Timeline for Avot keeping Mitzvot
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 2019 at 0:39 | comment | added | Shlomy | Just because they learn the verse cipshuto doesnt mean they argue on the drash. Besides the last mishna in kiddushin says Avraham Avinu kept the whole torah. No reishon can argue on a mishna, and to say theyre arguing on rav is also shver if they dont have an amora. | |
| Jun 5, 2019 at 2:18 | history | edited | alicht | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added links for some sources quoted
|
| Aug 12, 2016 at 7:01 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
his letter to R. Chasdai HaLev that letter is generally regarded to be a forgery.
|
|
| Aug 3, 2015 at 20:52 | history | edited | mevaqesh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added souce
|
| Jan 27, 2015 at 16:58 | comment | added | mevaqesh | what is the source for R. Avraham Ben HaRambam? | |
| May 5, 2014 at 8:34 | comment | added | הנער הזה | @Shmuel hope you don't mind that I just gave my own answer instead. The Rama is teshuva 10, kesef mishna is the one commenting on Hil. Melachim 9:1, and Tosfos is found in Chullin 91a | |
| May 5, 2014 at 7:09 | comment | added | Shmuel | @Matt Unfortunately, I wrote this almost 3 years ago, and no longer remember where exactly I found them. You might be able to find an exact source in the links I've provided. | |
| May 5, 2014 at 6:42 | comment | added | הנער הזה | I think this answer is missing the exact references for some of the sources (Ramah, Tosafos, R. Yosef Karo) | |
| Mar 13, 2014 at 2:20 | history | edited | Shmuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited slightly for clarity
|
| Dec 8, 2011 at 22:37 | history | edited | Shmuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified slightly
|
| Dec 8, 2011 at 7:09 | comment | added | YDK | Shmuel, your answer is better, but doesn't address my point: Rashi admits to all others that the simple meaning cannot mean torah sheb'al pe- that Torah was not commanded to Avraham and is not law. But the unnecessary plural of Toros hints to an extra meaning (a drasha). Rashi is merely quoting that drasha. A proof is that for mishmarti, Rashi says shnios l'arayos. Why limit the mishmeres to a ben noach mitzva? | |
| Dec 8, 2011 at 5:19 | history | edited | Shmuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Dec 8, 2011 at 5:17 | comment | added | Shmuel | @YDK I've revised my answer. Is it better now? | |
| Dec 8, 2011 at 5:11 | history | edited | Shmuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added explanation
|
| Dec 8, 2011 at 4:49 | history | edited | Shmuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
redone
|
| Dec 8, 2011 at 4:48 | comment | added | YDK | Your answer is inconclusive. Even Rashi agrees that the simple meaning in the pasuk regards actions that Hashem commanded Avraham. Hence the language "My voice, commandments, statutes, laws". Rashi is just bringing a midrash that Toros (plural) tells us that Avraham was keeping more than 1 body of law, and that Avraham "kept" everything, even baal pe, even though his actual commandments did not include it. The Ramban has an issue even with that- how did Yaakov build a matzeva and marry two sisters? Btw, Ramban concludes in support of the midrash- where mitzvos only truly apply in Israel. | |
| Dec 8, 2011 at 4:33 | history | edited | Shmuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added gemara
|
| Dec 8, 2011 at 4:16 | history | answered | Shmuel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |