How Do You Assess the Value of a Mitzvah? The Case of Shabbos vs. Sexual Morality and Murder

Be as careful with a minor commandment as with a major one, since you do not know the reward for the commandments. Assess the loss incurred in a good deed against its reward and the gain in sin against its loss. (Mishnah Avos 2, 1)

R. Sa’adia Gaon writes:
We know that the transgression is not severe by the fact that the punishment is not severe...We know that the transgression is severe because the punishment is severe i.e. kares, excision, misah bi’ye’dei shamayim – death by an act of heaven and the four methods of execution (sekilah, serefah, hereg, chenek) (Emunos v’De’os 5,4)
One can determine the severity or lightness of the transgression based on the punishment.

Positive Commandments vs. Negative Commandments
The Rambam makes a distinction between positive commandments and negative commandments. Concerning mitzvos lo’ sa’aseh, (with a few exceptions) the Torah is clear on the punishment for these transgressions. There are eight degrees of punishment: misah – execution by (sekilah, serefah, hereg and chenek) kares -- excision, misah bi’ye’dei shamayim – death by an act of heaven and malkos -- stripes.

On the other hand, concerning mitzvos aseh, since the reward is not clear it is hard to know what is more or less severe. Rather, God preferred to command the fulfillment of each mitzvah, whichever one it may be, without declaring which would receive greater reward. Therefore, it behooves us to strive to fulfill each and every mitzvas aseh equally. In this vein, Chazal say, ha’osek b’mitzvah patur min ha’mitzvah, without any prejudice between the one mitzvah he is performing and the mitzvah being missed at the same time (Sukkah 25a). Similarly, they say: ‘ein ma’avirin ‘al ha’mitzvos, We do not pass over mitzvos i.e. when the occasion for practicing a mitzvah presents itself to you, do not pass it by and forsake it to practice some other mitzvah (Pesachim 64b, Yoma 33a).

Subsequently, the Mishnah says, even though the measure of one mitzvah against another is not clear there is a method for comparison. Every aseh that is not performed which has a punishment for failure of performance also has great reward linked to it when it is performed.
(Rambam Mishnah Commentary, Avos 2,1)

Sefer Chasidim disagrees with this approach:

Regarding the opinion that according to the severity of the suffering inflicted you can determine the punishment and reward for mitzvos he argues:
The punishment for transgressing Shabbos is stoning i.e. the most severe punishment. In some cases of sexual immorality the punishment is less severe -- strangulation or kares, excision. Should Shabbos, then, be assessed as having a higher value than sexual morality? No. Despite the fact that it is permitted to transgress Shabbos to save a life, there is no similar exception for sins with a lesser punishment like forbidden sexual relationships or murder where neither would receive the severer punishment of stoning. Hence, do not conclude from these degrees of punishment that one mitzvah has more value than another. Also, in assessing a mitzvah, there is the additional factor of when exceptions are permitted. In contrast to Shabbos, the Torah does not make exceptions to the rule for immorality and murder. (Parma edition, Siman 157, my paraphrase)

The Rambam provides a more comprehensive approach to the issue of punishment in relation to sin in the Moreh:

