The Land I Will Show You, sec. 1, chapter 4

(For the previous chapter of “The Land I Will Show You, click here. For the ToC, click here.)

4: The Definition of “Mitzvah”

It was explained in the previous chapter that even if there is no explicit commandment in the Torah to reside in Eretz Yisrael (as indeed most sages held), this does not detract from the obligation to reside in it. The question arises: What is the difference between a mitzvah and something that isn’t an obligation? If even things that we weren’t commanded about explicitly are considered obligatory, what, then, makes something a “mitzvah”? Isn’t it the explicit command that determines what we are and aren’t obligated to do?

The answer is negative. There is indeed a big difference between something written as a command and something about which there is no command, but one shouldn’t understand this as meaning that something about which there is no command doesn’t obligate.

Let’s explain the root of the matter. Every single thing learnt from the Torah – is a mitzvah of the same rank. R’ Avraham of Vilna transmitted this in the name of his brother, the Gr”a:

The early sages struggled with the number of the mitzvahs, such as Rambam, Ramban and Sma”g, and the later sages also struggled with this, each one demolishing the other’s count… and in truth they all have objections…

I heard the root of the matter from my brother, the Gaon, that certainly we can’t say that only 613 mitzvahs are considered mitzvahs, and no more, for if this were so, then from Bereshis until Bo there are only 3 mitzvahs, and there are many parshahs that don’t have any mitzvah, and that is unreasonable. Rather, every single statement in the Torah that came from the mouth of the Almighty is its own mitzvah. And in truth the mitzvahs are innumerable, such that someone with deep intellect and an understanding heart, capable of acting in all details of his affairs and behavior, large and small, according to Torah and mitzvah, would be doing a mitzvah every single moment, ad infinitum… the mention of 613 is only roots, but they branch out to many branches. And this is indeed hidden from us – which are roots and which are branches – and there is no need to know this.[1]

The Gr”a intended to answer the troubling question: How could something so fundamental as a detailed list of the mitzvahs of the Torah not be clear and agreed upon; one would expect that at least the most fundamental list of the Torah should be known to every beginner student! The Gr”a explains that actually the list isn’t so fundamental. Everything learnt from the Torah is a mitzvah, and there is no number to the Torah’s mitzvahs; the 613 are only roots, headings of all the infinite mitzvahs.

Everything learnt from the Torah is a mitzvah. For the Torah teaches us the good and right in the eyes of Hashem, and one who internalizes the lesson of the Torah properly will know what is good for man in life. And when he then acts in accord with his understanding of the Torah – his action is considered a mitzvah. Fulfilling the lessons of the Torah through action is the essence of a mitzvah, whether it is written as a commandment or not.

But in this very matter – in the nature of the lesson – there is an important difference between an expression of command and an expression that doesn’t command. When the Torah commands “do thus” and “don’t do this,” the lesson is that it is good and right and proper for a person to act according to the command even if he doesn’t understand the reason at all. That is the meaning of a clear command: obey! It is quite easy to understand the simple idea being taught in an explicit command: that it is good for a person to act consistent with this law, whether he understands the reason for it or not; one who accepts this simple idea, as is expected from him, will fulfill the mitzvah. That is the intention of the Torah in its explicit commands.

An idea taught without a command is different. Since the matter wasn’t written in an absolute and final manner, extracting the idea that would bring to action on its basis depends on the personal understanding of the student. A sage who merited understanding the intention of the Torah will act in accord with its lesson – since he has merited to know what is good – and with that, he will fulfill a mitzvah, while someone else, who lacks a full understanding of the intention of the Torah, is unable to act in accordance with it. For even if he knows in a general way that something is important to the Torah, nevertheless, if he doesn’t understand it completely, he won’t know in what way it’s important and under what conditions, or what the order of preference would be relative to other values.[2] The more subtle calls of the Torah require a fuller understanding: to know exactly what is important to the Torah, what it demands from us and how.

When it comes to an idea that isn’t written in an absolute and fixed way – meaning as a commandment – the lesson is that a person should act in accord with the idea only based on a deep understanding of its intention and root; otherwise, he will never know how to penetrate to the will of the Torah. Obviously, not every person is supposed to start anew in understanding the root ideas of the Torah. Chazal paved the way to understanding the Torah and guided us to its understanding so that we could act in accordance with it; but ultimately a person must cultivate a certain understanding, and only then is it possible for his to act pursuant to a and understanding of an idea that wasn’t said as a command. (Unless the Sages established a new law, in which case the message of the rabbinical mitzvah is to act even without understanding.)

There is no difference between an expression of command and an expression which is not a command except for fulfilling it without understanding. But regarding the obligation to act in accord with the Torah – they are exactly the same. For the obligation is incumbent on each individual to fulfill according to the degree of his understanding, and the Torah is fulfilled by each individual according to the subtlety of his understanding of it, to the degree that he toiled to understand the Torah, which is itself a mitzvah. By fulfilling the mitzvah of studying in order to act, the Torah knowledge of the student along with his mitzvah fulfillment are enriched.

Let’s return to the question of Eretz Yisrael. Does the significance of EY and its centrality to the Torah create an obligation? The answer is affirmative, but only when we understand the matter well. If we understand the role of EY, its place as the “house of our life,” how our redemption from all sin depends on cherishing it,[3] to the same extent we become obligated to act in accordance. For if we don’t act in accordance, we are abandoning the good, and there is no greater sin than that.

This isn’t all. Actually, if we understand the centrality of EY properly, the love and desire toward it anchor the whole Torah and the relationship of the nation of Israel to Hashem, its god, and its love becomes part of the enumerated positive commandments of loving Hashem, fearing Him, cleaving to Him, the perfection of all which depend on the land which is His property. The more the wise man understands the general ideas of the Torah, the more he understands the great ramifications and the significance of certain practices and their contribution to achieving the purposes of the Torah.

(For the next chapter of “The Land I Will Show You,” click here.)

---

The Hebrew book is available for purchase from me directly, in Judaica stores, and online, here: 

---

[1] Maalos HaTorah, Jerusalem 5749, pg. 12.

[2] See Igros Moshe, Even Ha’Ezer 1, end of section 102, who categorizes residing in EY as something which “isn’t an obligatory mitzvah,” and that therefore it is appropriate to take into account other considerations when it comes to determining the proper action; his learned opinion comports with what has been explained here.

[3] We will return to understanding the ideas well in section 7.