Aseh lekha rav u’kneh lekha chaver
APPOINT FOR THYSELF A TEACHER AND ACQUIRE FOR THYSELF A COMPANION (Avos 1:6)
Why the change in verb from aseh, make or appoint a rav for yourself, to the verb kneh when it comes to acquire a chaver, a friend for yourself?
The Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah explains the difference in meaning based on the type of relationship.
A teacher is someone you can choose to learn from. There is no mutual giving required in the relationship. The teacher gives his lesson to the student. The student gives nothing in return to the teacher (except, perhaps, for the contractual payment of tuition). The personal aspect of the relationship is one way. The teacher gives and the student takes by learning his lesson.
Marital relationships can exist on two levels:
1. Friendship based on the physical relationship for mutual pleasure and mutual needs, such as, support for food, shelter and clothing.
2. Friendship and love based on trust – friendship between soul mates. A relationship in which the husband and wife can bare their soul, secrets and business affairs, both good and bad, without fear of harm or hurting the relationship. Love that is based on mutual caring and trust with common goals in life. One helps the other with their tasks. Their purpose is to give to the other rather than take from their partner in life.
Teacher-student relationships may also rise to a higher level of friendship where there is a mutual relationship in the sharing of ideas and knowledge to reach common goals and caring for each other personally.
The ultimate goal to strive for in love, friendship and marriage is mutual caring and respect for each other as you work towards common objectives in life.
Showing posts with label Pirke Avos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pirke Avos. Show all posts
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Sunday, December 31, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, November 13, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)