Parashat Vaetchanan (5760)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of Parashat Vaetchanan, 5760

The Difference Between Positive and Negative Commandments: Logic and Jewish Law

This week I would like to try to give readers a taste of the Torah-academy study experience by presenting

a concise account of a fine distinction touching on the foundations of Jewish law. This time the reading demands some concentration, but

it is worth the effort.

In our portion, Moses, in his summary, repeats the Ten Commandments from Parashat Yitro. There are several changes

between the formulation in this portion and the formulation in Parashat Yitro, and one of the best known among them appears in the commandment of

Sabbath observance. In Parashat Yitro it says: 'Remember the Sabbath day' (Exodus 20:8), and in our portion: 'Observe the

Sabbath day' (Deuteronomy 5:12). The Sages explain that these are two aspects of the Sabbath day: there is a prohibition against doing work on

the Sabbath, a negative commandment, and there is an obligation to keep the Sabbath day, a positive commandment. It is important to understand

that the practical expression of this positive commandment overlaps with the practical expression of the negative commandment: both of them

establish a prohibition on performing work on the Sabbath day.

At this point the question arises: what is the real principled difference between negative commandments and positive commandments, for

a verse that commands abstention from work is, apparently, logically equivalent to a verse that warns against doing work.

At first glance, the difference lies in the mode of fulfillment of these commandments, or in the mode of transgressing them. Positive commandments

are fulfilled actively, or, in the terminology of Jewish law: 'rising and acting,' and negative commandments

are fulfilled (that is, one avoids violating them) passively, in what is called: 'sitting and refraining from action.'

According to this view, the commandment to make a parapet for a roof, for example, is a positive commandment, because it requires

us to perform an active deed: building a parapet. Violating this commandment occurs by way of

non-action: not building it. By contrast, the prohibition of doing work on the Sabbath is a negative

commandment, because it is fulfilled by refraining from action.

As we saw above, this picture apparently does not fit the legal reality. We encountered a positive commandment,

namely, to keep the Sabbath, that requires precisely non-action from us. By contrast, there are negative

commandments, such as 'You shall not place bloodguilt in your house' (Deuteronomy 22:8), which forbids leaving dangerous places on property

that we own (for example, a roof without a parapet). These require from us precisely active conduct (in the example

above: installing a parapet on the roof).

We see, then, that in Jewish law there are positive commandments that are fulfilled through action, and there are

others that are fulfilled through non-action. So too, there are negative commandments that are fulfilled through

action, and there are others that are fulfilled through non-action. In light of this, the question returns in full force:

what is the essential difference between positive commandments and negative commandments?[1] I shall now try to offer

briefly a possible explanation of this difference.

The proposed definition is as follows: a positive commandment is a commandment that points to a state desirable to God,

one in which the Torah commands us to be. A negative commandment is a commandment that points to a state that is not

desirable to God, and therefore the Torah commands us to avoid it. According to this proposal, it does not depend on the question

of whether the commandment physically requires action or non-action (that is, whether it involves rising and acting or

sitting and refraining from action), but rather on the essential character of the commandment.

In the examples given above, the positive commandment to make a parapet indicates that the Torah requires

of every Jew that his house be safe; this is the state desirable before God. Consequently, if he does not make

a parapet, he is not acting in accordance with the Torah's command. Failing to erect a parapet is not a direct act against the will of

God, but only a failure to do His will. The person, to be sure, does not rise to the level of doing God's will,

but it would not be correct to say that he is transgressing His will. By contrast, a verse that forbids a house

to be without a parapet on its roof says that the state of a roof without a parapet is undesirable to God. In such a

case, not erecting a parapet is a direct contravention of God's will. Notice that the second case is

a negative commandment that is fulfilled by active conduct, but according to my proposal there is no principled difficulty in this,

because, as stated, the definition of a negative commandment is not based on the mode of its

physical fulfillment, but on determining whether it points to a desirable state or to a state that is not

desirable.

One may ask here what the difference is between saying that the Torah wants me to make a parapet, and saying

that the Torah does not want me not to make a parapet. As is well known, a double negative is logically equivalent to a

positive statement. If so, once again it seems that there is no difference between these two types of commandment. Is Jewish law

not compatible with the laws of logic?

A purely logical perspective is usually superficial. The statement 'Make a parapet' differs from the statement

'Take care not to fail to make a parapet.' These two approaches may be described as a 'stick' and a 'carrot.'

A person who sits where he is and does not make a parapet can be struck with a 'stick' and told that his remaining seated

is undesirable, and one can also place before him a 'carrot' that will draw him toward the desirable state and cause him

to get up and build a parapet. The first form is the negative commandment of 'You shall not place bloodguilt in your house' (Deuteronomy 22:8),

and the second is the positive commandment of 'You shall make a parapet for your roof' (Deuteronomy 22:8).

Let us now return to the Sabbath. The Torah says that there is a demand of 'remember' and a demand of 'observe'

('remember' and 'observe' in a single utterance'). The Torah says that the state in which a person performs an action on the Sabbath is a state

it regards as bad (the 'stick'), whereas the state in which a person rests from labor (does no work) is desirable in its eyes

(the 'carrot'). Therefore, with respect to doing work on the Sabbath, two commandments are counted, one from each kind: a positive commandment and a negative

commandment. And indeed these are two commandments essentially different from one another.[2]

Have a peaceful Sabbath

This page may be deposited for the respectful disposal of sacred texts in any synagogue or Torah academy. Comments and responses are welcome.

———————–

[1] It is clear that there is an essential difference between these two categories, since Jewish law relates to them

differently.

[2] I should note that the approach proposed here does not accord with all the views of the commentators (this is apparently a dispute

between Maimonides and Saadia Gaon).

Biton50.doc