Philosophy, Categorization of Mitzvot, and Rationales for Mitzvot
MODERN RABBINIC
THOUGHT
By Rav
Philosophy,
Categorization of Mitzvot, and Rationales for
Mitzvot
One of
The choice to focus
intellectual efforts on analyzing the reasons for mitzvot fits
This practical bent emerges clearly from his analysis of the eighth
chapter of Tehillim.[2] The second verse of that chapter says:
O God, our Lord, how glorious is Your name in all the earth. One would expect the subsequent verses
to outline in detail Gods grandeur; instead, they turn to a discussion of
humanity.
Knowledge of God is
not a metaphysical insight into the existence, essence and metaphysical
attributes of God. The true
knowledge of God is the ethical insight into the essence of man, his calling and
his task rooted in the concept of God and His relationship to the
world.
Moreover,
The above idea finds powerful expression in an essay written by
For, whilst theology
contains the thoughts of man on God and things Divine, the Torah contains the
thoughts of God on man and things human.
There is little said in the Torah which refers directly to God and things
Divine; and of the inner essence of the Godhead and the supernatural we find in
the Torah nothing at all
. The
Torah does not want to tell us how things look in heaven, but how they should
look in our hearts and homes (ibid., p.189).
However,
Some opponents of
such speculation erroneously support their position by citing R. Yehuda that we
are not darshinan taama di-Kra (lit., We do not expound the reasons
of Scripture, Sanhedrin 21a).
Categories of
Mitzvot
1) Torot are doctrines
concerning God, the world, humanity and Israel.
2) Mishpatim require acting
justly toward other humans.
3) Chukim demand showing
justice toward plants, animals and our own selves.
4) Mitzvot consist of the
obligation to love all beings.
5) Edot are symbolic acts
that convey essential truths and lessons.
6) Avoda refers to
commandments, such as prayer, that address our inner religious
life.
The differences between this classification and earlier attempts are
quite striking. Medieval Jewish
thinkers usually distinguished between rational commandments and those we know
only through revelation. Some
employed the terms sikhliyot (sekhel = reason) and shimiyot
(from lishmoa, to hear), while others utilized the terms mishpatim
and chukim. For
Conversely, the unaided human intellect could not help us arrive at the
details of the mishpatim.
It is also noteworthy
that these categories do not create a sharp division between those commandments
that concern the Man-God relationship and those that are interpersonal. Rather,
Torot incorporate ideas about both God and humanity.
Reasons for
Mitzvot
Rambam dedicates
chapters 25-49 of the third section of his Guide of the Perplexed
(Moreh Nevukhim) to explaining the rationale for almost every
mitzva. The contrast between his
method and that of
These two rabbinic
luminaries also differed on the question of explaining details. Rambam said that we should offer a
reason for the general mitzva but not for the details. From his perspective, it is pointless to
ask why we bring bullocks and not rams or why we bring three animals rather than
two. Halakha had to pick
something (perhaps to give the mitzva act a consistent identity), but the
specific choice was arbitrary (Guide 3:26).
To be fair, the fact
that Rambams examples come from the world of sacrifices might limit their
force. Given his view of the
sacrificial order, he would be more likely to see the details of sacrifices as
less significant. Furthermore, we
cannot easily determine what constitutes the essential mitzva and what a
detail. Is the fact that
circumcision takes place on the eighth day a detail or part and parcel of the
essential mitzva? Rambam himself
seems to explain particular details, such as why Pesach and Sukkot last a week
while Shavuot is only one day (Guide 3:43). Despite these difficulties, we can
safely say that Rambam did not feel the need to show how each halakhic detail
coheres with his explanations.
Nor did the
interpretations offered for mitzvot explain them in their totality: he,
the great systematic codifier of the practical conclusions of the Talmud, in the
last part of his philosophical work advanced interpretations of the
mitzvot which shed no light on their practical details, as defined in his
code, and which, indeed, are often incompatible with them (letter
18).
For
As far as I know, no rabbinic thinker incorporated halakhic details into
his taamei ha-mitzvot (rationales for mitzvot) to the extent that
Next week, we will discuss specific examples of this method, as well as
[1] Yitzchak Heinemanns Taamei
ha-Mitzvot be-Sifrut Yisrael, volume 2 (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 91-161, and
Dayan Dr. Isidor Grunfelds Introduction to Samson
[2] Collected Writings, volume 4 (New York, 1984), pp. 325-334.
[3] The Festival of Revelation and the Uniqueness of the Torah, in Collected Writings, volume 1 (New York, 1984), pp. 183-207.
[4] Cited by Yonah Emmanuel,
Be-Ikkevot Gedolei Yisrael she-be-Ashkenaz, in Ha-Rav S.