Washing Hands: Morning Berakha or Eating Bread Prerequisite?

The Rashba (Shlomo ibn Adret, 13^th century) was asked:

Why do we make the be’rakha, ‘al netilat yadayim, when we get up in the morning?  Isn’t this a requirement before eating bread? 

The Rashba in Teshuva 191 says that netilat yadayim is indeed for eating bread and he suggests that we say this berkha in the morning as well because we are like new creations when we get up from sleep.  As the pasuk says: chadashim la’bekarim, rabbah eh’mu’na’te’kha, meaning: We are like new creations when we awaken after a night of sleep.  Hence, all of the birkot ha’sha’char, morning blessings are recited to help make us aware of the miracle of a new creation-like experience when we are reborn every day.  The Kohen, before he started his avodah every day, would wash at the ki’yor to purify and sanctify himself.  So, we too, in imitation of the Kohen we purify and sanctify ourselves before we start our avodah for the day.  

We are a mam’lekh’et kohanim and an ‘am kadosh, kingdom of priests and a holy nation that has to prepare itself each new day to perform our avodah as defined by the Torah in our life and in the absence of the beit hamikdash our shuls, are our mikdash me’at.

The Rashba concludes:  May we live to see the day of the beit hamikdash rebuilt where the Kohen can once again sanctify himself with washing at the ki’yor, saying al netilat yadayim.

How Bad is Feeling Bad in Yiddish?

Joey was feeling very sick from the flu and was coughing uncontrollably. So much so that he could barely catch his breath and had a severe case of laryngitis.

When he stopped coughing someone asked: “Joey, how are you feeling?”

Joey said, in Yiddish: “Vee a mushumad ven er kumt af yenner velt.”

Translation: Like a meshumad i.e. a Jewish convert to Christianity when he comes into the next world and realizes that he made a mistake.

This is not in the Rambam. Nonetheless, it is a colorful analogy in a Yiddish expression that is worthy of note.

Is It Better to Exonerate a Thousand Guilty Men Than to Kill One Innocent Man?

The Case of Circumstantial Evidence, Risk , Possibility and Probability

We are prohibited from executing punishment on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence, even if it be close to absolute certainty.
For example, if one were pursuing another man to kill him, and he ran into a house with the pursuer at his heels, and we came in after them and found the pursued man in the throes of death, with his foe the pursuer, standing over him with knife in hand, and both covered with blood – the Sanhedrin may not execute the pursuer in fulfillment of the penalty, there being no corroboration by witnesses to the murder. As the Torah states: v’naki v’tzadik al taharog ki lo atzdik rasha, A clean one and a righteous on you shall not kill. (Shmos 23:7)
The Midrash says:
If they saw him pursuing another to kill him and they warned him: “He is a Jew, a son of the covenant; if you kill him, you will be killed” – and they averted their eyes and then found him [the pursued] slain, in the death throes, the knife dripping blood in the killer’s hand – I would think that he [the pursuer] were liable [to execution]; it is, therefore, written: “ A clean one and a righteous one you shall not kill.” (Mekhilta)
The Rambam writes in the Sefer ha’Mitzvos (Negative Commandment 290):
… That you should not find this mitzvah difficult or misguided. In the realm of possibility some things are highly probable and some are highly improbable and some are in the area between these two. The realm of the possible is extremely broad. If the Torah allowed execution of punishment on the basis of the highly probable approaching certainty we would come to execute punishment in cases less probable than that and in instances even less probable than that until punishment would be executed and men wrongly killed on the barest surmise of the judge’s imagination. Therefore, God closed the door and commanded that no punishment be executed until eyewitnesses testified that the event had occurred without a doubt and that it cannot be interpreted otherwise. If we do not execute punishment on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence, the worst that can happen is that we exonerate a guilty man. But if we act upon such evidence, it is possible that one day an innocent man will be killed. It is more desirable to exonerate a thousand guilty men than to kill one innocent one.

Rav Soloveitchik on Wisdom and Creation

The Targum translates Bereishis ba’ra as Be’chokhma be’ra God created with wisdom… (Targum Yerushalmi on Bereishis 1:1)
Why the switch from: In the Beginning… to …with Wisdom?
What does it mean that the world was created with Wisdom?

The Rekanati, in his commentary on the Torah, also identifies reishis with chokhma, based on the pesukim:
Be’chokhma yo’sad a’retz
Hashem, by wisdom has founded the earth (Mishlei 4:19)
Kulam be’chokhma ‘a’si’sa
In wisdom You have made them all (Tehillim 104:24)

Rav Soloveitchik discusses this Targum in one of his dersahos. Chokhma is intuitive feeling, in contradistinction, to contemplative thinking. Contemplative thinking is careful analysis, concentrated in depth study and philosophical analysis.

