~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas Re'eh
Baseless Beliefs
By: Daniel Listhaus
אֵת כָּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ
“The entire matter that I command you, you shall guard it to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it.”
-Re'eh 13:1
Rashi[1] explains that when the Torah here commands us not to add to the mitzvos, it means that we are prohibited from adding to the details of the mitzvos themselves, such as bringing a fifth species on Succos with the lulav or adding in a fourth beracha (blessing) to birkas kohanim (the blessing that the kohanim give which is divided into three parts). Presumably we could assume that Rashi would similarly explain that when the passuk (verse) says not to subtract from the mitzvos it means not to, for example, bring three species on Succos or recite only two berachos of birkas kohanim.
The question we must ask, though, is what compelled Rashi to explain the passuk in this way? Certainly a more obvious explanation of the Torah would be that Hashem gave us 613 mitzvos and we are not allowed to add or subtract from those mitzvos? The words of the passuk sound like they are talking to the person who wants to stand up and declare a new mitzva which would benefit society, to which the Torah is telling him that it is forbidden to add mitzvos. So, why does Rashi explain the passuk as not adding or subtracting to the details of each particular mitzva?
The S'forno[2] also does not seem to understand the passuk at its face value. Rather, when the Torah writes not to add to the mitzvos, the S'forno comments, “Do not add to the mitzvos because perhaps you will be adding something which is disgusting in the eyes of Hashem. For example, perhaps you may decide to add a new form of worshiping Hashem such as burning children, which is disgusting in the eyes of Hashem.”
This S'forno seems a bit extreme. He is explaining that the Torah was afraid of people making up their own ways to serve Hashem – such as burning children in fire. Is this really a concern? The S'forno is not dealing with someone looking to serve avodah zarah (idols), but rather an orthodox Jew abiding to the 613 mitzvos but just not feeling it is enough so adds a 614th mitzvah. What would be so bad with someone choosing to serve Hashem in his own personal way? How is the S'forno addressing this by taking it to an extreme?
The S'forno continues to explain that when the Torah says not to subtract from the mitzvos it means the following. Sometimes a person could look at a particular mitzva and say that the reason for the mitzva is not applicable and therefore the mitzva is no longer necessary. Sometimes such a claim is general – that the mitzva as a whole no longer applies, and sometimes it is a claim that an individual could make for himself, that for whatever reason the reason behind the mitzva does not apply to him and therefore he is exempt from the mitzva.
The S'forno continues to mention that this was precisely the mistake that Shlomo HaMelech made. The passuk[3] states, regarding a Jewish king, “And he shall not have too many wives,[4] and his heart shall not turn astray...” The Medrash[5] describes that Shlomo learned this passuk and figured that it did not apply to him. After all, the passuk seems to be saying that the reason a king cannot have too many wives is because the Torah is concerned that it will cause his heart to go astray. Shlomo thought that because of his gift of abundant wisdom he was different from everyone else and therefore felt he could go ahead and marry additional wives.[6] However, as the S'forno writes, this was a big mistake. The Torah forbids us from subtracting mitzvos even if it seems to us that the reason is not applicable.
This S'forno is also difficult to understand. Shlomo HaMelech read the Torah and its reason for not having too many wives. He made a personal calculation that it was not relevant to him and acted upon that feeling. What did he do wrong? The S'forno is saying that even if we see that the reason does not apply anymore, we should do it anyway. Why? If in fact the reason does not apply, what is the point of playing along and keeping unnecessary restrictions? If the S'forno would say that there is an external reason why one should keep the mitzva, such as not to confuse others to think the mitzva is completely non-existent, or in order that others should not think that such a person is specifically revolting against Hashem, then we could perhaps understand why it would be important to do a mitzva, despite its non-applicable reason. However, the S'forno does not give these answers as the explanation, but rather simply writes that even if it appears that the reason for the mitzva does not apply to you, you must do it anyway. Why is that so?
In order to approach this, let us take a moment to think about the following. Imagine you were to walk into an ethics class at a university and are immediately swept into a series of thought provoking and interesting questions. You sit in the back and listen as the professor presents a famous question known as the Trolley Problem. There are many versions of the question but the basic gist is the following: There is a trolley out of control speeding down the tracks. Ahead on the tracks lay five people who are tied down, unable to move out of the way. You happen to be standing on the side of the tracks next to a lever. If you were to pull the lever, the trolley would be redirected onto a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person lying tied down on that track as well. Therefore, the two options you have are to either do nothing and allow the trolley to continue its course and kill the five people, or pull the lever and divert the trolley onto the other set of tracks where it will only kill the one person. The professor then turns to his class and challenges them: which option do you choose? As you remain observing in the back, you begin to witness the most fascinating debate amongst the students. One person stands up and declares that it is so obvious that you need to pull the lever. After all, how could you allow the five people to die for the sake of a single individual? Suddenly another member of the class jumps up and shouts back, “You mean you think it is better to actively kill someone? Better to just let nature take its course and allow the five people to die than for it to be on your hands that you actively killed the single person on the other track.” Another classmate then stands up and says, “Well I think it should matter who these people are. Perhaps the five people are anyways all sick and elderly people, while the individual on the track happens to be a baby.” Another student then stands up emotionally charged and says, “What difference should it make? Who are you to play the role of God? Maybe the healthy guy will die tomorrow and the sick, elderly people will live until 120!”
