Seeking the path to Mitzvos

Hi Rabbi,

So my and Jake's chavrusa on mitzvos just went through a bit of a rough patch. For a while we were just going through definitions and premises so we'd be on the same page. Then we went through lo tacharosh to get a clear idea of what a mitzva looks like when defined in the way we want. Both of those went fine.

But when it came time to choose an area to work on finally, we were having trouble. At first we tried to do shabbos because we had already discussed a basic idea of shabbos in the chaburah last year. But we weren't really feeling the idea, so we tried going to the halachos and the sefer hamitzvos and we realized we really didn't know how to extract an idea from the sources. We tried switching areas to mezuzah and a couple other things, but we kept running into the same blocks.

Our goal was to define the mitzva by isolating a) the area of human life the mitzva governs, b) the psychic animal attitude in that area, c) the correct mindful perspective in that area, d) the action that brings the mitzva-doer from b) to c). But the mishneh torah and the sefer hamitzvos are not so conducive to this. Sefer HaMitzvos more than often just gave a very basic description of the mitzva; like for shabbos, "Mitzva 154 is that we should cease on the shabbos" and then quotes pasukim and tells a couple more details. And many times mishneh torah just starts in with halachos without even a line or two about what the mitzva is. Like with mezuzah, it starts out with how to write a mezuzah. And the particular halachos of measurements and spaces in the mezuzah don't seem too helpful in defining mezuzah as a whole.

Another barrier we had was when trying hakhel, the mitzva seemed to be attached to too many fundamental ideas that we didn't know about. The whole thing was structured around the regalim, the relationship between the king and the am seemed very integral, etc.. Shabbos also we realized how it really has a lot to do with zechiras yetzias mitzrayim, and mezuzah seemed to be a fundamental of zechira mitzvos in general.

In contrast, Lo Tacharosh seemed like a very isolated area where the general idea and categories were very evident. Most other areas seem very connected to huge intimidating fundamentals and its hard to see the ideas or general categories of the halachos amidst the nitty gritty details. So how should we approach these normal areas? If a mitzva is connected to a fundamental area should we try to define that area despite how intimidatingly broad it is? And if there are no statements about the mitzva and rambam just starts with halachos, how do we get the general ideas of the mitzva from that?

And more generally, is it better to try to find the idea from defining and answering questions on the details and particulars or to try to think about the mitzva as a whole? On the one hand, it seems more of a valid scientific approach to let the contradictions in particulars lead us to ideas. In the past it always seems to be some detail that leads us to the definition as a whole. A lot of time, you get nowhere or to very vague general definitions when thinking about general statements about the mitzva. But on the other hand, is it really possible to get the general ideas from such particular particulars? When Rambam is just listing measurements for something, is there an idea there? I noticed in Lo Tacharosh, we gravitated towards the more general halacha of categorizing and stayed away from all the particulars and that led us to the idea. Was that indicative of a method of getting straight the general halachos and using those instead of the particulars?

Sorry to bombard with questions like that, I know its a lot. In the meantime, Jake and I took up bris milah, which has been going well. Thanks for helping us,

Jonny

אֶשָּׂא עֵינַי, אֶל-הֶהָרִים-- מֵאַיִן, יָבֹא עֶזְרִי ?
עֶזְרִי, מֵעִם יְהוָה-- עֹשֵׂה, שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ

Dear Jonny,

I remember your mentioning that there was a difficulty with Mitzvos in an earlier email. Your detailed account of these difficulties is very interesting and helpful, not a bombardment at all.

I can't answer these questions individually, rather I will deal with certain fundamentals that the difficulty arises from. You need to remember is that Mitzvot are a relatively advanced form of Torah shebichtav. They take a person from a lifestyle rooted in achzariyut, a worldview centering around supplying the material power of the self, to one of tzedaka a worldview in which supply is to each entity in accord with its nature. Yirah- seeing "man" as a phenomenon with a nature realized in the time and space of daled amos is very difficult, it presupposes many breakthroughs about ourselves and our place in nature. We must learn of a Creation run according to tzedaka, tzedaka to oneself in seeking education, the proper relation of Father to Son, people to animals and vegetation etc.

All of these issues constitute the basis of Mitzvot and are covered in Torah shebichtav prior to Mitzvot. Lo tacharosh is a clear example of this. The proper attitude toward animals is foreshadowed in Bresheet,in the creation of animals and Adam's naming, as well as in Noach, before the mitzva of lo tacharosh ever appears.

My advice would be to allow Torah shebichtav to come to you organically. Certainly, explore Mitzvot, but be aware that there will be many premises that you are missing. These premises are to be found by following the Torah's order of presenting the phenomenon of man from Creation onward. Ralbag is particularly helpful in this regard. You will see that he consistently explains the Torah with this precise end in mind- identifying the premises needed to see man as ready and needing Mitzvot to properly relate to his environment- tzedaka born of Yirah.