The first step is chokhma, intuition, getting the fundamental axioms, the yesodos that appear at first. The axioms for which there is no proof, but, nonetheless, true. They are intuitively true, and yet, not logically proven.

If Man were not blessed by the Creator with Chokhma; If Man was not given the ability to envision the power of bereishis to feel and see the truth; to see the light rising in the distant horizon – it would be impossible to teach this to Man.

On a practical level, when Man wants to achieve something or complete a major project, he must do it with Chokhma. He must be inspired with that Bereishis feeling. He has to feel, intuitively, that his vision is not just an empty dream. If Man lacks intuition he cannot successfully undertake communal or private endeavors. For example, a successful entrepenuer is not someone who is good at keeping the books – for that he can get professional help: bookkeepers, accountants etc. Rather, a successful entrepreneur is someone who has a vision, intuition and instinct to discover a fortune. In short, Bereishis i.e. Chokhma, is something with which God created the world and gave to Man as a gift. (Dr. Hillel Seidman in Die Sedra fun Der Vokh (I, pp. 23 – 25)

The Origin of the Yiddish Word for a Shabbos Siddur: Rummel

My father, z”l, used to call a siddur that only had Shabbos and Yom Tov tefillos, a rummel. I always wondered about the etymology of this word and its primary meaning.

The word is actually an abbreviation with the letters, resh, vav, mem, lamed. In Yiddish the letters stand for: Rabbinish Un Masorishe Literatur viz. Rabbinic And Masoretic (traditional) Literature.

A recent book about Jewish book dealers in 19th century Europe has catalogs from that period with Hebrew sections entitled: Sifrei RUM”L. In Hebrew the same abbreviation in that context stands for Sifrei Rabbonim U’MeLumadim, books for Rabbis And Scholars. (Be’Ha’nu’to Shel Mokher Sefarim, At the Bookseller’s Shop, by Hagit Cohen, Hebrew University Press, 2006, p. 31, n. 27)

Open issue: How did the word rummel get limited to a Shabbos siddur?

A Horse Named After the Rambam? What’s Next?

The New York Times reports:
SPORTS / OTHER SPORTS September 3, 2007
Colt Serves as a Reminder of a Philosopher's Reach
By JOE DRAPE
Ahmed Zayat and Earle Mack hope that naming a racehorse after the famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides will spread a message of peace.

See link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/sports/othersports/03maimonides.html?ex=1189569600&en=e74cb38296019a3e&ei=5070

The Roles of Hashem and Man: A Child’s Point of View

My son was driving with my 3 and a half year old grandson in the car. They passed some tall buildings as they were riding along.

The conversation went something like this:

Grandson: Abba, did Hashem make the buildings?
Son: No, Hashem made Man and Man made the buildings.

A few days later, they were building with blocks, and my grandson says: Abba, I’ll be Hashem and you can be Man.

Do You Believe in God? That is Not the Question

Rabbi Yehuda Brandes spoke on Teaching the Kuzari: Some Introductory Perspectives at the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Yemei Iyun in June, 2007. He points out that the Kuzari was written for a person who believes in God. The introduction to the Kuzari describes how an angel appeared to the king in a dream. Only a religious man who already believes in God would have such a dream.

R. Yehuda Halevi did not intend to write a book to prove the existence of God to a non-believer. A modern day teacher, therefore, should not teach a class in the Kuzari and expect to convince a modern, secular, non-believing student to believe in God.

The opening question to ask is not: Do You Believe in God? The answer you get may be in the negative. That is a non-starter for teaching the Kuzari or about Jewish belief in the 21st century.

Rather, the questions should be:
Have you ever prayed?
Has God ever answered your prayers?
In most cases, the answer to both questions will be yes. At that point your student is starting from the same place as the king in the Kuzari and you are ready to roll with the arguments of R. Yehuda Halevi.

Interestingly, on Monday night, at the Young Israel of Midwood, I heard R. Noach Weinberg, Rosh Yeshiva of Aish Hatorah, make a similar point. In his experience, the same people who say they do not believe in God are the same people who will admit to praying to God and having their prayers answered. Reb Noach thinks these people have been brainwashed to say they do not believe in God because that is the litany of modern man.

‘Aleinu: U’moshav Ye’Karo or Kisei Khe’vo’do?

