This past Thursday evening, as I came home from work and sorted through the daily mail, the first thing that caught my eye was a postcard from the State of Ohio, notifying me that my driver’s license had expired on my past birthday. Little did I realize that I had been driving with an expired license for more than six weeks as I was reminded that the penalty for doing so is a year’s suspension of driving privileges.
Although I have been a licensed driver since age 16, this was the first time I had forgotten about the expiration year. Fortunately, my state is gracious enough to give a six month window of time to people like me. So, on Friday morning I headed off to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to have my license renewed.
The process was one I have been through many times; writing a check made out to the State Treasurer, answering questions regarding previous felonies, imprisonments, and driving under the influence of alcohol or other “controlled substances”, and completing a vision test. Each step went smoothly and with military precision. Yet, in the final step of confirming my personal information(name, address, eye and hair color, organ donor status) I was asked the question; “has your height and weight remained the same”. As a quick “yes” issued from my mouth, I found myself checked in my spirit.
No doubt I still stand a full 5’9” in height, a truth quickly evidenced by the fact that I was taller than the two men in line behind me and the three women working behind the counter, despite the fact that I was wearing flats. Yet, the weight listed on my driver’s license is questionable. It is the weight I listed back in 1985. More than likely I’m a few pounds over that at this point. But I never weigh myself and do not even own a scale. I really don’t know my true weight at the moment, and am confident that I’m not more than 10-15 lbs. over what I weighed at age 24. Certainly the State of Ohio would understand and be gracious about this, allowing me a little flexibility regarding such a minor detail. : )
In considering the opening chapters of parashah Va’etchanan this past week (Deuteronomy 3:23-4:49) I came upon a familiar verse that seemed to give absolutely no flexibility regarding the keeping of Torah;
“You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of HaShem, your G-d, that I command you”. (Deuteronomy 4:2 Stone Chumash
Rabbinic commentators realize the apparent difficulty this verse brings in light of the numerous laws and halachah enacted via the Sages through the centuries. What right do the Sages have to enact such laws, since Moses warned against bal tosif (adding to Torah) and bal tigra (subtracting from Torah)? Numerous opinions and explanations have been offered among Judaism’s finest and well know rabbis.
In the most basic sense Kli Yakar (Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz) understands this verse as a single imperative with lo tigra (you shall not subtract) being the explanation and logical outcome of lo tosif (you shall not add). In adding to the Torah one naturally subtracts from it by undermining its authority and compromising its status of perfection. [1] What is perfect cannot undergo adjustment for any deviation from perfection automatically renders the perfect imperfect. The Sefer HaChinuch verbalizes the same truth by stating;
“The Master Who commands us regarding Torah, may He be blessed, is absolutely perfect, and all His deeds and all His commands are perfect and good. Adding to them is detraction; all the more so diminishing”. [2]
The Midrash Rabbah illustrates this concept through the story of a person who borrowed the fine china and silverware of his neighbor when he entertained guests. The next day, in returning what he had borrowed, he gave back double the amount. For each dish borrowed he returned two, for every two spoons, he returned four. His neighbor was amazed and questioned why the man was giving back more than was lent to him. The man smiled and said; “when I brought your dishes and silverware into my home they became pregnant and gave birth”.
At another time the man came to the neighbor and explained that he had the honor of entertaining the most prominent family in town. For this special occasion he asked to borrow his neighbor’s beautiful silver candelabra. The neighbor wholeheartedly agreed and looked forward to doubling his investment by getting back two candelabras the next day.
Several days went by and the candelabra was not returned. Going to the man’s home the neighbor asked when he could expect the candelabra to be given back. The man sighed and said “I feel awful about this, but your candelabra had a heart-attack and died a couple of days ago”. The angry neighbor called the man a thief. “Do you think I’m such a fool, return my property at once!”
The man questioned his irate neighbor; “if you could believe that a dish or spoon had given birth, surely you must believe that your candelabra has died?” [3]
In the same way when one believes that they can add to Torah in order to improve it and/or find personal benefit they will also can easily rationalize that not doing mitzvot is a possibility as well.
How then can halachah be justified if additions diminish and adjustments compromise the Torah? The answer to this dilemma is presented as Moses continues in chapter 4 of Deuteronomy. After reminding the people of the real consequences of not following Torah, as witnessed by the death of 24,000 men who were seduced by Moabite women to worship the Baal of Peor, Moses goes on to admonish them to “safeguard” and “perform” the decrees and ordinances given to them by HaShem (v.6).
Throughout Torah “safeguarding” is especially linked to the “decrees” of HaShem which in Hebrew are called HaChukim. The Chukim are those commandments that are considered “super-rational”, that go beyond the basic logic and common sense of mankind, and that require obedience because “G-d says so” out of devotion to Him as Sovereign and King. Because such commands (for example; the designations of clean and unclean animals, the prohibition of mixing wool with linen, and the laws regarding the ashes of the Red Heifer) are beyond human ability to rationalize or understand completely extra precautions must be taken in order not to transgress them. Yet, in general, “safeguarding” is considered a necessary aspect of “performing” all of G-d’s commands. Performing Torah protection and caution due to human weakness and temptation.
