The second weekly biblical portion from Deuteronomy is Va’etchanan. In 4:2, it contains the command, “You must not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it.” Rabbi Ronald D. Price offers examples in his book Divrei Halev that his teacher, Professor Halivni, quotes from the Talmud. He notes that most of the examples that the Talmud gives address adding to behaviors that the Torah does not mandate, and far fewer regarding subtracting from the laws.
Examples of acts the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 28b gives that add to the Torah are fasting on Yom Kippur for two days rather than one, and adding a blessing to those that the Torah states a kohen (priest) should utter.
Rabbi Price explains that the reason might be that breaching the law is such a blatant transgression that many examples are unnecessary. This makes sense.
There is a more difficult question whose answer also makes sense. There is a rabbinical concept of lifnim mi’shurat hadin, which means acting beyond the requirement of the law. Why is the lifnim concept considered commendable when the Torah states, “do not add to the word which I command you?”
A person who adds a requirement to the law is, in effect, saying to the community I know a better way than God, how to be a perfect human being. God said fast a single day, and I say two days; I am correct while God is wrong.
With lifnim, people are not saying God is wrong nor saying what they are doing must be done by everyone. They are saying, we will go beyond what the law demands. We are being stricter than the law, but only for ourselves.
The Jerusalem Talmud[1] states that the ancient Pharisee scholar Shimon ben Shetach (140-60 BCE) lived such a life. Once, he sent his disciples to buy him a saddle. They returned overjoyed. They found a pearl in the saddle. They praised their teacher as being blessed by God because, under a strict legal reading, the seller, having completed the sale, had sold him both the saddle and its contents.
But they failed to understand his teaching. Shimon ben Shetach instructed his students to go beyond the law’s basics whenever possible, and they must return the Pearl.
When the seller retrieved the jewel, he understood the teaching and exclaimed: “Blessed is the God of Shimon ben Shetach!”
The identical story occurred with my wife of 65 years, Dina Drazin. Years ago, we heard that a man with fine tastes had passed away, and his children were offering his newly decorated house, complete with new furniture and paintings, for sale. We made an offer for the home and all that is in it. Our offer was accepted.
When we moved into the dwelling, Dina found a precious jewel in one of the drawers. Without consulting me, for there was no need to do so, she called the children, told them what she found, and said she wanted to return it. The children replied that, according to our contract, the jewel belongs to us. Dina answered that while this is true, she would feel better if they took the jewel, because if they had known it existed, they would have wanted it. They took it, and they and we were satisfied.
[1] Baba Matzia 2:5, 8c.
we should act beyond kindness?
Is there a word for that?
I agree with you that the lifnim concept is not adding to the Torah. I also agree with you that the ordiance to fast for two days on Yom Kippur, as well as the notion that the entire Oral law was given at Sinai is adding to the Torah. Does the oral law violate the Torah command, “do not add to the word which I command you?” I think so, but not if we reconize that these rules are rabbinic, man-made, and that we only follow them as per Deuteronomy 17.
PS It was very kind of you and your wife to return the jewel.
Mr. Hill
We can also say, and I think truthfully, that the rabbis saw what they added implied in the Torah.
I agree with you.
There is a more difficult question whose answer also makes sense. There is a rabbinical concept of lifnim mi’shurat hadin, which means acting beyond the requirement of the law. Why is the lifnim concept considered commendable when the Torah states, “do not add to the word which I command you?”
Is this concept outdated? Why is there a conflict between Jewish practice and law?
There is no conflict. The idea of lifnim is that sometimes it is best to do more than the law requires.
When we moved into the dwelling, Dina found a precious jewel in one of the drawers. Without consulting me, for there was no need to do so, she called the children, told them what she found, and said she wanted to return it. The children replied that, according to our contract, the jewel belongs to us. Dina answered that while this is true, she would feel better if they took the jewel, because if they had known it existed, they would have wanted it. They took it, and they and we were satisfied.
Blessed are you Rabbi, your kindness is enduring
Dear Rabbi Israel Drazin ; the Talmud provides examples of adding to the Torah’s commands, such as fasting on Yom Kippur for two days instead of one, which could be seen as a form of self-righteousness, implying that one knows better than God. However, the concept of lifnim mi’shurat hadin, or acting beyond the requirement of the law, presents a more subtle and commendable approach.
As you so eloquently explained, lifnim mi’shurat hadin is not about imposing one’s own will or interpretations on others, but rather about individually choosing to go beyond the letter of the law, out of a sense of personal devotion and commitment to God’s teachings. This approach acknowledges the divine wisdom of the Torah while also recognizing the value of individual moral striving and self-refinement.
The story of Shimon ben Shetach, as well as the anecdote about your wife, Dina Drazin, beautifully illustrate this concept. In both cases, the individuals involved chose to act with extraordinary integrity, returning the pearl or the jewel, not because they were obligated to do so by law, but because they wanted to go beyond the basic requirements of justice and kindness.
Best, stephen
Thank you, Stephen.