Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Understanding How the Avos Could Have Known All of the Rabbinic Decrees

The midrash says that our holy ancestors kept the entire Torah before it was given. How is that possible? How could they know about matzah when the exodus from Mitzrayim was far in the future? The basic answer is that the prohibition of eating chameitz at Pesach time is something built into the fabric of reality. The exodus gave us an historical event to which to tie that prohibition, but the prohibition itself existed since the six days of Creation.

But there's more: the midrash says that the Avos also kept all of the rabbinic decrees, such as muktzeh, eiruvim and even Chanuka candles. How are we do understand that? Rabbinic decrees are, after all, the product of human debate and thought, as clearly documented in the gemara. Now what?

There are two approaches to Jewish observance, that broadly can be categorized as "misnagid" or "yekish" on the one hand, and "chasidish" on the other. The easiest way to find where you fall is to consider your reaction to learning (Sukkah 28a) that when Yonatan b. Uzziel studied Torah, he generated such intense spiritual fire that if a bird flew overhead it would be incinerated. If your first thought is, "Wow... what k'dusha!", then you are in the chasidish camp. If, on the other hand, you wonder, "Hmm... is he obligated to pay for damages?", then you are firmly a minagid. Of course it's a spectrum, though I am quite obviously pegged on the misnagid side.

There is a parallel in the surrounding cultures. During the renaissance, as intellectual pursuits became once again fashionable in the non-Jewish world, the field of philosophy exploded. So much so, that a there was a break off that started as "natural philosophy" and then eventually morphed into what we now call physics. In the 1600s, though, the two camps were still closely aligned the distinctions were more like misnagid (physics) vs chasid (philosophy). Among the giants, were two particular stars: Newton on the natural philosophy side and Leibniz on the more traditional side. They both invented a new branch of mathematics known today as calculus. There is a long standing debate as to whom should the credit be given. In fact, though, the both invented it independently.

Who cares? Here's the thing. Newton needed a way to precisely describe the motion of physical objects that could be used equally well for baseballs and arrows as for planets and stars. Leibniz, on the other hand, wanted to prove that this is the best of all possible worlds. Consider well. Mathematics is clearly a human invention, and these two geniuses could not have had more different agendas. Yet, yet... the logical structure of mathematics when exercised by intellectual giants can only yield a single result. Calculus is calculus, whether you want to study race cars or galaxies.

The Ramchal in Derech HaShem says that there is no fundamental difference between d'oraisos and d'rabanan's. They were both given by the same Creator. The d'oraisos were given in written and oral form to the Jewish nation at Mt. Sinai. The d'rabanan's were given via the intense debate and intellectual investigations of our Sages. In practice, also, questions of doubt on d'oraisos are resolved to the strict side, whereas questions of doubt on d'rabanan's are resolved to the lenient side.

The medrash that tells us that the Avos kept even the rabbinic decrees really brings out two points. One, that those decrees are also built into the fabric of reality. Two, the greatness of the Avos who were able to see into Creation with such clarity.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Love in the Time of Corona Virus/Anxiously Awaiting the Mashiach

Two scenarios: Scenario I: A young boy awakened in the middle of the night, placed in the back of vehicle, told not to make any noise, and the vehicle speeds off down the highway. Scenario II: Young boy playing in park goes to see firetruck, turns around to see scary man in angry pursuit, poised to attack. I experienced and lived through both of those scenarios. Terrifying, no? Actually, no; and my picture was never on a milk carton. Here's the context: Scenario I: We addressed both set of our grandparents as "grandma" and "grandpa". How did we distinguish? One set lived less than a half hour's drive; those were there "close grandma and grandpa". The other set lived five hour drive away; they were the "way far away grandma and grandpa". To make the trip the most pleasant for all of us, Dad would wake up my brother and I at 4:00AM, we'd groggily -- but with excitement! -- wander out and down to the garage where we'd crawl

Thought for the Day: David HaMelech's Five Stages of Finding HaShem In the World

Many of us "sing" (once you have heard what I call carrying a tune, you'll question how I can, in good conscience, use that verb, even with the quotation marks) Eishes Chayil before the Friday night Shabbos meal.  We feel like we are singing the praises of our wives.  In fact, I have also been to chasunas where the chasson proudly (sometimes even tearfully) sings Eishes Chayil to his new eishes chayil.  Beautiful.  Also wrong.  (The sentiments, of course, are not wrong; just a misunderstanding of the intent of the author of these exalted words.) Chazal (TB Brachos, 10a) tell us that when Sholmo HaMelech wrote the words "She opens her mouth Mwith wisdom; the torah of kindness is on her tongue", that he was referring to his father, Dovid HaMelech, who (I am continuing to quote Chazal here) lived in five worlds and sang a song of praise [to each].  It seems to me that "world" here means a perception of reality.  Four times Dovid had to readjust his perc

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav that referred to the noise of תקתוק