I n his introduction to the Mishnaic Order of Nashim (Seder Nashim) Rambam/Maimonides poses a question: In the Six Orders of Mishnah why does the tractate Yevamos precede tractate Kesuvos? Yevamos after all deals with levirate marriage (a surviving brother must either marry or legally disengage from the childless widow of his deceased brother per Devarim 25: 5–10) while Kesuvos deals with the laws of marriage. Logically should not laws of marriage precede legislation dealing with the end of marriage?

Answers the Rambam: Whether or not a person should get married is an option. Although marriage is strongly encouraged no authority can force a person to marry against his will. To marry or not to marry is a personal decision. But the exercise of levirate marriage is not an option but a Biblical commandment. The surviving brother must either marry the widow (today no longer in force) or grant her the freedom to marry someone else through the process of chalitzah (similar to a divorce and still in force today). And adds the Rambam that which is mandatory overrides that which is merely discretionary and therefore tractate Yevamos which deals with compulsory action takes precedence over tractate Kesuvos which deals with the optional.

All of which flies in the face of today’s thinking where “choice” and “personal autonomy” are the prevalent buzzwords. Our natural instinct is to place more value on that which is done voluntarily over that which is done as an obligation. When I give tzedakah to a poor man on the surface it seems preferable to give out of the goodness of my heart than because I must observe the mitzvah of tzedakah. On the face of it giving out of compassion is the better way. Nevertheless the Sages demonstrate their profound insight into human nature when they declare that “gadol hametzuveh v’oseh — a person who acts because of a Divine commandment is greater than he who acts because he chooses to do so on his own” (Kiddushin 31a). That is in the eternal scheme of things serving G-d and performing mitzvos out of compulsion and not simply because we feel like doing them is more laudable in His eyes for in such cases we act not to please ourselves but to accede to a Higher Power.

Yes one’s heart should be in it; yes one should feel compassion for the poor man. But at bottom our actions should be motivated primarily because of the Divine Imperative rather than because of our own subjective feelings. For if the standard is our personal choice what is the poor person to do when we decline to help him because we have had a bad day or because we are not in a giving mood?