I
Parshat Lech L'cha deals extensively with Avraham Avinu, closing with the circumcision of Avraham and his household. There is a great controversy which focuses upon the status of Avraham Avinu from his circumcision and onwards. Generally speaking, all human beings fall into one of two categories regarding mitzvot. Bnei Yisroel - the Jewish people - constitute one group, and are bound by all the mitzvot and laws of the Torah; all gentiles comprise the group of "bnei noach," and are obligated by the seven mitzvot of bnei noach, with their particular rules and specifications.
What was the status of Avraham Avinu post his circumcision - as well as the other Avot, the Shvatim, and the rest of our nation until the giving of the Torah on Sinai? Were they classified as Yisroel or bnei noach? [It is important to note that even if we were to assume that their status was Yisroel, nonetheless they obviously were not obligated by all the mitzvot of the Torah prior to Sinai. The requirement to keep 613 mitzvot was introduced only at Matan Torah. Nonetheless, our question is of importance for other issues, as we will soon discover.]
II
"And the son of a Jewish woman went out - and he was the son of an Egyptian man - amongst the Jewish people...and the son of the Jewish woman blasphemed the name of Hashem..." (Vayikra 24:10-11)
Rashi (ibid.) quotes Chazal that the blasphemer had converted to Judaism. This position seems to be quite puzzling. After all, a basic principle of the Jewish lineage states that the "Jewishness" of a child is determined by the mother, not the father.(Yevamot 45) The blasphemer - a product of a Jewish mother and Egyptian father - should be considered Jewish even without a conversion?!
Ramban (al Hatorah, ibid.) quotes the opinion of "Chachmei Hatzarfatim" that the lineage of this individual could not follow the principles of Jewish halachah, since he was born prior to Matan Torah. As such, his lineage was governed by the rules of bnei noach. The Gemara in Yevamot (78b) teaches us that the nationality of bnei noach [such as, who is considered to be a Moabite, Amalekite, etc.] follows the father, not the mother. Thus, in the books of bnei noach, the blasphemer was an Egyptian, not a Jew. Indeed his conversion was well justified.
Ramban, however, refuses to accept this resolution of Chachmei Hatzarfatim. Rather, claims Ramban, Avraham Avinu from his circumcision onwards - as well as his future generations - was considered Yisroel, not ben noach. As such, our principles of lineage should have governed the blasphemer's status, not that of bnei noach. [See ibid., for Ramban's justification of the conversion.]
III
Bereishit Rabbah [Vayishlach 79:7] teaches that Yaakov Avinu was shomer shabbat. A similar midrash [ibid., Miketz 92:4] relates the same about Yosef. A classic discussion centers upon this issue. After all, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (58b) rules that a non-Jew who rests on Shabbat (from all the m'lachot) is punished by death. How could our forefathers keep Shabbat prior to Matan Torah?!
The Mishneh L'melech - in Prashat Drachim 1- suggests that according to Ramban (see section 2), there is no question. The status of Yaakov and Yosef was Yisroel, not ben noach.
IV
Returning to our Parsha, Hashem tells Avraham: "Get up, go in the land, to its length and to its width, because I have given it to you." (Bereishit 13:17) According to Rabbi Eliezer (Bava Batra 100), this act of walking affected Avraham's acquisition of Eretz Yisroel. Prashat Drachim (ibid.) demonstrates that this method of acquisition is acceptable only in Jewish law, not for bnei noach. Accordingly, he considers this account as a proof for Ramban's position that Avraham Avinu's status was not that of bnei noach.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger [Ktav V'chotam R' Akiva Eiger 60] objects to this proof. This act of walking took place prior to Avraham's circumcision. Thus, even according to Ramban, Avraham's status was still ben noach! As such, another resolution must be provided even according to the Ramban.
Close Article