When Adding Takes Away

Early in this week’s Torah portion, the Torah warns us about adding or taking away from the Torah: “Do not add to the matter that I command you and do not take away from it, to keep the Mitzvot of Hashem your God, what I command you.”¹ The Kli Yakar asks a basic question the simple meaning of the verse. It is understandable that the Torah commands us to not add to the Torah, because a person might erroneously think that keeping more than the Torah is acceptable since one is not ignoring any Mitzvot. This is wrong because the Torah is perfect and it cannot be added to. However, what is the novelty of the command not to take away from the Mitzvot – it is self-evident that one has to keep all the Mitzvot and not omit any of them. Accordingly, what is this command coming to teach?

The Kli Yakar explains that in this context the words, “do not take away from it” is not adding a new command, rather it is explaining the reason for the previous command not to add to the Torah. The Torah is teaching that if a person adds to the Torah he is not only not ‘improving’ the Torah, he is in fact diminishing the Torah.

He explains this based on the Talmud in Sanhedrin. The Talmud teaches that “kol hamosif goreah” – anyone who adds to the Torah, takes away from it. The Talmud’s proof comes from none other than the very first sin in the Torah – Adam’s sin. The Talmud relates that God commanded Adam not to eat from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and if he would do so, there would be terrible consequences. However, Eve told the snake that God commanded them not to even touch the tree as well as not to eat it. The snake pushed Eve so that she touched the tree and nothing happened, thus attempting to prove that there was no need to listen to God’s warning not to eat from the tree. When Eve saw this, she was persuaded to eat from the tree.

The commentaries ask that if Chava knew that God had only actually commanded them not to eat from the tree, then why was she persuaded by the snake when she touched the tree, that nothing would happen if she also ate from the tree. They answer that God only commanded Adam not to eat from the tree, but he added his own ‘decree’ not to even touch the tree when he told Eve. However, crucially, he did not tell her that this was his own addition, and that God had never commanded this. Accordingly, she believed God had commanded them not to eat or even touch the tree. Thus, when nothing happened when she did touch the tree, she was led to believe that nothing would happen when she would eat from the tree as well. In this way, Adam’s addition of a Mitzva actually caused a sin to take place, hence the concept, ‘whoever adds takes away’.

It seems that the fact that the very first sin which had such a dramatic effect on humanity came about because of the Adam adding a Mitzva without explaining that it was his own decree and not from God indicates that identifying a certain prohibition as being more severe than it really is, is a very significant point relating to our observance. Why is this the case?

On one level it is important to know when something is forbidden from the Torah or by the Rabbis because there are a number of practical differences between them. For example, in the laws of Shabbat there are a number of leniencies regarding Rabbinical laws that are not found for Torah prohibitions. A few examples of this include: There are times where one can ask a non-Jew to perform Rabbinic prohibitions but not Torah prohibitions; Likewise, for sick people, there are times where one can transgress Rabbinic prohibitions but not Torah prohibitions; There are times where for the sake of personal dignity, one can transgress an Rabbinic prohibitions but not Torah prohibitions.² If a person does not know when a law is from the Torah or the Rabbis then he cannot know when to be lenient and when to be strict.

On a philosophical level, if a person does not know the level of prohibitions, then there is a good chance that misunderstandings or resentments can develop. This can happen in the realm of modesty, among other areas. The problem arises when parents or teachers do not distinguish in the different levels of prohibition when teaching or instructing children or students³. A result of this is that the student may be made to feel that they were transgressing genuine prohibitions when that may not be the case. One of the negative consequences of this is that the student can come to resent overly strict or rigid rules, and may want to rebel. Accordingly, parents and teachers need to have an understanding of the different levels of prohibitions and the practical differences between them, such as when there may be times to be more lenient.⁴

These examples teach us the importance of learning from Adam’s mistake in not explaining when something was his own decree as opposed to a mitzvah from God.

1. Devarim, 4:2.
2. Needless to say, one should ask a qualified Orthodox Rabbi the law in specific situations pertaining to these areas.
3. Often this is because the parent or teacher does not know the differences themselves.
4. Again, one should consult with a qualified Orthodox Rabbi for guidance in these areas.