2) REASONS FOR THE MITZVOS
QUESTIONS: Rebbi Yitzchak says that the reason why the Torah does not reveal the reasons for the Mitzvos is that if a person thinks that he knows the reason for a Mitzvah, he might mistakenly assume that since the reason does not apply to him, neither does the Mitzvah. Indeed, the Torah reveals the reasons for just two Mitzvos, and yet the wisest of all men, Shlomo ha'Melech, erred and transgressed, mistakenly thinking that these two Mitzvos did not apply to him. The Torah states that a king may not have many wives so that they not turn his heart away from the service of Hash-m. Shlomo ha'Melech said to himself that he certainly would not stray from the service of Hash-m, and he married many wives, and yet they indeed "turned his heart away" from serving Hash-m (see Parshah Page, Va'era 5758, for an analysis of Shlomo ha'Melech's deeds). Similarly, the Torah states that a king may not amass horses lest he be enticed to go back to Mitzrayim to trade horses. Shlomo ha'Melech felt that he would be able to amass horses without going back to Mitzrayim, and yet he indeed ended up going to Mitzrayim.

(a) If revealing the reasons for Mitzvos could cause a person to err (as it did in the case of Shlomo ha'Melech), then why does the Torah reveal the reasons for these two Mitzvos -- the Mitzvah that a king not marry too many wives, and the Mitzvah that a king not amass horses?

(b) Is a person supposed to attempt to understand the reasons for Mitzvos, or is he supposed to refrain from searching for the reasons for Mitzvos?

ANSWERS:
(a) The MAHARSHA explains that the Torah had to reveal the reasons for these two Mitzvos, because the reasons themselves are Mitzvos. The reason for not having too many wives is so that one should not let his heart stray from the Mitzvos in general, which itself is a Mitzvah. This is apparent from the opinion of Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah (21a), who says that a king is forbidden from marrying even one wife who will make him stray from serving Hash-m. Similarly, the reason for not amassing horses is itself a separate prohibition, the prohibition against returning to Mitzrayim.

The MARGOLIYOS HA'YAM points out that the Torah does give reasons for other Mitzvos in the Torah. (For example, the Torah says that we are to dwell in the Sukah during Sukos "so that your future generations will know that I had the Jewish people dwell in Sukos when I took them out of Mitzrayim" (Vayikra 23:43).) However, these reasons do not carry with them the possibility that a person will err and sin because of them, since the reasons are not intrinsic to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. For example, the Torah commands us to dwell in a Sukah. The fact that the Torah afterwards states the reason why we are to dwell in a Sukah cannot cause a person to think that he is exempt from dwelling in a Sukah. In contrast, the Mitzvos not to have too many wives and not to amass horses are described in terms of causative factors that lead to the more serious sins of straying from Hash-m or going to Mitzrayim. Hence, in the case of those two Mitzvos, a person could err and think that those Mitzvos, which seem to be safeguards for more serious Mitzvos, do not apply to him.

(b) Based on this Gemara, one might think that he should not inquire into the reasons for the Mitzvos. However, the Gemara itself in many places states the reasons for many Mitzvos. As mentioned above, the problem with knowing the reason for a Mitzvah is that one might assume that the reason alone is Hashem's intention in commanding a certain Mitzvah when, in truth, the reasons given in the Gemara are not absolute and exclusive, but rather they merely express one aspect of the Mitzvah. There could be many more reasons behind any particular Mitzvah.

A dispute about this matter among the Rishonim began with the publishing of the RAMBAM's classic work, MOREH NEVUCHIM. In Moreh Nevuchim, the Rambam gives reasons for a number of Mitzvos. For example, the Rambam states that the reason why the Torah says that one should not shave the sideburns is that it is the manner of idolatrous priests. The TUR (YD 181) dismisses this reason and states that we do not need a reason for it; it is a Mitzvah that we observe regardless of the reason.

The BEIS YOSEF understands that the Tur means that one should never try to understand the reasons for the Mitzvos. The Beis Yosef asks that we find in the Gemara that Rebbi Shimon would always try to understand the Torah's reasons for Mitzvos. The DARCHEI MOSHE explains that the Tur understood that the Rambam was saying that the parameters of the Mitzvah are based on how the idolatrous priests shaved their hair. The Tur argued that this cannot be the case, as the parameters of a Mitzvah are to be derived based only on the Torah, on either the Written Law or the Oral Law, but not based on one's own reasoning. The Gemara here sheds light on the Darchei Moshe's explanation. The Tur knew that the Gemara gives reasons for Mitzvos and that it is beneficial to know those reasons because it helps one understand the will of Hash-m. However, the Tur thought that there still exists the danger that a person might understand the reason as absolute and mishandle the Mitzvah as a result. A person, however, would not make such a mistake when the Gemara gives no reason for a Mitzvah; he would not assume on his own to know the reason for a Mitzvah.

Many commentators indeed give their own reasons for Mitzvos. It is possible that the Tur would not be opposed to giving reasons for Mitzvos when those reasons have no Halachic ramifications. (See BACH, TAZ (YD 181), and MARGOLIYOS HA'YAM here.) (See also Insights to Megilah 25:2, for a discussion of the words of the MOREH NEVUCHIM and the RAMBAN (in Devarim 22:6) with regard to the Mitzvah of Shilu'ach ha'Ken.) (Y. Montrose)