Attaining the Light: The Order of the 613 Mitzvos and the Division Between Positive and Negative Commandments | Zohar Pekudei Introduction, Shoftim 5786 (Auto Translated)

The Commandments of the Master of the Universe: The Secret of the 613 Commandments and “Remember” and “Keep”

Our Place in the Series

Today is erev Shabbos kodesh, parshas Shoftim, the first Shabbos of the month of Elul 5786, bringing us to the year 5787. This shiur is the second in our series on that section in the holy Zohar called ‘Pekudin d’Mara Alma’, the Commandments of the Master of the Universe. In the previous shiur we jumped ahead a bit to the second mitzvah, ‘to serve Him with all your heart’, assuming we had already dealt with the introduction which is the first mitzvah. But we must return to the introduction and explain what can be understood from it.

This week there was a shiur in Monsey, and I recorded it — and even sent the summary that the device recorded — and it was also connected with the verse ‘and you shall keep all My commandments and do them’, which is the introduction to the Pekudin in the Zohar. And here I wish to enter a bit more, more in the way of Kabbalah, since there the background and ‘structure’ of the discourse being made here is given.

What is the Explanation of Mitzvah?

We said that we wish to learn about the commandments of Hashem, and for this an introduction is needed. And the introduction is divided into two matters: One, what is the explanation of mitzvah. And the second, what might help understand the explanation of mitzvah — how many types of mitzvos are there. For often, when one enters into something and divides it into its parts, the essence of the thing itself becomes clear, and particularly when one observes how the thing is divided. The manner of division of the thing is what reveals to us what it is.

For example, man is created from different limbs, he has hands and feet and a head, and one can divide him in several ways: to speak of his intellect versus his emotions versus his actions; to speak of his body, of his hands versus his feet, of his upper parts versus the lower ones, of his internal parts versus the external ones. And all those modes of division teach us, that when we return them and combine them together — that is, when we understand them as one — we understand what the thing is, and what it should do, through understanding each and every part and its function. And each person according to his understanding of the essence of the thing, so will he divide its parts differently.

Why Speak Specifically in the Language of ‘Mitzvos’?

The same thing in the subject called mitzvos, and it needs to be explained a bit more clearly. First one must understand why we would speak at all in the language called mitzvos. For we are accustomed to say that a Jew is one who keeps Torah and mitzvos, that he fulfills the Torah and the mitzvos — and this is a double expression. And it seems to me that this is the simple meaning in the book of Devarim, where there are many verses saying ‘the Torah and the mitzvah’, and already in the book of Shemos come ‘Torah, mitzvah, chukim, mishpatim’, all those synonymous expressions that we say in the text of Maariv, ‘Torah and mitzvos, chukim and mishpatim You taught us’. And perhaps there are other expressions that I don’t recall now, but in the Chumash these expressions are repeated.

And the simple meaning, as with all synonyms, is that everything speaks of the same thing itself. And yet, each of the expressions expresses presumably a different aspect, a different version, a different part of that thing. In any case, it emerges that when one says ‘mitzvah’ one means the same thing itself that one means when saying ‘Torah’, ‘chukim’ or ‘mishpatim’ — in the most general way everything is one thing. And so we see in the simple meaning: sometimes the Torah will say ‘this mitzvah which I command you’, ‘and you shall do My chukim’, ‘and you shall keep My chukim’ and the like, and all those expressions mean keeping the mitzvos.

But it’s worth noting that there is a complete version, a complete chamber, a complete world, in which one speaks primarily in the version of mitzvos. That is, they understand everything differently — perhaps as one type of mitzvah or as one aspect of mitzvos — but what they speak of is fulfilling mitzvos. And there are other people, other chambers, other ways in which they don’t speak this way: they speak perhaps more about Torah, others speak more about mishpatim, more about chukim; one can speak of ‘the good and the right in the eyes of Hashem’, another version that the Torah speaks of much in the parshiyos, and other formulations that exist and I don’t recall now.

Therefore, if one speaks specifically about mitzvos, one should take a moment and grasp that mitzvos is a type of thing, a way of looking, a way of life, a way of thinking about everything. And perhaps this is not the only way, and it depends on what type of people, in what generation and with what soul that seeks to think about mitzvos.

The Zohar is Built on Parshiyos, Not on Mitzvos

The holy Zohar itself, which is like the vitality of the Torah that was written down, for the most part is not built on mitzvos. It is built on parshiyos, on the order of the Torah, on the order of the parshiyos. This is one way, but it is not really like the way of mitzvos. Certainly the mitzvos are found in it, but it is not like making the mitzvos into the order.

The same thing with Mishnayos: there are six orders of Mishnah, there aren’t 613 mitzvos there but rather the orders of Mishnah, and the Gemara is built on the order of the Mishnah. This is always the order that one can call the order of the Torah, or the order of time. In the Written Torah we customarily learn the order of the parshiyos, the order of the year, to go through each year the five books of the Torah — it’s a different order, not the order of mitzvos.

