandment "he made"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

and he drew down the Torah to his children,

all the children of Israel after him.

[And as it is in relation to the souls of Israel,

that since "the patriarchs, they are the chariot"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

("that all their limbs were holy and separated from the matters of this world and they became a chariot only for the will&lt;pg&gt;111&lt;/pg&gt;

the upper one alone all their days⁴¹)

And therefore they merited to draw down NRN to their children after them until the world from the ten sefirot of holiness⁴²].

6.

And it can be said that also in the Torah study of ours there is a kind of these distinctions of levels: Torah as it is from the aspect of the commandment; that there is no commandment upon it but the object exists; an aspect that does not pertain at all to commandment and as if the object also does not exist:

A)

The study from the aspect of the general obligation that applies to each and every one,

that each one "fulfills his obligation through fixed times for Torah study..

by day and by night in order to learn and remember well the study that leads to action alone, which is an obligation upon all, namely the Shulchan Aruch of the laws that are necessary for every person to know them etc., and the rest of the day he should engage in business so that he can support Torah scholars"⁴³

;

B)

Fulfillment of "the mitzvah⁴⁴

this

(of Torah study)

properly

(by means of that)

he should do work every day a little, just for his livelihood, and remove desires and temporal pleasures from his heart, as the Sages said⁴⁵

"Such is the way of Torah: bread with salt you shall eat etc.'",

And this means that he makes "his work temporary",

And this obligation is not incumbent upon every Jew, for "he is not obligated to live a life of suffering and to make his work temporary in order to increase in study that he does not understand thoroughly etc., unless he does so in the measure of piety and love of Torah"⁴³,

But if he does so, then he merits "the crown of Torah"⁴⁶

;

3)

The study of Torah in a manner that a person trusts in G‑d completely,

and does not do any work at all,

and in the manner of the eaters of the manna,

and as the words of Rashbi⁴⁷

"Is it possible for a person to plow etc., what will become of Torah? Rather, at a time when Israel does the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by others⁴⁸

etc."

And it may be said,

that the two latter modes, which are not a commandment upon each individual,

they are in the manner of the two aforementioned modes in the category of the Torah of Avraham — whether there exists the object of Torah but he was not commanded, like the second mode,

that there exists a category of such study where his Torah is fixed and his work is entirely incidental

("Each day a little for his livelihood..

incidental work will suffice for him with the salvation of G‑d and His success without mention of a miracle"⁴⁴),

except that a person is not obligated in this except from the measure of piety and love of Torah; and beyond this is the mode of trusting in G‑d completely that He will provide him all his needs,

and he engages only in Torah,

and a category of such study is in the manner of Torah before it was given,

that not only is there no obligation regarding this,

but that according to halachah we do not find such a reality to rely on a miracle⁴⁹.

And this is what R. Nachman precisely states: "I set aside all occupations in the world and I teach my son only Torah,"

he did not come to dispute the words of R. Meir⁵⁰

that previously "a person should always teach his son a trade,"

but rather a great deed of himself he comes to teach us,

"I set aside all occupations in the world and I teach my son only Torah"

(as explained in the commentaries⁵¹),

that it is specifically,

due to the greatness of<pg>112</pg>

his trust in G‑d,

he does not teach his son except Torah⁵²,

but this is not the path required of every person,

for regarding every person, his Torah should be fixed and his work temporary, as above,

as the words of R. Meir⁵³.

And it is precise also in the words of Rashbi "At the time that Israel do the will of the Place, their work is done by others",

meaning that Bnei Yisrael "do" and innovate⁵⁴

the will of the Place,

for from the aspect of the command of Hashem there is no place for this conduct,

rather unique individuals from the aspect of the greatness of their trust in Hashem do and innovate the will of the Place,

and then in a way of automatically their work is done by others,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, fills all their needs in a miraculous way⁵⁵,

above nature entirely.

(From the sicha of 6 Tishrei 5745)