|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
The Kuzari Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #20: The
Mitzvot (Part II)
Rav Itamar
Eldar
We cannot discuss the issue of the reasons for the commandments without
considering the distinction accepted by almost every medieval Jewish thinker
between "rational" and "received" mitzvot. Therefore, before we begin to
analyze R. Yehuda Halevi's position regarding the reasons for the commandments,
let us first discuss this distinction.
THE RATIONAL
MITZVOT AND THEIR ROLE
Rihal distinguishes between rational and received mitzvot. This distinction fits in well with his
fundamental view regarding the relationship between the natural-human plane and
the Divine plane:
The Khazar king:… I
think I read in your books as follows: 'What does the Lord your God require of
you, but to fear the Lord your God' (Devarim 10:12) and 'What does the
Lord require of you' (Mikha 6:8), and many similar
passages…
The Rabbi: These are the
rational laws, being the basis and preamble of the Divine law, preceding it in
character and time, and being indispensable in the administration of every human
society. Even a gang of robbers
must have a kind of justice among them if their confederacy is to last. (II, 47-48)
Rihal identifies the rational commandments (this is the way he refers to
them in the continuation of the aforementioned passage) with the rational laws
without which human society cannot
exist. "Even a gang of robbers must
have a kind of justice among them if their confederacy is to last."
Rihal also refers to this layer as "the social and rational laws," but later in
this passage he even includes under this heading "justice and recognition of
God's bounty," as they are also part of the rational commandments. Would it be correct to say that
"recognition of God's bounty" is a necessary condition for the survival of a
confederacy of robbers? Later, however, we find a more detailed distinction
which may explain what is stated here.
At the beginning of Part
III, Rihal spells out in detail the pietist's service of
God:
The Rabbi: The observant
among us fulfils those Divine laws, viz. circumcision, Sabbath, holy
days, and the accessories included in the Divine law. He refrains from forbidden marriages,
using mixtures in plants, clothes and animals, keeps the years of release and
jubilee, avoids idolatry and its accessories… These are the Divine laws, most of
which are performed in connection with the priestly
service.
The social laws
are such as the following: 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit
adultery, steal, give false testimony against your neighbor,' 'Honor your
parents,' 'You shall love the stranger,' 'You shall not speak untruth and not
lie;' such as concern the avoidance of usury, the giving of correct weights and
measures; the gleanings to be left, such as the forgotten grapes, the corners,
etc.
The rational laws
are: 'I am the Lord your God,' You shall have no other God,' and 'You shall
not take the name of your God in vain,' with its corollary that God is all
present, and penetrates all the secrets of man, as well as his actions and
words, that he requites good and evil, and 'that the eyes of the Lord run to and
fro' (II Divrei Ha-yamim 16:9).
(III, 11)
We find, then, that the Rabbi divides the Torah's commandments into three
categories:
The Divine mitzvot
– including circumcision, the Sabbath, the festivals, the laws of forbidden
sexual relations, forbidden mixtures, the sabbatical and jubilee years,
idolatry, ritual purity and impurity, the sacrifices, etc.
The social mitzvot
– including the prohibitions to murder, commit adultery, steal and lie,
honoring one's parents, loving one's fellow and the proselyte, the prohibitions
of usury and interest, executing justice in judgment, and helping the
poor.
The rational mitzvot
– including belief in the unity of God, providence, and reward and
punishment.
As we see, Rihal makes a distinction here that he does not make in the
previous passage – between social mitzvot and rational
mitzvot.
It seems to me that the key to understanding the matter is the
distinction that Rihal makes in his book between the attitude of the nations of
the world to the idea of faith and religion and the attitude of the people of
Israel to this issue. It was only
to Israel that the existence of God and His benevolence to Israel were proven by
way of irrefutable rational proof.
It is therefore for Israel alone that faith in God and His unity and
recognition of His benevolence are rational mitzvot. With respect to Israel, these are
matters necessitated by reason.
This connects to an issue that we discussed in the past (lecture no. 5)
regarding the two forms of existence.