And this is very interesting when speaking: there is an order of mitzvos, and who established the order of mitzvos? Essentially, the order of mitzvos is the contemplation in which one looks at the thing. There is something hidden here, there is something that all those formulations — Torah, mitzvos, chukim, mishpatim — are as it were vessels for it, like embodiments of something. One could say: vitality, life, love — in the language of ‘eternal love’ — something that all these are ways to grasp it.

The Historical Source of the Order of Mitzvos

The Statement of Rabbi Simlai and the Azharos

The source of thinking about the order of mitzvos is certainly, in the most famous way, in the statement of Rabbi Simlai in tractate Makkos, which is a midrash, and one must contemplate what the midrash comes to accomplish. And in practice, the custom was to speak of this primarily on the festival of Shavuos, when many Jews wrote azharos — that is, lists of the mitzvos — built on the fact that on Shavuos we received the Torah, and many understood this as an order of prayer.

What I wish to explain is that the version of speaking about the mitzvos and their list, to count all 613 mitzvos, began more from prayer than from Torah. That is, on Shavuos the Jew wishes to express love, wishes to elevate the enthusiasm of matan Torah, and they speak either of the Ten Commandments or of the 613 mitzvos.

And therefore, as is known to all, Rashi brings in the name of Rav Saadia Gaon — and it seems to me not only Rav Saadia Gaon, but also others who wrote azharos went in this direction, as if according to the midrash — that all the Torah in its entirety, all 613 mitzvos, meaning they are included in the Ten Statements and in the Ten Commandments. And when do they say this? So that it would be possible to say a beautiful piyut. One must write a piyut. On Shavuos they also speak of the Ten Commandments, for in the event of matan Torah it is written that they received the Ten Commandments, and afterwards it says ‘and the Torah and the mitzvah which I have written to teach them’ (Shemos 24:12), and Rashi says in the name of Rav Saadia Gaon that in this are included the 613 mitzvos.

That is, if one wishes to express through prayer, through praise and thanksgiving, the joy of the festival of Shavuos, one speaks of matan Torah, of the giving of the Ten Statements, and speaks about this in more detail about the thing called 613 mitzvos. There is the source, this is the first place where Jews speak about 613 mitzvos. That is, not when learning — for then they learn Mishnayos, Gemara, Chumash, parshiyos — but here they learn 613 mitzvos, and learn them in the order of the Ten Commandments. This is for the most part the order in which they say them, for this is the order of appearance, as the Shavuos piyut appears so according to the Ten Commandments. Already from the verse the matter emerges so.

It emerges therefore, and it is simple, that the order of mitzvos goes according to the order of the Ten Commandments, which begins ‘Anochi’, ‘You shall not have’, ‘You shall not take’, and according to this order they placed the mitzvos that connect to the order.

The Rambam: All the Torah as the Order of Mitzvos

And now, after there were Rav Saadia Gaon and the other counters of mitzvos, the ‘Halachos Gedolos’, and the azharos of the other paytanim and sages who wrote, came the Rambam, and he is the great man — so it seems to me — who rewrote all the Torah in its entirety as the order of mitzvos. This is a completely new perspective, a completely new understanding in Torah. For in all the Torah, instead of saying there is Torah from ‘Bereishis’ to ‘before the eyes of all Israel’, or there are Mishnayos from ‘Berachos’ to ‘Uktzin’, there are now 613 mitzvos.

And the Rambam in his introduction to Sefer HaMitzvos criticizes with great sharpness the counters of mitzvos who preceded him, who did not count properly. And he says clearly that many of them were paytanim and not rabbis. That is, they really didn’t deal with this, and their function was not to rewrite all the Torah in its entirety. They wrote piyut, wished to elevate the beauty of the Torah, and wrote it as a beautiful midrash, a beautiful way to express through a list of 613 mitzvos that goes in the order of the Ten Commandments. But they didn’t intend to make here a book of halachos built on Sefer HaMitzvos, built on 613 mitzvos.

The Rambam is the first, or almost the first, who decided that if Sefer HaMitzvos, if the 613 mitzvos are the principles of all the mitzvos in the Torah and their list, then one must take them with complete seriousness. And if so, the learning called halachah, called Talmud, from which emerges how a Jew should conduct himself, all the life of the Jew — one must write it anew in the order of mitzvos. And he was very careful about what he considered a mitzvah and what not, what is called a mitzvah and what isn’t, how the thing is divided, which mitzvos divide into two, how they become two and how they become one. And how many things that appear at first glance as two mitzvos but really are one, and so forth, and what is d’Oraisa and what is d’Rabbanan, what is truly obligatory and what isn’t truly obligatory. And at great length in all those principles of Sefer HaMitzvos, and he rewrote all the mitzvos of the Torah in order.

