Halakhah for Deuteronomy 6:13

We are also commanded to fear the Blessed One, as the verse states (Devarim 6.13): "The L-ord your G-d you should fear", and here are the words of the Rambam concerning this trait in Sefer haMitzvos, mitzvah 4: "He has commanded us to be consciously aware of His exalted presence, and to tremble before Him, and not be like the heretics who presumptuously follow their own hearts; rather we should be concerned and mindful of His corrective punishment at all times, which is a consequence of sinful behavior. This then is the meaning of "The L-ord your G-d you should fear." That is his comment in the above source. In his great work (the Mishna Torah), in the beginning of the second chapter of the fundamentals of the Torah, he writes thus: "What is the path towards love and fear of G-d? When a person contemplates the wondrous actions and creations of G-d, and he sees in them wisdom without end or measure, immediately he loves, praises and glorifies Him. He also experiences a great desire to know his great name [TO KNOW HIM?], as Dovid has said: "My soul thirsts for the L-ord, the living G-d". When he continues to think about such matters, he has an immediate reflex to shrink away, and he experiences a fear and trembling, realizing that he is a small and inconsequential creation, with little intellect compared to the One of complete knowledge. Dovid has also stated regarding this: "When I see the heavens, the work of your fingers, I ask 'what is man that you take notice of him'?" Until here is his language. As can be seen, in the Sefer haMitzvos the explanation of 'simple fear' is fear of punishment, while here the Rambam refers to a higher fear, which is fear from the recognition of G-d's great loftiness. On this subject the Sifrei (Dvarim, 32) has stated: "There is no love in fear's place, nor fear in love's place, except for that of G-d alone." (see there). This means to say that fear and love are opposites, but through fear of G-d's vast loftiness they can dwell together, that through the recognition of the great, exalted stature of the Blessed One he is feared with an 'enlightened fear', and he is loved with all of one's heart and soul.

