Listening to the Mitzvot
R. Yaakov Bieler
Parashat Mishpatim 5769
Parashat Mishpatim contains a
two-word phrase that in terms of Jewish tradition quintessentially symbolizes
the relationship between God and
Shemot 24:7
And
he (Moshe) took the “Book of the Covenant” and he read in the ears of the
people and they said, “All that HaShem Spoke, ‘Na’aseh VeNishma’ (we
will do and we will hear.)”[1]
The
phrase “Na’aseh VeNishma” is a more developed statement of acceptance of
God’s Law than the comparable verse appearing earlier in Shemot:
Shemot 19:8
And
all of the people answered together and they said, “All that HaShem Spoke, ‘Na’aseh’
(we willdo)…
The
difference between the two statements could be explained contextually in the
sense that whereas the earlier instance was a response to the proposal that God
had Made to the Jewish people, which was conveyed to them via Moshe:
Shemot 19:5-6
And
now you will surely listen to My Voice and you will observe My Covenant and you
will be to Me a treasure above all of the nations because the entire universe
is Mine.
And
you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words
that you (Moshe) will speak to the Children of Israel,
the later
enunciation of Na’aseh VeNishma in Shemot 24 constituted a
response to Moshe’s reading of the Book of the Covenant, which rather than
dealing theoretically with the general idea of Commandments, as was the
case in 19:5, instead spelled out a great many instances of the specific
actions that were expected of the people.[2]
The broad range of Commandments that would then be contained in the Sefer
HaBerit that Moshe reads prior to the people’s response when we assume that
Chapter 24 is in its proper chronological position,[3]
includes both civil and religious laws. Consequently, when the Jewish people
proclaim, “Na’aseh VeNishma,” they are responding to a far more
representative portion of the entire corpus of Jewish law than the “Na’aseh”
of Chapter 19 which could only refer to a far narrower set of Commandments.
Nevertheless, Ibn Ezra feels that
the terminology “Na’aseh VeNisha,” perhaps due to the unnatural
sequence—ordinarily one must hear what is to be done before one carries out a
particular action—bears further explication, and he offers not only his own
explanation, but a number that he attributes to one of the Gaonim:
Ibn
Ezra (Peirush HaKatzar)[4]
on Shemot 24:7
a)
Initially
he told them (what would be involved) and they responded in one voice, “Na’aseh.”
At that point he read them what was written (in Sefer HaBerit) and they
said , “Nishma,” implying, “We will carry out all that is written and we
will hear it eternally, i.e., it will not be forgotten from our mouths.”
b)
And
R. Saadia Gaon says that it is out of chronological order (despite that
the order is unnatural, it does not signify anything in particular,)[5]
c)
Or
“Na’aseh” the Commandments that are implanted within our hearts (those
directives from which Revelation is unnecessary since they are logical, e.g.,
civil law in Parashat Mishpatim) and “Nishma” those Commandments
that must be received (from a Divine Source, e.g., ritual law, laws that are
referred to as “Chukim” due to the obscure nature of their rationales,)
d)
Or
“Na’aseh” all of the Commandments that we have been Commanded to this
point, and “Nishma” all of the future Commandments,[6]
e)
Or
“Na’aseh” (we will comply with) the positive Commandments (where action
is required) and “Nishma” avoid transgressing the negative Commandments
(where non-action reflects compliance with the Divine Will.)
It is interesting
that a phrase for which the Jewish people have been inordinately praised,[7]
could have so many connotations. But perhaps that is precisely the point, i.e.,
that these two words operate upon many levels, each one revealing an additional
dimension of the virtues of the Jewish people. Taking the interpretations of
Ibn Ezra as a template, the following admirable aspects of the people are
encapsulated by their declaration, “Na’aseh VeNishma”:
a)
They
are dependable and consistent,
b)
They
are anxious to learn God’s Will and then carry it out,
c)
They
do not consider themselves to be the measure of all things, but are prepared to
not only act rationally but also in accordance with Revelations which they
might not understand,
d)
They
are committed to not only be faithful to what has already been presented to
them, but are also prepared to take on new directives,
e)
They
are not interested solely in those aspects of Jewish tradition that might
establish Jewish identity (positive Commandments) but also practices that engender
self-control and restraint (negative Commandments.)