The first form of existence is the rational level that "leads to the
development of one's faculties, one's home, one's country, from which arise
administrative and regulative laws" (I, 35), as opposed to the "supernatural"
existence that is directed at the Divine influence.
The rational level is the level from which the rational laws that Rihal
praises are derived. He even sees
the philosophers as the most important contributors to the establishment of
these laws:
They are full of doubts,
and there is no consensus of opinion between one philosopher and another. Yet they cannot be blamed, nay, deserve
thanks for all they have produced in abstract speculations. For their intentions were good; they
observed the laws of reason, and led virtuous lives. (V, 14)
It may be suggested on the basis of what is stated here that, according
to Rihal, the Torah's rational mitzvot demonstrate no far-reaching
novelty.
In essence, they correspond to human logic, which, when exploited to the maximum
(as was done by the philosophers according to Rihal), can bring us to a complete
system of laws and commandments that allow for the orderly administration of
society and state.
Rihal's distinction between rational and received mitzvot is not
identical to the distinction between mitzvot between man and God and
mitzvot between man and his fellow, as some wish to argue. Rather, the distinction is between
mitzvot necessitated by logic, which include mitzvot that touch
upon the relationship between God and man, and mitzvot that are not
necessitated by logic. From this
perspective, a distinction can be made between Israel and the nations; for
Israel, reason necessitates recognition of God and His providence, which is not
true with respect to the other nations.
This assertion may explain another difficulty in the Rihal's
position.
In part III of the Kuzari, in his description of the pious man,
the Rabbi divides the life and actions of a righteous person in two. The first part – in section 5 –
describes what Rihal calls "well-known pious deeds," a term which is explained
as follows:
The Khazar king: Do you
refer to deeds generally known?
The Rabbi: The social
and rational laws are those generally known. The Divine ones, however, which were
added in order that they should exist in the people of the 'Living God' who
guides them, were not known until they were explained in detail by Him. (III, 6-7)
But the "well-known pious deeds" in section 5 also include the following
mitzvot: prayer, the Sabbath, and the festivals. But surely these mitzvot are
clear examples of received laws, and later the Rabbi himself includes them in
that category (III, 11). Why, then,
are they brought here in this context?
Attention must be paid
to the manner in which Rihal relates to these mitzvot in this
passage:
All this stands in the
same relation to the soul as food to the human body. Prayer is for his soul what nourishment
is for his body. The blessing of
one prayer lasts till the time of the next, just as the strength derived from
the morning meal lasts till supper.
The further his soul is removed from the time of prayer, the more it is
darkened by coming in contact with worldly matters. The more so, as necessity brings it into
the company of youths, women, or wicked people; when one hears unbecoming and
soul-darkening words and songs which exercise an attraction for his soul which
he is unable to master. During
prayer, he purges his soul from all that passed over it, and prepares it for the
future. According to this
arrangement there elapses not a single week in which both his soul and body do
not receive preparation. Darkening
elements having increased during the week, they cannot be cleansed except by
consecrating one day to service and to physical rest. The body repairs on the Sabbath the
waste suffered during the six days, and prepares itself for the work to come…
He, then, provides himself with a monthly cure, which is 'the season of
atonement for all that happened during this period'… He further attends the
Three Festivals and the great Fast Day.
(III, 5)
According to this definition and understanding of these mitzvot,
they fall into the category of rational mitzvot, as mitzvot "which
are as absolutely necessary for a society as are the natural functions of
eating, drinking, exercise, rest, sleeping, and waking for the individual" (II,
48).
This spiritual process is necessary for every person and it therefore can
be seen as part of the rational mitzvoth; the specific manifestation of
this process in Israel, however, finds expression in the Sabbath and the
festivals.
This conceptualization
of the Sabbath and the festivals and the proper conduct for these days is novel
and not self-evident, but the spiritual process of the Sabbath and the festivals
is natural and necessary, even though the way to reach this spiritual process is
a Divine novelty given exclusively to Israel. On the one hand, the principle
underlying these mitzvot is comprehensible, and as such these
commandments fall into the category of rational mitzvoth; on the other
hand, we are still dealing with mitzvot that clearly fall into the
category of received mitzvot.
THE RECEIVED
MITZVOT AND THEIR ROLE
We saw earlier that there is another level of existence beyond
administration of the state and ideal natural human existence, one that is
unique to the people of Israel – the Divine influence.
Whereas the social and
rational laws bring a person to his natural climax, in order to continue
climbing up to the Divine influence, as we saw in the previous lecture, an
additional, unique act is necessary, namely, the received mitzvot. Rihal refers to these mitzvot
as "the Divine laws."
These mitzvot do not and cannot stem from reason and
intellect. The Rabbi already
emphasized many times that one must not approach the King dressed in the garb of
the intellect. Just as the Divine
influence cannot be proven by way of reason and logic (and only Israel merited
that unique revelation in which the existence of God was proven to them in a
manner that parallels rational proof), the path to God is not built on reason
and logic.
The social and rational
laws are those generally known. The
Divine ones, however, which were added in order that they should exist in the
people of the 'Living God,' who guides them, were not known until they were
explained in detail by Him. (III,
7)
All the warnings and reservations that we saw in the previous lecture
regarding the attempt to determine and fashion the course to the Divine
influence by way of reason lay the groundwork for Rihal's sweeping assertion
that the received mitzvot do not stem from logic and intellect.
For this reason, the received mitzvot are directed exclusively at
Israel, for it is only the people of Israel who are worthy and capable of rising
to the Divine influence.
What has he, who fails
in this respect, to do with offerings, Sabbath, circumcision, etc., which reason
neither demands, nor forbids? These are, however, the ordinations especially
given to Israel as a corollary to the rational laws. Through this they received the advantage
of the Divine Influence. (II,
48)
Therefore, argues Rihal, any attempt to imitate the "living nation" with
deeds that fall into the category of received commandments (the building of the
Temple [II, 32], or the observance of the Sabbath [III, 8-9]) is doomed to
fail. This is because "the Divine
[laws] which were added in order that they should exist in the people of the
'Living God' who guides them" (III, 7) were meant exclusively for
Israel.
The received mitzvot, then, are those that raise the people of
Israel above the other nations and give expression to the difference between
Israel and the nations of the world.
This difference "separates those who occupy it from the physical point of
view, as the plant is separated from inorganic things, or man from animals" (I,
39).
It is interesting to compare what is stated here to the position of R.
Sa'adya Gaon, who preceded Rihal in distinguishing between rational and received
mitzvot.
R. Sa'adya also defines the rational mitzvot as mitzvot
"necessitated by reason," but he goes further than Rihal in that he subsumes
under this category many more of the mitzvot between man and God: to know
Him and to serve Him with a full heart, to submit to Him and stand before Him,
not to serve any other god along with Him, not to swear falsely in His name,
etc. In addition to these, R.
Sa'adya includes in this category the classical rational mitzvot: "to act
with righteousness, truth, uprightness and justice, to abstain from killing, to
forbid harlotry, theft, gossiping, and deception, and that the believer should
love his brother as he loves himself…"
According to R. Sa'adya, all of these mitzvot are rational
mitzvot rooted in the intellect:
All of these that we
were commanded to do [positive precepts], it was planted in our intellect
to love them, and all of these that were forbidden to us [negative
precepts], it was planted in our intellect to loathe them. (Emunot ve-De'ot, III,
1)
Placing all of these mitzvot in the category of rational
mitzvot fits in with R. Sa'adya's view, which I have related to in the
past, that all of the principles of faith are subject to rational-philosophical
proof, and in this area there is no difference between Jews and
non-Jews.
Broadening the contents and objectives of the rational mitzvot
will, of necessity, exact a price from the received mitzvot. Indeed, R. Sa'adya defines the
received mitzvot as follows:
The second part includes
those things that the intellect necessitates neither that we should love them
nor that we should loathe them. Our
God added for us commands and warnings to magnify our reward and
happiness, as it says: "The Lord was well pleased for His righteousness'
sake, to magnify Torah, and to make it glorious" (Yeshayahu 42:21). Those that we were commanded to do were
made desirable, and those that we were forbidden to do were made loathsome,
owing to the obedience that they demand, and they have become appended to the
first part. Nevertheless, it is
impossible that they do not have any benefit and reason on the rational level,
just as the commandments of the first type have great benefits and reasons on
the rational level (ibid.).
