Knowledge vs Action / Torah vs Mitzvot

Q: In Judaism, is it better to do the mitzvot etc. by rote and not understand, or to understand but not do?

A: There are multiple approaches in the Rabbinic Tradition (here are just a few):

1. Action is Essential (Lo hamidrash hu ha'ikar elah ha'ma'aseh). On the surface, this appears to be the basic orientation of Judaism. However, this Talmudic statement is also interpreted mystically that mitzvot repair the Godly spheres (tikkun). The lesson of the mystics is that Jewish action does not depend on the understanding of the mitzvah, only on the completion of the action.
   1. One may quibble and say that some basic understanding is required: that the mitzvah is a holy action. But beyond that, no deep intention is needed. And this position seems to be the basic framework for Jewish practice today.
2. Another approach might view that under certain circumstances, the study of Torah and deep intention may replace the mitzvah entirely. For example, if one is unable to perform a mitzvah and replaces the action with study and intention, God is said to consider this effort as if the mitzvah was completed (HaKadosh Baruch Hu metzaref machashavah tovah lema'aseh).
   1. This may be seen as offering a potentially radical view - perhaps even an antinomian view. But it is also an accepted justification in Talmudic thought for the replacement of Temple sacrifice with the words of Hebrew prayer.
3. Yet another position maintains that both action and intention are essential. Without knowledge or intention the action is meaningless and is described as a body without a soul. But holy intention without the action of the mitzvah is like a soul without a body.
   1. This view is preserved in Jewish Law in the case of the most prominent daily prayer: the Shema Yisrael (Hear of Israel), an affirmation of God's unity. In this case, the Jewish legalists insist that one cannot fulfill the obligation of the recitation of Shema without appropriate intention and understanding.
4. This question obscures several other questions: Is a mitzvah merely an action? Or is a mitzvah a connection between and within humans (bein adam l'chaveiro, u'bein adam l'makom)? Clearly there are action-oriented mitzvot and mitzvot of other stripes. What falls under the category of "Jewish action" - does this include political action which are not usually understood in terms of mitzvot? What do we make of other areas of Jewish life which are neither Torah or Mitzvot? Must everything fall under this binary view? If we cannot appropriately map out the Jewish tradition, it would misleading to try to place Jewish values within a hierarchy.

A SAMPLER OF SOURCES

• Avot 1:2 - Torah and Mitzvot consist of two of the three pillars upon which the world requires (the Temple service is the third pillar). This Mishnah may appeal to those who maintain that both knowledge and action are essential as the text does not distinguish any relative importance among the three pillars (only that they are all essential). This view, proposed by Shimon HaTzaddik of the Great Assembly, appears undisputed in Tractate Avot, at least in his day. There's no direct opposition in the form of a "zug" (twin peer) or a student in the immediate following generation appearing in this chapter. Shimon ben Gamliel of Avot 1:17, cited below, who views action as greater than study, lives at least eight generations after Shimon HaTzaddik.
• Avot 6:6 - In a later source (Chapter 6 was added to this tractate at a later point in time), Torah is described as "greater than priesthood". Reflected back to the statement in Avot 1:2, it would seem that this teaching insists that the three pillars are not of equal importance. Of course, this assumes that what is meant by Temple Service in Avot 1:2 is the same as the (service of) the priesthood in Avot 6:6.
• Avot 1:17 - Shimon ben Gamliel has a pithy critique of study as a value. In the classic style of the Mishnah, he delivers his message in triplicate: There's nothing better than silence, action is more important than study, and an indulgance in speech leads to sin.
• Avot 3:9 - Hanina ben Dosa describes the relative importance of deeds over study through a different prism. In his view, deeds preserve study. From a pragmatic and utilitarian stance, it is necessary for there to be a greater emphasis on deeds if only because it ensures the preservation of study. What is possibly implied here is that Hanina ben Dosa percieves Torah as the ultimate Jewish value but he acknowledges a weakness in the human scholar. He insists that the scholar also perform Mitzvot if only to ensure that Torah study remains free from moral corruption. In this pragmatic stance, Torah is the more important value but Mitzvot take precedence in daily life.
• Avot 4:5 - In this Mishanh, the combined teachings of Ishmael ben Yohanan, Tzadok, and Hillel present a potential synthesis. In their perspective, Torah study should ideally lead to action but that one must not benefit from Torah study, meaning, its ultinate worth is judged by its purity.
• Avot 6:9 - In a poetic anecdote, Yose ben Kisma affirms the value of Torah study as a social force. He turns down an offer of great wealth and insists that nothing is more valuable than living in a community of Torah scholars.
• Avot 6:11 - The statement that God provides Israel with an abundance of Torah and Mitzvot may reflect a view that any and all involvement in the Jewish tradition is of great value. The very fact that Judaism is not confined to a narrow selection of values implies that (to some extent) it matters less if one is studying Torah or performing Mitzvot, but that one is engaging in the first place. From this viewpoint, we may describe the question of "which is greater" as a kind of "narcissism of small differences". In other words, this concern of relative importance only matters to those already engaged in the Jewish tradition.