Don't Add, Don't Subtract: Do What You Are Told

The disturbing and inexcusable stories of violence perpetrated by Jews in Israel this week are perfect examples of Chillul Hashem. The perpetrators (stabbing people at a gay-pride parade and arsonists) do not represent Jews who live in a civil society. Both kinds of criminals are guilty of "adding" to what they think is their "Torah." This shameful and despicable behavior is a disgrace to the Jewish people, and must be condemned at every turn.

Parshat Va'Etchanan

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Towards the beginning of the Torah portion, we are given Moshe’s reminder that we are not to add anything to the Torah, nor to detract from it. (4:2) This is the mitzvah of Bal Tosif, not to add, and Bal Tigra, not to take away.

 Rashi quotes the Sifrei, saying do not add a 5th paragraph to the tefillin, and do not add a 5th specie to the Lulav bundle, while various Baalei Tosafot (as well as Rashi) mention not to add a fifth corner to tzitzit. Ramban and Rabbenu Bachaye bring another example of saying a fourth sentence when pronouncing the three-sentence Priestly blessing – Birkat Kohanim.

 Some commentaries subscribe to the phrase “Kol hamosif go’rea,” that anyone who adds actually detracts from something that is perfect as it is. Think of what adding an ingredient to a chef's masterpiece entree or a baker's prize cake.

 Other approaches of how to define Bal Tosif include warnings about the downsides of adding to the Torah – such as Ibn Ezra, who reminds us not to think that adding to the Torah is considered serving God.

 But what is considered adding, and what is not?

 Explaining Rashi, Rabbi Ovadiah MiBartenura says that fulfilling a mitzvah twice is not Bal Tosif. Though he does not give examples of what that might include, presumably wearing tefillin for double the normal amount of time, saying Shema twice, giving tzedakah a second time, visiting someone who is ill a second time, all of these are not considered a violation.

 It is also not a violation of Bal Tosif if a Jew who is not obligated to fulfill a mitzvah nevertheless does so. He brings the example of Michal daughter of King Saul wearing tefillin, the wife of the prophet Yonah going to the Temple for the holidays (the mitzvah of being ‘oleh l’regel’), and that women are allowed, but not required, to put their hands on a korban (offering) when they would bring one.

 Ramban questions whether eating in the sukkah 8 days violates Bal Tosif, while the Rosh indicates that since eating an “extra” day in the sukkah does not detract from the mitzvah (it does not fit in the category of ‘kol hamosif go’rea’) it is permissible.

 The only adding which is considered allowed because it is not really adding, is what many commentaries refer to as “making a geder” (fence), making rules that help a person fulfill a mitzvah or not violate a mitzvah. The concept of “muktze” for example (not to touch things that are forbidden to be used on the Sabbath) is a fence. For example, If I am not allowed to make a fire, I don’t even touch a match. If I can’t drive a car, I don’t pick up my car keys. Ramban notes that with gedarim (fences), it is important to remember that it is not God’s word, but an effort to help us fulfill God’s word that we are indeed adding to our personal practice, but not to the Torah.

 Seforno warns about removing from the Torah. Sometimes a person might rationalize that if the reason for the mitzvah is irrelevant that the mitzvah is irrelevant. King Solomon famously did this when he expanded his number of wives, his number of horses and his wealth far beyond what the Torah allows, saying that it would not steer his heart away from God. Of course, he was wrong. And his removing these mitzvot from his own tally demonstrated perfectly how things can go sour when a person, even as wise as Solomon, thinks he knows better than God.

 Other commentaries take lessons from Moshe’s own life, and the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness, to show how he learned the important lesson of not adding and not subtracting from God’s word.

 Focusing on Israel’s choices, Chizkuni has Moshe telling the people, “When I said go conquer the land, you added ‘Let’s send spies.’ That caused everyone to die in the wilderness. And when I said ‘Don’t go up,’ you disregarded the instruction and Amalek and Canaan came out to fight.”

 Focusing on Moshe’s personal experiences, the Or HaChaim says that Moshe had added to God’s instruction when he hit the rock (Bamidbar 20), and he took away from God’s instruction when he did not act decisively in the face of Zimri’s rebellion, before Pinchas zealously took the law into his own hands (Bamidbar 25). Both of these incidents detracted from Moshe’s leadership role significantly.

 Along similar lines, Kli Yakar notes that Moshe’s “adding” at the rock incident, hitting the rock when he was merely told to speak to it, caused a “lessening” of the faith of the people in God.

