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.

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.

Rambam on Chasidim and Humility

The Mishnah says: Me’od me’od he’vei she’fal ruach.

BE EXCEEDING LOWLY OF SPIRIT, FOR THE EXPECTATION OF MORTAL MAN IS [THAT HE WILL TURN TO] WORMS. (Avos, 4:4)

Why this accentuated deviation from the advocacy of a middle course?
According to Rambam: Because, for Man, being naturally over-inclined to pride, it is necessary to over-emphasize the quality of self-depreciation.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah the Rambam relates a story that he read in a book on ethics.

One of the pious (Arabic: al-fu’du’la. Hebrew: chasidim) was asked:
What was the happiest day of your life?

He said:
The day I traveled on a ship in the lowest class wearing rags. Wealthy merchants were on the boat and one them wanted to relieve himself. In view of my lowly status he urinated on me. I was amazed at his arrogance and brazenness. In truth, I was not upset in the least by his actions and I accepted it with equanimity. At that point I was very happy that I reached the level of not caring about the debasement I suffered from this flawed person and that I was able to put him out of mind.

The Rambam concludes from this: There is no doubt that this is the ultimate extreme low in spirit that Man can reach at the other end of the spectrum from the trait of pride (Arabic: at-tikbar. Hebrew: ha'ga’a’vah).


Is the Rambam praising this exceedingly humble, meek and submissive person? Is the Rambam saying that this is true chasidus that people should emulate and strive for as the ultimate level of humility?

I think not because later on in the Rambam’s commentary on this Mishnah, he quotes the Gemara:

R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: A talmid chakham should possess an eighth [of pride]. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: [This small amount of pride] crowns him like the awn of the grain. Rava said: [A talmid chakham] who possesses [haughtiness of spirit] deserves excommunication, and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication (Sotah 5a).

The Rambam then concludes:
It is not fitting to go to the extreme of total shiflus because it is not a pious and good, proper trait (Arabic: min al-fa’da’il. Hebrew: ha’ma’alos).

Rashi says on the words and if he does not possess it [some pride] he deserves excommunication: A talmid chakham who has no sense of self-worth and self-respect will be unable to gain the respect and awe he needs from his community to teach and chastise them.

Some have interpreted the behavior of the chasid in this story as the Rambam’s recommended model to imitate. Clearly, we see from the Gemara and the Rambam’s conclusion that the chasid’s behavior is not desirable and in fact should be shunned. Meekness at that level is an extreme to avoid. The use of the term chasidim by the Hebrew translators of the Rambam is misleading. The source of the story may not even be a Jewish book on ethics. The Rambam may have been quoting a non-Jewish source and holding it up for disapproval.

The Rambam needs to be read very carefully, in context and with close attention to his conclusions after a long excursus.

May we all be able to find the small turn from middle path towards humility, avoid the pitfalls of ga’avah and the mistaken path of the meek.

Rambam on Divine Attributes in Prayer: The Limits of Human Power

One should also not add to the enumeration of Hashem’s attributes in the Shemoneh Esreh and say: ha’el ha’gadol ha’gibor v’ha’nora he’chazak v’ha’amitz v’ha’izuz, the great, mighty and awesome God, strong, brave and powerful. It is beyond human ability to fully praise God, except to say what Moshe said. (Tefillah 9:7)

This Rambam follows the Gemara:
A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honored. He waited till he had finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses our Master mentioned them in the Law (Devarim 10:17) and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him? (Berakhos 33b)