While Rihal sees in the received mitzvot the critical transitional
point between the human and the Divine, R. Sa'adya significantly constricts the
role of these mitzvot: "to magnify our reward and happiness," in the
sense of "the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to credit Israel, and therefore
gave them much Torah and many mitzvot." R. Sa'adya emphasizes that the
benefit that these mitzvot bring Israel is "owing to the obedience that
they demand." That is to say, their contents do not elevate the people of
Israel, but it is rather the fact that they are fulfilling God's command that
earns them credit. R. Sa'adya, who
subsumes all Divine values and ideals under the heading of the intellect, is not
willing to accept that there are actions related to these values that are not
subject to rational understanding. Anything that is not subject to rational
understanding cannot bestow benefit with respect to its contents. The very opposite is true! It is
precisely upon leaving the rational system that a person arrives at an entirely
different plane of fulfilling mitzvot – "the obedience that they demand."
For beyond the fact that God commanded them, man cannot identify with the
content of these mitzvot, because they are not subject to human
understanding.
R. Sa'adya qualifies his position and cannot resist the temptation to
suggest a rational reason even for the received mitzvot,
although these are explanations on a secondary level.
As opposed to Rihal, R. Sa'adya does not see the received mitzvot
as bringing a Jew to spiritual perfection; according to him, such perfection can
only be acquired by way of reason and the intellect, and the received
mitzvot, inasmuch as they are not necessitated by reason or the
intellect, cannot serve this objective.
Rihal, on the other hand, maintains that in order to achieve Divine
spiritual perfection, one must pass through a stage that is above the
intellect and that is not subject to rational comprehension and
understanding. In this sense, as
opposed to R. Sa'adya, he sees the received mitzvot that are not given to
rational understanding as the peak of religious action, which raise the Jew to
the Divine influence.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
RATIONAL AND RECEIVED MITZVOT
The relationship between rational and received mitzvot, between
the practices that are meant to administer society in righteousness and justice
and the higher level of the spiritual and metaphysical, is very clear according
to Rihal:
The Rabbi: These are the
rational laws, being the basis and preamble of the Divine law, preceding it
in character and time, and being indispensable in the administration of
every human society. Even a gang of
robbers must have a kind of justice among them if their confederacy is to
last. When Israel's disloyalty had
come to such a pass that they disregarded rational and social principles (which
are as absolutely necessary for a society as are the natural functions of
eating, drinking, exercise, rest, sleeping, and waking for the individual), but
held fast to the sacrificial worship and other divine laws, He was satisfied
with even less. It was told to
them: 'Haply you might observe those laws which rule the smallest and meanest
community, such as refer to justice, good actions, and recognition of God's
bounty.' For the Divine law cannot become complete until the social and
rational laws are perfected.
The rational law demands justice and recognition of God's bounty. What has he, who fails in this respect,
to do with offerings, Sabbath, circumcision, etc., which reason neither demands
nor forbids? These are, however, the ordinations especially given to Israel as a
corollary to the rational laws.
Through this they received the advantage of the Divine Influence. (II, 48)
The second stage cannot be achieved before the first stage. Any society wishing to rise spiritually
above its natural level must not neglect and alienate itself from the
administration of society and laws based on reason.
