Rabbi Michael RosensweigMitzvot Kallot as a Litmus Test of Religious Commitment

"Ve-hayah eikev tishmaun eit ha- mishpatim ha- eileh" ( Devarim 7:12 ). Why does the Torah use the unusual term "eikev" in its description of the formula that will guarantee our spiritual destiny? Rashi, based on the Midrash Tanchuma, explains that the use of this term indicates that it is the scrupulous observance of and commitment to the "mitzvot kallot", the easier, or seemingly lighter imperatives that people tend to trample upon (hence the reference to "akev") that establishes our credentials to merit a covenant with Hashem. The difficulty is obvious. Why is observance of the lesser commandments the basis for attaining Divine providence and the fulfillment of our national and personal destiny?

The Kli Yakar (7:12) proposes that "mitzvot kallot" does not refer to any axiological hierarchy but to chukim, those mitzvot whose rationale is obscure and which are therefore taken lightly ("kallot") as they are the object of ridicule by outsiders (Yoma 67b). He notes that the previous pasuk ( 7:11 ) speaks about the need to observe both chukim and mishpatim (rational commandments), while the opening sentence of Eikev omits explicit reference to chukim. Kli Yakar explains that the term "eikev" conveys the importance of observing chukim precisely because chukim are trivialized by others. The strict observance of mishpatim does not necessarily reflect an unambiguous commitment to Divine law for its own sake. It is possible that one is simply enamored with the rational values expressed by particular norms. One who exhibits the same intense dedication to chukim as to mishpatim, however, demonstrates unequivocally that the foundation of his conduct is his commitment to Torah. The scrupulous observance of chukim, then, impacts upon the implementation of mishpatim as well. Hence, the Torah formulates the effect of "eikev" on mishpatim ("eit ha- mishpatim"). It is noteworthy that the greatest Jewish rationalist, the Rambam, also accentuates the priority of the mysterious chukim over the logical mishpatim as a gauge of halachic commitment (end of hilchot Me’ilah).

Ironically, the basic theme that Kli Yakar develops applies even more forcefully if "mitzvot kallot" does not in fact refer to chukim, but to mitzvot of lesser stature. After all, the Talmud does use the term "kallot" to refer to a lower level of obligation or to a lesser offense for which there is easier access to repentance (Yoma 85b). That the avoidance of minor violations should constitute the basis for the covenant between Hashem and the Jewish people is striking, indeed.

The Mishnah in Avot (2:1, and see also Avot 4 ;2- Rashi, and R. Yonah) counsels: "hevei zahir bekalah kebechamurah she- ein atah yodea mattan secharan shel mitzvot." (Be as scrupulous about lighter commandments as you are about the most stringent norms for one cannot know the corresponding reward of different commandments.) The mishnah is generally understood in two ways. According to some commentators, the mishnah establishes that the whole division between "kallot" and "chamurot" may be misleading. Often these categories stem from human perception that does not necessarily correlate with Divine and halachic reality. The assumption that one can gauge sin or obligation on the basis of the severity of its corresponding reward or punishment is inaccurate. Sometimes a severe punishment actually reflects a measure of leniency as it affords an avenue for expiation. Some commentators ( Maharsha, Sanhedrin) explain that this consideration underlies the principle of ein oneshin min ha-din (one cannot impose punishments based on logical inferences.) Thus, one should be equally scrupulous in matters that are seemingly less weighty or grave since it is impossible to really determine the hierarchy of the commandments or halachic values. This approach might also explain the role of "kallot" in the context of our parshah, but only if we interpret "kallot" only as a perception.

There is, however, a second approach to the mishnah in Avot, and by extension to the guarantee of Divine protection and the attainment of our collective and personal goals that projects the centrality of mitzvot kallot. Even if we could identify halachic obligations or institutions that are inherently less weighty than others, particular attention specifically to this group of "lesser" values is mandated. The role of "kallot" reflects two dimensions of halachah that are indispensable to its central role in Jewish life.

First, it accentuates the importance of a total integrated commitment. The Ohr Ha- chayim explains that the term "eikev" refers to the totality of ones commitment to Torah life. If one wishes to attain the lofty goals delineated in our parshah, he must integrate all facets of Torah life. It is important to affirm that every mitzvah, even those designated as relative kallot, provides an invaluable opportunity for avodat Hashem. According to this perspective, every mitzvah is of inestimable value. Furthermore, one who neglects even one of the minor obligations or lesser infractions diminishes from the totality of the Torah. His apparent disregard of a minor detail in fact affects his relationship to all mitzvot. It is unsurprising that the kabbalat ol mitzvot of a ger (acceptance of the yoke of commandments by a convert) does not abide the rejection of even a single point of halachah. The refusal to accept one of the "kallot" is not tolerated anymore than is the repudiation of such chamurot as the obligations of Shabbat and kashrut.

Moreover, in line with the Keli Yakar’s approach, it is precisely the embrace of kallot because they are kallot that serves as a true litmus test for ultimate halachic commitment. A frivolous attitude toward "kallot" demonstrates that one is dedicated to individual mitzvot or halachic institutions on their own merit, but not simply as an expression of Divine will. By picking and choosing and assigning relative values, one projects himself rather than Hashem as the arbiter of conduct and values. The ramifications of such an approach clearly transcend the omission or neglect of particular mitzvot. At the same time, the scrupulous adherence of mitzvot kallot reflects a profound allegiance to the authority and process of halachah beyond its details.

One might extend this notion to include punctilious observance of rabbinic laws, as well. R. Yonah (Avot 1:2) observes that the true measure of one’s religiosity can best be assessed by the response to rabbinic seyagim (fences) and takanot (enactments). One who exhibits reverence and proper caution in this sphere reflects authentic yirat shamayim (fear of heaven) in a manner that transcends the careful observance of Biblical laws. There are important halachic differences between rabbinic and Biblical laws, just as there are more subtle yet still crucial differences between "kallot" and "chamurot". These differences are halachically significant and even dictate priorities when it is appropriate to make such halachic choices. At the same time, the central role of rabbinic laws and "kallot" in defining the depth and authentic character of religious commitment is undeniable. Undoubtedly, it is precisely the elusive component of yirat shamayim, that indispensable ingredient in all avodat Hashem , that is the sine qua non of the covenant enumerated in parshat Eikev. The role of "kallot" in achieving this high attainment must be seen to be axiomatic.