Yitro through the eyes of the Mystics

As part of Tzipiyah's goal of showing different perspectives within the religious zionist community, here is a mystical perspective on Parashat Yitro written by Yossi Levy:

With Parash Yitro upon us, it would be an ideal opportunity for us to try and gain a deeper understanding of the Ten Commandments. First off why this magic number ten. As always there is no such thing as an extraneous detail. The Kabalistic sources state that the root element is always ten. For example, the last of the ten plagues of Egypt deal with the death of the first born. Akeida Yitschak, which was Abrahams last of his ten test, both deal with the murder of the first born.

The first question we must deal with is why are they split? The Mystics explain that the 5 on one side are in direct parallel to the five on the other. The ones on the right are what we call ben Adam lamakom commandments between us and Hashem, and the left side deal with interpersonal commandments.

This is where torah teaching greatly differ from modern society. In a democratic setting our main focus is individual rights and freedoms. In the whole written torah law there is not one mention of rights just obligations. Obviously when it states that we are forbidden to steal, this means that we have a right to property yet it is only mentioned in the oral law. The Gemara states that the giving of the torah was given in such a high level obligation that Hashem held the mountain above them and declared that if they did not take upon them his torah he would destroy them. This is problematic since this is a forced obligation with no free will? The fact that we accepted it with an expression of Naseh vnishma aside, we can use the simple analogy of a Jew who has never grown up in a Judaic context, one who is not even circumcised. If he were, after learning the power and the beauty of the brit, to take upon him this mitzvah the process would not be an easy one. He would arrive into the room where the mohel stands and after seeing the various instruments used would more than likely want to flee. The result would be three bulky assistant holding him down while the process is being done. Meaning, he did want to get circumcise by his own freewill but because of the panic attack that ensued after seeing the size of the knife he felt like fleeing. This is the explanation given by the Talmudic schorals. The Maral has a different take on the matter completely. They would have never run away. He continues to state that the nature of Torah is pure obligation. It had to be given it that way because it is not optional. The Sulam of parasha Toldot states that the world was created for torah, Bishivil Reshit. Hashem molded the world based on torah teachings.

That said, the split in fact shows two facets of obligations. The first are the laws by which Hashem obligates me and the second by which man obligate each other. Effectively two entities obligate us. More importantly the reason why they are split is because when fulfilling the man obligated mitzvah it is a requirement that you must feel the individual. For example, visting a sick friend is an obligation yet we are required to not only consider just another chance to fulfill a mitzvah but we must focus on the genuine need of a person even if it was not a mitzvah. In the book, Olam Hanetzach, it details the series of questions asked when facing the celestial tribunal if you will. The first question is “ himlachata koncah alecha bema ve yira” loosely translated means did you set up Hashem as your main obligor with awe and fear? The second, “ Himlachta chavercah alecah benachat rouach” did you set up you friend above you with pleasantness and kindness? Not only are we oblige to take G-d seriously we are also oblige to take heed to each other’s need regardless of the commandment to do so.

The concept of the split goes even deeper. The commandments themselves are on a one-to-one relationship with each other. The first commandment is not phrased as a commandment. The basic approach is that you cannot force someone to believe in you. The first man mitzvah is not to kill. The parallel here is, on one side you respect g-d for who he is, on the other side we have respect for human life just because he is. The second is, you shall not have any other g-ds. The first commandment sets up reality and the second means do not attribute reality to something that isn’t, meaning do not stray after which is your incorrect partner. The second man mitzvah deals with adultery. This negative mitzvah is in direct parallel with the first because of the prohibition of an incorrect bond. Idolatry is even called tznuit, sexual immorality. The Gaon of Vilna brings down that no idolatrous cult has ever existed without an immoral component. The golden calf is a perfect example. Immediately after its creation the Hebrews were involved in immoral acts. The Gemrar goes even further to state that B’nei Israel never practice idolatry if not to commit immoral acts.

The third commandment deals with taking g-ds name in vain, means don’t use reality for something unreal, like swearing to something that’s not true. It is taking the source of reality and using it for something that’s not. The parallel in the man to man commandments is a misuse of an attachment of a person and taking it away.

The fourth commandment is the Shabbat. Shabbat is the testimony to reality, to creation Zecher le’masseh Bereshit. The fourth man mitzvah is false testimony. The parallel is quite obvious.

The final commandment is the respect of parents. This means tracing back to each ones origin, going back to the source. This is the source of gratitude. Done effectively the mystic states that ultimately we trace everything back to him. The final man mitzvah is, not allowed to covet. Is not having the desire to have everything belong to “me.”

I would hope that it is now clear why these 10 are the fundamentals and how our society would change if we strove just to strengthen the first two.