R. Chaim Sabato, in his work on Parashat
HaShavua, Ahavat Tora,[8]
cites R. Yaakov Moshe Charlop,[9]
a student and colleague of R. Kook, who suggests the following alternative
interpretation for “Na’aseh VeNishma”: The statement reflects a
readiness on the part of the people to “listen” to the action that they
perform. R. Sabato proceeds to clarify this idea by adding the thoughts of R. Moshe
Tzvi Neria,[10]
another of R. Kook’s students:
An
animal also can hear, but he does not “Makshiv” (listen.) It is man who
listens. And the difference between one man and another is the degree to which
each listens.
I believe
that there are at least two ways to consider R. Charlop’s concept of “listening
to actions.” On the one hand, “listening to Mitzvot” brings to mind the
beautiful image cited by R. Nachman of Bretslav when explaining the attraction
that certain ideas or individuals exert on others:
Each
wisdom in accordance with its attributes and level has a melody that is fitting
and especially appropriate only for it, and the same is true from level to
level. The attribute of wisdom at the highest level has a more ethereal melody,
and the same is true higher and higher, until one comes to the point from which
all of the Creation Emanated, the point of Divine Emanations. Belief also has
associated with it a special melody that is unique to belief. And as we see,
even the belief in idolatry with all of its errors, each such belief has a
unique melody. The wisdom of heresy also has a melody that is unique to it, as
they said concerning Acher (Elisha ben Avuya), “that a Greek
melody never was absent from his mouth.”[11]
The Tzaddik (righteous man) comprehends the most ethereal melody.[12]
Could the
metaphor of “listening to a Mitzva” suggest that one attunes him/herself
to its inner holiness and spirituality, the esoteric “melody” that were it to
be apprehended, would indicate that the Commandment has been understood “body
and soul.”
An alternate approach which
emphasizes the cognitive rather than the affective dimension of Mitzva
observance, is suggested by the interpretation of a 19th century
commentator re a portion of a Mishna in Pirkei Avot:
Avot 4:2
Ben Azai said: …that the reward of a Mitzva
is a Mitzva and the “reward” (compensation) for a transgression is a
transgression.
R.
S.R. Hirsch
“…The
knowledge that you have done the Will of your Father in Heaven will bring you
closer to Him; it will enrich your spirit by the happy awareness of having done
the right thing, and reinforce your moral capacity for doing good. The reverse
is true of sin…every sin bears within itself the seeds of its own punishment.
It removes you from the pure and loving Presence of your Father in Heaven; it
will awaken within you the torturing pangs of conscience, it will dull the keen
edge of your moral judgment and weaken your resistance to future evil.[13]
From this
perspective, “listening to the Mitzva” or “Aveira” for that
matter, involves reflection and introspection with regard to the effects and
consequences that will come about via each performance and violation. As
opposed to mechanistic enactments of the Commandments, when in addition to
compliance there is also deep understanding and thoughtfulness, the religious
experience becomes truly significant. Furthermore, the insight built upon R.
Hirsch’s approach will not only have positive benefits with regard to the
finite Mitzvot that one regularly carries out, but will equip an
individual to also deal with situations that he may not have encountered
previously, in the spirit of a classical commentator’s interpretation of a verse in Devarim:
Devarim 6:18
And you will do the straight and the
good in the Eyes of HaShem in order that He will Do good for you and you
will come and inherit the good land that HaShem Swore to your ancestors.