In the following passage, Rihal expresses his understanding of the
criticism leveled by the prophets, most notably by Yeshayahu, against the
sacrifices offered by Israel:
To what purpose is the
multitude of your sacrifices to me? says the Lord: I am sated with the burnt
offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts. And I delight not in the blood of
bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats… Your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the
evil of your doings from before My eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well;
seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the
widow. (Yeshayahu
1:11-17)
As we saw earlier, Rihal maintains that the Divine influence only rests
after the intellect has reached perfection. The inanimate-plant-animal-human
hierarchy that Rihal established at the beginning of the book (I, 31-42)
reflects not only levels in height and elevation, but also in time and
order. The inanimate, plant, and
animals aspects that exist in man constitute a chariot for the rational soul
that must rest upon them; together with them, the soul constitutes a chariot for
the Divine influence. This process
is explicitly described with regard to the individual:
Altogether, this is so
arranged and prepared as to become fit to receive the guidance of the reasoning
soul, which is an independent substance, and nearly approaches the angelic, of
which it is stated: 'Its dwelling is not with flesh' (Daniel 2:11). It inhabits the body as ruler and guide,
not in the sense of space, nor does it partake of this food, because it is
exalted above it. The Divine
influence only dwells in a soul which is susceptible to intellect, while the
soul only associates with the warm vital breath. The latter must needs have a mainspring
to which it is attached, as is the flame to the top of the wick. (II, 26)
Rihal does not accept the existence of a society that is void of social
laws and abandons the natural levels of man acquired by way of reason and
intellect, casting everything upon the lofty and spiritual. Such a society, or such an individual,
cannot enjoy the spiritual if it is not established on a firm foundation of the
natural and the rational.
These things obligate the people of Israel. When Rihal speaks of the rational
mitzvot without which no society can exist, he is referring to principles
dictated by reason for every society.
With respect to the nations of the world, this obligation embraces all
the social mitzvot, but with respect to Israel, as we saw earlier, this
also includes faith in and recognition of the Creator.
Rihal does not say this explicitly, but it seems to me that we would not
be off the mark if we say that what follows is that just as a gang of robbers
cannot maintain their confederacy if they do not refrain from robbery,
falsehood, murder and the other social statutes because reason and logic
obligate their observance, Israel similarly cannot exist without belief and
recognition of God.
From the very moment that the existence of God, His providence over
Israel, and the supernatural level to which He elevates them were proven to
Israel at the level of rational demonstration, they were set apart from the
nations of the world not only with respect to the Divine influence, as was
argued thus far, but even with respect to the natural
level.
As we saw in the past (lecture no. 12), this separation did not begin
with the exodus from Egypt and the revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai with
signs and wonders; rather, it resulted from the unique essence that began with
Adam and was passed down from one generation to the next.
We can now say that what is demanded of an ordinary person in order to
satisfy his natural existence differs from what is demanded of a member of
Israel who bears the unique Divine essence in his very nature. The role of the rational mitzvot,
as Rihal emphasizes, is to make possible natural-human-social existence. The way to materialize this vision is by
following in the footsteps of logic and intellect. But while logic and intellect stopped
for the nations of the world with the social laws, for Israel it continued
another step to recognition of the Creator and His providence. Thus, this recognition enters into the
category of essential conditions for the existence of the people of Israel.
Of course, even after the people of Israel acquire this level with the
establishment of the social and rational laws, they must not content themselves
with them, since they are capable of ascending to a higher
level:
Can it be imagined that
the Israelites observe "the doing of justice and the love of mercy" but neglect
circumcision, Sabbath, and the other laws, and felt happy withal? (II,
48)
Since the people of Israel bear the Divine essence and preserve in their
hearts the revelation at Mount Sinai and the giving of the Torah, they do not
fully realize their mission until they fulfill the received mitzvot and
actualize the potential to receive the Divine essence that is concealed within
them. This potential is beyond the
natural level, and even beyond the natural level that is unique to Israel – that
is to say, revelation and prophecy.
In my humble opinion, this approach does away with the dichotomy that
characterizes the position of the medieval philosophers with respect to the gap
between the natural life of the Jew, regarding which he is no different than his
non-Jewish colleagues, and the sanctified life that relates to his relationship
with God.
When Rihal points to the unique natural essence of Israel and to the
revelation at Mount Sinai as bursting forth from the Divine realm to the natural
existence of the Jew, he creates a separation between the Jew and the non-Jew
even on the natural plain and thus also with respect to the nature of the
rational mitzvot for each of them.
In this sense, he sets himself apart from many of his
contemporaries.
(Translated by David
Strauss)
|