Costume Jewelry

By Rabbi Joshua (customarily known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

Moshe, in his farewell address to the Jewish people, tells them in regard to God’s Torah, You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it” (Devorim 4:2). The Netziv, in an addition to his Torah commentary, “Ha’amek Davar,” points out that the wording of this verse is a bit peculiar. If the prohibition here is addressed to the individual, the verse should have read “do not detract from performing all of the mitzvos.” Rather, it says “do not subtract from it.” Rav Mordechai Gifter, zt”l, in his Pirkei Iyun, explains the Netziv and elaborates upon his words. He says that the verse is referring to beis din, the rabbinic court, which, in its rulings may not add to or subtract from the Torah, but must determine the halacha based on the explanation given in the oral laws. The Rambam, in fact, in his Laws of Mamrim, or Rebels (2:9), writes that one dimension of the prohibition of adding to or subtracting from the Torah is that which applies to beis din. The repetition of the prohibition in parshas Re’eh, then, refers to the individual, according to a number of commentators. We need to understand why there is a need to warn the beis din in this regard, and why it is actually the beis din that is given this prohibition first, before the individual.

The prohibition against adding to or subtracting from the Torah is mentioned in our parsha directly after Moshe’s mention of the incident of Ba’al Peor, in which the Jews engaged in an idolatrous practice, which, on its face, appeared to be actually an insult to the idol. The Keli Yakar says that the reason this incident is mentioned before the prohibition of adding to or subtracting from the Torah, is that Jews who did so were actually adding to the Torah by performing an act that they believed was an insult to the idol of Ba’al Peor, but ended up subtracting from the Torah because their act was considered to be idolatry nevertheless, since it was uniquely, the exact way with which that idol was customarily worshipped. This incident underscored the danger of adding to the Torah by applying one’s own interpretation to it, without regard of the guidelines of the oral laws. Ultimately, it led to subtracting from the Torah. I would like to suggest a different explanation for the juxtaposition of the incident of Ba’al Peor and the prohibitions of adding to and subtracting from the Torah, based on an idea I once heard from Rav Chaim Zimmerman, zt”l, who was actually, at one time, a study partner (chavrusa) of Rav Gifter zt”l.

Rav Chaim zt”l, once said there are two types of people who try to reform the Torah. One type, he said, is the “freier” or liberal reformer, who subtracts from the mitzvos and the other is the “frummer” or stringent reformer, who adds to the mitzvos. In both cases, the person is changing the Torah, and what emerges is not the Torah, but his own religion, an imitation of the Torah. This is actually analogous to certain religions, which imitate Judaism, but are, as Rav Chaim put it, costume jewelry - not the real thing, but a cheap imitation. We can understand, then, why the incident of Ba’al Peor precedes the prohibition of adding to or subtracting from the Torah, since the result of such a practice results in a different religion.

Viewing the prohibition of adding to or subtracting from the Torah in this way, we can understand why there is a need to apply this prohibition to beis din, and why this application, is in fact, mentioned first, before that which pertains to the individual. When a person adds a new precept to the Torah or decides a certain precept to no longer exist, he is, in effect, creating a new religion for himself. When beis din does this it is institutionalizing this new religion, and this has a far greater detrimental effect, since it is beis din’s task to safeguard the Torah and maintain the fealty of the nation to its precepts. Therefore, the application of this prohibition to beis din is mentioned before its application to the individual, and, in addition, compared to idolatry, in order to emphasize the serious consequences of such a practice.