News

Parsha Insights
By Rabbi Scott Kahn

"[The Men of the Great Assembly] said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many students, and make a fence around the Torah. (Pirkei Avot 1:1) "

This famous statement establishes the principle that the Sanhedrin must add safeguards to prevent a violation of Torah law. This concept has led to the many mitzvot d'rabbanan - rabbinic commandments - which have become a central feature of Jewish life.

Yet Chazal seem to say the exact opposite in Masechet Sanhedrin, in their discussion of Chava's initial declaration to the serpent:

"Chizkiya said: From where do we know that anyone who adds, ultimately detracts? As it is written [regarding the Tree of Knowledge], "G-d said, do not eat from it and do not touch it." (Sanhedrin 29a)"

Rashi explains that Chava's above claim to the serpent was faulty, for "The Holy One, Blessed is He, did not command them regarding touching; and on account of her addition it was detracted, for the serpent pushed Chava towards the Tree until she touched it. He then said to her, Look - death did not come on account of touching; so, too, you will not die from eating."

How is it possible to reconcile these two concepts? How can the Men of the Great Assembly mandate adding additional laws, when man's downfall directly resulted from the addition of a protective law?

The answer can be found in the Rambam's formulation of a Halacha found in Parashat Re'eh, the prohibition of adding any mitzvot to the Torah (Devarim 13:1). The Rambam writes:

"Since the Beit Din may issue decrees and prohibit that which is permitted - what, then, is the meaning of the Torah's warning not to add or subtract anything from it? For example: It is written in the Torah not to eat a kid in its mother's milk, and from tradition the Rabbis learned that this verse prohibited cooking and eating meat with milk: but the meat of fowl is permitted in milk according to Torah law. If a Beit Din were to permit the meat of wild animals in milk, it would be "subtracting." And if it would prohibit fowl [in milk] while saying that fowl is in the category of "a kid" and it prohibited by Torah law, it would be "adding." If, however, the Beit Din says that the meat of fowl is permitted according to Torah law, and we are prohibiting it [to avoid misunderstandings]. This is not "adding," rather it is making a fence around the Torah. (Hilchot Mamrim 2:9)

According to the Rambam, the prohibition of "Lo Tosef Alav" - Do not add to the Torah - specifically includes claiming that the addition is, in fact, directly mandated by the Torah. A Beit Din may add a safeguard, however, without claiming that it is implementing a Torah requirement. One of the essential components of the prohibition is claiming that a rabbinic law was commanded by Hashem in the Torah. (It bears noting that the Ra'avad and others disagree with the Rambam's opinion.)

The Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 454) thus explains that the Chava did not err in adding a prohibition, for that by itself is admirable. The tragic mistake was Adam's, in establishing this additional law and failing to indicate to Chava that it was not of Divine origin. The failure lay in putting his own words in G-d's mouth.

The message for moderns is clear. We sometimes hear individuals, both within and without the Torah- observant community, claim that their opinion is the sole Divine truth, and that their particular interpretation of the word of G-d is the only valid perspective. While there are certainly invalid opinions, and while it is unquestionably true that some opinions lie outside the province of authentic Torah thought, we cannot accept that a given Torah perspective is the only valid perspective. Indeed, Chazal tell us that there exist seventy facets to the Torah (Bamidbar Raba 13:15), meaning that there exist multiple ways to understand the infinite word of G-d. Again, not all opinions are acceptable; there are undoubtedly viewpoints which are invalid. This cannot mean, however, that anyone can claim that his philosophical perspective alone is the exclusive expression of G-d's truth.

If we vigorously study the Torah with a clear and powerful mind, we will successfully view a facet of G- d's truth. By claiming that our interpretation is exclusive - that is, that our words are equivalent to the Divine word - we ignore the other sixty nine facets of the Torah, and implicitly violate the prohibition of "Lo Tosef Alav."