And his great work, the ‘Mishneh Torah’, also went in this order — not exactly the same order as Sefer HaMitzvos, but a similar order, and also similar to the order of the Ten Commandments. Indeed it also begins with ‘Anochi’, and so it continues. All the mitzvos according to subjects are arranged in order, but the main thing is that the Torah now became a list in the order of mitzvos. This is the innovation of the Rambam.

Sefer HaChinuch: Mitzvos in the Order of Parshiyos

It’s interesting that most Jews, for example, when you ask them what is the first mitzvah, say that the first mitzvah is procreation. And one should know that this is not true. How so? It is not true except in a different way. In the Rambam the first mitzvah is always ‘Anochi Hashem your God’ (Shemos 20:2), and so in all the azharos, which all go in the order of the Ten Commandments. From where comes the idea that the first mitzvah is procreation? From a book called Sefer HaChinuch.

Sefer HaChinuch saw — it followed the Rambam, accepted from the Rambam that the Torah is 613 mitzvos — but saw that people don’t learn in the order of mitzvos. The life of the Jew is not arranged according to it, there is no time, except for Shavuos, when they say the 613 mitzvos: some say them in the piyut of Musaf, some say them in the tikkun for the night of Shavuos. But besides this the Torah is not arranged so, and not only the Torah but also the order of the Jew’s life throughout the year, and the order of learning studied in yeshiva, and what is done in the beis medrash when a person comes to shul on Shabbos — there is no order of learning of 613 mitzvos, except for those learning Mishneh Torah and whoever happens to. But in another way this is not the order, it was not customary so.

The Rambam did not succeed in changing the order of all the yeshivos to learn Rambam. Almost all the yeshivos, both in the time of the Rambam and after him, still learn the order of the Mishnayos, which became the Talmud, and they made a new order — it too is not the order of mitzvah, it’s a different order.

The Main Learning: The Order of the Weekly Parshah

And what order do they learn? The main Torah learning that we see all Jews share in, from small to great, is the order of the weekly parshah. This is very important. This week it struck me, I saw someone speaking about teaching people who are destined to be leaders, rabbis, influencers, and saying that he will be careful to learn the Chumash well, at a certain level of seriousness, since all his life he will say each week a dvar Torah on the series. It’s a shame that if this is the main learning, at least they should teach it in yeshiva with some seriousness, know a bit of the commentators, Chumash with Rashi — and many people don’t learn this.

And afterwards, the main learning — and I’m not speaking about bnei Torah sitting in yeshiva learning seder Nezikin, but about baalei batim, the masses, all of Israel, the women, the children — everyone learns the parshah, and the rabbis and leaders each one looks, enters ‘Kol HaLashon’, ‘Kol HaTorah’ and the like, and what does he seek? A shiur on the parshah. One must elevate a bit the level of the shiur on the parshah, for there they learn the Torah.

And this indeed was the function of Sefer HaChinuch. So he says in the Ramban’s introduction to the Torah, two similar sources — Sefer HaChinuch was a bit after the Ramban but in the same region — and both say the same thing: that if one wishes to teach the Jews the Torah truly, it would be good to go in the order of the parshah. So he went in Sefer HaChinuch and rewrote the entire order of the Rambam, and looked in the Rambam which is the mitzvah, from which verse, where it is found in the Torah, and wrote in each parshah how many mitzvos are in it, and brought some halachos, some midrashim, some aggados, some mussar in the order of the parshiyos. And he says clearly that he wants the Jews, the children going to shul, to discuss among themselves how many mitzvos there are this week and what are the halachos of the mitzvos, and he notes each time in which Gemara the halachos of the mitzvah are found, for whoever wishes to expand a bit. And this was the function of Sefer HaChinuch.

And it’s possible that he didn’t always aim at the truth from which verse the mitzvah really comes. There is the knowledge that learning Rambam in depth, and also what is learned here in the Zohar, reveals that the Rambam doesn’t always bring the correct verse. That is, the Rambam’s function was not to go in the order of the Torah. The Rambam wished to know what are the mitzvos. It’s understood that the mitzvah comes from the verse, but often a mitzvah that comes from two verses — not for a precise reason — the Rambam brought one verse because it is simpler, clearer.

The Chinuch taught the public the mitzvos in the order of the parshiyos, and therefore most people going in the order of the parshiyos say that the first mitzvah is procreation, for this is written already in parshas Bereishis. And even though according to the Rambam it is not at all correct to say there is a mitzvah in parshas Bereishis — there are several investigations one can investigate in this — this is not learning the order of 613 mitzvos but the order of the weekly parshah.

And this is a bit like grafting, a bit like kilayim to go so: if one already wishes to learn the order of mitzvos, there is in the order of mitzvos a great light, a great clarity, that is not there when one learns that ‘be fruitful and multiply’ is the first mitzvah. One should tell children who review the 613 mitzvos — there are such programs — that one should not go in the order of Sefer HaChinuch but in the order of the Rambam. There is simple Torah in the Rambam, and there is something more complex than this. The order of Sefer HaChinuch is simply the order of the parshah, the logic and flow of its order go according to the flow of the weekly parshah, which is the way one learns mitzvah. But the 613 mitzvos are a new order, there is in it complete wisdom, complete light, in what order the 613 mitzvos are arranged, and there is light also in contemplation and understanding of the matters, and also in life — and if a person wishes to live so, also his life will be in such an order.

