YHE-HOLIDAY: SPECIAL SHAVUOT 5770 PACKAGE

 (Part 2)

*********************************************************

This Package contains:

1.         Torah and Life, by HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein

2.         Torah Values and Torah Commandments, by HaRav Yehuda Amital

3.         The Kingdom of the House of David, by Rav Binyamin Tabory

4.         From Faith to Revelation: The Waving of the Omer, the Counting of the Omer, and the Festival of Shavuot, by Rav Yehuda Rock

For more shiurim related to Shavuot, see: http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot.htm

Chag Sameach!

**********************************************************************

Torah and Life

Based on a sicha by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein

Adapted by Yitzchak Barth with Reuven Ziegler

Translated by Kaeren Fish

1) “REAL LIFE”

Many people assume there is a contrast – if not conflict – between Torah and “life.”  In this view, “life” includes all the practical, “serious” spheres whose participants contribute to the world and help develop it.  As opposed to them is the “Torah,” with which young people who have not yet moved on to “real life” amuse themselves.  Unfortunately, echoes of this view are even to be heard within the beit midrash.  Many yeshiva students do not relate to Torah study as “life” itself, but rather as preparation and training for life. 

In the chapter on the word “life” in his Studies in Words (Cambridge, 1967), C.S. Lewis points out that when a person speaks about “real life,” he refers to those elements of life which he values most highly.  Thus, for example, many people relate to a business deal as an expression of “real life,” while writing poetry or engaging in philosophy are pursuits not deemed worthy of such a dignified title.  Lewis claims that the source of this mistaken distinction is to be found in “the deeply ingrained conviction of narrow minds that whatever things they themselves are chiefly exercised on are the only important things, the only things worth adult, informed, and thoroughgoing interest” (p. 292).  He finds this distinction unacceptable, since it means that “everything except acquisition and social success is excluded from the category of ‘real life’ and relegated to the realm of play or day-dream” (ibid.).

Lewis’ analysis of the prevailing attitude towards spheres of secular thought is all the more applicable when it comes to engaging in Torah.  Many Jews believe that the Torah is relevant only within a constricted area, and they attempt to discover at which points this area coincides with “life” – the world in which they themselves are engaged.  In many cases people think this way even if they are not aware of it.  The frequently posed question, “What are you going to do when you leave yeshiva and go out into the big wide world?” actually reflects an attitude that regards Torah as a sphere external to life.  Obviously, such a view – in which utilitarian activities take precedence over the realm of thought – is deficient from any self-respecting religious and spiritual point of view.  Of course, we value yishuvo shel olam, developing the world, and the people involved in it are certainly worthy of praise.  But we must be firm in our opposition to the view that engaging in divrei chokhma, Torah and matters of the spirit, is not “real life.”

A well-known mishna teaches that both the practical and the intellectual spheres are essential; neither can exist without the other.  “If there is no worldly sustenance (literally: flour), there is no Torah; if there is no Torah, there is no worldly sustenance” (Avot 3:17).  The mishna does not mean to equate the significance of these two spheres.  Man was not created in order to grind flour, nor to fill his belly with bread.  Rather, he was created in order to serve God – including the pursuit of Torah, “for it is for this purpose that you were created” (Avot 2:8).  Like the famous assertion of the French playwright Moliere, that “One should eat to live, and not live to eat” (Valère, Act 3, Scene 1), we believe that we must work and eat in order to engage in Torah, rather than engage in Torah in order to eat.  Torah is not detached from life; on the contrary, we declare daily that Torah “is our life and the length of our days.” This means that engaging the Torah is the crux, the essence, the most important part of life.

At the end of Avot de-Rabbi Natan (34:10), the beraita lists ten entities that are called “life”: God is called “life,” Israel are called “life,” the Torah is called “life,” as well as the righteous, the Garden of Eden, the Tree, Eretz Yisrael, deeds of kindness, Torah sages, and water.  Even the most cursory review of this list reveals that most of the things that are called “life” belong to the realm of the spirit.  Some of them are connected to the practical world, and some even belong to that world exclusively, but this list unquestionably suggests that “true life” is found, first and foremost, in the world of the spirit, the Torah, and sanctity.  The reasoning behind this assertion is clear: King David defined life as the connection with the Source of life: “For with You lies the source of life; by Your light we shall see light” (Tehillim 34:10), and the Torah is the most central and direct channel to the Creator.  The Torah connects man with God, and therefore occupation with Torah is the principal channel of life.

