Q&A: Positive Commandments
Positive Commandments
Question
In several places, you defined the difference between a positive commandment and a prohibition as follows: a positive commandment points to a positive state, whereas a prohibition requires avoiding a negative state.
Not long ago I studied a bit of the laws of circumcision, and I saw discussion there suggesting that perhaps the definition of the commandment lies in the result, and the result is a negative one—removing the foreskin, since the foreskin is repulsive before God.
According to your distinction (which until now I completely agree with), in what sense is this a positive commandment and not a prohibition?
Thank you
Answer
Positive commandments, too, can deal with removing something repulsive. What matters is what the Torah places upon me. Once circumcision is treated as a positive commandment, that means what is imposed on us is the removal of the foreskin—that is, the removal of the repulsive thing. It is not avoidance of a state in which I have a foreskin, but a command to act in order to remove it. The removal is a positive action. If it were a prohibition, then what would be incumbent on him would be to arrive at a state in which we have no foreskin, and there would be no need specifically to remove it.
Someone born circumcised must still have covenantal blood drawn from him, and that has no explanation if we were dealing with a prohibition. If he was born circumcised, then he already avoids the prohibition. Why is drawing blood required? Because this is the positive action imposed on us in such a case.
This is not exactly the same distinction as the one between commandments of action and commandments of result. There are result-commandments to achieve a positive result or to avoid a negative result.
I have also distinguished in several places between the reason for a commandment and its definition. For example, being fruitful and multiplying is seemingly a commandment of result, since one fulfills it only when one has a son and a daughter. The effort in itself is not part of the commandment’s definition. But it may be that arriving at a son and a daughter is the reason for the commandment—that the Torah wants us to have offspring. Yet the definition of the obligation imposed on him is to perform the act. Except that one should not stop acting until one reaches a son and a daughter. So the goal of the commandment is a result, but its definition is an obligation to act.
Discussion on Answer
I still haven’t understood enough, and I’d appreciate some clarification. I assume you didn’t mean what I’m about to say now, but that’s how it sounded to me, so I’ll explain what I understood and I’d be glad if you’d correct me.
We’re talking about the possibility that the desired result is being without a foreskin, because the presence of the foreskin is something negative. If I understood correctly, you’re arguing that what defines this as a positive commandment is that there is here not only a demand to reach a state in which there is no foreskin, but a demand to act in order to remove it. Doesn’t that just bring us back to defining the commandment as a commandment of action? I had difficulty precisely because of the possibility that the issue is the result..
If I understood correctly, that was the point of the last remark, regarding being fruitful and multiplying—that even commandments whose content lies in the result are defined as obligations to act. I thought of that possibility (following your articles on being fruitful and multiplying for the portion of Genesis), but I thought it doesn’t really help, because if I understood correctly your distinction between a positive commandment and a prohibition, the issue doesn’t concern the way the Holy One imposed the command, but rather the definitions of reality in themselves, as positive or negative.
I also didn’t really understand the remark about drawing covenantal blood. True, I do see that there is a positive element of entering the covenant, but my question was about the specific detail of removing the foreskin because of its repulsiveness.
And I also didn’t really understand the addition from Brisk, because that’s exactly where my difficulty came from: it’s clear to me that this is a positive commandment, and even so there are those who say it is a commandment of result, and I was trying to understand how that works out. (By the way, I didn’t check the sources carefully, but it may be that according to Beit HaLevi the result is not the removal of the repulsive foreskin, but rather being marked with the sign of the covenant, which is certainly a positive matter, and then it works out well that it is considered a positive commandment.)
Thanks for the answer.
That is exactly what I explained. A state with a foreskin is negative, but performing an action to remove the repulsive foreskin is itself a positive state.
I also explained that this is not necessarily connected to defining the commandment as one of action or of result.
For example, in Brisk they customarily explain (following Beit HaLevi and Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik) that there is a dispute between Maimonides and the Tur over whether circumcision is a commandment of action (to circumcise) or of result (to be circumcised). A practical difference is whether one goes back for shreds of flesh that do not invalidate the circumcision after the circumcision has been completed on a weekday. But both agree that it is a positive commandment and not a prohibition.