Questions for thought:
- What is Radical Change?
- Have you ever experienced radical change?
- What are things that cannot or should not change?
(ב) לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ לִשְׁמֹ֗ר אֶת־מִצְוֺת֙ ה' אֱלֹֽקֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶֽם׃
(2) You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I enjoin upon you.
(יא) עַל־פִּ֨י הַתּוֹרָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יוֹר֗וּךָ וְעַל־הַמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט אֲשֶׁר־יֹאמְר֥וּ לְךָ֖ תַּעֲשֶׂ֑ה לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידֽוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃
(11) You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left.
Questions for thought:
- What are these commandments really asking of us?
- How does this work with Divine commandments vs. human verdicts and judgements?
למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין ותוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין כדי לערבב את השטן. הקשו בתוס' והא קא עבר משום בל תוסיף...
והם ז"ל תירצו דלא שייך בל תוסיף בעשיית המצוה שתי פעמים...והם ז"ל...מסתברא דלא...איכא משום בל תוסיף, אלא במה שהוא מוסיף מדעת עצמו כגון כהן שהוסיף ברכה משלו...
אבל במה שעמדו חכמים ותקנו לצורך אין כאן בל תוסיף דכבר אמרה תורה (דברים יז, יא) על פי התורה אשר יורוך...
אלמא כל לצורך בית דין גוזרין ומוסיפין והרשות בידן. והוא הדין בבל תגרע לצורך כגון יום טוב של ראש השנה שחל להיות בשבת, אע"ג דאמרה תורה תקעו עמדו וגזרו שלא לתקוע וכל זה לצורך. והכי נמי לצורך ראו לתקוע ולחזור ולתקוע, ומצוה לשמוע לדברי חכמים מלא תסור, כך נראה לי.
Why is the shofar sounded not during the recitation of the Amidah and sounded during the recitation of the Amidah? In order to confuse the satan. [Concerning the matter] the Tosafot raised the objection that [sounding the shofar twice] constitutes a violation of "not adding" (Bal tosif)...
And they, of blessed memory, explained that Bal Tosif does not apply to the fulfillment of a mitzvah twice...And they of blessed memory...never claimed that Bal tosif applies except when one adds on their own (mi-da'at atzmo), as, for example, a priest who adds his own benediction...
But concerning anything that the sages ordained for some cause (tikkenu le-tzorekh), the prohibition of Bal tosif does not apply, for the Torah already states "According to the instruction which they render, etc." (Deuteronomy 17:11)...
Therefore, they are empowered to enact an addition (gozerin u-mosifin) for some reason. And the same is true of Bal tigra ("not taking away") for a reason, as, for example, Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat, concerning which they decreed with reason not to sound the shofar, even though the Torah requires that it be sounded. Here too [i.e., the sounding of the shofar twice] they saw some cause to sound it once and then again, and it is a mitzvah to obey the words of the sages from the verse "You shall not deviate (Lo tasur)" (Deuteronomy 17:11). (Halakhic Process, 157-158)
Question for thought:
- Who can make changes and what types of changes can they make?
- What should be the criteria for those who can make changes?
- What should be the criteria for changes that can be made?
(ט) הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לְבֵית דִּין לִגְזֹר וְלֶאֱסֹר דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר וְיַעֲמֹד אִסּוּרוֹ לְדוֹרוֹת וְכֵן יֵשׁ לָהֶן לְהַתִּיר אִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה לְפִי שָׁעָה. מַהוּ זֶה שֶׁהִזְהִירָה תּוֹרָה (דברים יג א) "לֹא תּוֹסִיף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ". שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה וְלֹא לִגְרֹעַ מֵהֶן וְלִקְבֹּעַ הַדָּבָר לְעוֹלָם בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִן הַתּוֹרָה בֵּין בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב בֵּין בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. כֵּיצַד?
