The Centrality of Sinai in Mitzvah Observance
The Centrality of Sinai in Mitzvah Observance
"Therefore Bnei Yisrael (Israelites) do not eat the sciatic nerve which is near the hip-joint to this day, because he ]the angel[ struck the hip-joint of Yaakov, at the spot of the sciatic nerve."

This pasuk (verse) is the subject of a dispute in the Mishnah in Hulin (7:6):

"[The prohibition of the sciatic nerve] applies to kosher animals but not to non-kosher ones. R' Yehudah says, "[it applies even to] non-kosher animals." R' Yehudah said (in support of his opinion), "was the sciatic nerve not prohibited to the sons of Yaakov for whom non-kosher animals were still permitted?" [The sages] answered him, "[The prohibition began] at Sinai, but was written in its place (i.e. in the context of the narrative of Yaakov's life)."

The rishonim, early Talmudic adjucators, dispute the nature of this debate. Rashi understands it to be textual. The language of the pasuk implies an "editorial comment" made after the events of the story. The phrase "to this day" is telling in this regard. If so, reason the sages arguing with R' Yehudah, there was no prohibition for Yaakov and his sons to eat the sciatic nerve, the gid hanashe. This prohibition occurred for the first time at Sinai and the Torah is simply explaining the reasoning behind it.

The prohibition of gid hanashe would never be applied by the Torah to something which already cannot be eaten and therefore non-kosher animals, which also became prohibited at Sinai, are exempt from the prohibition of gid hanashe.

On the other hand it is quite unusual for the Torah to make comments in this way. So unusual that R' Yehudah assumes that despite the "editorial" language, this pasuk is in fact part of the narrative of Jacob, Yaakov Avinu's, life. He too was prohibited to eat gid hanashe. However since he was still permitted to eat non-kosher animals, the prohibition applied to the gid hanashe found in those animals as well.

Later, when the prohibition of non-kosher animals occurred at Sinai the initial issur of gid hanashe in these animals persisted. According to Rashi's interpretation the fundamental question of the historical basis of mitzvot (commandments) is agreed upon by all. If Yaakov did indeed receive the mitzvah of gid hanashe then R' Yehuda's view of the halakhah would be correct. However, if the mitzvah was first proclaimed at Sinai, then the sages would be correct. The debate is only about how to interpret the pasuk. 

The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnah takes a markedly different approach. Everyone agrees, he argues, that the pasuk is communicating the fact that Yaakov kept the prohibition of gid hanashe (see Hilchot Melachim 9:1, this despite the halakhah following the rabbinic sages in Hilchot Maachalot Asurot 8:5). 

The debate is fundamental. The sages are arguing that despite anything which came beforehand, the legislative force underlying our current keeping of mitzvot comes from Sinai. Therefore, even if Yaakov Avinu was prohibited from eating the gid hanashe of non-kosher animals, our current issur (prohibition), since it stems from Sinai, does not prohibit this. The notion that all of our current mitzvot are based on Sinai alone, writes the Rambam, is a fundamental precept in understanding halakhah. 

In considering this view of the Rambam, two questions emerge:

What conceptual distinction underlies the Rambam's distinguishing between Sinaitic and pre-Sinaitic mizvot? What shift in perspective, if any, is entailed by this distinction which may affect our qualitative experience while fulfilling mitzvot?

The Rambam addresses the former question directly in his philosophical treatment of the issue in Moreh Nevuchim, Guide to the Perplexed (2:39, see also 1:63). In explaining the uniqueness of Moshe Rabbeinu's (Moses) prophecy and the corollary fact that the Torah which he received can never be supplanted, the Rambam distinguishes as follows:

"There were prophets before Moses, such as the patriarchs Shem, Eber, Noah, Methushelah, and Enoch, but of these none said to any portion of mankind that G-d sent him to them and commanded him to convey to them a certain message or to prohibit or to command a certain thing. Such a thing is not related in Scripture, or in authentic tradition. Divine prophecy reached them, as we have explained. Men like Abraham, who received a large measure of prophetic inspiration, called their fellow-men together and led them by training and instruction to the truth which they had perceived.."

"Abraham did not tell the people that God had sent hi

m to them with the command concerning certain things which should or should not be done. Even when it was commanded that he, his sons, and his servants should be circumcised, he fulfilled that commandment, but he did not address his fellow-men prophetically on this subject. That Abraham induced his fellow-men to do what is right, telling them only his own will [and not that of God], may be learnt from the following passage of Scripture: For I know him, because he commands his sons and his house after him, to practise righteousness and judgment" (Gen. xix. 19).

As Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik describes in The Emergence of Ethical Man, G-d never appeared to Abraham, Avraham Avinu, as an overpowering deity and forced him, by way of command, to perform certain actions. Rather G-d recognized Abraham's desire to live an ethical life and follow in His ways. The 'commandments' which he was given were in the form of suggestions with G-d acting, as it were, as a companion in the ethical life teaching Abraham and providing opportunities for Abraham to develop a relationship with Him. The mitzvot of the patriarchs were not binding, in the sense we know now, even to themselves and certainly not to the others whom they instructed and convinced to keep them.

This is as opposed to the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe was the first prophet to become an agent of G-d, conveying His commands to others. Consequently Bnei Yisrael experienced the mitzvot of Sinai not as 'suggestions' from an ethical companion but as overpowering and irresistible commands emanating from a foreign power. The mountain was held over their heads (Shabbat 88a), and they were forced to accept. The mitzvot of Sinai carry this quality in perpetuity. Even if their ethical benefits are revealed, their basic character and the source of their binding nature is the will of G-d which is manifest in them. With this conceptual distinction established we may move to our latter question above.

G-d promised the patriarchs, the avot, that their descendants would be a source of blessing, enlightening and enriching the world (Bereishit 12:3, 26:4. See Ramban in both places). Furthermore, the Congregation of Israel, Klal Yisrael, has a specific role to play on the historical stage as the source from which universal recognition of G-d among all nations will ultimately flow (see Radak to Yeshayahu 42:6 sv. לברית עם). The mitzvot of Sinai are the catalyst which transform Bnei Yisrael into the kingdom of priests (Shemot 12:6) capable of playing this role.

The overwhelming command of the mitzvot at Sinai was therefore an act of inclusion by G-d of Bnei Yisrael into His active Will as it comes to bear upon world history. Instead of simply willing or causing natural forces to bring about the eschatogical vision, G-d chose a specific nation as the vehicle for actualizing this vision. The ultimate results of this inclusion are inevitable. The destiny of Bnei Yisrael is to become a light unto the nations.

However it is the choice of each individual to take up the mantle of mitzvot and enmesh his or her self with this destiny, essentially becoming a vessel at a personal level for the will of G-d as it expresses itself in creation. Thus the mitzvot of Sinai opened new vistas in the individual's potential for devekut.

The avot kept the mitzvot on a voluntary basis out of a desire to relate to G-d. But this attempt ultimately falls short. Lowly man cannot truly hope to relate to G-d through his own imperfect actions. To keep a mitzvah after Sinai, however, is to partner, as it were, with the Lord of the Universe, Ribbono Shel Olam, in bringing about His Will in the world. 

This shift in the nature of performing mitzvot is not the only result of the encounter at Sinai and perhaps not the primary reason for the commanding nature of Moshe's prophecy. It is one detail of the momentous event that was the receiving/acceptance of the Torah, kabalat haTorah. However if internalized this perspective on mitzvot has the potential to profoundly impact our view of our own day to day activities, and to generate a new sense of immediacy and consistency in our relationship with G-d.