Maybe Mitzvot Might Be Moral.
Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
ShareIs there equivalency between mitzvot and morality?
Plato: Does God desire good because it is good, or is something good because God desires it?
כִּ֣י יִקָּרֵ֣א קַן־צִפּ֣וֹר ׀ לְפָנֶ֡יךָ בַּדֶּ֜רֶךְ בְּכָל־עֵ֣ץ ׀ א֣וֹ עַל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֶפְרֹחִים֙ א֣וֹ בֵיצִ֔ים וְהָאֵ֤ם רֹבֶ֙צֶת֙ עַל־הָֽאֶפְרֹחִ֔ים א֖וֹ עַל־הַבֵּיצִ֑ים לֹא־תִקַּ֥ח הָאֵ֖ם עַל־הַבָּנִֽים׃
If, along the road, you chance upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs, do not take the mother together with her young.
שַׁלֵּ֤חַ תְּשַׁלַּח֙ אֶת־הָאֵ֔ם וְאֶת־הַבָּנִ֖ים תִּֽקַּֽח־לָ֑ךְ לְמַ֙עַן֙ יִ֣יטַב לָ֔ךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ֖ יָמִֽים׃ (ס)
Let the mother go, and take only the young, in order that you may fare well and have a long life.
Theocracy
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ תְּרֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי בְּמַעְרְבָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא: חַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמֵּטִיל קִנְאָה בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית. וְחַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רַחֲמִים, וְאֵינָן אֶלָּא גְּזֵרוֹת.
Two amora’im in Eretz Yisrael disputed this question; Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida; one said that this was because he engenders jealousy among God’s creations, as it appears as though he is protesting the fact that the Lord favored one creature over all others. And one said that this was because he transforms the attributes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, into expressions of mercy, when they are nothing but decrees of the King that must be fulfilled without inquiring into the reasons behind them.
Rav Moshe Lichtenstein, What Has Brisk Wrought, Torah Umada Journal, 2001
Here is a solid metaphysical foundation to the Brisker enterprise. The focus upon the “what” simply reflects the fact that man’s primary goal in life is perceived as following God’s dictates rather than understanding them. Just as the soldier following his commanding officer’s orders or the servant obeying his master must understand and fulfill the task at hand rather than speculate on the reason for the order, so too the role of man is not to fathom why God imposed an imperative upon him but to perform what is required of him. Middat ha-yir’ah (the attribute of Awe)— in the Brisker perspective—engages man’s obedience and demands that he accept and follow God’s imperatives. Taking its cue from the verse that distills God’s expectation of Am Yisrael into a concise formulation of obedience—“now, Israel, what does the Lord your God demand of you, only to fear the Lord your God and to observe His mizvot ...” — the relationship between the Almighty and man implies man’s subordination to his Master. The point is forcefully made by the gemara (Rosh ha-Shanah 16a) which recoils in astonishment at the question “why do we blow shofar?!” The self-evident reason is the simple fact that we were so commanded. No more and no less.
Here is a solid metaphysical foundation to the Brisker enterprise. The focus upon the “what” simply reflects the fact that man’s primary goal in life is perceived as following God’s dictates rather than understanding them. Just as the soldier following his commanding officer’s orders or the servant obeying his master must understand and fulfill the task at hand rather than speculate on the reason for the order, so too the role of man is not to fathom why God imposed an imperative upon him but to perform what is required of him. Middat ha-yir’ah (the attribute of Awe)— in the Brisker perspective—engages man’s obedience and demands that he accept and follow God’s imperatives. Taking its cue from the verse that distills God’s expectation of Am Yisrael into a concise formulation of obedience—“now, Israel, what does the Lord your God demand of you, only to fear the Lord your God and to observe His mizvot ...” — the relationship between the Almighty and man implies man’s subordination to his Master. The point is forcefully made by the gemara (Rosh ha-Shanah 16a) which recoils in astonishment at the question “why do we blow shofar?!” The self-evident reason is the simple fact that we were so commanded. No more and no less.