הֲרֵי כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (שמות כג יט) "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה הַכָּתוּב אָסַר לְבַשֵּׁל ולֶאֱכל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. בֵּין בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה בֵּין בְּשַׂר חַיָּה. אֲבָל בְּשַׂר הָעוֹף מֻתָּר בְּחָלָב מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אִם יָבוֹא בֵּית דִּין וְיַתִּיר בְּשַׂר חַיָּה בְּחָלָב הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹרֵעַ. וְאִם יֶאֱסֹר בְּשַׂר הָעוֹף וְיֹאמַר שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלַל הַגְּדִי וְהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹסִיף. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר בְּשַׂר הָעוֹף מֻתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאָנוּ נֶאֱסֹר אוֹתוֹ וְנוֹדִיעַ לָעָם שֶׁהוּא גְּזֵרָה שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא מִן הַדָּבָר חוֹבָה וְיֹאמְרוּ הָעוֹף מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ כָּךְ הַחַיָּה מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְפָּרְשָׁה. וְיָבוֹא אַחֵר לוֹמַר אַף בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מֻתֶּרֶת חוּץ מִן הָעֵז. וְיָבוֹא אַחֵר לוֹמַר אַף בְּשַׂר הָעֵז מֻתָּר בַּחֲלֵב פָּרָה אוֹ הַכִּבְשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא מִינוֹ. וְיָבוֹא אַחֵר לוֹמַר אַף בַּחֲלֵב הָעֵז שֶׁאֵינָהּ אִמּוֹ מֻתָּר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ נֶאֱסֹר כָּל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׂר עוֹף. אֵין זֶה מוֹסִיף אֶלָּא עוֹשֶׂה סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
Since the court may make an enactment that forbids that which is permissible (and its forbidden nature becomes permanent), and may, as well, permit temporarily (le-fi-sha'ah) matters that are forbidden according to the Torah, what is the meaning of the Torah's warning, "You shall not add to it, nor take away from it"(Deuteronomy 13:1)? [It means] that one may neither add to the words of the Torah nor diminish from them, and establish that matter in perpetuity as from the Torah, either concerning the written or the oral Torah. How?
It is written in the Torah: "You should not cook a kid in it's mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19). On the basis of tradition we have learned that this verse forbids the cooking and eating of meat and milk, both the meat of domesticated animals (behemah) and of beasts of chase (chayyah), but that the meat of poultry with milk is permissible from the Torah. If some court were to declare the meat of beasts of chase with milk permissible that would be taking away. And if it were to forbid the meat of fowl [with milk] by maintaining that it is included in the category of "kid," and is forbidden from the Torah, that would be adding. But if [the court] said, "The meat of fowl is permissible from the Torah, but we forbid it; and we shall inform the people that it is an enactment, in order that the matter not bear negative results, that people might say that fowl is permissible, since it is not stated explicitly, and someone else will claim that the meat of domesticated animals is also permissible, except for goats; and some else will claim that even the meat of goats is permissible in the milk of a cow or a ew, since naught is stated other than "its mother," who is of the same species; and yet another will claim that [even the meat of a goat] is permissible save in its own mother's milk, since only its mother is stated explicitly, therefore, we forbid all meat with milk , even the meat of fowl," this is not adding but putting up a fence around the Torah. And so anything similar. (Halakhic Process, 159-160)
Questions for thought:
- What is the difference between a fence and an addition?
- Where do we make fences instead of change?
