Rabbi says: which is an upright path for which a person should opt? – One which is honourable for those who do it and which [also] brings honour from mankind. Be as careful with a simple mitzvah as with a serious one, since you do not know the reward for each mitzvah. Calculate the loss of a mitzvah against its reward, and the reward of a sin against its loss. Watch for three things and you will not come to sin: know what is above you – a seeing eye, a listening ear and all your deeds written in the book.
46:
We have seen that one possible interpretation of the first clause of the main burden of Rabbi's teaching as given in our mishnah might be aimed at the rather simplistic view that the purpose of observing the
mitzvot is to gain reward or to avoid punishment: what might seem to be a relatively unimportant
mitzvah should not be overlooked since its reward might be very great, and so forth.
47:
The second idea put forward seems to be directed at the person whose observance of the mitzvot is based on the (perhaps subconscious) thought: 'What do I get out of it?" The advice given is to carefully weigh the benefits and losses. Consider what you stand to lose by observing a mitzvah and compare that with what you think you will gain by not observing it. Alternatively, consider what you stand to gain by not observing a mitzvah and compare that with what you might lose by observing that commandment. (I do not think that there is a tautology here: I believe that the first part of the sentence that we are considering at the moment is directed towards positive commands whereas the second part is directed towards negative commands.)
48:
Perhaps this needs some simple illustration. Giving charity might serve as an example of a positive command: 'Consider what you stand to lose by not being charitable towards the needy and destitute and compare that with the few pennies that you stand to lose if you do behave charitably.' And adultery might serve as an example of a negative command: 'Consider what you stand to gain by not committing adultery, though sorely tempted, and compare that with what you will lose by giving way to your temptations.'
49:
The last of the three types that Rabbi seems to be addressing is the simplest of all: you had better observe all the commandments out of fear of God's punishment. God is omnipotent and omniscient and never forgets the slightest misdemeanour. I suspect that by and large we moderns are too sophisticated for such a consideration to have any real weight for us. It is too reminiscent of "Big Brother".
50:
Nevertheless, the matters that Rabbi sets before us should give us moderns pause to consider what may be the purpose of our observing the mitzvot. Why should we observe positive commandments and avoid the negative ones? What will it do for us? I would imagine that there will be as many answers as there are thinking people, so I can only offer what seems to me to be a motivation that might move the modern sophisticated Jew. The key here may well be the concept of holiness, or kedushah. We can raise our secular lives into a more meaningful realm by adding kedushah to them. Each time that we elect to perform a mitzvah (as such) we are adding an element of kedushah to our lives, we are removing ourselves, at least temporarily, from the realm of the mundane into incipient transcendence. Each time that we elect to perform a mitzvah we are adding to the store of "Jewishness" that is in our soul.
I have mentioned several times that Rabbi's teaching in our present mishnah may be interpreted in several ways and I have offered but one of them.
Jacob Chinitz here offers a different insight:
I am impressed with the fact that the Mishna labels some Mitzvot Kal [easy, simple – SR] and some Chamur [serious – SR]. Which seems to mean that there are gradations in the value of Mitzvot. If so, how can we be told to be as careful with the Kal as with the Chamur? One possible answer is that Kal and Chamur is as it appears to us, but in reality they are all Chamur or all Kal or in reverse value which seems to us at first glance.
I prefer to think that the Mishna here is teaching something else, and that is that any law-abiding person, be it in a religious or in a secular society, which also has law, has to respect all the laws, the entire system. It does not mean, for example, that the duty to pay income tax is more or less serious than crossing with the green light. But a good citizen cannot say: I will observe only the great laws, the serious ones, but I will not observe the trivial ones. So the Mishna is saying to us: Listen, you have to respect all the Mitzvot. Sure, some are greater than others. In fact, I found that no less than 16 Mitzvot are characterized as : Shakul Keneged Kol Mitzvot Shebatorah [as weighty as all the other mitzvot of the Torah – SR]. Some Mitzvot, such as Shabbat, Tzitizit, Avoda Zara, are valued as much as all the Mitzvot put together. Which is a logical contradiction in itself, because if one Mitzva is as great as all the others, does that "others" include other great Mitzvot, of which the same thing is said?
We need not be too logical here, and we must recognize that the Talmud simply wants to enlarge the prestige of some Mitzvot over others. But Halakhah Lemaase [practically speaking – SR] it makes no difference, for in the end we have to fulfill all of them, subject to the limitations of Osek Memitzva Patur Min Hamitzva [one who is engaged in the performance of a mitzvah is not required to observe another at the same time – SR], which is a problematic principle in itself to be discussed separately. The Mishna is demanding respect for the legal system as a whole, although it recognizes that the most saintly individuals will sometimes sneak in a lapse of a "small" mitzva if it does not produce a scandal.