We have already explained in the introduction of our composition, in the Commentary on the Mishnah, that most laws of the Torah have come out from the thirteen hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded; and that there is sometimes a disagreement about a law that comes out through one of these principles; but that there are also, among them, laws the explanation of which was received from Moshe about which there is no disagreement. Nevertheless, they bring proofs about them from one of these thirteen principles. For it is the brilliance of Scripture that it is possible to find a hint or a verbal analogy in it, that indicates the received explanation - and we have already explained this topic there. And since the matter is such, behold: We can not say about every matter that the Sages brought out by a principle from the thirteen principles, that it was stated to Moshe at Sinai; and likewise can we not say about everything found in the Talmud in which they [only] supported it with one of the thirteen principles that it is rabbinic. For sometimes it will [nevertheless] be the received explanation from Moshe at Sinai. What is appropriate here regarding anything that is not found written in the Torah, but it is found that it is something they learned in the Talmud through one of the thirteen principles - if they themselves explain and say that it is a part of the Torah and that it is [a law] from the Torah, it is surely appropriate to count it. For those through which it is received said it is from the Torah. But if they did not explain this and did not say this, it is rabbinic - for there is no verse here indicating it. And this is also a principle that someone besides us has already been confused about; and therefore he counted fear of the sages as a positive commandment. And that which appears to have brought him to this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva (Pesachim 22b), "'You shall fear et the Lord, your God' (Deuteronomy 6:13) - to include Torah scholars." So he thought that anything that is arrived at through the thirteen principles is in the category [of the 613 commandments]. But if the matter was as he thought it, why did he not count honoring a mother's husband or a father's wife; and likewise not count honoring an older brother? For we learned that we are obligated to honor these individuals by inclusions. They said (Ketubot 103a), "'You shall honor et your father' - to include your older brother and your mother's husband; 'and et your mother' - to include your father's wife." That is just like they said, "'You shall fear et the Lord, your God' - to include Torah scholars." If so, why did they count these and not those? But they have come to even greater foolishness than that in this matter. And that is when they found a teaching about a verse, in which the teaching obligates an action or the distancing from something - but they are rabbinic without a doubt - they counted them among the commandments, even though the simple meaning of the verse does not indicate any of these things at all. This is in spite of the principle that [the Sages], peace be upon them, taught us about it - a verse may not be taken out of its simple meaning. So the Talmud asks everywhere where a verse is found from which we learn many things by way of explanation and proof, "What was the simple understanding of the verse written about?" But those who relied on this [mistaken] thinking counted visiting the sick, comforting the mourners and burying the dead in the category of the commandments, because of the teaching that is found about His, may He be blessed, saying, "and make known to them the way in which they are to go and the practices that they must do" (Exodus 18:20). And [the Sages] said about this (Bava Kamma 100a), "'The way' - that is acts of kindness. 'They are to go' - that is visiting the sick. 'In which' - that is burial of the dead. 'The practices' - that is the laws. 'That they must do' - that is [conducting oneself] beyond the letter of the law." And [the ones mistaken about what can be counted] thought that each and every one of these actions was a separate commandment. And they did not know that all of these actions - and those that are similar to them - fall under one commandment written in the Torah, when it is explained. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "and you shall love your neighbor like yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). And in this exact same way, they counted the calculation of the seasons as a commandment because of the teaching from, "it is your wisdom and your understanding" (Deuteronomy 4:6). And that is their saying (Shabbat 75a), "Which is the wisdom and understanding that is in the eyes of the nations? You shall say, it is the calculation of the seasons and the constellations." And [even] if one would [only] count what is clearer than this and what is more appropriate to count - that being, to count everything that we learn in the Torah from the thirteen hermeneutic principles through which the Torah is expounded - the count of commandments would add up to many thousands. And if you might think that I am running from counting them because they are not true; whether the law that comes out of it is true or not - that is not the reason. Rather the reason is that any extension that a person, and even if it was Moshe himself, draws out from the root principles that were told to Moshe at Sinai with their explanation - and these are the 613 commandments - is not appropriate to count. And the proof of this all is their saying in the Gemara, Temurah (Temurah 16a), "One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori inferences, verbal analogies, and precise inferences of the Scribes were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moshe. Even so, Otniel, son of Kenaz, restored them through his sharpness, as it is stated (Joshua 15:16-17), '"To he who smites Kiryat Sefer, and takes it, etc." And Otniel, son of Kenaz took it.'" And if this was what was forgotten, what was the total from which this amount was forgotten?! For it would certainly be false to say that everything that was known was forgotten. So, without a doubt, those laws that were drawn out by a fortiori inferences and the other principles were many thousands - and they were all known at the time of Moshe. And yet they are called precise inferences of the Scribes, because anything that they did not hear explained at Sinai is certainly from the words of the Scribes. Behold it has now been shown that that which was learned out through the thirteen principles even during Moshe's time, peace be upon him, is not to be counted among the 613 commandments that were stated to him at Sinai. Hence all the more so should that which was derived in later times not be counted among them. However it is nevertheless true that what was an explanation received from him is counted. And that is what the transmitters explain, and say that this thing is something forbidden to do and its prohibition is from the Torah; or they say that it is a part of the Torah. Behold that we count this, since it is known from tradition and not through a verbal analogy. Indeed, their [possible] mention of a verbal analogy and their bringing a proof for it from one of the thirteen principles [in such a case] is only to show the brilliance of Scripture, as we explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah.

The Rishonim disagree about whether there is a Torah commandment to pray every day. According to Rambam (Sefer Ha-mitzvot, mitzva 5), there is a biblical commandment to pray daily, as the Torah states (Shemot 23:25), “Serve God your Lord,” and (Devarim 6:13) “Revere the Lord your God and serve Him.” Although these verses contain a general commandment to serve God, they also include a specific commandment to pray. The Sages interpreted “service” (avoda) to mean worship through prayer, as it is written:  “Love God your Lord and serve Him with all your heart” (Devarim 11:13), and they explained (Ta’anit 2a), “What is serving with the heart? It must mean prayer.” By praying daily, one fulfills her biblical obligation to pray. To fulfill one’s obligation, one must begin with praise to God, then petition God for her needs, and conclude by thanking God for the good He has bestowed upon her. The Torah does not specify how long one’s prayers must be. Therefore, some shorten their prayers and others lengthen them, yet they all fulfill their biblical obligation (MT, Laws of Prayer 1:2-3). Later, the Men of the Great Assembly formulated a set prayer text, as will be explained below (section 6).

