[Avodah] Categorical imperative

[Yitzhak Grossman]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:40:46 -0400
David Riceman <driceman at att.net> wrote:

...

> You read the Rashi but apparently forgot to look at the gemara on which 
> it comments.  What's wrong with saying "ad kan tzippor yagiu rahamecha?" 
> "Mipnei she'oseh midosav shel HKBH rahamim...."  What Rashi is excluding 
> is that God is imposing the mitzva of shiluah hakan for its own sake; he 
> is imposing it to let the Jews know he is our God.  Notice that the 

The idea that the purpose of a commandment is "to let the Jews know he
is our God" is not at all the same thing as the notion that God's
commandments have value merely insofar as they *are* His commandments.

> Rambam (in MN 3:48 as cited by the Ramban below) understands the gemara 
> similarly, though he rejects this amoraic opinion, and the Ramban 
> (Devarim 22:6)  rejects this interpretation.  I'd say the naive 
> understanding of the Rashi is like the Rambam, though, if you prefer, 
> the Rambam is more explicit ("ein ta'am l'mitzvot ela heifetz haborei").

I don't quite understand the sense of this paragraph, but in any event,
I want to clarify (in case anyone else is, like me, confused or mislead
by the phrasing) that the phrase "ein ta'am l'mitzvot ela heifetz
haborei" is the view that Rambam is *rejecting*, not accepting,
although he does attribute it to the Mishnah.

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8:%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%9C_%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%94_%D7%99%D7%A9_%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%9D

or

www.kitzur.com/4gsb

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters