Doing away with mitzvos

"In essence they (the Zionists) are propagating the concept that mitzvos are irrelevant and obsolete." (Rebbe Rashab Kuntres U’Maayon 45-53)

The Xtians did away with mitzvos by replacing them with that man, but not at first. The sentiment at the beginning was to combine the two. Then the mitzvos fell away. Gradual seduction is key. Some Jews fell for it, but others weren’t going to betray their religion. Then came the haskalah. Again, the sentiment was to combine the two. Then it became a replacement. There it didn’t seem like replacing one religion for another, just getting away from religion altogether. It didn’t seem to be as perfidious. But many Jews were too loyal for that. Then came Zionism. Again, it was a combination at first and even there the new element wasn’t new at all, it was a mitzvah of some kind. But in the end, they did away with mitzvos. Today, they don’t’ even care about ‘thou shall not kill.’ Still there were loyal Jews around who didn’t fall for Zionism, at least not full blast. Then came Pilpulism. That’s when the entire religion is built around Talmudic lomdus. At first it was a combination and with a core mitzvah as the focus. What could be bad about that? But it led also to a doing away with mitzvos. What neo-Litvack pilpulist encourages mitzvos? A neighbor of mine once asked me what I had been doing lately. I said, “Mitzvos.” He corrected me “Torah and Mitzvos.” If I had said, “Torah,” would he have said, “Mitzvos and Torah” or “Torah and Mitzvos”? No, not a chance. 

If you ask a Pilpulist to defend himself, he’ll point to the first Mishnah in Peah:

These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners [of the field]. First-fruits; [The offerings brought] on appearing [at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals]. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the Torah. The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the Torah is equal to them all. (Peah 1:1)

The last line is what they care about, Torah is equal to them all. And the interpretation given is that the reward for Torah study is equal to that of all the mitzvos put together. And that gets stretched to one word of Torah study is equal to all of them. And that gets stretched to one word of study is greater than all of them put together even those done throughout your life. And then the Torah study is converted to Brisker lomdus. That’s a lot of stretching and converting. 

Let’s unpack this. Firstly, the word used in the Mishnah isn’t equal, it’s k’neged, which means adjacent to, not equal. The woman is ezer k’negedo, a helpmate alongside of him. And it certainly doesn’t mean greater than. Secondly, the Mishnah doesn’t reference Briskers lomdus which didn’t exist until the late 19th century. 

Thirdly, why would we say that this Mishnah is discussing volume of reward, as one rabbi asserted to me when I asked him why the religion in my experience as a baal teshuvah switched from a focus on mitzvos to being entirely about study. He said that the Mishnah is talking about reward. But is it? I say that it’s talking about at least two topics. The first is a small group of mitzvos, four to be exact, that don’t have a fixed measure of performance. The Mishnah starts by talking about performance, action, unlimited action. Then, it talks not about quantity of reward, but where one receives it. Then it moves to a vague statement that one can take many ways. Indeed, Rabbi Joseph Solveitchik, a Brisker Talmudist, says it means that Torah study leads to performance of mitzvos. 

His view fits in well with the Gemara in Kiddushin where the rabbis debate what’s greater study or action. Rabbi Tarfon says action and Rabbi Akiva says study. The group concludes that Torah is greater because it leads to action. (I heard once that this debate raged on for a year, so obviously the topic isn’t as simple as Pilpulists try to make it.) Rashi explains the conclusion: “because both are in one’s hands.” This suggests that Torah, which is a mitzvah in itself, leads to other mitzvos, so it brings about two mitzvos, the study of a mitzvah and its performance. In that way it is greater. It is a single mitzvah times two, not that one word today equals all of your mitzvos throughout your lifetime, but that study about an action is a mitzvah if it leads to action. Of course, a Mishnah in Avos tells us that one mitzvah brings about another, so even this idea isn’t so simple. 

It could be that what this Mishnah is asserting is the following: Many mitzvos are limited in their time and place, e.g. Krias Shema. But others should be expanded. Don’t just leave over a tiny piece of your field. Leave over a lot. More is better if you can afford it. It’s the same with Gemillas Chassidim (good deeds in the translation here.) It is ironic that Pilpulists have converted this Mishnah into a call for study to the exclusion of everything else when the Mishnah starts by talking about tzedukah. As for first fruits and offerings on the regel, likely these should be expanded because they are expressions of gratitude to Ha-Shem. They are expressions of the heart. There’s irony again as Pilpulists have converted this entire Mishnah into a call for cold activity of the brain. The Mishnah actually discusses action, emotion, and thought.

Now that the Mishnah has instructed us regarding deeds and emotions, it moves on to the intellect. See the Tanya for much more on Torah life including all three. We could have spent all our time on the first two, but you need Torah study to instruct us in the first two. An ignoramus cannot be a chassid. People who mean well but lack wisdom can actually do harm. So we are reminded that Torah is adjacent to all of these. It instructs us how to go about doing. 

Another irony is that the part of the Mishnah that talks about reward (where to receive it), talks only about mitzvos between people: honoring parents, acts of kindness, and making peace between people. If you are to say that the last piece, study of Torah being k’neged, goes with the second piece, then three of four concern other people, and this piece of the Mishnah starts with that.

In sum, it’s quite a stretch to offer this Mishnah as a proof for the Pilpulist doctrine. It’s dishonest. It stretches here, shrinks there, misreads key words until you wind up with a reading that doesn’t fit the Mishnah and misses clear messages of the Mishnah. It all reminds me of what Zionists do in every book they produce. They strip Judaism of basic tenants, one after the next: redemption without repentance, redemption without the Messiah, gradual redemption rather than the exciting miracles we have been promised, and events of sin, violence, and chillul Ha-Shem being redemption. Then there’s how they mangle the Three Oaths. It’s been nullified, it’s only Aggadata as if that makes it non-binding. Manipulation after manipulation to fit their real aim of tossing away of mitzvos. Both sides have the same goal. They just use different methods.