Q&A: On Preparatory Means of a Commandment
On Preparatory Means of a Commandment
Question
Hello, honored Rabbi. I read the article you wrote about generalization and classification in halakhic interpretation, and there you say that creating an object used for a commandment is not counted as a commandment, and that one indication that its creation is indeed not a commandment is that commandments are generally viewed as aimed at achieving ends in themselves, not as means for achieving other ends. In essence, objects used for commandments are just the Torah’s description of how the commandment is to be fulfilled—for example, even though it says regarding the menorah that we are commanded to make it in such-and-such a way, all of that only comes to describe that there is a commandment to light candles in a menorah of such-and-such a form. So in that context I wondered: what happens, or how does this fit, with objects used for commandments where, during their creation, we are commanded to do things that are not directly related to the creation of the object itself—that is, not just to how the object turns out in the end? In that case, would we view the making of the object with which a certain commandment is performed as itself also being a commandment, if we are commanded to perform certain actions that must be done while making it, as opposed to merely being commanded about its final form? For example, in writing a Torah scroll (which itself is indeed a commandment), a right-handed person is commanded to write it with his right hand and a left-handed person with his left hand. Isn’t that an indication—though perhaps not universally—that these commandment-objects are different from other commandment-objects, and that their making should therefore be counted as commandments?
Answer
Excellent question. I discussed this in connection with the rule of “make, and not from that which is already made” regarding a sukkah. There is no commandment to make a sukkah, only to sit in it. The making is merely a preparatory means of the commandment, and yet there are still laws governing how it must be done.
There is room to infer from this that the making is also a commandment, and perhaps every preparatory means is part of the commandment itself. I elaborated on this in the article on the tenth root. But that is not necessary, because it may be that the Torah is only saying how the object used for the commandment must be made, while there is no commandment in the act of making itself. The claim would be that if the object was not made that way, then when you perform the commandment you have not fulfilled it with the proper object, because it is not a sukkah. So too we see this in the law of “for its own sake,” which concerns the preparation of objects for a commandment and not the act of the commandment itself (in contrast to the law of intention, which applies to the performance of the commandment itself). Baking matzah for its own sake, tzitzit for their own sake, a sukkah for its own sake (for the sake of shade), and the like. None of these are commandments, and yet there are still halakhic rules for how they must be done.
Discussion on Answer
It has nothing to do with the biblical text, and I’m not aware of anyone who contradicts my claim (and even if someone does, this is still my view). As for Rashi, in my opinion many people misunderstand him. He does not mean that making a sukkah is a commandment, but that one who builds it is already considered engaged in a commandment, because he is engaged in its preparatory means. Even in the rule that one engaged in a commandment is exempt from another commandment, someone occupied with its preparatory means is considered engaged in the commandment.
It seems to me I discussed this at length in the book Shall Send Forth Its Roots, in the article on the tenth root.
If anything, you should have brought the Jerusalem Talmud regarding a blessing on building a sukkah, and even from there there is no proof, for the same reason. And as is well known, the Babylonian Talmud disagrees even about that. So how could Rashi contradict the Talmud?!
Rashi on Makkot 8a contradicts what you wrote; and see Arukh LaNer there, and his comments at the beginning of tractate Sukkah.
In any case, on the plain sense of the verse, your interpretation is possible.