Someone asked on my previous post on ‘Aleinu:
1 - What is the meaning of U’moshav Ye’Karo, the seat of His homage is in the heavens?
2 - Why do some not say it?
This is the nusach in the Siddurim of R. Amram Gaon and R. Sa’adia Gaon. The Tur (Orach Chaim , Siman 133) mentions that some say, v’kisei khe’vo’do (Mahzor Roma), but that U’mosahv Ye’Karo should be said because the Sefer Hekhalos has the nusach, U’moshav Ye’Karo.
The combination of kisei and kavod is common in Tanach. Two examples:
Tehillm 9 has, ya’shav’ta le’khi’sei and has, yei’sheiv parallel to kis’o:
5: …Yashavta le’khisei shofet tzedek
For you have maintained my right and my cause; you sat in the throne judging right.
8: Va’Hashem le’olam yeshev konen la’mishpat kis’o
But the Lord shall endure for ever; he has prepared his throne for judgment.
Tehillm 103:
19: Hashem ba’sha’ma’yim hei’khin kis’o u’malkhuso ba’kol ma’sha’lah
The Lord has established his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom rules over all.
According to the Gra, the nusach should be: ve’kisei khe’vo’do, the throne of His glory.
In Mail-Jewish (http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i61.html#CSX) , Gilad J. Gevaryahu translated Professor Ismar Elobogen as saying:
The acceptance of this tefila was very controversial in Germany, where
there were repeated charges against the Jewish religion. These did not
subside for hundred of years and eventually led to the elimination of
the sentence 'shehem mishtachavim lahevel varik umitpalelim le'el lo
yoshia,' which still exists in manuscripts and Sephardic and other
siddurim. In about 1400 a Jewish mumar (an apostate) went to the
authorities and told them that in this sentence the Jews refers to
Jesus. His proof was that the gematria of varik equals 316 as does the
name Jesus. Liefmann-Milhausen, in his book _Nitzachon_ proved the
charges wrong [claiming inter alia that this tefila preceded
Christianity], nonetheless, the charges were repeated again and again.
The commentary, Barukh She-a’mar (p.199), by the author of the Torah Temimah, points out that ye’karo, has the same gematria as yeshu. Therefore, he concludes that the correct nusach should be, v’kisei khe’vo’do, which avoids this Christian leaning gematria.
Eliezer Segal says:
It did not take long for our nimble numerologists to run into an unexpected problem. The consonantal text of varik forms an anagram of the word yekaro, which means that the two words share the same gimatria. Yekaro means "his glory," as in the clause "and the throne of his glory is in the heavens above."
(University of Calgary: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/000928_Aleinu.html)
In answer to the questions:
What is the meaning of U’moshav Ye’Karo, the seat of His homage is in the heavens? Why do some not say it?
The meaning is easily subjected to Christian interpretation and reference to yeshu by use of gematria. The other nusach, v’kisei khe’vo’do, is supported in earlier texts, as well, and has none of these issues.
Showing posts with label Rav Saadia Gaon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rav Saadia Gaon. Show all posts
Sunday, April 22, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)