 Sometimes the question of adding or subtracting refers to a specific mitzvah, and sometimes there's a lesson learned from adherence to divine instruction.

 Where does this leave us? At a place where we are challenged to know and understand God’s rules as best as we can, and to do what we can to adhere to those rules. Not adding or subtracting can either be understood conceptually or based on experience, and is meant to inform our day-to-day practice. This Friday is the 15th of Av, a time when the Talmud at the end of Taanit says is one of the happiest days on the Jewish calendar. One of the reasons the Talmud gives for this is because in the times of the Temple, the people were freed up from collecting wood for the altar, and therefore had more time to study Torah.

 May we utilize as much of our free time as possible to study more Torah, so we can be as knowledgeable as we can in what to do, what not to do, and how we can best fulfill our responsibilities as Jews without adding to or detracting from the Torah.

Looking To the Past And the Future

Parshat Devarim

by Rabbi Avi Billet


When the Levush records the “halakha” from Shulchan Arukh 428 about when certain Torah portions are read during the year, he explains the rule that Tisha B’Av precedes Va’Etchanan as follows: “So that Devarim, which begins the rebukes of Moshe, will be read before Tisha B’Av.”

 It certainly would have been easier for us to understand if the Shulchan Arukh had done two things differently: 1. Like for Bamidbar and Nitzavim, which precede Shavuot and Rosh Hashana respectively, he had explained that Devarim precedes Tisha B’Av. For some reason, he switched it around saying “Tisha B’Av preceded Va’Etchanan. 2. A small explanation for each, such as a thematic connection, would have gone a long way.

 For Bamidbar and Nitzavim, the purpose of their standing as a buffer between the Rebuke of the previous parsha, Bechukotai and Ki Tavo respectively, and the coming holiday, is made clear. So if Devarim contains a rebuke, shouldn’t it also have a buffer between it and Tisha B’Av? We even read from Parshat Va’Etchanan ON Tisha B’Av! Wouldn’t it make sense to have Va’Etchanan be a reading of the past once Tisha B’Av is over, if the rebuke of Va’Etchanan is powerful enough to be the Tisha B’Av Torah reading? 

We can argue that no buffer will help Tisha B’Av. It is a miserable day. It may as well be attached to rebuke. And, of course, we know that it is. But why not just say that Devarim precedes Tisha B’Av, since it does, even more consistently than Bamidbar precedes Shavuot?

 Parshat Devarim contains within it Moshe’s reference to the sin of the spies. The Talmud (Taanit 29a) tells us that the date when the spies returned with their report was the Ninth of Av. The negativity of that episode, and the devastation it wrought upon the nation was so horrific, bringing it up in any context seems to be an example of pouring salt in very sore wounds.

We can not say that Devarim precedes Tisha B’Av, because we know all too well that what Moshe recounted in Devarim not only preceded the original Tisha B’Av, but caused the original Tisha B’Av! The rebuke within Va’Etchanan, the portion we read on Tisha B’Av, speaks more to the future than to the past. It is a reminder of how to raise children and grandchildren, and what precautions to take to get things right.

Moreover, unlike in Devarim, where the rebuke focuses on the past, Parshat Va’Etchanan begins with Moshe looking to future in his own personal life as well. And this may be the lesson of how all of this is recorded in the Shulchan Arukh.

 When it comes to Tisha B’av, like Devarim, we tend to lament over the past, and find all the flaws and hardships our People have endured. We may even point fingers and say why it happened, and who was at fault, and what the repercussions were and remain for our nation, even after so many years.

 But that does not help us emerge from Tisha B’Av. Unlike Shavuot and Rosh Hashana when we hope to achieve the highest heights of spirituality and connection with our Creator, on Tisha B’Av, we want to be able to get out of our despair and look to a better future. Va’Etchanan begins with Moshe pleading to God to let him into the Land. Even though he’s been told he won’t be allowed in. He still hopes that he can get in there, or even to just be buried there.

 And this is how we have to view this time period. For those who get into Tisha B’Av, who don’t go to work, who read the Kinot, who listen to stirring words delivered by fascinating lecturers, Tisha B’Av is more than just a depressing fast day. It is a porthole to many places in time in which the Jewish people suffered, and it is a reminder that as good as things are in comparison to the past, there is still no Temple in Jerusalem, there is still terrorism aimed at Jews around the world, and especially in Israel, and nowadays we can tack on the threat of Iran and its nuclear ambitions coupled with a naivette that these dishonest fanatics can be negotiated with and trusted, and it remains depressing.