It seems to me, the entire matter of Bal tosif ought to be understood [insofar as] the primary concern is that an addition should not bring in its wake a taking away. But were it not for this [concern], there is no sufficient reason for the prohibition of Bal tosif. For what does it matter to us, for example, if one were to use two etrogim, two palms [for the mitzvah of waving lulav and etrog on Sukkot]...But according to our explanation, the matter is clear. Namely, that when one would see concerning that which is written in the Torah [i.e. one etrog], that the number is not meant literally, he would be inclined to deduce permission also to take away, i.e. to fulfill his obligation with a defective etrog...[And the explanation of the Rashba] makes sense according to our interpretation, according to which the basic reason for the prohibition [of adding] is that it should not result in taking away, since that concern applies only to additions that an individual makes for himself, by his own decision and based on his own judgment. But it does not apply to the enactments of the sages -- general enactments for all Jews, the authenticity of which is uncontested (she-ein meharharin ba-zeh) -- who will not be inclined to base some other change, resulting in taking away and subtraction, upon it. (Halakhic Process, 166)
Questions for thought:
- What is at stake for us between conservative and progressive positions?
- Between consistency and change?
(א) מִקֵּ֥ץ שֶֽׁבַע־שָׁנִ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה שְׁמִטָּֽה׃ (ב) וְזֶה֮ דְּבַ֣ר הַשְּׁמִטָּה֒ שָׁמ֗וֹט כָּל־בַּ֙עַל֙ מַשֵּׁ֣ה יָד֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַשֶּׁ֖ה בְּרֵעֵ֑הוּ לֹֽא־יִגֹּ֤שׂ אֶת־רֵעֵ֙הוּ֙ וְאֶת־אָחִ֔יו כִּֽי־קָרָ֥א שְׁמִטָּ֖ה לַֽה'
(ג) אין אלמנה נפרעת מנכסי יתומים אלא בשבועה. נמנעו מלהשביעה, התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן שתהא נודרת ליתומים כל מה שירצו, וגובה כתבתה. העדים חותמים על הגט, מפני תקון העולם. הלל התקין פרוזבול מפני תקון העולם.
(3) A widow may only collect [the debt owed from her ketubah, monetary settlement payable to a married woman upon divorce or the death of her husband] from the property of orphans by [taking] an oath. They stopped imposing an oath; Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted that she may make a vow with regard to whatever they desire, and collects her ketubah. Witnesses sign on a bill of divorce, due to Tikkun HaOlam. Hillel instituted the pruzbul due to Tikkun HaOlam.
(ג) פרזבול, אינו משמט. זה אחד מן הדברים שהתקין הלל הזקן, כשראה שנמנעו העם מלהלוות זה את זה ועוברין על מה שכתוב בתורה (דברים טו) השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל וגו', התקין הלל פרזבול.
(3)Any loan made with a Pruzbul is not canceled. This is one of the matters that Hillel the elder instituted. When he observed that the nation withheld from lending to each other and were transgressing what is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 15:9): "Beware lest there be in your mind a base thought," he instituted the Pruzbul.
Questions for thought:
- How do we understand the use of the phrase, “tikkun olam” in these texts?
- What problem is being fixed?
- Why fix it in this way?
Why is this not enough?
According to the sources cited thus far, then, the Tannaitic basic for countenancing the possibility that an indebted borrower would permanently lose his land due to debt - despite the Deuteronomic command that debs be remitted in the Sabbatical year and the Levitical restoration of land in the Jubilee year - was an explicit assessment that the availability of credit was more imprint. The Tannaim employed no legal fiction - nor did they creatively misread the biblical law - but rather, they adopted a straightforward policy that emphasized one of several biblical social concerns - ensuring that the poor could get loans.
We saw that the Tannaim internalized a range of biblical directives and attempted to determine what the best balance of biblical concerns would be under the circumstances of their times. The biblical mandates that people be mutually supportive and periodically cancel their loans to each other is applied by the Tannaim to the changed conditions of an increasingly urban society whose members are no longer all known to each other and supportive of each other...As a result, every application of the Tannaitic rule that the Sabbatical loan cancellation does not apply absolutely in their contemporary circumstances was limited in some way - limited to commercial and pawn broking loans, to documented and mortgaged loans, or to documented loans regarding which one is willing to gain protection from the Sabbatical loan remission to appear before a rabbinical authority and publicly announce the amounts in question.
