Genesis: 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, “You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'”

Gemora Sanhedrin 29(a): Chezikaya said from where is the proof that anyone who adds something [ultimately] detracts from it? From our verse which states: “you shall not eat of it and you shall not touch it”.

Torah Temimah – Colloquial translation of Note #2

God did not warn saying “don’t touch it”. Rather, she, herself, added the idea [of not touching it.] Due to that addition she caused a [flaw] detraction. The snake pushed Chava into the tree so that she touched it. Then the snake said to her “look, you didn’t die by touching it and similarly you won’t die from eating it.” See our later comments in Parshat Trumah on the verse “two and a half amot is its width” where there is a similar [rabbinic] observation.

Already many commentators have tried to explain this difficult topic. If the woman [Chava] added the prohibition herself of not touching the tree, she would have already known that it wasn’t God who said not to touch it! If that is the case, how could the snake trick her by saying “just like you didn’t die from touching it, so you won’t die from eating it?” The answer is supplied by the Avot d’Rabbi Natan (Chapter 1) where it explains that when Adam told Chava about God’s commandment concerning not eating from the tree, he [Adam] added a ‘fence’ to God’s commandment and said that it was also forbidden to touch the tree. This was a way to prevent Chava from ever coming to eat from it. This being the case, then Chava truly thought it was God’s commandment not to eat nor touch the tree. Thus we see that the criticism of “all who add, ultimately detract” is not directed against Chava but rather against Adam.

The idea of adding the prohibition against touching was from Adam’s own thought process. So, one could ask, how could Adam actually come to add something from what God had commanded? Don’t we know from our laws of forbidden foods that there is actually no prohibition against touching forbidden foods? Maybe a [halachic] answer can be found according to the reasoning that other commentators use to explain why on Yom Kipur there is no prohibition on touching food but on Passover there is a prohibition regarding touching chametz [leaven]. These commentators explain that on Yom Kipur everything is forbidden and so there is no fear that a person will eat something. While on Passover, one can eat many things but not chametz [which can be eaten the rest of the year.] Therefore, on Passover there is an appropriate halachic fence to not touch chametz. So according to this, since the Tree of Knowledge was in the middle of the Garden amongst other trees whose fruit was permitted, it made sense for Adam to add the prohibition of not touching the tree.

So, if it made sense for Adam to add this prohibition, why do we apply the idea of “all who adds, detracts” to this action; since he actually applied the additional restriction appropriately? It would seem that an appropriate additional restriction should not be termed “detraction” or a “flaw”.

One needs to say that there is a distinction to be made between chametz on Passover [and the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.] Since leaven on Passover has a period of time when it is permitted [51 weeks out of the year!], so a person is used to handling it. This is not the case with the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge which was forbidden always and had [absolutely] no period of time when it was permitted. Therefore it is more like completely non-kosher food that has no prohibition on touching it. So, Adam was in error in adding this prohibition to the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. This explanation was also written by the Shach in his commentary on Yoreh Deah Section 89; SubSection 4. Even though it is prohibited to put milk foods on the same table as meat foods, there is no prohibition of putting completely non-kosher foods on the same table since people are accustomed to stay away from completely forbidden items.  

Translator Note: I have heard from other sources that Adam’s mistake was not that he added an additional prohibition. Rather, the mistake was that he failed to inform Chava that God said “don’t eat” but I (Adam) say additionally “don’t touch”. If Adam had done that, then Chava would not have been deceived by the snake.

Genesis: 2:18 – And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him.”

Gemora Hulin: 61(b): Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel: Even though a man may [already] have children, it is still forbidden for him to be without a wife as the verse says, “it is not good that man is alone.”

Torah Temimah – Colloquial translation of Note #40

It appears that the language of the verse [itself] is not alluding to a prohibition but rather a general suggestion. However, since the suggestion is from God, Himself, it became afterwards a [positive] commandment.

[Let’s delve deeper into the phrase] that it is “not good for man to be alone, I shall make him a helpmate…” This phrase would imply that the [whole] purpose of creation of woman is only because it is not good for him to be alone. [But] isn’t it true that, actually, in order for the world to survive there needs to be a renewal of generations? And people are like the grass of the field, “these flourish and these whither” (Gemora Eruvin: 54(a))

If so, then the purpose of creation of woman is for the necessity of the creation [and maintenance] of mankind and needed in order to be fruitful and multiply.