At the conclusion of two different discussions, the Gemara quotes Rabbi Tarfon’s exclamation after Rabbi Akiva won an argument between them: “Akiva, anyone who separates himself from you is, as it were, separating himself from life!” (Kiddushin 66b; Zevachim 13a).  Ironically, the subjects under discussion in each of these two debates are far from practical.  In Massekhet Kiddushin the debate concerns matters of ritual purity and impurity, while in Massekhet Zevachim the Tannaim discuss receiving the blood of sacrificial animals.  The impression conveyed by the Gemara is unequivocal: it is Torah itself that is life, and hence there is no need to seek artificial points of contact between these two spheres.

Since the Torah is called “life” and engagement in it is a central occupation of our lives, it is clear that yeshiva study should not be regarded merely as a preparation for the rest of life.  Every moment in which a person is not engaged in Torah is a moment wasted, and represents a loss in its own right – over and above the loss for the future, in that the person is not preparing for the rest of his life.  When King David asked God to allow him to die on erev Shabbat rather than on Shabbat day, his request was refused: “Better for Me one day that you sit and engage in Torah than a thousand burnt sacrifices that Shlomo, your son, is destined to offer upon the altar before Me” (Shabbat 30a).  Obviously, the Torah that David learned on the eve of his death was not preparing him for anything.  The sole significance of those hours on Shabbat eve was the learning itself, altogether unconnected to “preparation for the rest of life.” Nevertheless, the Gemara concludes decisively that those hours of learning, not preparing him for anything, were preferable in God’s eyes to the thousand sacrifices that Shlomo offered on the day of the dedication of the altar!

Torah study has inherent importance in God’s eyes, and we should view it in the same way.  The mishna teaches, “Better one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world than all of the life of the World-to-Come” (Avot 4:17) – even if it is one single hour, in which the person is not preparing himself for the rest of his life.  Beyond the fact that the period of yeshiva study prepares students for the rest of their lives, it is a period of intensive life in its own right – filled with Torah and closeness to God.  The purpose of life is to cleave to God, and the road to this cleaving passes through the beit midrash. 

We must be careful not to downplay the importance of engaging in Torah by assigning an exaggerated significance to worldly concerns.  The Torah’s definition of “life” is unequivocal: “And you who cleave to the Lord your God are alive, all of you, this day” (Devarim 4:4).  Cleaving to God is itself “life,” and the place where this “life” is realized is in the beit midrash.  For this reason, King David says of the Temple – the focal point of cleaving to God – “For there God commanded the blessing, eternal life” (Tehillim 133:3).  It is specifically within the beit midrash, the place where we cut ourselves off from the external world and devote all our energies to achieving an intensive closeness to God – it is specifically here that the blessing of eternal life is invoked.

2) A “TORAH OF LIFE”

The expression “a Torah of life” (Torat chayyim) is familiar to us from the prayer service: in the blessing “Ahava Rabba” we thank God for teaching us “chukkei chayyim, statutes of life,” and in the “Sim Shalom” blessing we mention that He has given us a “Torah of life.” There are several reasons why the Torah is referred to in this way. 

First, Torah comes from God, Who is the Source of life.  The Torah first became manifest to us as the voice of the living God speaking from Mount Sinai to all of Israel.  From that time onwards, as the Torah expanded into the Tanakh, Mishna, Gemara, and the writings of the great Torah sages of all generations, it remained essentially an interpretation and elaboration of the words of the living God.

Second, the Torah is called a “Torah of life” because it gives life and leads towards life, as we declare in the “Ahavat Olam” blessing in the evening service: “For they [the words of Torah] are our life and the length of our days.” It is interesting to note that the blessings over the Torah actually point to a contrast between Torah and life: we bless God for having given us “the Torah of truth,” and thereafter we say that He has “implanted within us eternal life.”  However, most of the commentators explain that the expression “eternal life” (chayyei olam) parallels “the Torah of truth” which precedes it.  In other words, the “Torah of truth” is itself “eternal life,” for by engaging in Torah a person inherits eternal life.  In Bava Metzia (33a) the same idea is formulated in halakhic terms: “One’s father brought him into this world, but one’s teacher – who imparts to him wisdom – brings one to the eternal world.”