That is that we are commanded to serve Him. And this command is repeated several times: His saying, "And you shall serve the Lord, your God" (Exodus 23:25); and His saying, "and you shall serve Him" (Deuteronomy 13:5). And although this command is from the inclusive commands - as we explained in Principle Four (Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 4) - it nevertheless has specificity, since it is the command to pray. The language of the Sifrei is, "'And to serve Him' (Deuteronomy 11:13) - that is prayer." And they also said, "'And to serve Him' - that is [Torah] study." And in the Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Rabbi Yose HaGelili, they said, "From where [do we know that] the essence of prayer is a commandment? From here - 'You shall fear the Lord, your God, and you shall serve Him' (Deuteronomy 6:13)." And they said, "Serve Him through His Torah; serve Him in His Temple." This means, direct [yourself] towards it, to pray [towards] there, as Shlomo, peace be upon him, explained. (See Parashat Mishpatim: Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 1.)

(11) And in all instances, he also transgresses (Devarim 6:13): "The L–rd your G–d shall you fear," whereby we have been exhorted to fear the Blessed L–rd all the days of our life. And, when an act [of transgression] comes to hand, we are obligated to arouse our spirit at that time [to the realization that] the Holy One Blessed be He observes the deeds of all men, and "returns them vengeance" according to the evil of the deed; and [in this realization] he will keep from transgressing the will of his Maker. And, of a certainty, one who abandons his soul to this grave transgression of lashon hara and rechiluth violates this positive commandment [of fearing the L–rd].

Another practice questioned by Dr. Rabinowitz is constraint in pronouncing the terms Shaddai and Ẓeva'ot. The prohibition against vocalizing the name of God other than in the reading of Scripture, prayer, or recitation of blessings is derived from the positive commandment "The Lord your God shall you fear" (Deut. 6:13). Restraint in not mentioning the name of God in vain is a manifestation of fear and awe. Rav Aḥai Ga'on, She'iltot, Yitro, She'ilta 53, deems this to be a transgression of the negative prohibition "Thou shalt not take the name the Lord your God in vain" (Exod. 20:7). According to numerous authorities, e.g., Rambam Hilkhot Shevu'ot 12:11 (see Teshuvot R. Akiva Eger, no. 25), this prohibition embraces all of the seven names of God. Since both Shaddai and Ẓeva'ot are enumerated among the seven names of the Deity common practice is to use the assonant forms Shakai and Ẓevakot respectively as substitutes for these names. Dr. Rabinowitz' incredulity at this "strange mispronunciation of Hebrew" is misplaced.