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.

Bris Milah: Why Say ‘Aleinu After the Milah?

The recently published Sefer Kush’yos, by a student of the Maharam mi’Rutenberg, asks the question:

Why do we say ‘aleinu after the milah (i.e. not immediately after ashrei and u’va l’tziyon)?

Because in ‘aleinu we say: she'lo 'a'sa'nu k'go'yei ha'a'ra'tzos, “He has not made us like the nations of the earth.” In deference to the baby who is not yet circumcised, like a goy, we do not say ‘aleinu until the baby is circumcised, as well.
(Sefer Kush’yos edited by R. Ya’akov Yisrael Stal, Jerusalem, 2007, 5:9, p. 6f.)

This minhag is based on the custom that the milah takes place at the end of shacharis when ‘aleinu would normally be said. Once the milah is complete, the baby is then included in the tefillah of ‘aleinu, too.

The Aderes in his commentary on the Siddur, Tefilas David, feels that the minhag to have the bris before 'aleinu stems from the the custom to have the bris in shul for pirsum ha'mitzvah, publicizing the mitzvah. The reason for having it before 'aleinu was to be sure all the people were still in shul. (Jerusalem: Franco edition, 2004, p.51)

Shabbos Mincha: Sim Shalom or Shalom Rov?

Nusach Ashkenaz siddurim customarily have shalom rov as the selection for birkas shalom at Mincha on Shabbos, following the same custom as on a weekday.
The recently published Sefer Kush’yos, by a student of the Maharam mi’Rutenberg, asks the question: Why do we say sim shalom at Mincha on Shabbos and on fast days? Because the Torah is read on those occasions and one needs to mention, toras chaim, the Torah of life, which is part of the text of sim shalom.

This indicates that the early minhag Ashkenaz was sim shalom.

The Gemara says the reason why on ordinary days the priests do not ‘lift up their hands’ at Minhah is because of the likelihood of intoxication, but on the days [cited above] the question of intoxication does not arise.
(Ta’a’nis 26b. See also Orach Chaim 127, Hagahos Maimoniyos, Rambam, Ahavah, Seder Tefillos, Frankel edition p. 327))

It appears that there are two reasons behind saying sim shalom: 1) Torah reading which is referred to in sim shalom as Toras Chaim and 2) acceptance of the validity of having birkas kohanim at Mincha when there is no chance of intoxication by the kohanim i.e. fast days.

Children at the Seder: Telling the Story, Plain and Simple

R. Avrohom Schorr offers the following reminder in a Pesach letter:

Remember the mitzvah of v’hi’gad’ta l’vin’kha. Do not forget the little children when discussing commentaries on the Haggadah. Do not ignore the mitzvah of l’ma’an te’sa’per, narrating the plain story to attract the hearts of the children to belief in Hashem. According to the Sefer Ohev Yisrael, there is no time more auspicious than the Seder to inculcate emunah in Hashem to children.

Chad Gadya, One Little Goat: What is the Connection to the Seder Haggadah?

Everyone is familiar with the last song in the Ashkenazic Haggadah, Chad Gadya, One Little Goat:

One Little Goat, One Little Goat, that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat.
And then came a cat, and ate the goat that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat….
And then came the Holy One, blessed is He, and killed the angel of death, who slew the slaughterer, who slaughtered the ox…that beat the dog that bit the cat, that ate the goat that father bought for two zuzim,
One Little Goat, One Little Goat.

However, the question is: What is the Connection to the Seder Haggadah? This song could easily be better related to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when we all stand before God in judgment.

According to Rav Dovid Cohen, the answer may lie in the Rambam’s description of the mitzvah to recount the exodus from Egypt (Note: Even though the Rambam did not have Chad Gadya in his Haggadah).

We are commanded to recite the story of the Exodus from Egypt, with all the eloquence at our command, on the eve of the fifteenth of Nisan. One who expands on this theme is to be commended, enlarging on the iniquity of the Egyptians and the sufferings which they inflicted upon us, and on the way in which God wrought His vengeance upon them…. (Sefer HaMitzvos, Aseh 157)

Chad Gadya’s inclusion in the Haggadah reminds us of the message that in the end God’s takes His vengeance, justice is done and everyone gets their just deserts.

The lesson of Chad Gadya is, therefore, very much connected to the Seder, even though, it has a broader mussar message for everyone all year. In the end, as they say, whatever goes around comes around, whether at home or at work, at school or at play -- justice is done and everyone gets their just deserts.