A Pragmatic Morality
The Beautiful Woman and the Predatory Solider
וְרָאִיתָ֙ בַּשִּׁבְיָ֔ה אֵ֖שֶׁת יְפַת־תֹּ֑אַר וְחָשַׁקְתָּ֣ בָ֔הּ וְלָקַחְתָּ֥ לְךָ֖ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃
and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her to wife,
ת"ר וראית בשביה בשעת שביה אשת ואפילו אשת איש יפת תואר לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע מוטב שיאכלו ישראל בשר
The Sages taught: With regard to a beautiful captive, the verse states: “And sees among the captives,” teaching that this halakha applies only if he notices her when she is a captive. The expression “a woman” teaches that she is permitted even if she is a married woman. The phrase “a beautiful woman” indicates that the Torah here spoke only in response to the evil inclination, as it is due to her beauty that he desired her. And why does the Torah permit this? It is preferable for Jews to eat the meat
תמותות שחוטות ואל יאכלו בשר תמותות נבילות (דברים כא, יא) וחשקת אע"פ שאינה נאה בה ולא בה ובחברתה
of dying animals that were slaughtered, and let them not eat the meat of dying animals that were not slaughtered but which will become carcasses. In other words, it is preferable for this act to be performed in a somewhat permitted way rather than in a manner that is entirely prohibited. The expression: “And you have a desire for her and would take her to you as a wife” (Deuteronomy 21:11), teaches that this halakha applies even if she is not pretty, as this is a subjective judgment dependent on one’s desire. The term “for her” indicates that he may take her, but not her and another woman. A soldier is allowed to take only one captive in this manner.
Cordoba versus Girona
Mitzvot: Intended to give us a clue into a large moral code that governs the universe
וכן אסר לשחוט 'אותו ואת בנו' 'ביום אחד' - להשמר ולהרחיק לשחוט משניהם הבן לעיני האם כי צער בעלי חיים בזה גדול מאד אין הפרש בין צער האדם עליו וצער שאר בעלי חיים כי אהבת האם ורחמיה על הולד אינו נמשך אחר השכל רק אחר פועל הכח המדמה הנמצא ברוב בעלי חיים כמו שנמצא באדם. והיה זה הדין מיוחד ב'שור ושה' מפני שהם - מותר לנו אכילתם מן הביתיות הנהוג לאכלם והם אשר תכיר מהם האם מן הולד:
It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28), in order that people should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in the sight of the mother; for the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb, because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted to us, and in these cases the mother recognises her young.
וזה הטעם גם כן ב'שילוח הקן' כי הביצים אשר שכבה האם עליהם והאפרוחים הצריכים לאמם על הרוב אינם ראויים לאכילה וכשישלח האם ותלך לה לא תצטער בראות לקיחת הבנים. ועל הרוב יהיה סיבה להניח הכל כי מה שהיה לוקח ברוב הפעמים אינו ראוי לאכילה: ואם אלו הצערים הנפשיים חסר התורה עליהם בבהמות ובעופות כל שכן בבני האדם כולם. ולא תקשה עלי באמרם 'ז"ל' "האומר על קן צפור יגיעו רחמיך וגו'" - כי הוא לפי אחת משני הדעות אשר זכרנום - רצוני לומר דעת מי שחושב שאין טעם לתורה אלא הרצון לבד ואנחנו נמשכנו אחר הדעת השני:
The same reason applies to the law which enjoins that we should let the mother fly away when we take the young. The eggs over which the bird sits, and the young that are in need of their mother, are generally unfit for food, and when the mother is sent away she does not see the taking of her young ones, and does not feel any pain. In most cases, however, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest untouched, because [the young or the eggs], which he is allowed to take, are, as a rule, unfit for food. If the Law provides that such grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellowmen. When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion.
Mitzvot: For man's own self-improvement
רמב"ן
כי יקרא קן צפור לפניך גם זו מצוה מבוארת מן אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד (ויקרא כב כח) כי הטעם בשניהם לבלתי היות לנו לב אכזרי ולא נרחם או שלא יתיר הכתוב לעשות השחתה לעקור המין אע"פ שהתיר השחיטה במין ההוא והנה ההורג האם והבנים ביום אחד או לוקח אותם בהיות להם דרור לעוף כאלו יכרית המין .
וכן מה שאמרו (ברכות לג) לפי שעושה מדותיו של הקב"ה רחמים ואינן אלא גזרות לומר שלא חס האל על קן צפור ולא הגיעו רחמיו על אותו ואת בנו שאין רחמיו מגיעין בבעלי הנפש הבהמית למנוע אותנו מלעשות בהם צרכנו שאם כן היה אוסר השחיטה אבל טעם המניעה ללמד אותנו מדת הרחמנות ושלא נתאכזר כי האכזריות תתפשט בנפש האדם כידוע בטבחים שוחטי השורים הגדולים והחמורים שהם אנשי דמים זובחי אדם אכזרים מאד ומפני זה אמרו (קידושין פב) טוב שבטבחים שותפו של עמלק והנה המצות האלה בבהמה ובעוף אינן רחמנות עליהם אלא גזירות בנו להדריכנו וללמד אותנו המדות הטובות
Ramban
That which is written (Brachot 33b) about making God’s attributes into mercy when they are only decrees, means that God does not have concern for a bird’s nest and His mercy does not extend to the bird nor its children, for His Mercy is not upon the souls of animals which prevent us (humans) from fulfilling our needs. If this were so slaughtering animals would be prohibited.