Laws of Honoring Father and Mother It is a positive commandment that a person should honor his father and his mother and fear them. And he must be very careful about their honor and about their fear, since their honor is compared to the honor of the Omnipresent: As it is written (Exodus 20:11), "Honor your father and your mother"; and it is written (Proverbs 3:9), "Honor the Lord with your wealth." And regarding their fear, it is written (Leviticus 19:3), "A man shall fear his mother and his father"; and regarding the fear of the Omnipresent, it is stated (Deuteronomy 6:13), "You shall fear the Lord, your God." And the Sages said (Kiddushin 30b), "There are three partners in a person: The Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother [...] When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says, 'I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honored Me as well.'" With honor, He had the father precede the mother, as it is written, "Honor your father and your mother'; but with fear, He had the mother precede the father, as it is written, "A man shall fear his mother and his father" - to teach that both of them are the same, both for honor and for fear. And what is fear and what is honor? Fear: One may not stand in his place and one may not sit in his place - the explanation is in his particular place to stand amidst the council of elders with his colleagues in counsel. But the Ramah (R. Meir HaLevi Abulafia) wrote that the same is the law regarding his particular place to sit in his house. And he may not contradict his words, nor may he determine his words. And Rashi explained [that] if [his father] was disagreeing about a matter of law with someone else, he may not say, "The words of x appear [correct]." But the Ramah wrote that this is not necessary [to say], as that is contradicting his words. Rather even if the words of his father appear [correct] to him, he may not say, "The words of my father appear [correct]" - as it appears as if he is determining [the correctness of] the words of his father. However, if he has an answer to answer those that are arguing [with his father], he may answer [them]. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3): He should not call him by his name - not in his lifetime and not in his death - but he should rather say, "Father, my teacher." If his name is the same as the name of others, he should [also] change their names. And it appears to me that one only needs to be careful about this with a name that is unusual, such that not everyone uses it. But with names that all of the people call [their offspring], such as Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Moshe and Aharon and that which is similar to them, one can use them to call others in any language and at any time and there is no [problem] with this. To here [are his words]. And that which he wrote that he should not call others whose names are the same as his father with their names is a wonder! And up to where (how extensive) is their fear? Even if one was dressed in fine clothing and sitting at the head of the community, and his father and mother came and tore his clothes, struck him on his head and spit in front of him - he should not embarrass them but rather be quiet and fear the King of the kings of kings, who commanded him about this. As if flesh and blood had decreed something that is more distressing than this upon him, he would not have [even] twitched about the matter; all the mores so, with the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. And what is honor? One gives [his parent] food and he gives him drink, and he gives it with a pleasant countenance, and he does not show him an angry face. As even if he feeds him fattened fowl every day, but he shows him an angry face, he is punished for it. And that which he gives him food and he gives him drink - that is from [the resources of] the father, if he has; but the son is not obligated to give him from his [own resources]. However if the father does not have and the son does have, we force him and he sustains the father according to what he can [afford]. But if the son does not have, he is not obligated to [knock on] doors to feed his father. But he is obligated to honor him with his body, even though through this, he [becomes] idle from his work and [then] become required to [knock on] doors. And the Ramah wrote [that this is] specifically when the son has sustenance that will sustain [himself] that day. But if he does not have [it], he is not obligated to be idle from his work and to [knock] on doors. And he should serve him in other things with which a servant serves his master. And he is obligated to honor him in the rest of his ways - in his buying and selling, and the doing of his wants. How is this? If he needs to request anything in the city and he knows that they would fulfill his request for the sake of his father - even though he knows that they would also fulfill the thing for his sake, nevertheless, he should not say, "Do this one thing for my sake," but rather, "for the sake of Father," in order to attach the honor to his father. And likewise with anything that is like this, he should include [him] in all of his words, such that he is concerned about the honor of his father and his fear. However if he knows that they will not fulfill his [request] for the sake of his father, he should request [it] for his own sake and not for the sake of his father, as it would only be a disgrace for him - since they will not do it for his sake. And one is obligated to stand before him. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:3) [that] a father who is the student of his son - the father does not stand before the son. And not only that, but the son must stand before his father, even though he is his student. And my master, my father the Rosh, may his memory blessed, wrote that each one must stand before the other. And up to where (how extensive) is honor? Even if [the parent] takes his purse full of coins and throws it to the sea in front of him, he should not embarrass him. And the Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:7) [that it is] even if he threw the purse of the son to the sea. But RI explained that according to that which we decide that he need not honor him from his [own resources], if he throws the son's purse, he may prevent him. Rather [the Talmud's case] is saying with the purse of his father, he may not embarrass him in order to prevent him, even though he will inherit it. The Ramah wrote that which the son can embarrass the father with his [own] purse is only before he threw it to the sea, as it is possible that he will be prevented and not throw it. But after he throws it, it is forbidden to embarrass him; as what has happened, has happened. So now when he is silent, it is honor that does not involve financial loss, so he is obligated about it. But it is permissible to make a claim against him in court. He is obligated to honor him even after his death. How is that? If he says a matter he heard from his mouth, he should not say, "So said Father, my teacher." Rather, he should say, "So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting." To what does this apply? Within twelve months [of his death]. But after twelve months, when he mentions him, he says: May his memory be for a blessing." The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:10), "If one's father or mother has become mentally insane, he should make an effort to behave toward them according to their state of mind until they will be shown mercy. But if it is impossible for him to stand [it], because they have become utterly insane, he may leave them and go away, charging others to take proper care of them." But the Ravaad wrote, "This is not a correct ruling - if he leaves them and goes away, who will he command to watch them?" If one saw that his father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him, "You transgressed a Torah matter." Rather, he should say to him, "Father, such and such is written in the Torah." And from his reminding him, he will understand on his own and will not be embarrassed. If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink," and there was another commandment before him to do: If it is possible for the commandment to be done by others, he leaves it for others to do and occupies himself with the honor of his father. But if there are not others there to do it, he should occupy himself with the commandment and leave the honor of his father, since he and his father are obligated by the commandment. Torah study is greater than honoring father and mother. If his father said to him, "Give me water to drink"; and his mother said to him, "Give me water to drink," he leaves the honor of his mother and occupies himself with the honor of his father, since his mother is also obligated in honoring his father. But if they are divorced - such that she is not obligated in his honor - then both of them are the same, to honor them one like the other. If his father said to him to transgress a Torah matter - whether he says to him to transgress a negative commandment or he says to him to negate (not do) a positive commandment, even a [rabbinic] commandment - he should not listen to him. And my master, my father the Rosh wrote in a responsum [that] if the father commands his son not to speak with x, such the he should not forgive him for what he did to him until a set time; whereas the son wants to appease him, except that he is concerned about his father's command, he should not be concerned about his father's command. As it is forbidden to hate any person unless he saw him sinning. And [that] the father commanded him to hate; it is not in his power to make him transgress a Torah matter! And it is the same with a man or a woman - they are the same regarding the honor and fear of father and mother. However a man has [the wherewithal] in his hands to do [it], whereas a woman does not have [the wherewithal] in her hands to do [it], since the authority of others (her husband) is upon her. Therefore if she is divorced or widowed, they are both the same. The Rambam wrote (Mishneh Torah, Rebels 6:11) [that] a mamzer (someone born of a forbidden union) is obligated in honoring his father and his mother and in their fear, even though he is exempt about hitting them and cursing them until they repent. Even if one's father is wicked and sinful, he must honor him and fear him. But it appears to me that since he is wicked, he is not obligated to honor him. [It is] as we say (Bava Kamma 94b) concerning [those] whose father left them a stolen cow, [that] they are obligated to return [it] for the honor of their father. And it asked, "Behold, he does not do the deeds of your people" - its explanation is, so they are [for that reason] not obligated to honor him. And it answers, "When he repented." Therefore the whole time he has not repented, they are not obligated to honor him. Even though a person is obligated to fear his father and his mother greatly, it is forbidden [for the parent] to make his yoke heavy upon his children and to be exacting with them about his honor, so as not to bring them to an obstacle. Rather he should forgive and avert his eyes from them; since when a father foregoes his honor, his honor is forgiven. And they would excommunicate someone who strikes his adult son; as behold, he is transgressing, "you shall not put an obstacle in front of the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). A person is obligated to honor the wife of his father - even though she is not his mother - so long as his father is alive; and he is obligated to honor his mother's wife, so long as his mother is alive. But after [the blood relative's death], he is not obligated in their honor. Nevertheless, it is a commandment to honor them, even after the death. A person is obligated in the honor of his older brother like the honor of his father. And he is obligated to honor his father in law, as it is written (that David said to Shaul in I Samuel 24:12), "My father, my father, see and see."

