In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Seeking the Reasons for the Mitzvot:Pros and Cons*
  • Joel Roth (bio)

I was recently perusing part of Michael Rosenak's book, Tzarikh Iyyun:Masoret u'Moderna ba-Hinukh ha-Yehudi Bizmanenu,1 and was struck by a reference he made to Ahad Ha'am, based on the latter's brief essay entitled Bein Kodesh le-Hol. Rosenak paraphrases and interprets Ahad Ha'am thus:2

Ahad Ha'am . . . suggested that the terms which originate in religion be understood to constitute an unchanging vocabulary shell, which remains constant despite the fact that the content of the terms is subject to constant and ongoing revision, as demanded by changes in thinking and by cultural and spiritual realities. Thus, the term "Torah," laden with overtones of sanctity, is not pushed aside even when most of the Jewish people have abandoned belief in Torah min ha-Shamayim (Torah from Heaven). The term "Torah" is preserved, even retaining its place of centrality, despite the theological revolution which undermines the very foundations of the classical understanding of the term. How is this possible? It is possible because the [End Page 3] ongoing content of the term "Torah" changes regularly, and is now synonymous with the totality of Jewish culture. Thus, when secular children learn about elements of their culture, they are "learning Torah." Similarly, the universities in the Land of Israel, especially their departments of Jewish studies, become like "yeshivot."

It is surely the case that terms often acquire new layers of meaning and nuance, and that, at times, layers of meaning can be removed as well as added. But from my perspective, the fallacy in Ahad Ha'am's thesis is his implication that terms are infinitely pliable. Terms, particularly conceptual terms, have some foundational and fundamental core meaning which is such that its removal renders the term either meaningless or false. Whatever layers one might add to the term "triangle," its three-sidedness is so core to its meaning that it would be meaningless and false to attempt to apply the term to something with four sides, no matter how genuine the impetus to such a desire.

The concept "mitzvah" can and often does legitimately have layers of meaning that have been added to it over time, even into our own era, but, I believe that its foundational and fundamental core meaning includes two elements which, if stripped from its meaning, render it as inauthentic as calling the study of Jewish culture the study of Torah. Whatever layers and nuances "mitzvah" may have, at its core stands a commitment to its heteronomy and its commandedness. Indeed, identifying those as two elements may not even be necessary since heteronomy itself means "the law of another." One hopes, of course, that those bound by the law of another, especially when that "other" is God, will accept their boundedness willingly, but their failure to do so regarding mitzvot does not make the mitzvot any the less commanded, nor does failure to comply with or accept any specific mitzvah intimate that the mitzvah is not commanded.

It is clear that mitzvot are both commands and heteronomous. When Adam is told:3 "Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the three of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it," he is not being asked for his agreement either to eat from the trees of the garden, or to refrain from eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Moses is not asked for his [End Page 4] agreement to "the stone tablets and the Torah and the command which I have inscribed to instruct them."4 Even Deuteronomy 6:5, "And you shall love the Lord your God," is principally a command to obey, based on the use of the root ahav in ancient Near Eastern treaties. This, I believe, has been the way it has been understood by almost all Bible scholars since 1963, when William Moran wrote "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy."5 In other words, the simple and original meaning of that line in the Shema is a command to obey, more than a command to love. And, when...

pdf

Share