Q&A: A Commandment for All Generations
A Commandment for All Generations
Question
It is known that your honor has dealt extensively with the issue of the roots in Maimonides. One of them is that a commandment that does not apply for all generations is not counted.
And Maimonides, in commandment 187, writes that something not applying for all generations does not depend on whether the commandment has a point in time when it ends and reaches its purpose. There he proves this from Amalek and from the seven nations. But this is puzzling: what is the proof from Amalek? Perhaps that too does not apply for all generations for the same reason. Maimonides did not explain at all what is so obvious about Amalek that it does apply for all generations.
If he wrote about this at length elsewhere, we would be very glad to hear, regarding these two commandments in general.
Answer
I dealt with this at length in an article on the third root. You can see it here on the site in the book "He Shall Send Forth His Roots," or in the relevant article from the essays on the roots.
What he brings from Amalek is not a proof but an illustration that sharpens the claim. In contrast to the seven nations, where the commandment is to wage war against them, with Amalek the commandment is to wipe it out completely. Therefore he takes it as obvious that when it is wiped out, this is the fulfillment of the commandment (its reaching its purpose), not the end of its applicability. Just as when I have already recited the Shema, that does not mean the commandment to recite the Shema has been abolished, or when I have performed circumcision, and so on.
Discussion on Answer
Exactly. That is why he brings Amalek, because there the point is sharpest. That is what I wrote. Circumcision and the Shema are only my examples for the principle that reaching the goal is not the end of applicability.
Your honor did not answer my question. The examples of circumcision and the Shema are not correct, because they have not reached their purpose at all until the end of all generations. In circumcision, with other people; and in the Shema, every single day the obligation is renewed upon the person.
Still, I accepted his words that indeed Maimonides does not mean to bring a proof but only to sharpen the matter. But even when sharpening a point, the thing from which he sharpens the issue needs to be something obvious even according to the one who disagrees with him regarding the seven nations, namely the view of the Halakhot Gedolot regarding the seven nations, which it did not count as a commandment because it is not for all generations, as Maimonides understood its position. If so, apparently in the case of Amalek this is obvious even to the Halakhot Gedolot, and therefore he properly argued from there against it.
And while we are on the subject, I would like to know how your honor understands Maimonides' intent when he writes there, several times, "but it applies in every generation if the matter becomes possible or the opportunity is found," etc. Does he mean even a situation after the commandment has reached its completion and purpose, as in the future when the Holy One, blessed be He, will finish off the Amalekites—even though there is no such reality, since He has already finished them all—or does he mean the time before that? This changes the whole understanding of Maimonides' words, and so I am uncertain about his intention.
Another point: I saw what he noted in his work on the roots, and many thanks to him for the wonderful information about the responsum of the son of Maimonides to Rabbi Daniel. There, our master Abraham also writes regarding the seven nations that after their memory has been lost, if one of them is found, one is obligated to kill him. This seems astonishing to me, for many have already explained from Maimonides' words—where he wrote that their memory has already been lost—only regarding the seven nations and not regarding Amalek, proving that the commandment regarding the seven nations concerns the eradication of the name of the people. After that, there is no longer any place for the commandment. And even if one of them is found, there is no commandment, because the commandment is not against individuals but against the people and the nation, unlike Amalek. If so, how can his son write that there would be an obligation to kill him as an individual? Maimonides himself did not write this in his Mishneh Torah, that if one of them came into his hands and he did not kill him he has neglected a commandment, as Sefer HaChinukh wrote, disagreeing with him on this.
We would be glad to hear his esteemed opinion on this tangled issue.
My honored Torah scholar, I do not understand your claim. I already wrote that circumcision and the Shema are examples of the idea that when you have finished the commandment, that does not mean it is temporary. Circumcision especially, since with respect to a particular person it is completed in one act, unlike the Shema. But it seems to me we have exhausted this pilpul. The idea is clear.
As I explained in the article on the roots, in my opinion Maimonides means even in the future, when the commandment reaches its purpose. He writes explicitly that even if we have wiped out all the Amalekites—not like today, when they have only disappeared—this is still a commandment that applies for all generations.
My esteemed opinion on the matter is that Rabbi Abraham apparently understood that even regarding the seven nations this is a commandment concerning each individual. The fact that many explained otherwise does not bind him. But this is really a marginal point, since he is speaking about the principle. Suppose it is a commandment to kill each individual; then even when their memory has disappeared, that does not mean the commandment has been abolished. If one of them is found, the commandment returns. Alternatively, if a community of Jebusites were found, the commandment would apply to them. This is an illustration of the principle in that root, regardless of the halakhic details.
Forgive the irony about the honorific titles. I am not comfortable with them.
Many thanks for his answer; more power to you.
Many thanks.
Could Maimonides have sharpened the point by using the above examples of reciting the Shema or circumcision?
Certainly not. Those still apply in every generation and generation for whoever has still not recited the Shema, and likewise for whoever has still not been circumcised. That is not comparable to a commandment that cannot be fulfilled in future generations.