 But we have something to look forward to. Because like Moshe, we can remain optimistic. We can understand the significance of Tisha B’Av preceding Va’Etchanan. Because sometimes we need to go to the deepest depths of despair to understand what our collective challenges are, and we need to tack on to that incredible sense of optimism of Moshe, that even with everything that is going on, we believe there is a bright future ahead.

 Our job is to stand strong. To get through Tisha B’Av and be excited for the future. We must remain cautious, as Moshe was about his prospects for getting in to the Land, while we continue to pray and do our part hoping that God will do what is best and right for our People.

Respectful Objections - Choosing Our Words Carefully

Parshat MATOT-Masei 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 Ever since the blessing given to the Tribe of Gad by Yaakov in the middle of Parshat Vaychi, Gad has been considered to be the greatest soldier, and set of soldiers, known to Israel.

 So well known is this fact, that every image for Gad that I have ever seen in artwork depicting the tribes always has Gad represented as field-tents or soldiers. No other tribe shares such a distinction.



 When the tribes of Reuven and Gad, who traveled together (along with the recently-devastated tribe of Shimon) in the wilderness come to Moshe in Chapter 32 asking to settle in the land conquered from Sichon and Og, their request does not seem that odd. If, after all, they had led the troops in battle against those enemies, they may have been the first to observe and take note of the topography, to determine this land would mean a great economic boom for their tribes.

 They list the particular lands and cities they want, explaining that they want to put roots here for “[in] the land that God struck down before the Israelite community is livestock land - and what we have is livestock.'” (32:4)

 This is not crazy. They see an opportunity, so they want to capitalize on it. They know it is very close to the Promised Land. And yet, they say, “If you would grant us a favor, let this land be given to us as our permanent property, and do not bring us across the Jordan.” (32:5)

 There are different ways to understand their request. Are they saying they don’t want to go across the Jordan at all? Or are they saying they don’t want to shlep their families along? Do they make any mention of what role they intend to play or not play on the coming battlefield? Do they indicate any scorn for the Promised Land? As a matter of fact, these questions are not addressed at all.

 Instead, Moshe goes on a 10-verse tirade about how they’re committing the same sin as the spies and the people of that generation who revolted against the Land. Arguably the only legitimate response Moshe has is a fair concern: “Moses said to the descendants of Gad and Reuven, 'Why should your brothers go out and fight while you stay here?’” (32:6)

 We can skip to their response in 32:16-19 when they completely ignore all of Moshe’s comments, responding only to the one about serving at the battlefront. “[The Reubenites and Gaddites] approached [Moses] and said, 'We will build enclosures for our sheep here and cities for our children. But we will then arm ourselves and go as an advance guard before the [other] Israelites, [fighting] until we have brought them to their homeland. Because of the area's inhabitants, our children will remain in fortified cities, but we ourselves will not return home until every Israelite has taken possession of his hereditary property. We, however, will not take possession with them on the far side of the Jordan, since our inheritance shall come to us on the Jordan's eastern bank.'”

 In other words: “You are right, Moshe. We do not intend to leave our brothers to fight their battles alone. We will be there as well. But we don’t want our families and animals to be waiting in limbo for however long these battles will take. As far as all your concerns of our hate for the Land, on par with those of the spies, we will not even dignify them with a response.”

 Was Moshe right or wrong here? Did he discern something that was there, or something that wasn’t there? Were the Reuvenites and Gadites only selfish, or were they practical? Did they denigrate the Land? Were they looking to abandon the rest of the Israelite nation? Or were they always intending to join for the battles, and perhaps they merely neglected to mention such plans?

 Perhaps we’ll never know the answers to these questions.

 But I wonder how things would have turned out if Moshe had ended his response in 32:6 – asking about their plans to participate in battles – rather than waxing poetic about their hatred-of-the-land on par with that of the spies’?

 I like to think the message would have come across, and their clarification, very much to the point, would have also been brief and concise.

 This is a flaw we have when we judge people based on either preconceived notions, or if we apply our own experiences to a similar but different circumstance in which we are currently involved.

 “I know the score. This happens all the time.” “Every time I’ve seen this, it always ends out the same.” “Anyone who has ever done this has been untrustworthy, or has given up before completing the job. You’ll be no different.”

 How do we know? How can we judge people without hearing them out, or without giving them a chance? Just because others have been one way, or have failed, does not mean everyone will. And from another perspective, just because someone has been successful in the past does not mean the person will be the God-send being sought.