A third reason for the title “a Torah of life” is the vitality and ongoing development that characterize Torah.  The Gemara (Chagiga 3b) draws a comparison in this regard between Torah and the plant kingdom: “Just as this plant is fertile and multiplies – so the words of Torah are fertile and multiply.” Similarly, the final mishna in Bava Batra (175b) draws a parallel between dinei mamonot and a flowing spring.  Although a mikve – like a flowing spring – purifies those who are ritually impure, a spring continually replenishes itself and never stands still, and therefore a spring is preferable to a standing mikve (Mikvaot 1:7).  This is also the nature of Jewish civil law.

A final reason for the term “Torah of life” is that, in contrast to many other cultures which glorify death, the Torah occupies itself with life and sanctifies it.  There is no death worship in Judaism.  By delving into the tiniest details of all aspects of life, Halakha expresses its respect and appreciation for life in all its forms.  The Torah addresses every part of a person’s life and strives to sanctify all of it – including everything from creative life, through economic life, to the most everyday and material of daily activities.  The message that arises from the Torah’s occupation with these spheres is that every moment of life has significance, and can serve as the springboard to spiritual elevation.  In the Jewish view, a live dog is preferable to a dead lion.  So long as a person is alive, he may progress and sanctify himself.  But when he is dead, he is removed from the world of sanctification and the fulfillment of Halakha.

Some people posit that a “Torah of life” is a Torah that shows consideration for the realities and necessities of life.  According to this view, Torah sages should enact rabbinic rulings and interpret Halakha with a view towards addressing life’s issues.  In practice, this approach is popular mainly in specific areas of Halakha, in which the halakhic authorities have been especially lenient throughout the ages, such as their consideration for the anguish of “chained women” (who are refused divorces by their husbands) and the suffering of the poor.  This is not the place to treat this extensive subject in detail, but it should be emphasized that in this regard both extremes are wrong.  On the one hand, there are those who insist that for every issue and in every instance there must be a halakhic solution, and the only problem preventing the release of all the “chained women” in the world is the timidity and laziness of the halakhic authorities.  On the other hand, there are those who declare that the world of Halakha is self-contained, and no values need be taken into consideration other than purely halakhic ones.  In my view, a true Torah sage must feel a dual obligation: towards Torah and towards the Jewish people, and he must find the “golden mean” that balances the needs of these two factors.

3) “A LIFE OF TORAH”

In addition to speaking of a “Torah of life” (Torat chayyim), we also speak of a “life of Torah” (chayyei Torah). By this we mean a life that is based upon Torah – and this is true on several different levels. 

First, a “life of Torah” is built on the foundation of the Torah’s commandments; it is the Torah that directs one’s path.  On the most basic level, we are speaking of a life guided by Halakha; one makes one’s decisions and acts in accordance with the Torah’s directives.  But beyond this, a Jew who lives a life of Torah senses continually the weight of his or her responsibility as a commanded being.  This constant awareness is unique to the Jewish religion and to the Jewish nation.  There are many religions in which a person experiences God as the Creator, the Redeemer, the All-Powerful, and the Source of kindness, but a Jew experiences God primarily as the Law-Giver and the One Who commands.  A person who lives a life of Torah operates in accordance with this constant consciousness: as he or she wakes up in the morning, goes to work, eats, and even as when preparing to sleep.  There is no activity – even the most seemingly mundane and insignificant – that does not consult the Shulchan Arukh for guidance.

But a life of Torah is more than just a life founded upon halakhic awareness.  Along with the commandments that comprise Halakha, Torah also includes a whole system of values that establish the proper relationship between a person and God, the community, and the world in general.  A true life of Torah is one in which the spirit of Halakha influences one beyond its straightforward demands and prohibitions.  A person who lives a life of Torah understands that the Torah does more than just delimit parameters of the permissible and the forbidden.  It influences our attitudes towards all areas of life, such as politics, economics, and spirituality. 

A certain kippa-wearing professor one defined himself as an “observant secular Jew.”  This is certainly an extreme and exaggerated definition, but it does reflect the lifestyle of some people who call themselves “religious.” In their view, Torah merely defines the playing field and establishes the “rules of the game” within which life is to be lived.  They believe that one can think, feel and do as one pleases, as long as one does not break any of the technical rules.  A true life of Torah is not a secular life that features the observance of the commandments; rather, it is a life in which Torah is the “game” itself, not just the framework of its rules.  A person may be a shoemaker, a physicist or an economist, but if Torah lives within him and the focus of his life is the aspiration to “sit in God’s house all the days of my life” – then this person lives a life of Torah.  Such a person does not feel that Torah limits or constricts his life; rather, he feels that it guides and inspires him.