The Rambam explains this mashal in Moreh Nevukhim:
Consider, first, how repulsive and annoying the accumulation of all these positive attributes was to him; next, how he showed that, if we had only to follow our reason, we should never' have composed these prayers, and we should not have uttered any of them. It has, however, become necessary to address men in words that should leave some idea in their minds, and, in accordance with the saying of our Sages," The Torah speaks in the language of men," the Creator has been described to us in terms of our own perfections; but we should not on that account have uttered any other than the three above-mentioned attributes, and we should not have used them as names of God except when meeting with them in reading the Law. Subsequently, the men of the Great Synagogue, who were prophets, introduced these expressions also into the prayer, but we should not on that account use [in our prayers] any other attributes of God. The principal lesson to be derived from this passage is that there are two reasons for our employing those phrases in our prayers : first, they occur in the Pentateuch; secondly, the Prophets introduced them into the prayer. Were it not for the first reason, we should never have uttered them; and were it not for the second reason, we should not have copied them from the Pentateuch to recite them in our prayers: how then could we approve of the use of those numerous attributes! You also learn from this that we ought not to mention and employ ill our prayers all the attributes we find applied to God in the books of the Prophetq: for he does not say," Were it not that Moses, our Teacher, said them, we should not have been able to use them": but he adds another condition-" and had not the men of the Great Synagogue come forward and established their use in the prayer," because only for that reason are we allowed to use them in our prayers. We cannot approve of what those foolish persons do who are extravagant in praise, fluent and prolix in the prayers they compose, and in the hymns they make in the desire to approach the Creator. They describe God in attributes which would be an offence if applied to a human being; for those persons have no knowledge of these great and important principles, which are not accessible to the ordinary intelligence of man. Treating the Creator as a familiar object, they describe Him and speak of Him in any expressions they think proper; they eloquently continue to praise Him in that manner, and believe that they can thereby influence Him and produce an effect on Him. If they find some phrase suited to their object in the words of the Prophets they are still more inclined to consider that they are free to make use of such texts-which should at least be explained-to employ them in their literal sense, to derive new expressions from them, to form from them numerous variations, and to found whole compositions on them. This license is frequently met with in the compositions of the singers, preachers, and others who imagine themselves to be able to compose a poem. Such authors write things which partly are real heresy, partly contain such folly and absurdity that they naturally cause those who hear them to laugh, but also to feel grieved at the thought that such things can be uttered in reference to God. Were it not that 1 pitied the authors for their defects. And did not wish to injure them, I should have cited some passages to show you their mistakes; besides, the fault of their compositions is obvious to all intelligent persons. You must consider it, and think thus : If slander and libel is a great sin, how much greater is the sin of those who speak with looseness of tongue in reference to God, and describe Him by attributes which are far below Him; and I declare that they not only commit an ordinary sin, but unconsciously at least incur the guilt of profanity and blasphemy. This applies both to the multitude that listens to such prayers, and to the foolish man that recites them. Men, however, who understand the fault of such compositions, and, nevertheless, recite them, may be classed, according to my opinion, among those to whom the following words are applied:" And the children of Israel used words that were not right against the Lord their God" (2 Kings xvii. 9): and" utter error against the Lord" (Isa. =ii. 6). If you are of those who regard the honour of their Creator, do not listen in any way to them, much less utter what they say, and still less compose such prayers. knowing how great is the offence of one who hurls aspersions against the Supreme Being. There is no necessity at all for you to use positive attributes of God with the view of magnifying Him in your thoughts, or to go beyond the limits which the men of the Great Synagogue have introduced in the prayers and in the blessings, for this is sufficient for all purposes, and even more than Sufficient, as Rabbi Haninah said. Other attributes, such as occur in the books of the Prophets, may be uttered when we meet with them in reading those books; but we must bear in mind what has already been explained, that they are
either attributes of God's actions, or expressions implying the negation of the opposite. This likewise should not be divulged to the multitude; but a reflection of this kind is fitted for the few only who believe that the glorification of God does not consist in uttering that which is not to be uttered, but in reflecting on that on which man should reflect.

We Will now conclude our exposition of the wise words of R. Haninah. He does not employ any such simile as:" A king who possesses millions of gold denarii, and is praised as having hundreds" : for this would imply that God's perfections, although more perfect than those ascribed to man are still of the same kind: but this is not the case, as has been proved. The excellence of the simile consists in the words: who possesses golden denarii, and is praised as having silver denarii" this implies that these attributes, though perfections as regards ourselves, are not such as regards God; in reference to Him they would all be defects, as is distinctly suggested in the remark," Is this not an offence to Him ?" '
(Moreh I,59)

I always suspected that there is also anti-Islamic polemic here because the Muslims list a hundred attributes of God.