 Open communication, clarification, and giving people a chance are some of the ingredients that make the thrill of life more navigable for all. Will things be perfect, always? No. And anyone who thinks it will be is at best naïve.

 But our life is one lived with others, and we have to do our best to include others, share concerns for ourselves and for others, and do what we can to help others through their struggles, as we hope they will help us through ours’.

 And if we can be blessed to not be so judgmental, and not to project our own insecurities on others, maybe we’ll never have to be the people who are the recipients of “I’m not even going to dignify that comment with a response” because we will have selected our words carefully in the first place.

Revisiting Tzlafchad

Titled "Revisiting" because we've been down this road before

Parshat Pinchas

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 This idea was born out of a learning session I had with my daughter, Aliza. She gets a lot of credit for the direction into which this thought developed. 

 The tale of the daughters of Tzlafchad is shrouded in mystery surrounding the death of their father.

 Five years ago, I raised the suggestion of the Zohar that Tzlafchad was the lone victim of the snakes in Bamidbar 21. 

 But a new reading of the account lends to a new interpretation that perhaps his so-called “sin” wasn’t really a sin at all.

 “Our father died in the desert. He was not among the members of Korach's party who protested against God, but he died [in/of] his own sin without leaving any sons.” (27:3) 

 The daughters of Tzlafchad ask Moshe for their father’s portion in the land because they feel his desert-death should not prevent his family inheriting a portion of land.

 If their father’s death was relatively innocent, why compare it to Korach’s rebels? Were they really saying that he died because of a sin? How would they know that the sin was the reason for his death?

 Abravanel raises a number of points that can help us answer these questions.

 They compared their father to Korach to make it clear to Moshe that Tzlafchad never challenged him personally. This might help Moshe be more receptive to their request. Tzlafchad was not a controversial figure.

 Their saying “He died in his sin” (‘b’chet’o met) makes any suggestion of his having died at the hands of man (such as the woodcutter in Bamidbar 15:32-36, or in any battle in Bamidbar 14) to be impossible.

 But maybe that expression introduces us to what his “sin” was, namely that he did not have any sons.

 Before we continue, let us make a couple of things clear. Not having sons is not a sin. People who have only daughters, or people who do not have children at all, have not sinned. It is in God’s hand to grant people children, and whatever cards He deals determines to what degree we have fulfilled our mitzvah to procreate. The Talmud tells us there are three partners in creation (Kiddushin 30b, Niddah 31a) (though modern science can perhaps be counted as a “fourth” partner in Creation for those struggling with infertility), but as one of my teachers once pointed out, the Talmudic passage in Shabbat 31a that lists the questions one will face at the Heavenly Court includes “Did you attempt to procreate?” The question is not whether you were successful or how many children you had, but whether you tried.

Tzlafchad had five daughters. But they are the ones who mention that “he died in his sin and he did not have sons.”

 There is only one other place in the Torah when the idea of “not having sons” is mentioned: in a passage that describes how Nadav and Avihu, Aharon’s older sons, had died. Bamidbar 3:4 tells us “Nadav and Avihu died before God when they offered unauthorized fire to God in the Sinai Desert, and they had no sons.” 

Trying to pinpoint why Nadav and Avihu died is a longer conversation, with many viewpoints and suggestions offered by the commentaries. But the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 20) utilizes this verse to make a strange suggestion in the name of Rabbi Levi, that one of the reasons Nadav and Avihu died was because “They did not have sons.” (Bamidbar 3:4). While not having sons is not inherently a sin, it could be viewed in Torah language as a “chet” – a sin. (The Talmud Yevamot 64a suggests it may actually be a sin, but the Torah Temimah explains how it’s not a real sin) Seforno and others suggest that if Nadav and Avihu had sons, those sons would have been kohanim even before Elazar and Itamar. Not having produced these children, they missed out on bringing the next generation of kohanim into the world.

 Perhaps, in using a similar language, Tzlafchad’s daughters were saying to Moshe, “Our father died leaving only daughters. In his own way, following the teaching we learned about Nadav and Avihu, his death was in a state of personal ‘sin’ because there were no sons. But, unlike Nadav and Avihu, who had no children, he left behind five daughters. We should get his portion so that our father’s name will not be forgotten.”

 This may have actually been a brilliant ploy because Moshe viewed his nephews Nadav and Avihu as very holy (Vayikra 10:3). Perhaps Tzlafchad’s daughters’ appeals to Moshe (and his feelings about his nephews), explaining their circumstance in similar terms, helped Moshe come to the conclusion that of course they should inherit because it is unfair for their father’s circumstance to be compared to Nadav and Avihu. Particularly if Moshe looked past Nadav and Avihu’s lack of children, he would see that Tzlafchad’s daughters were all that their father could have wished for and more.