RaMBaN
…And the Rabbis have a beautiful
interpretation. They said: This refers to compromise and acting beyond the
letter of the law. And the meaning of this—since initially the Tora states that
you will observe His Statutes and His Testimonies that He will Command you, and
now He Says that also regarding that which He does not Command you, consciously
do what is good and straight in His Eyes, because He Loves the good and the
straight.
And this is a great matter, because it
is impossible to mention in the Tora all human behaviors with his neighbors and
friends, and all of the business dealings and initiatives to improve society
and government. But after He Mentions many of them, e.g., (VaYikra
19:16) “Do not be a talebearer;” (Ibid. 18) “Do not bear a grudge and do not
take revenge;” (Ibid. 16) “Do not stand (idly watching) the blood of your
brother (be spilled);” (Ibid. 14) “Do not curse the deaf (this is to be
understood both literally and figuratively, i.e., do not curse someone behind
his back when for all intents and purposes he is “deaf” to what you say);”
(Ibid., 32) “Before the elderly stand up;” and the like, he summarizes and says
in a general way that one should do the good and the straight in all matters,
until one enters into the area of compromise and going beyond the letter of the
law, as is the case in the law of Bar Matzra (see Bava Metzia
108a. The ethical principle inherent in this case is “Zeh Neheneh VeZeh Lo
Chaser” [this one benefits and this one does not lose, i.e., if in a
situation one can maintain his own level of benefit and at the same time do
something that will benefit another, it is inappropriate not to pursue such a
course of action]). And also with regard to what the Rabbis say (Yoma
86a) that one’s appearance should be pleasing and one should speak properly
with all people, to the point where one’s actions in every context is whole and
straight.
Listening to Mitzvot in a cognitive
way in the sense of extrapolating the spiritual and ethical essence of the
Commandment has implications and repercussions for those areas of life not
explicitly included in the codes and primary sources. A truly holy life is one
wherein the Tora and its Commandments pervade every conscious moment turning
even what may appear to be mundane activities into performances in accord with
God’s Will. Developing such a sensibility can come about only when one not only
says and does “Na’aseh”, but also “Nishma.”
[1] One would have expected the verse including this
phrase to have been included in Shemot 19, the chapter that leads up to
the bestowing of the Ten Commandments upon the Jewish people. The actual
chronology of events with respect to Chapter 24, i.e., whether it followed
the receiving of the Ten Commandments as well as the legal contents of Parashat
Mishpatim (Shemot 21-23), or is to be understood as additional
detail to the events leading up to the giving of the Ten Commandments,
and therefore an embellishment of Shemot 19, is the subject of a dispute
amongst commentators, and another possible example, at least according to some,
of the principle ”Ein Mukdam U’Meuchar BaTora” (there is no
chronological order to the stories as they appear in the Tora.) One
manifestation of this argument is the extent of the contents of the “Sefer
HaBrit” that Moshe reads to the people prior to their statement of “Na’aseh VeNishma”: RaShI
contends that Moshe read the book of Beraishit as well as everything up
to the Giving of the Tora (certainly chapter 17; the timing of chapter 18 is
also in dispute, in light of the verse 18:16 mentioning the “statutes and laws”
that Moshe was adjudicating in the presence of his father-in-law Yitro—how many
such rules existed prior to the Giving of the Tora?) as well as the
Commandments that are traditionally believed to have been given at Mara, based
upon the verse 15:25 “Sham Sam Lo Chok U’Mishpat” (there were
placed before him [the Jewish people] statutes and laws.) Sanhedrin
56b proposes that these laws included Para Aduma (the red heifer,
referred to in BaMidbar 19:2 as “Chukat HaTora”; Dinim
(civil law) connoted by “Mishpat”, as well as Kibud Av VaEim and Shabbat
due to textual variations between Shemot 20:7, 11 and Devarim
5:11, 15 In contrast to RaShI, Ibn Ezra and Sephorno state
that the “Sefer HaBrit” also included the laws in Parashat Mishpatim,
therefore indicating their view that Shemot 24 appears in its proper
chronological place within the Biblical text.