The Butcher in Monsey: No One is Immune to the Yetzer Hara’

Rav Dovid Cohen pointed out that the incident of the butcher in Monsey is proof that no one is immune to the yetzer hara’. Rav Dovid noted that the first comment of the Rema in Shulchan ‘Arukh:
Shi’vi’si Hashem l’neg’di samid…
I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. (Tehillim 16:8), is the first step to fend off the yetzer hara’.

The Rema follows with the elaboration of the Moreh Nevukhim which directs us to keep our mindset along the following lines as an antidote to the yetzer hara’:

WE do not sit, move, and occupy ourselves when we are alone and
at home, in the same manner as we do in the presence of a great
king; we speak and open our mouth as we please when we are with
the people of our own household and with our relatives, but not so
when we are in a royal assembly. If we therefore desire to attain
human perfection, and to be truly men of God, we must awake
from our sleep, and bear in mind that the great king that is over us,
and is always joined to us, is greater than any earthly king, greater
than David and Solomon. The king that cleaves to us and embraces
us is the Intellect that influences us, and forms the link between us
and God. We perceive God by means of that light that He sends
down unto us, wherefore the Psalmist says," In Thy light shall we
see light" (Ps. xxxvi. g): so God looks down upon us through that
same light, and is always with us beholding and watching us on
account of this light." Can any hide himself in secret places that I
shall not see him ?" (Jer. xxiii. 24). Note this particularly.
When the perfect bear this in mind, they will be filled with fear of
God, humility, and piety, with true, not apparent, reverence and
respect of God, in such a manner that their conduct, even when
alone with their wives or in the bath, will be as modest as they are
in public intercourse with other people. Thus it is related of our
renowned Sages that even in their sexual intercourse with their
wives they behaved with great modesty. They also said," Who is
modest ? He whose conduct in the dark night is the same as in the
day." You know also how much they warned us not to walk
proudly, since" the fulness of the whole earth is His glory" (Isa.
vi. 3). They thought that by these rules the above-mentioned idea
will be firmly established in the hearts of men, viz., that we are
always before God, and it is in the presence of His glory that we go
to and fro. The great men among our Sages would not uncover
their heads because they believed that God's glory was round them
and over them; for the same reason they spoke little. In our
Commentary on the Sayings of the Fathers (chap. i. 17) we have
fully explained how we have to restrict our speech. Comp." For
God is in heaven and thou upon earth, therefore let thy words be
few" (Eccles. v. i).
What I have here pointed out to you is the object of all our
religious acts. For by [carrying out] all the details of the prescribed
practices, and repeating them continually, some few pious men
may attain human perfection. They will be filled with respect and
reverence towards God; and bearing in mind who is with them,
they will perform their duty. God declares in plain words that it is
the object of all religious acts to produce in man fear of God and
obedience to His word-the state of mind which we have
demonstrated in this chapter for those who desire to know the
truth, as being our duty to seek. Comp." If thou wilt not observe to
do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou
mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord thy God"
(Dent. xrvffi. 58). Consider how clearly it is stated here that the
only object and aim of" all the words of this law" is to [make
man] fear" the glorious and fearful name?' That this end is
attained by certain acts we learn likewise from the phrase
employed in this verse:" If thou wilt not observe to do . . . that
thou mayest fear?' For this phrase clearly shows that fear of God is
inculcated [into our hearts] when we act in accordance with the
positive and the negative precepts. But the truths which the Law
teaches us-the knowledge of God's Existence and Unity create in us
love of God, as we have shown repeatedly. You know how
frequently the Law exhorts us to love God. Comp." And thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy might 11 (Deut. vi. 5). The two objects, love and
fear of God, are acquired by two different means. The love is the
result of the truths taught in the Law, including the true knowledge
of the Existence of God; whilst fear of God is produced by the
practices prescribed in the Law. Note this explanation. (Moreh, III:52)