The commentators recognize this truth in the role of the Sages and their authority to institute laws. Such laws are meant as a means of building a “fence around Torah” in order to help the community avoid violating G-d’s commands. The Rambam explains that in developing halachah the authorities must make it abundantly clear that they are not adding to Torah, but instead that they are endeavoring to safeguard it. Clear distinctions must be made between what Torah commands and what the Sages institute as safeguards. [4]
Such distinction is witnessed in both the ministry of Yeshua and of Paul. In the Sermon on the Mount, Yeshua quotes several verses of Torah prefaced with the words “you have heard it said”. In teaching his disciples regarding his personal safeguards for them in such areas as adultery and murder Yeshua specifically specifies “but I say to you”. Paul as well in 1 Corinthians 7 distinguishes between marital commands given by HaShem by saying “not I, but the L-RD”, as opposed to safeguards he has instituted regarding marital relationships as “I, not the L-RD”.
When personal safeguards are confused for Torah the ramifications can be serious. Adding to a mitzvah always detracts, whether from the status of the Torah itself or from another person’s understanding and focus. Perhaps the greatest example of this is seen in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. Although HaShem had instructed Adam that they were not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam instructed Eve that they should not even touch its fruit. In doing this Adam neglected to distinguish between the mitzvah and the personal safeguard. In Eve’s understanding both not eating and not touching were mitzvot given from HaShem.
The Midrash says that the Serpent used Eve’s distorted understanding to provoke her to sin. In realizing that Eve understood the safeguard of not touching the fruit as being a commandment from G-d, the Serpent gave her a hearty push causing her to lose her balance and brush up against the tree and its fruit. When she did not die or suffer harm, although she touched the fruit, her mind began to rationalize that eating of the fruit would be beneficial as well.
Therefore, although Moses allowed some flexibility regarding safeguards meant to keep one from transgressing Torah commands, a clear distinction must always be made between what is a Torah command and what is a fence around the command.But what about lo tigra; the prohibition of subtracting from Torah? Is it ever allowable to do less than the Torah commands? Is there any flexibility in this?
Toward the end of the chapter 4 after admonishing the Israelites to keep and safeguard Torah, to remember the supernatural giving of it at Sinai, and to be cautious about idolatry which will lead to exile from the Land, Moses set aside three cities of refuge on the eastern bank of the Jordan river (v. 41).
The Sages wonder why Moses would do such a thing, for designating such cities at this time was merely a formality. The cities of refuge could not be operational until the entire Promised Land was conquered and settled, some fourteen years down the road. So, why bother designating cities at a time when the purpose for them could not be fulfilled? Why didn’t Moses leave this project for Joshua to carry out at a later date?
The Midrash explains that there are two tzaddikim (righteous people) in Torah who exemplify the saying “one who cherishes the mitzvot constantly seeks more”. One was David who refused to sit idly by after being told by HaShem that he would not build the first Temple in Jerusalem. David instead did everything he could; from acquiring the necessary building materials, to purchasing the land for the Temple site, to regrouping the priests and Levites in anticipation of the service there, despite the fact that he would not see the Temple completed in his lifetime. [5]
In the same way, Moses did what he could in regard to the cities of refuge, although he would not see the fulfillment of this mitzvah. Moses endeavored to do all that was possible to the best of his ability despite the limitations of his impending death and prohibition to enter the Promised Land. In this way he did less than what Torah required and did not receive the credit of accomplishing the mitzvah in full.
Yet, from both the example of David and of Moses the Sages derive that it is better to do less than the Torah requires in the face of limitations and challenges, then to not attempt to do any part of a mitzvah at all.
. . . . . . . .
Upon returning home from the BMV, I took my new driver’s license out of my wallet to take another look at it. The picture –which typically is as flattering as an FBI mug shot — didn’t turn out too bad. For some reason the camera angle was not up close in my face this time and the more distant shot helped ease the signs of aging found there. Noticing the new expiration date of 2013, I quickly made note of this on my kitchen calendar, not wanting a repeat warning from the State of Ohio in four years time. I also decided that when my license is renewed again, I will be as precise as possible regarding my current weight. Until then I am happy to have a little flexibility.
But when it comes to a Torah lifestyle I also need to be happy with a little flexibility. To be careful of imposing Torah fences and precautions, which I find necessary and helpful for my own personal weaknesses; upon others as if it was the “law” for everyone. But more than that, like Moses, I find myself somewhat driven to seek out greater understanding and further obedience to HaShem despite personal challenges that limit some things for me at this time. Yet, unlike Moses, I have the freedom to take on new situations that would alleviate certain limitations I currently face.
The upcoming week presents an opportunity to consider G-d’s will regarding changes that might be ahead for me. It is an exciting time and an uncertain time. A venture which might be little more than a formality that will never come to fruition or one that might lead to fulfilling certain mitzvot to the fullest extent that I never would have thought was possible.
[1] Kli Yakar as cited in, Rav David Silverberg, Parashat Vaetchanan, available at: http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-devarim/45-8vaetchanan.htm
[2] Sefer HaChinuch (paragraph 454) as cited in, Rabbi Avraham Fischer, Parshat Miketz (December 2005), available at: http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5766/miketz66.htm
[3]Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar 12:3
[4] Rambam, Laws of Rebels (2:9) as cited in, Rabbi Avraham Fischer, Parshat Miketz, op. cit.
[5] Rabbi Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says(Devarim), pp. 70-71