Korban Pesach in Egypt: Did Moshe Modify Hashem’s Command?

Mashkof and Mezuzos

2. This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you.
3. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for a house;
4. And if the household is too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating shall you make your count for the lamb.
5. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year; you shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats;
6. And you shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
7. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, in which they shall eat it.

…

21. Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said to them, Draw out and take a lamb according to your families, and kill the Passover lamb.
22. And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out from the door of his house until the morning.
23. For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not let the destroyer come into your houses to strike you. (Shemos 12)

Tosafos says:
The two mezuzos allude to Moshe and Aharon and the lintel above represents HKBH, the One above. Hashem meant to say: Do this, for in this way because of your merit, Moshe and Aharon, and My merit, they will be redeemed. HKBH thereby teaches his humility, so to speak, by putting Moshe and Aharon first. Moshe said, chalilah that we should put our merit above His. Hence, Moshe reversed the order of the sprinkling to the lintel first and then the mezuzos.
(Moshav Zekenim)

Rambam on Love, Friendship and Marriage

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.

Frumkeit and Choosing Right from Wrong

Who is Superior? The Chasid who does not desire to sin or the Man who controls himself from sinning?

The Rambam asks this question in the sixth chapter of Shemonah Perakim, his introduction to Avos.

The philosophers say that the person who does not desire to sin is on a higher level. It is better not to desire murder or stealing or sexual immorality than to desire these sins and refrain from them.

The Chakhamim say:
Whoever is greater than his friend has a greater evil impulse than he.

le’fum tza’a’ra agra, according to the pain, so is the reward.

Who is strong? The man who controls his passions – ay’ze’hu gibor? Ha’kovesh es yitzro.

Man should not say:
I do not want to eat meat with milk
I do not want to wear sha’atnez, garments with linen and wool
I do not want to have illicit sexual relations

Rather Man should say: I want to, but what shall I do – my Father in heaven has forbidden me.

According to the Rambam, the resolution to the conflict between the ideas of the philosophers and the Chakhamim is contained in the words of the Chakhamim.

The Chakhamim say that the things the philosophers use as examples of sin are generally accepted laws of morality, such as, murder, theft, robbery, fraud, harming an innocent man, repaying a benefactor with evil, degrading parents and the like.

Regarding these laws of morality the Chakhamim say:
If they were not written down in the Torah, they would deserve to be written down.

Note, the Chakhamim did not say:
I do not want to kill
I do not want to steal
I do not want to lie, but I want to – but what shall I do?
On the contrary, the Chakhamim only mention statutes, chukim, that have no apparent reason, such as, meat with milk, sha’atnez and illicit sexual relations.
The Rambam’s resolution of the difference between the philosophers and Chazal is difficult. Should a person have to struggle his entire life against his passions and be in constant turmoil? The answer is no. At the end of his life that person would be like a shmatteh, a worn out rag, to use the analogy given by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein.

Rather, the goal of Man should be to mold his personality according to the mitzvos of the Torah to the point where his will agrees with the will of God. The struggle ends at some point and Man’s will is in consonance with the mitzvos.

One might ask: Perhaps we have come full circle back to the view of the philosophers that it is better not to desire to sin even for chukim? Yes and no. Yes, it is better not to desire to sin. No, the reason he does not desire to sin is not for the same reason as the philosophers. Namely, Man should not desire to sin because it morally wrong alone. If the only reason to refrain from sin is because it is morally wrong, why do we need the Torah?

Man should not desire to sin because God commanded it, as well. Man has to know and follow the mitzvos because the Torah says so – because there is a metzaveh, a Commander. Gadol ha’me’tzuveh v’oseh me’eino me’tzuveh v’oseh – the person who is commanded is higher than the person who is not commanded.

Why Does a Tallis Have Rough Edges Tied with Knots?

Ve’shibatzta ha’ke’sones shesh, And you shall embroider the coat of fine linen, and you shall make the mitre of fine linen, and you shall make the girdle of needlework. (Shemos 28:39)

The Rambam says the following about the Kohen’s garments:
The garments [of the Kohen] were also entirely woven, me’shu’ba’tzos, and not cut, in order not to spoil the work of the weaving. (Moreh 3, 45)

The taleisim we wear today also have uncut edges tied with knots in keeping with the rule followed for the Kohen’s garments in the Beis ha’Mikdash. The idea is not to spoil the work of the weaver and keep his work in pristine form and appearance. That is the embroidery for the Kohen’s garments and in keeping with that tradition, for our taleisim, as well.

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.