Halakhah sur Le Deutéronome 4:6

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.

“For what great nation is there that has a God so close at hand?”⁵Deut. 4:7. Note that elsewhere, Rav Kook cites this biblical passage explicitly in the context of elaborating the goal of creating an exemplary and enlight-ened socioeconomic order in Israel. E.g., “In order to fulfill this aspiration, it is particularly necessary that this community possess a political and social state and national sovereignty at the peak of human culture—‘surely a wise and understanding people is this great nation’” (Deut. 4:6), Orot (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1993), 104. What is remarkable about the Jewish people is its ability to view existence through the lens of holiness;⁶Holiness is a central concept in Rav Kook’s thought. For an insightful discussion, see Norman Lamm, “Harmonism, Novelty and the Sacred,” in Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and Jewish Spirituality, ed. Lawrence J. Ka-plan and David Schatz (New York: New York University Press, 1995), 159–77; see also the introduction to this volume, p.48. it knows, with the full force of its being, that life has the greatest value to the extent that it is infused by godliness and that a life without a touch of the divine is not worth anything. Even more than that, they know that a godly life is true life, and life without God is no life at all. This knowledge, lying deep within the people’s soul, gives it a unique character and impresses itself on each and every one of her individual members. The light and salvation of each person depends on the depth and force of this imprinting awareness that the value of life is in its godliness. “And you, who held fast to the Lord your God, are all alive today.”⁷Deut. 4:4.

The Sages expanded upon this relatively simple motif. The Gemara, Shabbat 75a, declares, "Any person who is capable of calculating the equinoxes and the solstices, to plot and chart the movement of the celestial bodies comprising the zodiac but fails to engage in such calculations, of him the verse says, 'but the work of the Lord they do not regard and the work of His hands they do not see' (Isaiah 5:12)."⁸Indeed, R. Moshe of Coucy, Sefer Miẓvot Gadol, miẓvot aseh, no. 46, enumerates an obligation to engage in those calculations as one of the 613 commandments. That is also the position of Sefer Yere’im (Vilna, 5659), no. 260. That position is based upon the interpretation presented by the Gemara, Shabbat 75a, of the verse “You shall observe and fulfill, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:6). “Which wisdom is it that [is regarded as such] in the eyes of the nations?” queries the Gemara. The immediate answer of the Gemara is: “That is, calculation of tekufot and mazalot.” The Gemara’s statement is formulated in support of the dictum of R. Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of R. Yoḥanan: “Whence [is it derived] that it is incumbent upon a person to calculate tekufot and mazalot? As it is said ‘and you shall observe and perform etc.’” The talmudic interpretation establishing an obligation is based upon employment of the phrase “and you shall observe and perform” in the biblical verse, a term that connotes a binding imperative.
Rambam also considers the exhortation rooted in this verse to be a mandatory obligation but does not include it in his enumeration of the 613 commandments. In the introduction to his Sefer ha-Miẓvot, shoresh bet, Rambam formulates the principle that the number 613 includes only commandments that are explicitly formulated in the Pentateuch. Excluded from that catalogue of miẓvot, asserts Rambam, are all commandments derived on the basis of rabbinic hermeneutics for, declares Rambam, were these also to be included, “the number of miẓvot would equal many thousands.”
In his responsa collection, Pe’er ha-Dor, ed. R. Abraham Chaim Freimann (Jerusalem, 5694), no. 347, Rambam responds to a query regarding the purpose of the commandment with a citation of a dictum of R. Meir, “Ponder His works for from that you will recognize He who spoke and the universe came into being.” Rambam also cites that statement in Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah 2:2 and in Sefer ha-Miẓvot, miẓvot aseh, no. 3. The source of the dictum is probably Sifri, Deuteronomy 6:6. Cf., editor’s note, Pe’er ha-Dor, no. 347.
Ramban, in his glosses on Rambam’s Sefer ha-Miẓvot, shoresh alef, s.v. ve-hateshuvah ha-revi’i, understands that, for Rambam, the commandment is rabbinic in nature. That position is also espoused by R. Betzalel Ze’ev Shafran, Teshuvot Ravaz, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 32, who asserts that Rambam omits this commandment from his list of the 613 miẓvot because he regarded it to be rabbinic in nature. That understanding of Rambam is contradicted by the comments of Rambam both in his Sefer ha-Miẓvot and in his Pe’er ha-Dor. See also R. Moshe Sofer, Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, VIII, Koveẓ Teshuvot (Jerusalem, 5742), no. 26.
Ramban himself asserts that the study of tekufot and mazalot is not mandatory even as a rabbinic command. Nevertheless, he regards such activity as a desideratum and explains that the statement of the Gemara is hortatory in nature urging those who are capable of doing so to engage in those calculations and to announce forthcoming astronomical occurrences to the nations of the world. A person who is conversant with the fundamentals of astronomy but who fails to explore the ordered nature of the universe is remiss. This verse, as interpreted by the Sages, censures him for not engaging in that enterprise. What is it that the Sages are underscoring in this dictum? What halakhic obligation has this individual failed to fulfill?

Although Maharaz Hayes (with one exception, as will be noted later) does not identify the earlier authorities who distinguish between the Oral Law and the Written Law, this distinction may readily be inferred from a comment incorporated by Rabbenu Gershom in his commentary on Baba Batra 21b.¹⁴Indeed, the verse “… for it is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people’ ” (Deut. 4:6) would seem to indicate that it is the divine intent that non-Jews be aware of the contents of the Pentateuch; cf., R. Chaim Sofer, Maḥaneh Ḥayyim, II, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 46, sec. 3. Alternatively, the verse must be understood as referring to the observance of the statutes; cf., Rashi’s commentary ad locum. See also R. Reuben Margulies, Nefesh Ḥayah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 334:12. The Gemara declares that although residents sharing a common courtyard cannot prevent one of their group from accepting Jewish pupils for Torah instruction they may legitimately prevent any person who shares their courtyard from providing instruction to non-Jewish students. Since it is, in general, forbidden to teach Torah to non-Jews, the immediate question which presents itself is what type of instruction is under consideration? Rabbenu Gershom comments that the type of instruction under discussion is instruction "in medical texts or mikra," i.e., the Written Law.¹⁵This distinction between the Written Law and the Oral Law is also found in the earlier cited responsum of R. Elia Menachem Chalfan, Jewish Quarterly Review, IX, 507. This responsum is probably the earliest explicit formulation of a distinction between the teaching of Written Law and Oral Law. The obvious implication is that, when such instruction is provided under conditions which do not cause nuisance to others, the Written Law may indeed be taught to non-Jews.

In a number of places, the Torah presents us with the mission of serving as a role model for other nations.¹⁴See Shemot 19:6, Seforno’s comments ad. loc., and Devarim 4:6. Indeed, part of every Jew’s role is to emulate the kiddush Hashem created by Avraham Avinu, who is referred to by his Hittite neighbors as “a prince of God amongst us” (Bereishit 23:6). Chazal regard a chillul Hashem as such a major infraction (see, for example, Yoma 86a) because setting a positive example for others is at the core of the mission of the Jewish people.

Accordingly, the sight of an observant Jew smoking in our time constitutes a chillul Hashem, and it certainly does not create the impression of “a knowledgable and wise nation” (Devarim 4:6).