The Zohar and the Order of Mitzvos

The Books in the Zohar That Go in the Order of Mitzvos

And now we come to our Sefer HaZohar, and we see that the Zohar indeed, as I said, most of the Zohar is the order of parshiyos and not the order of mitzvos. And even when there is a mitzvah, it doesn’t make a business of the mitzvos in the parshiyos specifically. But the authors of the Zohar did write a book of mitzvos, perhaps more than one book, perhaps more than two. The Zohar indeed had an interest in the order called mitzvos, they were one of the things that were important to it: to understand the Torah in the order of mitzvos, to understand the mitzvos in the order of the Torah.

Therefore there are, as I say, two or three other books in the Zohar, or sections in the Zohar. The first is the section we are learning now, called ‘Pekidin’, which is more in the language of the main Zohar. It doesn’t go through all the mitzvos — not even one of them through all 613 mitzvos — but it goes through many mitzvos, fifty, forty-six mitzvos, in the order of mitzvos, closer to the order of the Rambam, not exactly the same order but similar to it. The same thing exists in ‘Raya Mehemna’, which also explains a book of mitzvos. And in the third place there is in the introduction to the Zohar a list of eleven mitzvos — or fourteen, I don’t recall the number — in which the Zohar goes in the order of mitzvos to understand the Torah as the order of mitzvos.

The Printers and the Confusion of the Books

And now the matter is a bit ironic, and in this we see that Jews are not drawn so much after the order of mitzvos. In practice, the main order of learning of the Jews was and is and will be in the order of the parshiyos. And when they printed the Zohar, they didn’t print the books properly, indeed for those very same reasons. Those who printed it wanted to make a good book that the public would learn. Perhaps they were not the greatest scholars, but presumably people who understood a bit of Zohar. It seems to me that their main purpose, being printers, was to sell a book that people would buy. And everyone knows that if one wishes to print a book that the public will buy, and there is a chance they will seek it, it must be in the order of the weekly parshah.

Therefore the printers of the Zohar went, and those two or three books — the first is still separate in the introduction to the Zohar, but the two books that the Zohar wrote in the order of mitzvos — they took them, broke them into pieces, and took out each section according to the parshah they thought it belongs to, where the verse of the mitzvah is written, in the way the Chinuch did to the Rambam, and wrote the sections of Zohar there. And this caused great confusion, and this is not now our discussion to enter into the history, for there are many differences. Often the section of mitzvos is from the book ‘Raya Mehemna’, which is a completely separate book, and sometimes from the book called ‘Pekidin’, and not everyone knew that ‘Raya Mehemna’ is a separate book. In any case, they are two different books, and they don’t connect with the section before them nor with the section after them, and people thought this is a confused book, difficult to understand.

And besides this we see that the Arizal and the Gra wrote in the side of their Zohar the correct order how it should be learned, all this is explained in the introduction to the book ‘Raya Mehemna’ that was printed recently in recent years, so that it would be possible to learn.

The Mitzvos are an Internal Jewish Concept

And we clarified that it is not enough to say that this is a parable with a lesson, or that this is the thing itself ‘as it is above so it is below’, that just as in man there are different attributes so with the Holy One Blessed be He, or the deeper things that the Kabbalists say, that a person who conducts himself with the attribute of chesed arouses with the Holy One Blessed be He the attribute of chesed. What do I mean to say in my words in Jewish language? That instead of expressing this from the outside and saying there is a subject of 613 mitzvos, and someone will say that the Rambam said that the 613 mitzvos are like a book of laws, that one needs a list of laws — for every proper country, every proper people, have something like a book of mitzvos, they know what their laws are and what they do, and the Jews didn’t have, and the 613 mitzvos are the source that the Rambam found that one can say these are the Jewish laws, there is a list, six hundred and thirteen laws — this is an external thing, something that as it were imitated the Greeks, imitated the Muslims, I don’t know whom, and this is not the Jewish language.

For the concept of mitzvos is a Jewish concept. The concept of 613 mitzvos, and the division of mitzvos into positive commandments and negative commandments — which is the main division we will speak of in the course, and perhaps there are more internal divisions within the mitzvos — all this is a completely internal Jewish thing, in Jewish language. Therefore the Zohar, instead of entering into all the thing I gave you as background, goes straight to the thing without the background. Because of this, if one learns Zohar without the background and doesn’t know all the context, one doesn’t understand what it seeks. And if one understands what it seeks, one grasps that this is what it does, that it speaks in all the language. Instead of making an introduction and explaining, it says this simply, as if it were a commentary on some verse with midrash and hint and secret, but this is its intention.