The commandment of prayer: To serve God, may He be blessed, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 10:20), "and you shall serve Him." And this commandment was repeated several times, as it is stated (Exodus 23:25), "And you shall serve the Lord, your God"; and in another place, it states (Exodus 11:13), "and to serve him with all of your hearts." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzot Ase 5), "Even though this commandment is from the general commandments" - meaning to say that it includes all of the Torah, since the service of God includes all of the commandments - "there is also a specific [commandment] within it, and that is that God commanded us to pray to Him. And it is as they said in Sifrei Devarim 41:25, '"To serve Him with all of your hearts" What is the service that is in the heart? That is prayer.' And in the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose HaGalili they said, 'From where [do we know] that the essence of prayer is among the commandments? From here, "The Lord, your God, shall you fear, and you shall serve Him."'"

And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses this and does not want to swear in His name at a time it is needed has violated this positive commandment, according to Rambam, may his memory be blessed. But Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (on Mitzovt Ase 7; Ramban on Deuteronomy 6:13) that an oath in His name [even] at a time of need is not a positive commandment at all; that if we want, we swear, and if we do not want to ever swear, there is no [problem] with this. And there is also a commandment in the prevention from an oath, like the matter that they said in Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 1, "The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, 'Do not reason that it is permitted to you to swear in My name even truthfully unless there is all of these characteristics with you: "The Lord, your God, you shall fear, and to Him shall you cling." And afterwards, "and in His name shall you swear."'" And if we want, we can say that "and in His name shall you swear" comes to give a positive commandment [alongside the] negative commandment on the one who swears in the name of idolatry; meaning to say, in His name should he swear and not in the name of other gods. And the teacher (Ramban), may his memory be blessed, already wrote about the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Temurah 3b) that we swear to perform a commandment, that we derive it from "to Him shall you cling."