INSIGHT 5770 - #36 THE
FLOW OF MITZVOT There
are many cases within the Torah where we find a collection of mitzvot that seem to lack any
connection, their order of presentation seemingly random. As the Author of this
text does not act randomly, one of our tasks in studying the Chumash text is, thus, to uncover the
meaning behind these presentations of verses. The opening mitzvot of Parshat Ki Teitzei
are a perfect case in point. Devarim 22:6-12 is another. What is the possible
connection between the yefat to’ar,
sinu’ah and ahuva, and the ben sorer u’moreh? between
sending away the mother bird, putting a protective fence around your roof and,
finally, wearing tzitzit? The answer
seems to be the same for both groupings. In each example, the specific verses
are connected because each case reflects the concept of mitzvah goreret mitzvah v’aveira goreret aveira; one activity leading
to another activity of the same type. If this was simply true, though, the
Tanchuma’s statement that we specifically learn this concept from the latter
case really would be bewildering. There
are, in fact, certain indications that seem to imply that, while there may be
similarities between the two cases, there are also significant distinctions to
be noted. One is this very recognition that the Tanchuma, while applying the
same basic concept to the two cases, states specifically that we learn the idea
of mitzvah goreret mitzvah from the
latter case. It is also interesting to note that while Rashi, Devarim 22:8 mentions the term mitzvah goreret mitzvah, the above noted Rashi does not refer to
this concept at all. The presentation of the causal sequence in the two cases seems
also to be different. In regard to the case beginning with the yefat to’ar, Rashi presents one action
as directly leading to the situation described in the next section; one who
marries a yefat to’ar will eventually
hate her yielding the possible situation of being married to two women, one
being loved more than the other. In the case beginning with sending away the
mother bird, though, the causal sequence does not seem to be as inherent. The
words of Maharal, Gur Aryeh, Devarim 22:8 are most on point. He uses the word zocheh, that you will merit; if you send
away the mother bird, you will merit a house being built for you and if you build
a fence around the roof of this house you will merit a field and a vineyard
whereby you can then follow the mitzvah
of kelayim, not mixing the planting
of wheat and grapes. Interestingly, given our perceptions from the Tanchuma and
Rashi, while we might think that it is the case of the more direct causal
sequence that would be the better example of mitzvah goreret mitzvah v’aveira goreret aveira, the fact seems to
be that it is actually the case of the more indirect causal sequence that is deemed
to better reflect this concept. How
do we understand the basic idea of mitzvah
goreret mitzvah v’aveira goreret aveira? Is it more descriptive or,
actually, in itself, more active? What exactly, also, is the force of the
causation, the acts themselves or the fact that these acts are mitzvot or aveirot? The case of the yefat
to’ar would seem to favour the former alternative in both these questions.
It is the act of marrying a yefat to’ar
itself that will result in being married to a sinu’ah. Our recognition of this causal sequence further describes
the consequences of negative acts. The case of the sending away of the mother
bird would seem, however, to actually present the opposite, the latter
alternative in both these questions. It is the fact that in sending away the
mother bird one did a mitzvah that
yields the result that this person will merit, and therefore have, a house
built for him/her. It is the very power of the mitzvah that yields the consequences. The Tanchuma, as such,
presents this second case as the source for the concept and, indeed, Rashi only
uses the term mitzvah goreret mitzvah
in regard to this case. It is this case where the definition of mitzvah itself powers the consequence of
another mitzvah that is the prime
example of the concept. But,
still, given such a general principle, why should this particular mitzvah act lead to these particular
consequences and mitzvot? Maharal
provides the answer in explaining that these various mitzvot acts flowing from the sending away of the mother bird all
fall within one broad ethical principle, yishuv
ha’olam, inhabiting and colonizing the world. One mitzvah within this category will lead to the performance of more mitzvot within this category. Maharal, Derech Chaim, Avot
2:2 explains this further. All mitzvot
are not individual entities that combine to form a collection of mitzvot in the same way that one candle
can be placed beside other candles to form a collection of candles. All mitzvot are essentially parts of a
greater unified whole that reflects one entity in the same way that the flames
of a candle can be united to form a greater flame, a bonfire. This is what mitzvah goreret mitzvah ultimately
means. One mitzvah inherently leads
to another because one is already really interconnected to the other because
they are all part of a greater whole. Lighting a fire inherently also creates
the potential for a new flame. A single mitzvah,
similarly, does not stand alone. It connects to other mitzvot within a broader ethical/moral category, ultimately
intertwining with all the mitzvot of the
Torah as a whole. One mitzvah leads
to another because they are all part of the same essence. Rabbi
Benjamin Hecht Footnotes 1 In
that we know of specific incidents where the law of yefat to’ar was applied, yet there is a view in T.B. Sanhedrin 71a that the case of a ben sorer u’moreh never happened and
never will happen, this theory cannot be taken literally to mean that every
case of a yefat to’ar will meet these
results. A general lesson of causal consequences, though, can still be learned 2 While Rashi here does not quote this term, his
words still indicate that he also saw this connection somewhat within these
verses. While one could say that the taking a yefat to’ar pursuant to these Torah laws is a mitzvah and thus a good deed, Rashi, by informing us that the ideal
is still not to take a yefat to’ar
and that the Torah only permitted this specific process to prevent worst sins,
challenges such a conclusion. The taking of a yefat to’ar ultimately must be seen as a negative act albeit
permitted. As such it can still, and will, thus lead to further negative
behaviour and consequences. © Nishma 2010 Return to top |
© 2006 NISHMA