PRIMAL MISTAKE | Imamother

roza

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 6:19 pm

This is a quote from Aish.com http://www.aish.com/torahporti......asp:

Quote:

PRIMAL MISTAKE

Intuitively, it is understandable why not to subtract from the Torah. But why can't we add to the Mitzvot? Isn't doing more always better?

Consider a great work of art. Would you add a few notes to a Bach fugue, or some brushstrokes to a Rembrandt portrait?!

Adding to the Mitzvot is not serving God - it is serving oneself with what "feels good." Perfection, by definition, cannot be improved upon. Adding to Torah implies that God is lacking. It is self-worship of one's own creativity.

Furthermore, the same subjective judgement which decides to add, is that which eventually leads one to subtract:

In the Garden of Eden, the snake tried to entice Eve to eat from the Tree. "Did God really say not to eat from the Tree?" queried the snake.

"Absolutely," said Eve. "God said we can't eat it, and we can't even touch it" (Genesis 3:3).

At that point, says the Midrash, the snake pushed Eve so that she brushed up against the Tree. "See that!" said the snake. "You touched the Tree and nothing happened. God didn't really mean what He said. You touched it, now go ahead and eat it."

And Eve ate.

Those who add, will come to subtract.

...just food for thought

Motek

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 6:40 pm

I posted this in the Pursuit of Pleasure thread in the Intellectual section:

from a sicha edited by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, in Likutei Sichos, vol. 1, parshas Acharei

Quote:

“And you shall guard the guarding of my word” (Vayikra 18:30) – the Gemara (Yevamos 21a) says, “provide a guard for the guarding of my word”. This is the source for the precautionary measures instituted by the Sages, those things which we are to refrain from that are legally permissible, as well as the “fences” which each individual is obligated to make even in permissible things. As it says in sifrei musar (books of moral instruction), that we must be careful in 100 “gates of the permissible” in order not to violate anything that is prohibited.

Some erroneously argue: Why look for new chumros (stringencies)? If the rabbis, of any generation, forbade it, that’s one thing, we have to listen, but nonetheless, even here, we don’t have to be overly cautious because these are merely rabbinic decrees. To look for new stringencies however, is altogether unnecessary. “Enough for you what has been forbidden to you by the Torah!” (Yerushalmi, Nedarim 9:1 also Rambam hilchos deios, 3:1).

They strengthen their argument by referring to a Yerushalmi where it says that man will be held accountable for all that he saw and did not consume (Yerushami Kidushin 4: end of 12).

Moreover, they say, it is already hard enough to observe all that we must keep. To add further stringencies or hidurim (extras), therefore, is not worthwhile, for these may lead to neglecting essential requirements. Too many restrictions may lead to a total diversion from the way of the Torah, ch’v.

They support their argument by referring to the sin of the Eitz Ha’Daas, the source of all sins, that it came about because Adam added “and do not touch it,” to “do not eat from it.”

Their claim is greatly in error, for the following reasons:

All obligations of the Torah were given by the one and same Shepherd. Because we are told “not to turn aside from what [the rabbis] tell us,” even the enactments of the rabbis assume full force and strictness as laws of the Torah itself. On the practical level, we do make a distinction between d’oraisas and d’rabbanans, because the Torah says that when in doubt with a d’oraisa we are strict, and when in doubt about a d’rabbanan, we are lenient.

That everybody must set restrictions for himself in permissible matters is a Torah mitzva, “and you shall guard the guarding of My [word].” And the Torah says, “Kedoshim tihiyu” – ‘kadesh es atzmecha b’mutar lach” (Yevamos 20a). This is not only a mitzva by itself, but it is also part of the “you shall guard the guarding”

As far as the Yerushalmi and the Eitz Ha’daas – they have nothing to do with this, for when Adam was in Gan Eden, he was a merkava (chariot) to Elokus (G-dliness), and had no association with evil. A chariot does not act on its own, and in a state like that, there is no need for fences or precautions. Precautionary measures, under such circumstances, are not only unnecessary but they are wrong, bec. when one is a merkava to Elokus, all you are and do reflect kedusha, and when he does something, he elevates it. For him, therefore, refraining from anything, would be withholding its elevation.