As your head is bouncing back and forth digesting the various arguments and interjections by the professor pointing out the various defined schools of thought, you wonder to yourself what are all these ethics based on? The first student who stood up made a valid point: One should do what is best for the majority. However, without a doubt if you were to ask him why, he would have nothing to respond other than, “Because that is the correct thing to do. It is something that just feels right.” With this approach it is important to keep in mind that if one believes that a moral code is just based on gut feeling and emotions, then one has to be ready to accept the moral code of others based on their personal feelings and emotions. The response of “it just feels right” is arbitrary. Who says that what you think feels right is in fact right? For example, imagine someone who believes that if there is something a person wants for himself, he is ethically permitted to go any distance to get what he wants. Such a person could argue that if someone else has something he is jealous of and wants it, he has the right to demand it from him; and if he refuses, he could even kill for the item he desires. If one were to challenge this person and ask why such a mentality makes sense, he too could respond, “Because it is honestly just something that feels right to me. I was put in this world and it is my job to do whatever it takes to make myself happy.” Despite the two very different approaches to life, these two people have the same reason why they do what they do. Their response is incontestable and could be used by anyone to rationalize any action.
One of the things we have to think about everyday is the fact that not only must we be grateful to Hashem for creating us, and not only must we thank Him for creating us as humans, we must also thank Him for the fact that He, as Creator of the world did not leave us here alone.[7] He gave us the Torah. The Torah is more than a history book, more than a scroll of rules, and more fundamental than a perspective on life. It is insight into Hashem Himself. Just like in order to optimize a board game, one must read the instruction pamphlet, so too when it comes to knowing how to live, think, and even things as personal as how to feel emotionally, the only way to act and respond correctly is through understanding what Hashem wants from us. This could only be done by someone who is close to Hashem, which is only possible by someone who has spent the time learning His Torah.
It is known that there are two categories of mitzvos – mishpatim and chukim. Mishpatim refer to the mitzvos which are easy for us to understand. For example, not to steal or kill are things which are obvious to us that they should not be done. Chukim refer to the mitzvos which we cannot begin to fully comprehend. The whole concept of tumah (impurity) and tahara (purity) and especially the applications of chukim such as parah adumah are more than just complex - they are ideas that are way incomprehensible to us.
However, despite this difference between the two terms, it is important to keep in mind that in reality every single mitzva is a chok (singular for chukim). Even the mitzvos which make sense to us and we think we comprehend, are not things that we should do solely because they make sense to us, nor are they right or wrong based on our personal understanding or emotions. Rather things are only good or bad because
e Hashem declared them as such. For example, the fact that killing is wrong is not just because it feels wrong, rather it is because Hashem declared it as wrong. However, if there would be a time that the Torah would demand someone or a nation to be killed, whether we understand the reason or not, and whether we personally believe that death is deserved or not is completely irrelevant. Everything has its time and place. The person who studies the ways of Hashem through His Torah shel b'chsav (written Torah) and Torah shel ba'al peh understands on a much deeper level what makes things right and wrong using the tools of reason that Hashem gave us on Har Sinai to use.
Perhaps now we could better appreciate Rashi and the S'forno's explanations on the passuk of not adding or subtracting to the Torah. As mentioned above, Rashi gave examples as to what the Torah means when it says that one could not add to the Torah. He wrote that one cannot add another species to the lulav, esrog, haddas and aravah, or add in a beracha to birkas kohanim. Perhaps Rashi chose this explanation as opposed to simply writing that the Torah gave 613 mitzvos and we cannot add to that number because that would not be completely true. Part of the Torah's system is to leave room for those in-tuned to what Hashem wants to be able to create safety precautions to protect the Torah or create other decrees as they see fit.
The S'forno too is coming to explain that the Torah is teaching us the following. Even if someone thinks that the thing he is adding is enhancing his avodas Hashem, do not do it without consulting someone who has insight into the ways of Hashem, for perhaps he will be doing something disgusting in the eyes of Hashem such as burning children. The S'forno is not exaggerating; he is simply stating a fact. Indeed one who makes up way of serving Hashem, no matter how good it seems in his eyes, it is repulsive to Hashem. If it does not have roots in the Torah then it is completely baseless like the person who sacrifices children. Although you may think that the two are not even comparable, you must keep in mind that if you are willing to argue that what you feel is good avodas Hashem is valid, then you are also saying that whatever anyone else feels is good avodas Hashem is valid as well. And yes, that baseless argument could rationalize anything – even the burning of children.
One cannot make up mitzvos based on what he feels is right and wrong. In the end of the day unless one is in-tuned to da'as elyon by thoroughly studying the Torah to the point that one is trained to think, so to speak, like Hashem, one has no right to declare what is good or bad. One cannot just say that because he feels something is right that therefore it must be the case. For, just like the trolly problem, every s'vara (logic) one way will have a counter s'vara against it by someone else who does not share the same feelings and therefore ends up with a completely different moral code. Rather, when it comes to the Torah we must keep in mind that even the mitzvos we think we know the reason for, we really do not and at some level every mitzva we do – even those as basic as not killing or being nice to one another – is a chok, a decree from Hashem. This was Shlomo's mistake. He saw that the Torah specified a reason for why a king should not marry too many wives and he took that at face value.
As we enter into the month of Elul, may Hashem help us realize that His telling us in the Torah what to do and not to do is the only reason that anything becomes inherently good or evil, and that alone is the only solid base for a belief system with a valid moral code. With this in mind we will be zoche (merit) to a real teshuva (repentance) and a complete kapparah (atonement).