Preliminary Remark.—Whether the punishment is great or small, the pain inflicted intense or less intense, depends on the following four conditions.
1. The greatness of the sin. Actions that cause great harm are punished severely, whilst actions that cause little harm are punished less severely.
2. The frequency of the crime. A crime that is frequently committed must be put down by severe punishment; crimes of rare occurrence may be suppressed by a lenient punishment considering that they are rarely committed.
3. The amount of temptation. Only fear of a severe punishment restrains us from actions for which there exists a great temptation, either because we have a great desire for these actions, or are accustomed to them, or feel unhappy without them.
4. The facility of doing the thing secretly, and unseen and unnoticed. From such acts we are deterred only by the fear of a great and terrible punishment.
After this preliminary remark, I say that the precepts of the Law may be divided into the following four classes with respect to the punishment for their transgression: -- (1) Precepts whose transgression is followed by sentence of death pronounced by a court of law. (2) Precepts whose transgression is punished with excision, such transgression being held to be a very great sin. (3) In some cases the transgression is punished by stripes administered with a strap (such transgression not being considered a grievous sin, as it concerns only a simple prohibition); or by ”death by Heaven.” (4) Precepts the transgression of which is not punished [even] by stripes. Prohibitions of this kind are all those that involve no act. But there are the following exceptions: [First], Swearing falsely, because it is gross neglect of man’s duty, who ought to bear constantly in mind the greatness of God. [Secondly], Changing an animal devoted to the sanctuary for another (Lev. xxvii. 10), because this change leads to contemning sacrifices devoted to the name of God. [Thirdly], Cursing a person by the name of God (ibid. xix. 14); because many dread the effect of a curse more than bodily harm. The transgression of other negative commandments that involve no act causes little harm, and cannot always be avoided, as it consists in mere words: moreover, man’s back would be inflicted with stripes all the year round if he were to be punished with stripes for each transgression of this kind. Besides, previous warning is impossible in this case. There is also wisdom in the number of stripes: for although the number of their maximum is given, there is no fixed number how many are to be applied to each person; each man receives only as many stripes as he can bear, but not more than forty (Dent. xxv. 3), even if he be strong enough for a hundred.
The ”death by the court of law” is not inflicted for the transgression of any of the dietary laws: because in such a case no great harm is done, and the temptation of man to transgress these laws is not as great as the temptation to the enjoyment of sexual intercourse. In some of the dietary laws the punishment is excision. This is the case with the prohibition of eating blood (Lev. xvii. 26). For in ancient days people were very eager and anxious to eat blood as a kind of idolatrous ceremony, as is explained in the book Tomtom, and therefore the prohibition of eating blood is made very stringent. Excision is also the punishment for eating fat; because people enjoy it, and because it was distinguished and sanctified by its use in the offerings. … Death by the court of law is decreed in important cases: when faith is undermined, or a great crime is committed, viz., idolatry, incest, murder, or actions that lead to these crimes. It is further decreed for breaking the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 15): because the keeping of Sabbath is a confirmation of our belief in the Creation; … Capital punishment is only decreed for these serious crimes, and in no other case. Not all forbidden sexual intercourse is visited with the penalty of death, but only in those cases in which the criminal act can easily be done, is of frequent occurrence, is base and disgraceful, and of a tempting character; otherwise excision is the punishment. Likewise not all kinds of idolatry are capital crimes, but only the principal acts of idolatry, such as praying to an idol, prophesying in its name, passing a child through the fire, consulting with familiar spirits, and acting as a wizard or witch.
(Moreh 3, 41)

As we see from the discussion in these sources, there are more factors in addition to the severity of the punishment to consider in assessing the value of a mitzvah. The meaning of the Mishnah can take on many different interpretations depending on whether we look at positive or negative commandments, exceptions permitted for some mitzvos and not for others, the degree of temptation involved, the ability to sin secretly and the frequency of the sin.

Should Shabbos, then, be assessed as having a higher value than sexual morality and murder?

The fact is, it is permitted to transgress Shabbos to save a life. There is no similar exception for forbidden sexual relationships or murder, where neither would receive the severer punishment of stoning. Sexual morality and murder allow no exceptions to the rule. In assessing these mitzvos, there is the additional factor of when exceptions are permitted. Therefore, as the Sefer Chasidim points out, sexual morality and murder should be assessed as having a higher value than Shabbos.