 Certainly having daughters is a great blessing. And maybe, after this tale, the concept of the “sin” of not having sons was laid to rest forever. Because raising children is not about gender. It is about teaching the next generation how to be good people, and good Jews. And certainly in that respect, Tzlafchad was anything but a failure or sinner. He was quite successful!

May the Prophet's Words Come True

Parshat Balak

by Rabbi Avi Billet

With over half a dozen terror attacks in Israel over the last couple of weeks, as we mark the one-year anniversary of Operation Protective Edge (Tzok Eitan), and as the BDS movement seems to continue to grow it is normal for our people to experience any number of reactions ranging from anger, sadness and mourning, disappointment, remorse, and even, on the opposite spectrum, hope for a brighter future.

Any student of modern history knows that since the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the people in (first Palestine, now) Israel have had a tenuous existence. Jews moved there to avoid oppression or to fulfill their Zionist dream of returning to Zion. Some were able to live in peace with Arab neighbors, while others had to defend themselves from aggressive Arabs.

            

That economic conditions changed for the better and mortality rates fell in Arab areas neighbored by Jews was a sure sign of the positive impact the early “chalutzim” (pioneers) had in their reinvigorating Palestinian soil and previously uncultivated lands, and of course, the role Israel has had in raising the average Arab lifespan. I just read that there is an obesity problem in Gaza. So much for starving and imprisoning Gazans.

            

This is why Parshat Balak is so fascinating. Nothing that takes place now is new, and the Torah shows parallel symptoms to today in events that took place long ago.

            

The ruler of a desert people was concerned about the Israelite nation. He did not know anything about them, other than that they were looking to reach the Promised Land of Canaan and had wreaked havoc against Sihon and the Emorites (21:21-35), a people who chose to attack the Jews rather than let them cross peacefully through their territory without stopping for food or drink (21:22). [It’s not likely that Sihon chose to fight because Israel would not give the Emorites business at their tourist traps.]

            

Out of concern for what the Israelites “might do” (and this, only if provoked), Balak decided to hire a mercenary to destroy the nation of Israel from a distance, without even hinting at an attempt of diplomacy. Simply put, he could not entertain the notion that this nation had a right to exist. Their history in the land of Canaan, and their descent to Egypt which resulted in hundreds of years of exile, was conveniently forgotten.

            

Only one person in Parshat Balak understood there was more to the unfolding events than met the eye. That person was Bilaam.

            

As much as he personally agreed with Balak, he knew this was a special nation who had God on their side. He knew his powers could only extend as far as God would allow them to extend. As a result, he authored what are arguably the most poetic statements ever said by an outsider about the Jewish people – many of which remain true to this day. Here are some snippets:

            “[

23:7]How can I curse, God has not cursed… It is a nation that will dwell in solitude and not be reckoned by other nations. Who has counted the dust of Jacob… May my soul die the death of the upright, and may my end be like his… [23:20] God has blessed and I shall not contradict it. He perceived no iniquity in Jacob and saw no perversity in Israel. God is with him and the friendship of the King is in him… The people will arise like a lion cub and raise itself like a lion; it will not lie down until it consumes its prey… [24:5] How goodly are your tents Jacob, your dwelling places, Israel, stretching out like brooks, like gardens by a river… water shall flow from his wells and his seed shall be by abundant waters… Those who bless you are blessed and those who curse you are cursed.”

            

A Jew can point at Bilaam’s words with pride. Here is a gentile prophet looking to wreak havoc with his words, his greatest strength, and he can only come up with positive things to say.

            

To take one example, there are different understandings of what “May my soul die the death of the upright, and may my end be like his…” means. Sforno suggests “my end” refers to his children – he wanted his children to be like the Jewish people. Many suggest he saw prophetically that he would be killed in battle and he craved to die as the righteous die: in a bed, painless, without suffering. Some even suggest he craved to die as Aharon did and as Moshe will – with the kiss of God.

            

Save for in the United States and a few random countries around the globe, we are indeed “a nation that dwells in solitude who is not recognized by other nations.”  The United States just passed a law, signed by the President, that makes an anti-BDS approach necessary for foreign countries to engage in trade with the United States. This is a breath of fresh air.

            

Current Israeli news is not new. May the rest of Bilaam’s words about our People continue to come true, speedily in our days.