In this sense, a life of Torah is not just a life that is permissible according to Torah, but a life with Torah at its center.  In various contexts, the Gemara mentions the definition of a person “whose profession is Torah” (e.g.  Shabbat 11a).  Two of the greatest Rishonim – Ramah (Responsa, 248) and Rosh (Responsa, 15:8) – maintain that this definition refers to anyone whose aspiration is to “sit in God’s house,” and who organizes his life on the basis of this aspiration.  According to this definition, even a person who spends most of his day in a laboratory, for example, and only sits down to learn Torah at the end of the day – even this person may be considered one “whose profession is Torah.” This status stems from his feeling that he engages in the other spheres because he needs to – for his own benefit or for that of society – but his main desire is to “dwell in God’s house all the days of his life.” Even if a person does not devote his entire day to Torah study, the main question is how he relates to his occupation and what he does with his free time. 

What is common to all of these definitions is the negation of contrast or distinction between Torah and life.  Torah and life – by their very definition – do not compete with one another.  In its most perfect and ideal sense, “life” is defined as such specifically when it is a life of Torah, hinging on Torah values and on the aspiration towards involvement in Torah.  Similarly, the ideal sense of “Torah” is a Torah of life in that it addresses life, promotes life, and rewards those who engage in it with eternal life.  Any approach that attempts to negate these definitions and to draw a distinction between Torah and “true life” is alien to servants of God.  Only a view that identifies true life as a life of Torah can guide us on our spiritual path, on the road leading forever upward towards the House of God.

(This sicha was delivered in Summer 5761 [2001].)

*********************************************************************

Torah Values and Torah Commandments

By Harav Yehuda Amital

Translated by David Strauss

I. The Binding Power of Torah Values

The Torah obligates us to observe 613 mitzvot, to which the Sages added the mitzvot that are of rabbinic origin. It is very important to emphasize, however, that our obligations are not exhausted by the mitzvot. The Torah also embraces a system of values that impose obligations, even though they were never formally formulated as commandments.

Torat Kohanim states (Kedoshim, parasha 2; cited in Talmud Yerushalmi, Nedarim 9:4):

“And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Vayikra 19:18). Rabbi Akiva says: This is a great principle in the Torah.

Ben Azai says: “This is the book of the generations of man” (Bereishit 5:1) – This is an even greater principle.

According to Ben Azai, the verse, “This is the book of the generations of man,” is an “even greater principle,” perhaps because it relates not only to the Jewish people, but to every person by virtue of his or her being human.[1] If, however, we are talking about “a great principle,” does it not seem more reasonable to choose a verse dealing with a mitzva, such as, “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself”? It seems, therefore, that while the verse, “This is the book of the generations of man,” does not constitute a mitzva; it represents a value that has binding force just like a mitzva.

            The Gemara in Makkot (23b-24a) states:

Rabbi Simla’i expounded: Six hundred and thirteen mitzvot were told to Moshe...

David came and condensed them to eleven, as it is written: “A Psalm of David. Lord, who shall abide in Your tent? Who shall dwell in Your holy hill? He that walks uprightly, and acts justly, and speaks the truth in his heart. He that does not slander with his tongue, nor does evil to his fellow, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor. In whose eyes a vile person is despised; but he honors them that fear the Lord. He that swears to his own hurt, and changes not. He that does not put out his money on interest, nor takes a bribe against the innocent. He that does these things shall never be moved” (Tehillim 15:1-5)...

Yeshayahu came and condensed them to six, as it is written: “He that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly; he that despises the gain of oppressions, that shakes his hands from holding of bribes, that stops his ears from hearing of blood, and shuts his eyes from seeing evil” (Yeshayahu 33:15)...

Mikha came and condensed them to three, as it is written: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mikha 6:8).

Rashi explains (ad loc.):

“And he condensed them to eleven.” At first [the people] were righteous, and they were able to accept upon themselves the burden of many mitzvot. But the later generations were not as righteous, so that had they presumed to observe them all, nobody would have been found worthy. Therefore, David came and condensed them [to eleven], so that they should be found worthy if they observe those eleven mitzvot. Similarly, later generations continued to reduce them.

