[Avodah] Categorical imperative

[David Riceman]

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> 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.
>   
You've missed the "ela" in "einan ela gzeirot".  The plain sense of 
Rashi is that the commandments have no functional purpose; their only 
function is that we have commandments to obey.  What does that do? It 
demonstrates that we obey God.

How does that differ from "God's commandments have value merely insofar 
as they *are* His commandments"? All it does is add an intermediate step 
in the chain of logic.
> 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.
 He attributes it to an amoraic interpreter of the Mishna (as I thought 
I'd said).  Is this not another example of "Rishonim expound[ing] Divine 
command theory"?

David Riceman