Therefore the introduction to Pekudim speaks exactly of this, so I am convinced. I see that I made a long digression just to understand the thing, but I wish to continue still a bit.

The Secret of the Two Types of Mitzvos

Positive Commandments and Negative Commandments in the Statement

Let us try to see what the Zohar understood is the intention, the secret of the thing called 613 mitzvos according to secret, according to Kabbalah. Let us return to what is said in that statement. Let us leave all the external question, as a structure of law, and let us all come to the subject of the statement of Rabbi Simlai, the original first statement speaking of 613 mitzvos. The original statement said ‘613 mitzvos were given to Moshe at Sinai’ (Makkos 23b) — this is a very important fundamental part — and whoever made the count of mitzvos had to be careful in the division, and said ‘248 positive commandments corresponding to the limbs of man, and 365 negative commandments corresponding to the days of the solar year’ (Makkos 23b).

And now, we will speak afterwards, perhaps in the next shiur, about deepening in the Zohar itself already in the first mitzvah, where it speaks in depth what is the secret of the 248 and the 365. If so, the subject it speaks of in the introduction — indeed it speaks of it further also in the mitzvos themselves. But I wish to speak first of this, that in order to build the building called 613 mitzvos — this is a new innovation, a new light, how one arranges the Torah.

I once spoke about Rabbi Simlai, the author of the statement, who has very many statements in the midrash, and he deals with the order of the Torah. There is also a famous section of Rabbi Simlai that Rashi brings at the beginning of parshas Tazria, ‘just as man’s creation was after all beast, animal and bird, so man’s Torah was explained after beast, animal and bird’ (Vayikra Rabbah 14:1). This is another source that Rabbi Simlai dealt with the subject of the order of the Torah. There is a secret in the order of the Torah.

The Principles in Halachah of Positive and Negative Commandments

Therefore, Rabbi Simlai, in order to make this order, spoke about there being two types of mitzvos: positive commandments and negative commandments. And now, the subject of two types of mitzvos is not the first place and is not the only place where they speak of it in order to make a list. Rather, whoever learns halachah, whoever learns Gemara, knows that there are different practical differences, different levels, different principles connected to positive commandments and negative commandments.

Let us recall, and I wish to tell it so, that the discourse that speaks more clearly from the background — let us say so: the Zohar goes straight to the subject, what is the secret of the two levels. What is positive and negative, what is zachor and shamor, male and female, and so forth. I wish to give you the background further, the hidden and concealed background in the Zohar. We already spoke in general about the background of the concept of 613 mitzvos; now I wish to speak in general about the background of the two types of mitzvos.

From the fact that there are two types of mitzvos, positive and negative, and whoever connects a bit the two things — the first that I know who raised it a bit, not completely clearly but a bit, and presumably there is also background missing for me and I still need to search, but who raised a bit the subject of how the thing connects with the subject in general, as they say according to halachah, according to Gemara, from the types of mitzvos that exist — this is the holy Ramban. And the Ramban, in his commentary on the Ten Commandments, indeed in parshas Yisro, and again in parshas Va’eschanan, and in two more places where the Ramban goes in this way, but in parshas Yisro he explains more than anywhere the context regarding the mitzvos.

Therefore I wish to recall two things he says about the subject of positive commandments and negative commandments. There are many more differences, and whoever looks in the encyclopedia will see many differences between positive commandments and negative commandments according to halachah, according to midrash, according to Gemara, how the subject works.

First one must truly understand — and it seems to me there is also length in this that I cannot finish, and I only wish to finish the point today — the first: a positive commandment is something one does, and a negative commandment is something one doesn’t do. And now, this is not completely precise, for there are positive commandments that one doesn’t do, and negative commandments that one does — that is, a negative that comes from a positive, and perhaps a positive that comes from a negative. Not always is the language of the mitzvah the same language, but there is such an essence of mitzvah.

And one of the great differences, that anyone who learns Torah and halachah knows: for positive commandments there is no punishment, except perhaps rabbinically. From the Torah certainly there is no punishment, almost never is the thing written, except for a real exception — perhaps Pesach and circumcision, which are positive commandments that are exceptions where the punishment is written in the Torah. But in general, one who doesn’t fulfill a positive commandment has no punishment on him, not from the Torah and not rabbinically. There is indeed a rabbinical law, that they give lashes of rebellion, they force a person to fulfill the mitzvah, but from the essential law of the Torah they don’t punish for positive commandments.

Generally, a positive commandment is something written in the Torah that one should do. A negative commandment is something written or ‘beware’ that one shouldn’t do, and so the Gemara always learns that ‘beware’ is a negative commandment. Another difference, very important, between positive commandments and negative commandments, and whoever knows the principles knows there is a principle ‘a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment’ (Yevamos 3b). They learn this from kilayim in tzitzis, and from the mitzvah of yibum, which is in place of a brother’s wife, that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment.

And here one can already see very interesting differences. It’s possible there is a contradiction — I’m not clear on this, and all the commentators on the Ramban here labored over what is the simple meaning. For the Ramban speaks of two differences: that a positive commandment is as if greater, for we see it is great, so great that it overrides a negative commandment. And on the other hand it is as if less severe, for one doesn’t receive punishment for it. I don’t know if not receiving punishment means it is less severe, perhaps the opposite, and this must be understood. But these are the two facts that exist, that we are speaking of now about positive commandments and negative commandments. And presumably there are many more facts that should be brought into the picture, but this is enough for now.

The Ramban: Positive from Love, Negative from Fear

The Ramban says thus: the inner aspect of the thing is so — positive commandments are connected to the attribute called love. Everyone knows that in the relationship between man and his God, between man and reality truly, there are two attributes: one is called love and one is called fear. This itself, as we spoke afterwards, like children and like servants, this is approximately love and fear.

And the Ramban gives a few words and explains: Why? Because a positive commandment one does it, meaning: I do something that the Holy One Blessed be He loves. And what is the language? ‘One who does the commandments of his master is beloved to him and his master has mercy on him’ (Ramban Shemos 20:8). Indeed he speaks of the love of the Holy One Blessed be He for man, not of man’s love for the Holy One Blessed be He. He says that a person who does what his master loves, the things his master requests of him to do, his commandments — his master loves him, and consequently also has mercy on him. There is an attribute called love, and there is an attribute called mercy, and they are not exactly the same attribute, but this is the explanation of a positive commandment that has in it the attribute of love.

As opposed to a negative commandment, he says,

The Ramban: Positive from Love, Negative from Fear (continued)

As opposed to a negative commandment, he says, it comes from the attribute of fear. Why? Because one who guards himself from doing something his master doesn’t love, this is because he fears him. And one must understand well, for one could say both about both: seemingly one could say, I do what he wants, what he desires, because I fear. And one could say, I guard myself from what he doesn’t desire, also because I love him. Why should one make the distinction? There is a deep matter here.

What is the True Explanation of the Distinction?

One must understand that the distinction doesn’t speak of the reasons why a person does a mitzvah. It seems to me that the Ramban raises this, but it’s not sufficiently clear that this is not his intention, but rather his intention is mainly for another part of his words. For the reasons why a person does a mitzvah — both can be done from love and from fear. The intention is to something else, and this can also resolve why there are positive commandments that one does without action, and positive commandments that one does with action — it’s not completely so.

The intention is to something else a bit, and this will help us understand what is a mitzvah in general. This is the main point. For if one says that mitzvah means that the Holy One Blessed be He commanded and I fulfill, both can be done from love and from fear, and the distinction is not a true distinction. And why at all should one labor and make separate lists, positive commandments and negative commandments? There are differences in halachah, one must know a positive overrides a negative. But a positive overrides a negative itself, says the Ramban, is for this reason: because a positive commandment is from love and a negative commandment is from fear, and love is greater than fear, therefore a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment.

In other words, one must understand much better the essence of a positive commandment and a negative commandment, and so it will be possible to understand everything differently, and to understand also what is a mitzvah. And the explanation is thus, so it seems to me. A negative commandment means that there are problems in the world, there are things that are not good. There are different situations that are not good, different actions that are not good, different people who are not good, all kinds of things that are not good. And from things that are not good one must distance oneself. ‘Not good’ means that the Holy One Blessed be He hates it, means bad things in the eyes of one’s master.

And one must understand the following secret: that fear, that they mean here essentially seemingly fear of punishment. The distinction of love and fear here is not ‘to fear’ and ‘to love’. The distinction of love and fear here is: love is when one goes toward something, love is a positive attraction, I want something. That is, there are things in the world that are good, that the Holy One Blessed be He loves them, they are good things, and it is good to do good things, good to go to good things, to remain in them and so forth. And there are bad things, and it is bad to go to them.

The attribute called that one does the good, that one does the sweet, the light, the pleasure, is called love, that he is drawn. And the quality called that one flees, that one doesn’t go to what is not good, is called fear. Fear doesn’t mean here to fear the master. Fear means truly that he fears — not from… the Ramban says fear of the master, but it seems to me more correct to say that he fears the thing, in the way they call this fear of sin. Fear of sin — does he fear the Holy One Blessed be He or the sin? Because he fears, meaning he goes away. Fear means he goes away. Not fear of exaltedness, which is more like love, but fear here means he goes away.

And since fear means he goes away — he has in him the attribute of fear, and indeed he becomes closer to the Holy One Blessed be He also in the attribute of fear, he doesn’t go away from the Holy One Blessed be He, but goes away from the things that the Holy One Blessed be He hates them. And this means he has in him the attribute of fear. This is the secret of the attribute of fear.

Two Types of Service: Zachor and Shamor

And now we understand that there are two types of mitzvos. This is not just ‘turn it over and you will find’ for learners, that they should know different principles in halachah, that for this one receives lashes and for this one receives something else. The distinction is, in other words, that as it were there are desired things and hated things, not good things, things one should fear from them — as it were the Holy One Blessed be He Himself fears them, not that He fears them, but that He distances them, things He abhors, that He hates.