            Even though Rabbi Simla’i opened with a reference to the 613 mitzvot, some of the things mentioned in connection with David, Yeshayahu, and Mikha – such as “walking humbly with God” and “shutting one’s eyes from seeing evil” – are not included among the six hundred and thirteen commandments! The verses cited here deal not only with mitzvot, but also with values – values that are an integral part of the Torah. Mikha reduced the 613 mitzvot to three values, and these values have binding force just like mitzvot.

            Rabbi Chayyim Vital develops a parallel idea regarding character traits (Sha’ar Kedusha I:2):

The good and bad traits depend on this soul; they are the seat, foundation, and root of the rational soul, upon which depend the 613 mitzvot... It is for this reason that the character traits are not included among the 613 mitzvot. They serve, however, as the primary preparation for the 613 mitzvot... because the rational soul is not strong enough to fulfill the 613 mitzvot through the 613 organs of the body, but only through the fundamental soul that is connected to the body itself... Hence, one must be more careful about bad traits than about fulfilling the positive or negative precepts. For when a person has good traits, he will easily fulfill all the mitzvot.

The Torah does not relate to positive character traits as commandments, but nevertheless Rabbi Chayyim Vital sees them as being even more basic and fundamental than observance of the mitzvot.

II. Values Derived from the Torah

Many values were not explicitly formulated as imperatives in the Torah, but nonetheless are an inseparable part of it. The value of gratitude is derived from the verse: “You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land” (Devarim 23:8). Hospitality is not an explicit mitzva, but it too is derived from the Torah:

Hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence, as it is written [when Avraham spied the three strangers while he was speaking with God] (Bereishit 18:3): “And he said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, pass not away, I pray You, [from Your servant].” (Shabbat 127a)

The Gemara (Berakhot 19b) attempts to derive the value of human dignity – about which Chazal said: “So great is human dignity that it sets aside a negative commandment in the Torah” (ibid.) – from the law governing the behavior of the nazirite: “He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die” (Bamidbar 6:7):

“Or for his sister” – what does the verse teach? If a person was going to slaughter his paschal offering or to circumcise his son, and he heard that a relative died, should he return and make himself unclean? It says: “He shall not make himself unclean.”

Do we say that just as he does not make himself unclean for them, so he does not make himself unclean for a mitzva-corpse [a body with nobody available to bury it]? Therefore the verse says: “Or for his sister” – for his sister he does not make himself unclean, but he makes himself unclean for a mitzva-corpse.

The Gemara ultimately rejects this derivation, but we may still learn from here that in addition to explicit mitzvot, there are also values which may be derived from the Torah.

            There are also certain values that are derived from scriptural stories, through a study of biblical characters and their conduct. This seems to be the meaning of the following Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 60:8):

Rabbi Acha said: The ordinary conversation of the patriarchs’ servants is more pleasing [to God] than the Torah of their children. The incident involving Eliezer is two or three pages; it is stated [once as a narrative] and repeated [in Eliezer’s conversation]. Whereas [the laws governing] a creeping creature are an essential part of the Torah, but the law that its blood imparts ritual impurity like its flesh is only derived by way of an extraneous element in Scripture.

III. General Values

Over and above the specific values discussed above, the Torah also contains general values, which are also endowed with binding force. The Ramban comments on the verse, “And you shall do what is right and good” (Devarim 6:18):

Our Rabbis have a beautiful midrash on this verse. They have said: “[‘That which is right and good’] refers to compromise and going beyond the letter of the law.” The intent of this is as follows: At first, he [Moshe] stated that you are to keep His statutes and His testimonies which He commanded you, and now he is stating that even where He has not commanded you, give thought, as well, to do what is good and right in His eyes, for He loves the good and the right.

Now, this is a great principle, for it is impossible to mention in the Torah all aspects of man’s conduct with his neighbors and friends, and all his various transactions, and the ordinances of all societies and countries. But since He mentioned many of them – such as, “You shall not go up and down as a talebearer” (Vayikra 19:16); “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge” (ibid., v. 18); “Neither shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (ibid., v. 16); “You shall not curse the deaf” (ibid., v. 15); “You shall rise up before the hoary head” (ibid., v. 32) and the like – He reverted to state in a general way that, in all matters, one should do what is good and right, including even compromise and going beyond the requirements of the law.

