One of the most popular topics for discussion in Avot is the designation of mitzvot: which commandments are big, as it were, and which are not? The first place where this issue arises is at Avot 2:1, where Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi teaches us to treat all mitzvot with care since we can’t know which carry a large reward (or punishment) and which do not. In his own words:
הֱוֵי זָהִיר
בְּמִצְוָה קַלָּה כְּבַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵֽעַ מַתַּן שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל
מִצְוֹת, וֶהֱוֵי מְחַשֵּׁב הֶפְסֵד מִצְוָה כְּנֶֽגֶד שְׂכָרָהּ, וּשְׂכַר
עֲבֵרָה כְּנֶֽגֶד הֶפְסֵדָהּ
Be as careful with a minor mitzvah as with a major one, for you
do not know the rewards of the mitzvot. Consider the cost of
a mitzvah against its rewards, and the rewards of a transgression
against its cost.
This is not like saying
“Be as careful with a small dog as a big one, since you don’t know how badly it
bites”. The response of a dog can be ascertained empirically, but the response
of God cannot. Even when we receive a reward, we can’t be sure which mitzvah
it’s for, or whether that mitzvah—even if we could identify it—was a major one
or not.
There are various ways in
which we can categorize mitzvot and then list them. For example:
Mitzvot may be owed
towards God, other people or ourselves
They may be derived from
the Torah, from the Oral Law, or from custom
In this context I was interested to read the following
passage by Rabbi Hershel Schachter (Rav Schachter on Pirkei Avos), one
of the few in which he does not cite his esteemed Rav, Rabbi Joseph B.
Solveitchik:
“[Historically, some mitzvos may
take on greater significance, even they may be deemed objectively less valuable”.
Then, after summarizing the classic midrashim that argue
against the rescue of the Jewish People from slavery in Egypt on the basis that
we were just as much idolators as the Egyptians who enslaved us, he continues:
“The Midrashim …tell us that
Bnei Yisroel did not change their names, their language, or their dress.
In other words, by retaining their Jewish names, speaking Loshon HaKodesh, and
dressing differently than the Mitzrim, the Jewish People remained distinctive.
Interestingly, the Rambam writes (Peirush
HaMishnayos) that speaking Loshon HaKodesh is an example of what our
Mishnah labels a mitzvah kalah, which should nevertheless be
scrupulously performed. … Thus it turns out that the Jewish People merited geulah
from Mitzrayim on the strength of mitzvos that we would consider
among the less important ones!”
Rav Schachter draws further support for the notion that what
is considered an important mitzvah may depend on the time and place from the
suggestion of the Meshech Chochmah (Vayikra 26:44) that, when the Jewish
people are in exile, “nationalistic” mitzvot are important than purely
religious ones. In contrast, when we are in Israel, religious mitzvot increase
in importance as against the rest. Rav
Schachter’s example of the Jews earning their right to redemption from Egypt by
clinging to three mitzvot that help shape national identity bears this out.
Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi is right. We cannot second-guess the relative
value of mitzvot—not in absolute terms and not in relative terms either, since circumstances
change and, with them, our duties towards God, other people and ourselves. We
must recognize the value of all mitzvot but at the same time concede that we
cannot establish for ourselves which are the major, which the minor.
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click
here.