And there are two types of people one could say, there are two types of service, not just the same thing, but two completely different types of service. There is a service that is a type of good attribute, a type of action called to do the good, to seek to bring about the good things. And there is an attribute called shamor (keep), to guard oneself from things that are not good.

And now it is understood, I must hear that the two things are not separate from each other. And yet, it is not possible to do good things when one does them in a bad way, in a bad place. One who does only positive commandments and doesn’t have fear in him, is not a person. And yet, there are many ways that a positive overrides a negative, and there is a contradiction.

And here I must say that the Torah — and this is the main point I had to finish today — the Torah is not a Torah that the Ramban innovated, but this is truly simple meaning. The Ramban says that this is the secret, this is zachor and shamor. Zachor is what one does indeed, the attribute of male, in the aspect of the male, in the way that the attribute of the male is that he does. Shamor is the attribute of female, that she doesn’t do, that is night, that at night one sleeps, one doesn’t do, but at night there is fear. One must ensure that enemies don’t come, that kelippos don’t come, that things that are not good don’t come.

The Secret of “Zachor and Shamor Were Said in One Utterance”

The Contradictions in the Torah

And the Ramban says, when one looks one sees that this is truly simple meaning. I will need next week to begin again from the subject of zachor and shamor. I have in mind that I already spoke of this once, but I am coming already very late and I must finish. The subject is thus: it is written in the Gemara, and in the midrash Mechilta it is written, and the Gemara brings it in interesting places in the laws of Rosh Hashanah, in tractate Rosh Hashanah, in the subject of ‘two voices cannot be heard’. But the Gemara says, in the midrash Mechilta it is written, ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance’ (Rosh Hashanah 27a). That is, there is a contradiction. In Va’eschanan it is written ‘keep (shamor) the Shabbos day’ (Devarim 5:12), and in Yisro it is written ‘remember (zachor)’ (Shemos 20:8). And it was difficult for the Gemara what this means.

And the Ramban elaborates to say that the intention is not simply that it was difficult why there are changes between the two versions of the commandments, for there are different changes, and the Ibn Ezra already said this is not a problem: the Torah, here a vav is written and here a vav is not written, there is no necessity that it be exactly letter for letter the same thing. So says the Ibn Ezra, and it seems the Ramban agrees with this if it were true. But the Ramban says, and the Ibn Ezra says the same thing about zachor and shamor — the Ramban says: No, this is an error. The Ibn Ezra claimed the intention is the same thing, and the Ramban claimed the intention is not the same thing. Shamor means a negative commandment, and zachor means a positive commandment, means to do indeed, and these are not the same teachings. How is it possible to say this is the same thing?

He says, the Ramban explains, that what the Gemara and the midrash make a whole business from ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance’ — a person cannot say that as it were the midrash gives an answer, that the Holy One Blessed be He said both as one, for a person cannot say both as one, and the Holy One Blessed be He can. The Ramban says, this is not its simple meaning, for you can say the same answer. The intention: here it is written zachor and there it is written shamor, and in one utterance they were said, the Holy One Blessed be He says, say both. And why did He have to say both? What does He want?

The Ramban says: No. The midrash intends to say, first, you understood that these are teachings, and this is a positive commandment and a negative commandment, but this is not enough. Indeed there are two. Indeed there is in Shabbos a positive commandment, to make kiddush and rest, and to fulfill the positive commandment of keeping Shabbos, and not to do work. The Holy One Blessed be He could say separately. What is written in the midrash ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance’, says the Ramban, the intention is to a secret. The intention is not its simple meaning at all.

The Mechilta: Contradictions of Positive and Negative

And the truth, and I wish to give the background to the secret further — the Ramban jumps straight to the secret, I wish to give the background to the secret — and this is written explicitly in the Mechilta, this is not an innovation of the Kabbalists. It is written explicitly in the Mechilta, the Mechilta says thus: ‘Zachor and shamor both were said in one utterance’ (Mechilta Yisro). And the Mechilta explains: What do I mean by saying ‘both were said in one utterance’? It says thus: The Holy One Blessed be He said both things in one utterance.

On one hand it is written ‘its desecrator shall surely be put to death’ (Shemos 31:14), and on the other hand it is written ‘and on the Shabbos day two lambs’ (Bamidbar 28:9). And which should one offer, to slaughter on Shabbos, which is one of the 39 labors, or not?

Another example: it is written in one verse ‘the nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover, it is your brother’s nakedness’ (Vayikra 18:16), and in a second verse it is written ‘her yavam (brother-in-law) shall come to her and take her to him as a wife and perform yibum’ (Devarim 25:5). A contradiction.

A third thing: it is written ‘you shall not wear shaatnez’ (Devarim 22:11), and it is written ‘you shall make yourself twisted threads’ (Devarim 22:12). Here are one, two, three, four contradictions.