Other examples [of “good and right” behavior] are the Rabbis’ ordinances concerning the bar metzra (the prerogative of a neighbor to receive preference in buying a field adjacent to his, Bava Metzia 108a), and even what they said [concerning the desirability] that one’s youthful reputation be unblemished, and that one’s conversation with people be pleasant (Yoma 86a). Thus, [a person must seek to refine his behavior] in every form of activity, until he is worthy of being called “good and upright.”

Another general value is that ensuring that “[The Torah’s] ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Mishlei 3:17). The Gemara makes use of this principle in several places, giving it clear halakhic weight. For example, the Gemara rejects the possibility that the verse, “branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick leaved trees” (Vayikra 23:40), refers to thorny plants, because such an identification would contradict the value that the Torah’s ways be pleasant (Sukka 32a-b).

In a similar vein, Rambam writes at the end of Hilkhot Chanuka (4:14):

If such a poor man needs oil for both a Shabbat lamp and a Chanuka lamp, or oil for a Shabbat lamp and wine for Kiddush, the Shabbat lamp should have priority for the sake of domestic peace, seeing that even a Divine name may be erased to make peace between husband and wife. Great indeed is peace; the whole of the Law was given to bring peace upon the world, as it is said: “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Mishlei 3:17).

            Values such as these guided halakhic authorities in many cases throughout the generations.[2] It is important to be aware of the existence of these and other values, for they must be taken into account in practical decision-making.

            In extreme cases, certain values are so important that they overpower, at least temporarily, the obligation to perform certain mitzvot, when a contradiction arises between a value and a mitzva. This is the meaning of the rule: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah” (Tehillim 119:126), mentioned, for example, in Mishna Berakhot (9:5):

It was also enacted that greetings should be given in [God’s] name... And it also says: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah” (Tehillim 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: [This means] they have made void Your Torah because it is time to act for the Lord.

Rashi offers the following explanation (Berakhot 54a):

We must sometimes void the words of the Torah in order to act for the Lord. Here, too, one who intends to greet his fellow fulfills the will of God, as it says: “Seek peace and pursue it” (Tehillim 34:15). He is permitted to void the Torah and do something that appears to be forbidden.

The value of greeting one’s fellow is so important that it sets aside the prohibition of uttering God’s name. This value is not defined as a mitzva, but it is regarded as “the will of God.”

IV. “A Degenerate within the Confines of the Torah”

A lack of awareness regarding the importance of values, besides its effect on halakhic decision-making, is liable to lead to additional problems as well. One of the general values found in the Torah is the command: “You shall be holy” (Vayikra 19:2). Ramban, in his commentary to that verse, explains why this general command was necessary:

The meaning thereof is as follows: The Torah has admonished us against immorality and forbidden foods, but permitted sexual intercourse between man and his wife, and the eating of [certain] meat and wine. If so, a man of desire could consider this to be permission to be passionately addicted to sexual intercourse with his wife or many wives, and be among “winebibbers, among gluttonous eaters of flesh” (Mishlei 23:20), and speak all profanities freely, since this prohibition has not been [expressly] mentioned in the Torah, and thus he will become a degenerate within the confines of the Torah!

Therefore, after having listed the matters which God prohibited altogether, Scripture followed them up by a general command that we practice moderation even in matters which are permitted...

Similarly, he should keep himself away from impurity [in his ordinary daily activity], even though we have not been admonished against it in the Torah, similar to that which the Rabbis have said: “For the Pharisees, the  clothes of the unlearned are considered as if trodden upon by a zav” [or zava – a man or woman having suffered a flux] (Chagiga 18b), and just as the nazirite is called “holy” (Bamidbar 6:8) because he guards himself from the impurity of the dead. Likewise, one should guard one’s mouth and tongue from being defiled by excessive food and by lewd talk... And one should purify oneself in this respect, until one reaches the degree known as complete “self-restraint,” as the Rabbis said concerning Rabbi Chiyya, that never in his life did he engage in unnecessary talk.

It is with reference to these and similar matters that the general commandment [“You shall be holy”] is concerned, after He had enumerated all individual deeds which are strictly forbidden, so that cleanliness of hands and body are also included in this precept, just as the Rabbis have said: “And you shall sanctify yourselves” – this refers to the washing of hands before meals. “And you shall be holy” – this refers to the washing of hands after meals... For although these [washings] are commandments of rabbinic origin, Scripture’s main intention is to warn us of such matters, so that we should be [physically] clean and ritually [pure], and separated from the common people who soil themselves with luxuries and unseemly things.