[2] Such an understanding of Shemot 24:7 correlates better with the views of Ibn Ezra and Sephorno than RaShI regarding the nature of Sefer HaBrit—see fn.1.
[3] Treatment of Jewish male and female slaves
Prohibitions
against murder
Consequences
of personally damaging another’s body
Particular
care that is required to avoid harming one’s parents
Prohibition
against kidnapping
Consequences
for assaulting another individual
Causing
injuries to non-Jewish slaves could result in their obtaining their freedom
Consequences
when one’s ox gores someone and either injures or kills them
Responsibility
for creating public hazards, unleashing one’s animal or a fire that one begins.
Responsibilities
to prevent one’s animals from doing harm to others.
Laws
concerning taking another’s personal property without his permission.
Responsibilities for those guarding, borrowing
or renting another’s property.
Consequences
of psychologically coerced seduction of a single woman.
Prohibitions
against afflicting widows, orphans and converts.
Prohibitions
against witchcraft, idolatry.
Rules
governing making loans, taking collateral.
The
insistence upon respect for God as well as legitimate human authority.
Acknowledging
God’s Dominion by sanctifying first-born animals.
Prohibition
against eating meat from animals that have not been properly ritually
slaughtered.
Requirements
for witnesses to be truthful.
Requirements
for judges to be fair-minded and avoid various improprieties.
Responsibility
to return lost property.
Responsibility
to assist one’s fellow when loading/unloading his animal.
Prohibition
against oppressing a convert.
Laws
regarding the Sabbatical Year.
The
observances of Shabbat and Yomim Tovim.
Prohibition
against combinations of milk and meat.
[4] Ibn Ezra wrote multiple commentaries on various books of the bible in order to elicit sponsorships in exchange for dedications.
[5] This is a unique application of “Ein Mukdam U’MeUchar…” Usually, it is applied to separate, free-standing sections of the Tora rather than to verses comprising a single section, let alone words in a single verse, or even more atypical, words reflecting a single utterance within a verse!
[6] This view assumes that not all the Commandments were given at Sinai, but rather when a Commandment is first mentioned in the Tora either after the Revelation of the Ten Commandments but before the encampment moves as described at the beginning of BaMidbar, and all the more so after the encampment as begun to move, these are new Revelations. A less radical interpretation would maintain that all of the Commandments were revealed to Moshe on Sinai; however he chose to convey them to the people at various points, and therefore for all intents and purposes, as far as the people were concerned, they were newly revealed when Moshe chose to teach these Commandments to them. See Chagiga 6b; Sota 37b—
R. Yishmael says: The general rules were stated on Sinai and the details in the Ohel Moed.
R. Akiva says: The general rules as well as the details were said on Sinai, repeated in the Ohel Moed and repeated yet again in the Plains of Moav.
However even R. Yishmael would probably admit that certain applications of Halachot were revealed to Moshe post-Sinai, e.g., VaYikra 15:32 ff.; 24:10 ff.; BaMidbar 9:8; 27:1 ff. R. Yishmael could contend that Moshe knew these Halachot from Sinai, but forgot them, as in Bava Batra 119a.
[7] See the Aggadic passages in Shabbat 88a.
[8] Yediot Acharonot, 2000, p. 144.
[9] See http://www.rabbiwein.com/Rabbi-Yaakov-Moshe-Charlop--Builders-of-the-Holy-Land-brFrom-the-Biography-Series-P637.html
[11] See Chagiga 15b. This is one of the rationales offered by the Talmud for why this great Rabbinic scholar lost his faith in Judaism.
[12]Cited in Hillel Zeitlin, Al Gevul Shnai Olamot, “HaChavaya Chasidit,” Yavneh, Tel-Aviv, 1965, pp. 302-3.
[13]
Chapters of the Fathers, trans. and commentary S.R. Hirsch, Feldheim,