The Lost Custom of the Pre-Wedding Dinner for the Poor (Yiddish: di oreme vetshere)

From a memoir of Rabbi Reuven Agushewitz (1897-1950) on life in the Lithuanian shtetl:

The night before a wedding there was a custom to make a dinner for the poor – a dinner which was certainly no worse, and sometimes even better, than the dinner for the families and their guests. Don’t forget that with this dinner the idea was not to make an impression on anybody, but to succeed with the Master of the Universe, upon Whose will the entire happiness of the young couple depends. Aside from this dinner, generous donations were set aside for the poor. At the dinner, poor people from the surrounding shtetls convened, among whim one could find usually also comic talents, merry beggars, who wanted to show off their stuff and thus regaled the crowd. I myself was at a Poor Man’s Supper at my brother’s wedding – it was the best meal I ever had, even better than the dinner of the Hospitality Committee to which my father used to take me. (Faith and Heresy by Reuven Agushewitz, translated from Yiddish by Mark Steiner, New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2006, p. 8 n)

The Miracle of Chanukah: Why Doesn’t ‘Al haNissim Mention the Miracle of the Oil?

On Chanukah and Purim we insert prayers of thanksgiving specifically for the miracles of those holidays in the berakhos of hoda’ah, thanksgiving, in the Shemoneh Esreh and the birkas ha’mazon, grace after meals.

The story of Chanukah in ‘al hanissim is a condensed account of the struggle of the Chashmonaim against the Greek-Syrians. The ‘al ha’nissim texts for both Chanukah and Purim are found in the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon, the first siddur. ‘Al hanissim does not mention the miracle of the oil.

The question is: Why Doesn’t ‘Al haNissim Mention the Miracle of the Oil?

I believe the answer lies in the nature of the berakha of modim. We say:

We gratefully thank You, for it is You Who are Hashem, our God and God of our forefathers for all eternity; Rock of our lives, Shield of our salvation are You from generation to generation. We shall thank You and relate your praise – for our lives, which are committed to Your power and of our souls that are entrusted to You; for Your miracles that are with us every day; and for Your wonders and favors in every season – evening, morning and afternoon. The Beneficent One, for Your compassions were never exhausted, and the Compassionate One, for Your kindness never ended – always have we put our hope in You. For all these, may Your Name be blessed and exalted, our King, continually forever and ever. Everything alive will gratefully acknowledge You, Selah! And praise Your Name sincerely, O God of our salvation and help, Selah! Blessed are You Hashem, Your Name is ha’tov, the Beneficent One and to you it is fitting to give thanks. (Artscroll translation)

There are two types of nes, miracles: Nes nigleh and nes nistar, Obvious miracles and hidden miracles. The miracles mentioned in modim are exclusively nes nistar, hidden miracles that follow the course of nature created and controlled by God every day for:

our lives…
salvation from generation to generation…
our lives…
our souls that are entrusted to You…
Your miracles that are with us every day…
Your wonders and favors in every season – evening, morning and afternoon…
Your kindness never ended…
Everything alive will gratefully acknowledge You.
The miracle of the oil is a nes nigleh, an obvious miracle, a clear demonstration of God’s power to change the course of nature and make the oil burn longer than it normally would burn.

This different type of miracle would be out of place in a berakha dedicated to the hidden miracles of everyday existence. Hence, the miracle of the oil is left out in ‘al hanissim and the victory of the Chashmonaim, a nes nistar of battles fought and won according to the laws of nature is included in modim.

The Alshich on Lavan’s 100 Tricks

The Alshich once delivered a derashah on parshas va’yetzei, and the Ari zal was among the listeners. The Alshich explained Yaakov's comment to his wives, "And your father cheated me and changed my salary aseres monim, which the Midrash understands as actually one hundred times (Bereishis Rabbah 74). The Alshich proceeded to list one by one all the tricks and the lies and sly maneuvering through which Lavan tried to swindle Yaakov. Throughout the derashah, the Ari zal sat and smiled.