            Ramban notes that it is possible to observe all the mitzvot of the Torah, but nevertheless live a lifestyle that is totally contrary to Torah values. A person who conducts his life in this manner is “a degenerate within the confines of the Torah.” His path in life follows from the mistaken belief that the Torah gives binding force only to the formal mitzvot, but not to values.

            We see this danger in the words of the Gemara in Kiddushin (31a-b):

Avimi the son of Rabbi Abahu taught: One can feed his father pheasants, and it drives him out of the world; and one can make his father grind in the mill, and it brings him to life in the world-to-come.

Rashi explains:

“Pheasants” – a valuable and fatty fowl, the species that fell in the wilderness.

“And it drives him out of the world” – he is punished for it, because he eyes [his father] enviously regarding the meal.

“And it brings him to the world-to-come” – because he shows him honor by speaking nice and consoling words, and he casts the work upon him in a gentle tone, showing him that it is a present necessity because they cannot support themselves without this tiring work.

The Yerushalmi cites an incident for each of them:

“An incident involving one who would feed his father pheasants. Once, his father said to him: ‘From where do you have all this?’ He said to him: ‘Old man, what do you care, grind and eat,’ i.e., chew and eat, thus showing how hard it was for him.

Another incident involving one who would grind in the mill. He had an elderly father, whom the king summoned for the king’s work. His son said to him: ‘Father, you grind, and I will go in your stead for the king’s work, which has no set limit.’”

            This passage highlights the fact that the formal fulfillment of a mitzva that does not give expression to its underlying value is liable to be very negative, whereas an act that is not a formal mitzva can be very meaningful, when accompanied by some expression of a value that the mitzva wishes to realize.

V. The Need for Both Systems

If values have binding force like mitzvot, why then were we not commanded about values in a direct manner, as we were commanded about the mitzvot? I wish to suggest an answer to this question, based on the words of Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook (Iggerot Ha-Ra’aya, letter 89, p. 97):

Indeed, the Patriarchs fulfilled the Torah out of free, internal recognition. This benefit should not be missing from a great part of the moral realm. This is the foundation of the hidden parts [of the Law] that emerge as traits of piety and actions that go beyond the letter of the law. For had they come as mandatory Halakha, they would have blurred the fixed guidelines, going ahead and illuminating for all generations...

That aspect of morality which must arise out of charity and the love of kindness must always be the greater part of general positive morality, just as the open air is in comparison with the buildings and cultural activities in them; it is impossible that they should not leave it a very broad expanse.

That which must attach itself [to the Law] through voluntary giving of the spirit and freedom of the good will must come as an act of piety. One cannot measure the magnitude of the loss that human culture would suffer if these exalted virtues were set as fixed obligations.  Only that which is most essential for present physical and moral life, and which, if weakened, harms the roots of the future, becomes law, and [of this it is written,] “Greater is he who is commanded and acts.” But that which penetrates to the depth of good as it stands and spreads as dew of life... merits to be fixed as voluntary and love of kindness. This is the fate of [duties] “beyond the letter of the law,” which will be of great benefit when man’s heart of stone will turn into a heart of flesh.

Therefore, that part which remains beyond the letter of the law must perforce remain in that state. As humanity elevates itself, the qualities of piety will go out from the private to the public domain, and will belong to the entire people, and “all your children shall be taught by the Lord.”

            The ideal situation would have been for man to fulfill all the mitzvot out of internal motivation, in the manner of the Patriarchs, and not out of coercion. God anticipated which things man should fulfill out of coercion, and which out of internal identification. Those things that were left in the category of “pious behavior” and were not formally established as mitzvot, remain connected to the moral development of the people. It is of great importance that values stemming from moral characteristics should flow from man’s internal self, and not from any external imperative.

            Restricting oneself to formal adherence to the defined commandments and codified law is likely to come at the cost of developing moral aspirations for justice and uprightness. If the religious world of the individual Jew and the Jewish people as a whole is restricted to formal molds, it will strangle feelings of justice and uprightness. Leaving room for the moral personality of the individual and the nation may lead to worship of God out of full moral identification.

[1] This is the way the passage was understood by the Korban Ha-Eda commentary on the Yerushalmi, ad loc. For alternative explanations, see Penei Moshe, ad loc., and the commentaries by Ra’avad and attributed to Rash of Sens on Torat Kohanim, ad loc.

[2] See, for example, Encyclopedia Talmudit, vol. IV, pp. 712-715, s.v., darkhei no’am.