And because of this the Mechilta says ‘both were said in one utterance, what is impossible for a person to say so’, as it is written ‘God spoke one thing, these two I heard’ (Tehillim 62:12), ‘is not My word like fire’ (Yirmiyahu 23:29), that Rashi explains it splits into several sparks. In other words, the Mechilta raises, that when I say ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance’, my intention is not that the Holy One Blessed be He is like magic, that the Holy One Blessed be He can do everything, that He can say twice. Even a person can, that two people say together — although this is a problem, two voices cannot be heard — so he says: ‘for a mouth cannot speak and an ear can hear’. What is there in the fact that the Holy One Blessed be He says in one utterance and you cannot hear it?

The Mechilta explains that its intention is not to say simply that the Holy One Blessed be He said. What did the Holy One Blessed be He say? A historical investigation, I don’t know, this is not the subject of the Mechilta. What the Mechilta intends to say is that there are many mitzvos where the positive in them and the negative in them are a contradiction. One should not desecrate Shabbos, one should not work on Shabbos, and one should indeed offer the Shabbos sacrifices. One should not do the forbidden relations of a brother’s wife, and one should indeed do yibum. One should not wear shaatnez, and one should indeed wear tzitzis. That is, there is here a contradiction of positive and negative.

The Answer: Both Come from the Same Thing

For we have the principle, indeed the halachah says that a positive overrides a negative. A halachic Jew will say: “Nu, the difficulty is resolved, a positive overrides a negative, there is a principle.” How so? Is this a good thing? In other words, is it a good thing to marry a brother’s wife, or a bad thing? A negative means this is a bad thing. A positive, yibum, says this is a good thing. And the answer is ‘both were said in one utterance’. In other words, with the Holy One Blessed be He — one must understand the Torah in a divine way. When one says that the Torah is 613 positive and negative commandments, hidden in this is such a deep secret. And in this is hidden the secret of ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance’. And in this is hidden: what is a mitzvah? It is not so simple.

You cannot say that from bad things one must flee completely, and good things one should do always. Also in good things there are principles, as the Gemara has principles: a positive doesn’t override a negative that has kares, doesn’t override a negative and a positive, and the like. There are principles when the thing is not so. But also there are principles that go opposite from what you would think. You say one should never desecrate Shabbos, and in the Temple it is permitted — you are permitted to offer Shabbos sacrifices. And not only permitted, but obligated.

And the Ramban adds the problem, for in love there is freedom. One asks: “Yes, I love so much — as they say, I love the Holy One Blessed be He so much — I want to blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos.” The Gemara comes and says: “No.” Even though this is a small concern, the shofar of Rosh Hashanah doesn’t desecrate Shabbos, even things that are shevus. According to the commentators on the Mishnah, that the thing doesn’t go, that fear overcomes love. And this is the ruling that the Sages understood from ‘zachor and shamor in one utterance’, that here the ruling is different.

The Complete Understanding of Mitzvah

But ‘zachor and shamor in one utterance’ raises that the complete understanding of the explanation of mitzvah — and we will explain with the help of Hashem better next week, and whoever heard the shiur from Wednesday will be able to connect with certain things — the complete understanding of what is a mitzvah, one must understand that the positive and the negative, the action that is good to do and the guarding from what one must guard, come from the same thing, they are the same thing. There is here something that… a person cannot understand it, but the Holy One Blessed be He can in one utterance do both things. And when one does mitzvos truly, we too can.

And what is the explanation? We keep Shabbos, and we bring two Shabbos candles, two hadassim, one corresponding to zachor and one corresponding to shamor. That is, we elevate ‘zachor and shamor in one utterance’. This is in the aspect of ‘and you shall keep My charge, I am Hashem’. The Holy One Blessed be He is one, He can say one, and the faith that the Holy One Blessed be He is one — that you can say one.

And I am only saying an introduction here, for here is hidden a very deep understanding of what is a mitzvah. This is much deeper than what most people understand. And it is understood that according to this the Zohar is built, for the mitzvos have in them the level of the Shechinah and the level of Zeir Anpin — which is the level of zachor — and the unification of both, this is what makes a mitzvah. And without this there is no mitzvah truly that is not positive and negative. As we understand, every positive means “and don’t do not to”, and every negative means “and do not to”. This is only a way of saying, only teachings. But if a person doesn’t understand that the positive and negative, the zachor and shamor of every mitzvah — he lacks the essential unification, he lacks the divinity of the mitzvah. For then he says that the mitzvah is a human thing, and one must say that this is something only the Holy One Blessed be He can do. This is the explanation that this is a mitzvah of Hashem. As the Zohar says, ‘pekida d’mara alma’, this is a mitzvah of Hashem, a mitzvah of the Master of the Universe, and not just mitzvos.

And this is the explanation of the background of the introductions to the Zohar. And with this we will continue.