Later, when asked as to the reason behind his smile, the Ari zal explained that in the heavens it was decreed that Lavan should descend and listen to the derashah that disclosed the entire list of his deceitful plots. After the listing of each trick, the Ari zal saw that Lavan nodded as if to confirm his guilt. The Alshich continued disclosing these secrets one by one until he had listed ninety-nine pranks. When he reached number one hundred, Lavan jumped up in protest: "That is enough - this one I did not do!" he exclaimed, and then ran out of the room.

The Ari zal concluded, "In truth, he committed that hundredth crime, as well. But just a bit of shame was left within him, and he was too ashamed to confess."

Rambam on God, Prophecy and the Torah

In Yesodei haTorah Rambam tells us the halakhos regarding our beliefs on:
God
Creation and
Prophecy

On the subject of creation he tells us about the angels. (Yesodei haTorah, 2:3-7)

Question:
Why does the Rambam discuss mal’a’khim, angels, in Yesodei haTorah in between the subjects of God (Yesodei haTorah 1) and Prophecy (Yesodei haTorah, 7-10)?

I believe the connection between angels and prophecy lies in a discussion of Avoda Zarah in the Moreh where the Rambam writes:

It is known that the heathen in those days built temples to stars, and set up in those temples the image which they agreed upon to worship; because it was in some relation to a certain star or to a portion of one of the spheres. We were, therefore, commanded to build a temple to the name of God, and to place therein the ark with two tables of stone, on which there were written the commandments" I am the Lord," etc., and " Thou shalt have no other God before me," etc. Naturally the fundamental belief in prophecy precedes the belief in the Law, for without the belief in prophecy there can be no belief in the Law. But a prophet only receives divine inspiration through the agency of an angel. Comp. " The angel of the Lord called" (Gen. xxii. 15): " The angel of the Lord said unto her" (ibid. xvi. 11): and other innumerable instances. Even Moses our Teacher received his first prophecy through an angel." And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the flame of fire" (Exod. iii.). It is therefore dear that the belief in the existence of angels precedes the belief in prophecy, and the latter precedes the belief in the Law. The Sabeans, in their ignorance of the existence of God, believed that the spheres with their stars were beings without beginning and without end, that the images and certain trees, the Asherot, derived certain powers from the spheres, that they inspired the prophets, spoke to them in visions, and told them what was good and what bad. I have explained their theory when speaking of the prophets of the Ashera. But when the wise men discovered and proved that there was a Being, neither itself corporeal nor residing as a force in a corporeal body, viz., the true, one God, and that there existed besides other purely incorporeal beings which God endowed with His goodness and His light, namely, the angels, and that these beings are not included in the sphere and its stars, it became evident that it was these angels and not the images or Asherot that charged the prophets. From the preceding remarks it is clear that the belief in the existence of angels is connected with the belief in the Existence of God; and the belief in God and angels leads to the belief in Prophecy and in the truth of the Law. In order to firmly establish this creed, God commanded [the Israelites] to make over the ark the form of two angels. The belief in the existence of angels is thus inculcated into the minds of the people, and this belief is in importance next to the belief in God's Existence; it leads us to believe in Prophecy and in the Law, and opposes idolatry. If there had only been one figure of a cherub, the people would have been misled and would have mistaken it for God's image which was to be worshipped, in the fashion of the heathen; or they might have assumed that the angel [represented by the figure] was also a deity, and would thus have adopted a Dualism. By making two cherubim and distinctly declaring" the Lord is our God, the Lord is One," Moses dearly proclaimed the theory of the existence of a number of angels; he left no room for the error of considering those figures as deities, since [he declared that) God is
one, and that He is the Creator of the angels, who are more than one.
--Moreh 3, 45

The sequence is as follows:
God – angels – prophecy – Torah.
Each one is a prerequisite for the next one. God created the angels. The angels are needed to communicate with the prophets. Prophecy is a prerequisite for the Torah.

The prohecy of Moshe Rabbenu for the Torah is different and on a higher level without the intermediary of an angel. But that is a subject for another post.