Skip to main content

The Commandments (1)

Text file

The Commandments [1:79]

 

            "Four entered the Orchard; one looked and expired, one looked and was injured, one looked and uprooted the field [i.e., became a heretic], another entered in peace and left in peace; and who was he?  Rabbi Akiva.  The one who looked and expired could not stand the glow of that world - to the extent that his body disintegrated.  The second went mad and spoke confusedly of divine matters, words of no benefit.  The third disdained the practical commandments after having looked upon the higher spiritual spheres, saying to himself: 'The practical commandments are merely tools and means which bring one to this spiritual level, and I have already achieved it; therefore I have no need of the practical commandments.'  In this manner he became corrupt and he corrupted others, erred and caused others to err.  Whereas Rabbi Akiva entered both worlds and left without being struck by calamity ... and he was the man who, at the moment of his execution, asked his students if the time had come to recite the Shema and he recited it..." [3:65].

 

            In Rihal's admirable interpretation, Elisha Ben Abuya represents the philosophical position, which views the commandments merely as a means to achieve intellectual perfection.  Rabbi Akiva's personality creates a striking contrast to this approach, for it was Rabbi Akiva who performed commandments even at the exalted moment of sanctifying God's name.

 

            This brings us to one of the central themes in Jewish thought: the reasons behind the commandments [1:79].  We will try to understand Rihal's position on the background of the various possibilities.  Rihal presents an alternative which repudiates other possible interpretations of the commandments - an alternative understanding, in fact, of law in general.

 

            Delving into the reasons for the commandments means we must try to understand why we are obligated to perform a particular commandment.  We will understand this better in the context of other commandments or obligations.  Let us begin this discussion by comparing the commandments to two actions: the soldier wearing a beret, and the obligation to wear seat belts.

 

The Beret Model: Discipline and Meaning

 

            One approach compares the commandments to the wearing of a military beret.  A soldier doesn't wear a beret to protect himself from the sun or the rain; it is rather a vehicle to express the discipline to which the soldier is committed.  Similarly, we can describe a philosophical approach which sees the commandments as expressions of the Divine will and emphasizes the disciplinary character of the commandments: "What does God care if [the ritual slaughterer] slaughters from the nape or from the neck?"  The meaning of the commandment is discipline; its significance lies in man's surrender to the King of Kings.  Fulfillment of the commandments means accepting the yoke of Heaven, obeying God and acting in accordance with His word.  The content of the commandments themselves is irrelevant, and could easily have been different.  However since we were commanded, these commandments became an obligation and we are forbidden to alter them in any way.  This approach views our relationship with God as the relationship with a king, ruler and commander.  Man's central difficulty is his position in relation to God, with only two alternatives: acceptance of the Heavenly yoke, or rejection of it which amounts, essentially, to rebellion.  According to this approach, the value of the commandment depends upon its acceptance as an order; the value lies in the discipline itself, just as the value of a soldiers beret lies first and foremost in the discipline it symbolizes and not in the practical purpose it serves.

 

The Seat Belt Model: Law as Compulsory Advice

 

            The second position considers the commandments to be similar to the obligation to wear a seat belt.  We are legally obligated to wear it, and although the seat belt can be uncomfortable or inconvenient at times, and although we rebel against the punishments meted out to us when we don't fulfill the obligation, in the final analysis the law is for our own good.  It is simply good advice.  The law compels us to what is best for us.  The Rambam approaches the commandments in a similar vein.  His approach stems from a rational world view.  The commandments, claims the Rambam, have intrinsic value beyond the merit of obeisance to the Creator.  He maintains that one must attempt to discover the rational meaning behind the commandments.  In his explanation of the commandments, the Rambam speaks from his own unique philosophical and historical perspective.  Although one may accept his opinion in principle, one must not emphasize the details of his explanation.  His rationalistic students understood from his words that the human mind - the only judge that we have - is capable of explaining the reasons for the commandments.  According to this principle, logic underlies the entire legal system.  The sole difference between those laws which we easily understand [mishpatim], and those which seem oblique [chukim], lies not in the commandments themselves, but only in our perception of them.  These explanations are hidden from us at times, due to certain psychological or sociological circumstances; however, they do exist, and our minds are capable of grasping them.  The basic model of the rationalist is mathematics, the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement.

 

            Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon developed a synthesis between the various positions.  He differentiated between discipline based [shim'i] and logical [sikhli] commandments.  The discipline based commandments express the first approach, the logical ones the second.

 

            The seat belt model is an example of the rational position, which reached its height in the writings of the Rambam.  He felt that the reasons for the commandments explain the principle concept of the commandment but not its details.  It is simply impossible that the details not be arbitrary.  Thus, we once again return to the distinction between discipline-based and logical commandments.  The details are discipline-based, while the principle of each commandment is logical.

 

The Medicine Model

 

            Rihal presents us with a third position.  Rejecting the approach which places all the value of the commandments in human subjugation to the Divine will, Rihal assumes that the commandments possess intrinsic meaning, just as there is logic and meaning to the medicines which a sick person takes in order to be cured.  What makes medicine unique?  In order to understand this we must return to example of military discipline.  Often a new recruit is punished for failing to fulfill the demands of his commanding officer.  If he didn't stand in the line up exactly according to the orders, didn't march in proper time, or didn't fold his army blanket properly, he will be duly punished.  However, this punishment is completely different from the punishment which will be experienced by a person who uses medication improperly, or fails to take it altogether.  Unlike the first case, this punishment is intrinsically connected to the medication he is taking.  There is no need for a judge to punish him with a disease, for not having used his medication.  This is not something disciplinary and arbitrary; it is intrinsically connected with the person's behavior.  This, Rihal tells us, is the case with regard to the commandments.

