gefilte

DaasYochid, the Maharal (Chiddushei Aggados Chullin 91a) says the Avos only kept the positive commandments but not the negative ones, and the RamBam says in Iggros HaRambam that the Avos did not keep the mitzvos, but rather got to their lofty spiritual level by “having understood everything there is to understand in true wisdom and corrected themselves in every way.” Rav Osher Weiss explains this to mean that each mitzvah achieves a certain spiritual effect/tikun, but the Avos had the ability to be able to tap into creating these effects and tikkunim without necessarily performing the technical details of the mitzvah.

This would actually strengthen the question, because it would mean the the Avos were able to understand how to attain this level of holiness even without performing the mitzvos themselves, which would imply that there is a reason for doing the mitzvos beyond “Hashem said so”.

Also, I never said the Frum Rabbis reject mitzvos, rather, they often use the logic put forth by dafbiyun in his post in order to pasken shailos. Namely, if there is a halacha about something and someone is unsure of what to do in a particular case, a Rabbi will often determine whether or not the halacha applies in that case based on individual circumstances of that person. For example, a pregnant woman does not need to fast on many taanaisim because of Rabbis determining, through details of the halachos of fasting, that the individual circumstances of this woman make her exempt. It’s not, as you or dafbiyun said, “Abandoning” halacha or mitzvos. It is simply determining if a halacha or a mitzvah applies or not.

On a grander scale, though perhaps not under the precise realm of mitzvos or halachos but rather one of ideology, are the relatively recent phenomena of the Mussar movement, chasidic branches of Judaism, and Bais Yaakov education for girls. These were all enormous changes in the focus of Frum Judaism that were done as a result of changes in the cultural climate.

This is simply not true. Perhaps on rare occasion the gemara takes the logic of a mitzva into account, but it is certainly not often.”

Okay, even if it’s not often, it is a viable way of understanding the details of a mitzvah. Which then should imply that we are encouraged to do so.

thinker123, many miforshim are not of the opinion that the Avos kept the entire Torah. Also, I fail to understand your last paragraph.

reflecting the view of the conservative movement who seek explanations for halachos and then abandon the halocha if the reason seemingly no longer applies..”

daf biyun, this method is often used by Frum Rabbis when paskening shailos. It would be shortsighted to state that it is purely a tactic of the Conservative movement.

I do like the rest of your post.

Edited – Formatting

Meno, please elaborate. According to you, what is the Torah sheBaal Peh’s purpose?

WinnieThePooh, thank you, that is a good distinction. However, not everyone agrees that the Avos kept the Torah before it was actually given, as there are many complications with that. So bringing that as a proof doesn’t work well.

Perhaps we can state the distinction you mentioned in the following way: We can understand the details of a mitzvah, and we can look for meaning in a mitzvah, but the ultimate reason of why we do the mitzvah is because God commanded us to.

jakob, I don’t quite get your point. What is the difference between explaining and understanding a mitzvah?
Also, bringing the idea of a “Chok” to the discussion only strengthens the question, because that would imply that all the other mitzvos ARE able to be explained and understood.