Under other conditions though, where there is a need for fences, these are a virtue.

roza

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 9:00 pm

I don't think the article on aish is talking about rabbinical prohibitions, nor does it talk about not doing something that is PERMISSIBLE, it talks about claiming that it's halacha. (adding new halacha, not as in 'kadesh atzmecha'), also the article points out that many times ppl serve themselves and not Hashem, also restrictions apply to the person "himself" as in your quote:

Quote:

...must set restrictions for himself in permissible matters...

and not as Chava did with Adam. Everyone has a different avodah, some ppl 'elevate' permissible by using it and other ppl elevate permissible by refraining from it.

mali

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 9:11 pm

roza, can you give a modern example of an added mitzva? are you talking about something specific?

amother

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 9:14 pm

Yes what are you getting at Roza Confused

roza

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 9:21 pm

I am getting at exactly what is said in article.

mali

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 9:30 pm

I think we all got the point of the article. it was part of our chumash lessons since the early elementary years. but what are you getting at? anything particular, or was it just a friendly reminder not to add any mitzvos, in case we felt 613+7 aren't enough Wink

roza

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 9:33 pm

mali wrote:

any mitzvos

and new halachot.

Tefila

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 9:34 pm

Quote:

but what are you getting at? anything particular,

Yes I'm thinking the same thing what prompted this thread Scratching Head

mali

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 9:34 pm

roza wrote:

and new halachot.

like what?

roza

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 10:43 pm

clear nail polish is asur

mali

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 10:45 pm

roza wrote:

clear nail polish is asur

who said that?

shoshb

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 10:51 pm

I have never heard that it is Assur, but I have heard that it is "good advice" to avoid clear nail polish, as it is very difficult to make sure you have taken all of it off when it's time for mikva.
See the difference?

Tefila

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 10:51 pm

One sec r u perhaps talking about certain chassidishe groups who say nail polish is not for them. Confused

roza

Tue, Jun 13 2006, 11:11 pm

Tefila - no. I am in awe of those communities.

Pesach chumros is another one that is framed as halacha.

Crayon210

Wed, Jun 14 2006, 12:06 am

Really? So then why do chasidim eat gebrokts on acharon shel Pesach?

chavamom

Wed, Jun 14 2006, 12:52 am

When we lived in Israel, the list of what was 'assur' in certain circles grew each year - backpacks, silver jewelry, knee socks, shirts with hoods, jean skirts, t-shirts with logos....

I heard a rav (American in Israel, of course) who said "the problem is when the 'derech' is defined so narrowly, it becomes very easy to fall off. And once a kid feels they are 'off', they start to act as if they are 'off' in many ways, not just a t-shirt with writing!'

Emuna

Wed, Jun 14 2006, 1:10 am

Backpacks? Silver jewelry? This is so, so, so crazy. If a girl is wearing a small, fine piece of silver jewelry? These chumras are going way too far. There is NOTHING wrong with a backpack and this is insane.

Chavamom, in Los Angeles the opposite is true - every year it seems that more and more is acceptable in certain circles. Roza, perhaps the new crazy "assur" list is a response to the crazy "acceptable" list that also happens in our rapidly changing society.

shalhevet

Wed, Jun 14 2006, 2:08 am

roza wrote:

Pesach chumros is another one that is framed as halacha.

But people know (and say) that they are chumros and not halacha. There are halachos from the Torah, halachos midrabanan, minhagim and chumros. As long as everyone is aware of what is what there is no problem.
Who, exactly, frames them as halacha?

shalhevet

Wed, Jun 14 2006, 2:18 am

chavamom wrote:

When we lived in Israel, the list of what was 'assur' in certain circles grew each year - backpacks, silver jewelry, knee socks, shirts with hoods, jean skirts, t-shirts with logos....

These are not 'new' halachas but rabbanim addressing things which didn't exist before as to whether they fit into being tzniyus (modest).

There is a story about the Chafetz Chaim at the Knesiya Gedola for Agudas Yisrael. Someone said that the mechitza wasn't high enough, so they asked the Chafetz Chaim. He said that as far as halacha goes it was high enough. But it says "והיה מחניך קדוש ולא יהיה בך ערוות דבר" I.e 'your camp should be holy and there should be nothing immodest there'. The more one adds tzniyus the more there is holiness, even if it is not required by halacha.

Maybe a backpack isn't considered a 'solid' look for an older girl/ woman.
And the silver jewellery sounds really strange. Are you sure? Maybe very garish, heavy chains??