Rather the reason for the prohibition of taking the mother with the eggs is to teach us the attribute of compassion and an aversion to cruelty. For cruelty spreads in man’s soul, as is known that butchers and slaughterers of large animals are men of blood and very cruel people – upon this the Talmud writes that butchers are the associates of Amalek. And so these mitzvoth concerning animals and birds are not mercy upon the animals, but decrees for us to lead and teach us positive attributes
A Theology of Inquiry
Ibn Ezra, Shemot 20:1
… And the second kind are the mitzvot with hidden rationales, regarding which it was not stated explicitly why they were commanded. And Heaven forbid that one of those mitzvot should contradict sound reasoning. It is just that we are obligated to keep all that God has commanded us, whether or not its secret has been revealed to us. And if we should find that one of them contradicts sound reasoning, it is not right that we should believe that it must be understood literally. Rather, we must seek its rationale in the works of our Sages of blessed memory, when it is to be understood metaphorically. And if we do not find this in writing, we should seek it ourselves and search for it to the best of our abilities, perhaps we can fix it. And if we are unable to do so, we should let it rest as is, and admit that we do not understand it. As in the case of "And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart" – did He cruelly command us to kill ourselves?
… And the second kind are the mitzvot with hidden rationales, regarding which it was not stated explicitly why they were commanded. And Heaven forbid that one of those mitzvot should contradict sound reasoning. It is just that we are obligated to keep all that God has commanded us, whether or not its secret has been revealed to us. And if we should find that one of them contradicts sound reasoning, it is not right that we should believe that it must be understood literally. Rather, we must seek its rationale in the works of our Sages of blessed memory, when it is to be understood metaphorically. And if we do not find this in writing, we should seek it ourselves and search for it to the best of our abilities, perhaps we can fix it. And if we are unable to do so, we should let it rest as is, and admit that we do not understand it. As in the case of "And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart" – did He cruelly command us to kill ourselves?
A Theology of Relationship
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוָ֔ה זַעֲקַ֛ת סְדֹ֥ם וַעֲמֹרָ֖ה כִּי־רָ֑בָּה וְחַ֨טָּאתָ֔ם כִּ֥י כָבְדָ֖ה מְאֹֽד׃
Then the LORD said, “The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave!
אֵֽרֲדָה־נָּ֣א וְאֶרְאֶ֔ה הַכְּצַעֲקָתָ֛הּ הַבָּ֥אָה אֵלַ֖י עָשׂ֣וּ ׀ כָּלָ֑ה וְאִם־לֹ֖א אֵדָֽעָה׃
I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether according to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.”
וַיִּפְנ֤וּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיֵּלְכ֖וּ סְדֹ֑מָה וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עוֹדֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃
The men went on from there to Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the LORD.
וַיִּגַּ֥שׁ אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַאַ֣ף תִּסְפֶּ֔ה צַדִּ֖יק עִם־רָשָֽׁע׃
Abraham came forward and said, “Will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?
אוּלַ֥י יֵ֛שׁ חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים צַדִּיקִ֖ם בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעִ֑יר הַאַ֤ף תִּסְפֶּה֙ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֣א לַמָּק֔וֹם לְמַ֛עַן חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים הַצַּדִּיקִ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּקִרְבָּֽהּ׃
What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it?
חָלִ֨לָה לְּךָ֜ מֵעֲשֹׂ֣ת ׀ כַּדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה לְהָמִ֤ית צַדִּיק֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע וְהָיָ֥ה כַצַּדִּ֖יק כָּרָשָׁ֑ע חָלִ֣לָה לָּ֔ךְ הֲשֹׁפֵט֙ כָּל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לֹ֥א יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה מִשְׁפָּֽט׃
Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוָ֔ה אִם־אֶמְצָ֥א בִסְדֹ֛ם חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים צַדִּיקִ֖ם בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעִ֑יר וְנָשָׂ֥אתִי לְכָל־הַמָּק֖וֹם בַּעֲבוּרָֽם׃
And the LORD answered, “If I find within the city of Sodom fifty innocent ones, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.”
Maybe Morality is a Collaborative Project
God not only dwells in the world, but invites all creation, and the human creature, into relationship. The energy of that unfolding relationship charges through humanity, distilling into scripture, ongoing commentary, and the ever-renewing, ever-growing corpus that is the harvest of relationship, of covenant.
-R'Bradley Shavit Artson
-R'Bradley Shavit Artson