 

            However, the medicine model is not appropriate for the Rambam; for the Rambam, and with him many of the rationalists, believed that the commandments could be understood and explained logically.  Rihal attempts to teach us that there are things in this world which the human mind cannot explain.  The efficacy of medication is usually discovered by experience, while its essence often remains a riddle to us, either temporarily or permanently.  The effectiveness of the medication does not depend on our awareness or theoretical understanding.  It is a reality.  A medicine which needs our awareness to function is not a "real" medicine.  It works through psychological persuasion.  It is actually an illusion.  Investigation of a drug's effectiveness is scientifically accomplished in a group with a number of control groups.  The testing is carried out using a double-blind method, in which the doctors do not know to whom they are administrating the drug, and the patients do not know if they are receiving it.  The drug works even if the expert does not understand it, and even if the patient does not always know that he is taking it.  For many  philosophers, medicine was the model of a profession which does not always have a theoretical basis to explain its success - yet it constitutes a rational science.  Medicine in fact makes use of another method.  The effectiveness of certain drugs are ascertained by experimentation, and only afterwards, in some cases, do we reach the stage of understanding why these drugs function as they do.  In fact, sometimes we are surprised by explanations of phenomena which had remained mysterious for thousands of years.

 

The Doctor and the Lawyer

 

            The model of medicine teaches us the possibility of human action, despite the inability of the human mind to explain the reality it faces.  However, the medicine model does not accord with the approach based on human subjugation to the Divine will, which we expressed in the model of the military beret.  This idea will be clearer if we compare the medicine model to another model: the model of the lawyer.  Let us examine the law through the eyes of the zealous jurist.  The theoretical scientist is successful when he "proves" something in the framework of a theory: the doctor is successful when he cures his patient.  When is the lawyer successful?  Let us assume that a lawyer is fighting for a client is a certain trial.  What is the meaning of success here?  This success is not in the mathematical heavens, nor beyond the sea of experimentation.  We must keep the law, but the law is independent; and to the extent that the judge will rule in his favor, the world will change in accordance with the verdict.  Rightfully, the lawyer sees the law which obligates him as a world which exists in its own right.  That which the judges finally decide is the truth.

 

            Let me give you an example.  A doctor is about to take an exam in which he has to treat a certain case.  The examiners will decide if his diagnosis was correct.  However, the doctor of our reality is not being tested by his eminent peers, nor by judges who were appointed by the system.  He does not face the judgment of man but the judgment of nature.  If he does not succeed, the patient will die - even if medical committees, judges and clerks of the ministry of education decide that he was right.  Let us look at a more extreme case; let us assume that someone secretly bribed a corrupt judge, and the judgment was given in his favor.  The true culprit goes scot-free.  If we compare this to the model of the doctor, we will immediately understand the absurdity.  A corrupt doctor can be bribed to move one to the head of a waiting list or to cause him to make a greater effort, but it is impossible to bribe a doctor to succeed, or to lessen the severity of the patient's disease.  The judge's verdict creates a legal reality.  The doctor's diagnosis, his verdict, does not create reality, it merely describes it.  The Halakhist is similar to the doctor; he does not create halakhic reality, he merely describes it.  Halakhic reality is not the same as the rational reality of mathematics, nor the fictious reality of law.  The Halakha describes a reality no less real - facts and powers which affect the human soul and the world.

 

            The medicine model expresses Rihal's position.  It also opens a pathway to additional approaches which are similar to Rihal's.  The most outstanding among these is the kabbalistic approach, although we must stress that there are significant differences between the two, differences which we will explore later on.  However, the principle is the same.  Man, through his actions, by keeping the commandments, alters reality.

 

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

 

            Rihal uses the parable of the doctor to clarify his position.  The doctor in this parable is none other than Moses, and the later prophets and sages after him.  This is the man who receives inspiration from heaven in his halakhic ruling.  Our Sages maintained that the Torah is "not in Heaven," meaning that it is interpreted by halakhic legislators who are subject to human fallibility, yet despite this all the Torah is "from Heaven," and thus every halakhic decision must be directly or indirectly ensconced in the word of God.  In our story there is another character, an impostor who pretends to be a doctor [1:79].  This character reminds us of the famous legend of the sorcerer's apprentice, a man who learned a few magic words, and begins a process which he cannot stop.  The sorcerer's apprentice commands the broom to draw water for him, but he does not know the magic words to stop it.  Even after he rips the broom to shreds, the pieces continue to bring him water.  The doctor's apprentice in Rihal's parable is essentially similar to the sorcerer's apprentice.  He is man who learn a little from a doctor and dares to compete with him, without possessing either his erudition or his responsibility.  Possibly, in some cases the doctor's apprentice will succeed, but in the long term his success will not become established, since the apprentice has no access to the doctor's supernatural sources of knowledge.

 

            Often we find living examples of the sorcerer's apprentice, both within Judaism and outside of it.  Some religions accept Judaism's halakhic principle without possessing the basis to develop this principle.  This is particularly evident in the case of Islam; however, it is also true from within, for example in the approach of the Jewish Reform Movement.  Rihal will discuss the status of Halakha in the third section of the book.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.

 

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!