12

Nowadays, one can only keep so many Mitzvos (271). That is less than half of the commandments of the Torah. I don't know if there is any statistic regarding how many Psukim discuss currently relevant laws in contrast to previously relevant laws (for example, how many Psukim discuss Tzaraas, Korbanos, and Tuma vs. Tzitzis, Tfillin, and Dinim).

Moreover, many laws became inapplicable towards the end of the first Beis Hamikdash. That means that there are many laws that were only applicable for less than 800 years.

Hashem knew that the Jews will spend most of our history in exile. Why is so much of the Torah written about things that will be actualized rarely, while many laws that are relevant for all time (for example, Tfillin, Mzuza) are learned from diyukim in scattered verses?

Community
  • 1
Rabbi Yaakov
  • 1,058
  • 5
  • 13
  • 5
    Have you ever redeemed your firstborn donkey? Not all mitzvot were designed for common use. – Double AA Feb 15 '12 at 20:37
  • 2
    Can someone explain to me how it's possible that you "can't do" 1 of the 365 negative commandments? You can always "Not do" something... – avi Feb 15 '12 at 22:17
  • 2
    @avi, some of them are predicated on particular situations (as in our parshah, "If you lend money... don't charge interest"). If you've never lent anyone money, then can you really say that you've fulfilled this commandment? – Alex Feb 16 '12 at 00:09
  • @Alex Even if I don't lend money, I won't be charging interest. I'll still be fulfilling the mitzvah. Secondly, I'm sure that the sepher HaChinuch did not consider "not charging interest" a negative commandment that doesn't apply to day. – avi Feb 16 '12 at 07:43
  • The premise of the question just seems false to me. – avi Feb 16 '12 at 07:45
  • @avi Even you will agree that it's only 365+77=442 which is not 613. The question stands. – Double AA Feb 16 '12 at 12:37
  • @DoubleAA 442 is more than half of 613. And many of the 171 remaining can be done today, even if they are not, or you might have to break some other halachot to achieve them. – avi Feb 16 '12 at 12:41
  • @avi I don't know what you mean by your second sentance, but if 171 mitzvot is not enough to wonder about, than at least consider that even if we are currently constantly mekayeim-ing the lav of not separating the head of a chatat ha-oaf, it is very much inapplicable to us in that it has no possible application. I don't think the questioner thought that the laws were not in effect, just there is no point of their being so. – Double AA Feb 16 '12 at 12:46
  • @DoubleAA I mean that if I wanted to do an Olah offering I could, the fact that I'll be breaking the commandment of not being allowed to give offerings outside the Temple, is a different issue. When you play numbers game like that, it just leads down the wrong path I think. – avi Feb 16 '12 at 13:10
  • @avi Is an olah brought outside the temple really an olah? I doubt it. – Double AA Feb 16 '12 at 14:47
  • @DoubleAA Gemora says it is/was but we severely punish a person who does that – avi Feb 16 '12 at 14:51
  • @avi Can you provide a source? – Double AA Feb 16 '12 at 16:02
  • Well that is interesting. According to wiki here, only 150 mitzvot are related to the temple and sacrifices. I wonder where the other 20 or so come from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban#100_among_the_613_commandments – avi Feb 16 '12 at 16:09
  • @DoubleAA I can't find nice one liner right now, but there are many discussions about what to do with things which are set to be sacrifices, even though you can't bring them. For about 400 years after the temple was destroyed, people used to still set aside money for sacrifices and let the money just sit unused. – avi Feb 16 '12 at 16:14
  • @avi The ability to makdish money says nothing about if you shecht a cow leshem olah outside of the mikdash. Are you implying that if a nazir offered his korbanot today outside the mikdash, he would be free of his nezirut? – Double AA Feb 16 '12 at 16:19
  • @DoubleAA No, I am saying that he would have fulfilled his obligation to bring a korban at the end of his Nezirut. (assuming that he ended his Nezirut in some other way), and then he would summarily be executed and given Karet for doing so. – avi Feb 16 '12 at 16:29
  • @avi So can you source that, because I doubt its veracity. – Double AA Feb 16 '12 at 16:30
  • @DoubleAA I already said, that I can't find the source for that right now. I'm searching for the wrong key terms to find something for someone discussing that minor detail of halacha. – avi Feb 16 '12 at 16:35
  • 3
    Re: "Hashem knew that the Jews will spend most of our history in exile." -- History isn't finished. Maybe this is just a tiny fraction of future jewish history. – zaq Feb 17 '12 at 17:02
  • 1
    @avi: The Mishnah, Menachos 109a, explicitly says no: "[If one says], 'I shall be a nazir' - he must shave [and bring his korbanos] in the Beis Hamikdash; if he does so in Chonyo's temple, he has not fulfilled his obligation [and remains a nazir]." – Alex Feb 17 '12 at 18:55
  • @Alex yes, I said he remains a nazir. – avi Feb 18 '12 at 16:31

2 Answers2

11

Maybe that's just it. With exile having been our dominant mode of existence for most of our history, there is a real danger that we'll come to see that as the norm. By having - and learning about - so many mitzvos, with the details richly given, that we can't perform in galus, then that drives home the point that things are not how they should be, which in turn should spur us to become worthy of geulah.

Another possibility, too, is that the details of those rarely applicable halachos are more likely to be forgotten altogether. (We even find that the paradigmatic forgotten halachos, those that were lost during the period of mourning for Moshe, include cases involving kodashim - Temurah 15b-16b.) At least with tefillin and tzitzis and mezuzah, since they are daily activities, their basic halachos are pretty clear and unequivocal; the machlokos about them tend to involve the details. (Everyone agrees, for example, about the shape, color, and positions on the body of tefillin, and on what parshiyos are in them.) By contrast, if the details of korbanos, tzaraas, and similar mitzvos weren't given in the Written Torah, it is quite possible that substantial chunks of this information would have been lost or confused (the more so because there are a lot of subtle differences between ostensibly similar cases).

Alex
  • 90,513
  • 2
  • 162
  • 379
3

Perhaps on a pseudo-philosophical level:

The only way I can get a reward for a mitzva that I didn't do myself is if I connect myself to the broader body of the Jewish people. This works not only laterally (I can't do the mitzva of the Kohen's blessing, but I know someone who can), but also temporally -- I have to connect to the entire Jewish people, which extends through time as well.

If an individual person could be completely halachically self-sufficient, then s/he could become a one-person island. But that's not how it works.

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • +1, and a nice idea (I do recall seeing something of the sort somewhere - maybe in R. Hirsch's writings?) Interestingly, though, a statement of the Arizal's implies pretty much the opposite: he says that every soul is indeed expected to be able to keep all of the 613 on its own (except for the mitzvos applying to a king, since he includes everyone), and may have to go through multiple gilgulim to do so. (Cited in Tanya, Iggeres Hakodesh 29; see footnotes 10-14 and accompanying text.) – Alex Feb 17 '12 at 21:46
  • @ShmuelBrill, ishto kegufo. (Also, why wouldn't a woman's soul be able to be reincarnated as a male and vice-versa?) – Alex Feb 20 '12 at 22:13
  • @ShmuelBrill, I thought that that's true of the bodies, whereas the neshamos are from Mah and Ban, respectively. I can't claim to be knowledgeable about this whole matter, but I've found references to Tikkunei Zohar (132b) and Shaar Hagilgulim (Hakdamah 9), both of which state that neshamos can be switched around for various reasons. – Alex Feb 21 '12 at 00:17