The answer is that the intent of this commandment is that a man and a woman should be set aside especially for each other. They should not be fruitful and multiply in a general way [with just anyone] such as animals do.  Animals do not have the behavior of marriage nor any special relationship to their offspring; rather they live just according to their instincts.

Translator Note: I think that in this note the Torah Temimah is making several different points. First of all, he is emphasizing that it is not true that a woman’s role is subservient to men. Secondly, that the issue of “alone-ness” is not about man having someone to procreate with. Rather, I think the Torah Temimah is saying that the phrase “it is not good for man to be alone” is, in effect, a commandment for man and woman to have a bonding marriage. Additionally, it is worthwhile point out that is first point is that there is no prohibition in not being married, rather marriage is a positive commandment

Deuteronomy 29:18 – And it will be, when he [such a person] hears the words of this oath, that he will bless himself in his heart, saying, “I will have peace, even if I follow my heart’s desires, so that the watering provides also for what should remain thirsty”

Gemora Sanhedrin 76b: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One who marries his daughter to an old man or one who marries his young son to an older woman and one who returns a lost object to a Kuti, about him is the verse written “in order to add the unintentional sins to his intentional sins, God will not willingly forgive him.”

Torah Temimah – Colloquial Translation of Note #17:

The word “ספות” in the verse has the meaning of join [“also” in the above translation] as in the verse in Isaiah 29:1: Add year to year. An older person is referred to by the word “watering” because he is already satiated with life and the young girl is thirsty for life. The same applies for an older woman marrying a boy. Following this path can lead to unintentional transgressions.

Observe what Rabbi Yaacov Emden has written on this topic in his notes on this section of gemora. He takes a new point of view. He writes that the issue of old age and youth discussed in the gemora is not an issue of the number of years that a person has. Rather it is more an issue of the health of a person. In general, he notes, an older person has gotten weaker and a younger person is healthy. Therefore, Reb Yaacov states that an older person who is healthy would not have any prohibition in marrying a younger person.

But according to what I [the Torah Temimah] wrote above the reason for this prohibition is due to the contrast in feeling the fullness of life of the older person versus the thirst for life of the younger person. This is according to the words of the verse “satiation / thirst”. One should not take these words [of the gemora] out of their simple meaning. “Old man” means “old man” and “young girl” means “young girl”.

Regarding the topic of returning a lost item to a Kuti, please see my comment on Deuteronomy 33:2

Translator Note: I do like this note of the Torah Temimah as he challenges Rabbi Yaacov Emden’s opinion on the appropriateness of marrying an older man to a young girl. As far as the issue of returning a lost object to a Kuti, I hope to translate that note on verse 33:2 at some future date. The translation of the verse, by the way, is a combination of translations, the second half of the verse is translated according to Samson Raphael Hirsch English Chumah (copyright 1966).

Deuteronomy 12:29 When the Lord, your God cuts off the nations to which you will come to drive them out from before you, and when you drive them out and dwell in their land

Sifri: From here they say that the [fulfilling] the commandment of living in the land of Israel is equal to fulfilling all the commandments in the Torah.

Torah Temimah – Colloquial translation of Note #114

It is not explained explicitly the reason for equating fulfilling the commandment of living in the land of Israel is equivalent to fulfilling all the commandments of the Torah. The most likely answer is that it is only possible to fulfill all the commandments in all the their details in the Land of Israel. The reason for this is that many of the commandments actual depend on the land as is well known. [Examples are leket, shichah, peah, yovel, shmittah, etc.] Even commandments that are obligatory on the individual no matter where he lives [like: tefillin, keeping kosher, keeping Shabbos] are still primarily geared towards fulfilling them in the Land of Israel. This is explained in many places in the Torah with phrases like “when you come into the land” [you will give charity…] and other similar phrases. We keep these commandments even when we are in exile only for the purpose of not forgetting them at the time that we return from exile.

This is explained clearly in the Sifri on Parshat Eikev Chapter 10, Verse 18. There it says “G-d said to the Jewish people, even though I am exiling from your land, nevertheless you are still obligated to fulfill the commandments, in order that when you return to the Land of Israel, they will not seem like something new to you.”

So, according to all that is noted above, this is the reason why living in the Land of Israel is equal to all the commandments. The reason is that the Land of Israel is the foundation and the basis for the fulfillment of all the commandments. This is alluded to by the proximity of the previous verse “You should guard and heed all of these things which I command you…” with the following verse commanding to live in the Land of Israel.

All of this is an explanation of the words of the Ramban in the Book of the Commndments. There he adds a commandment which the Rambam left out [in his list of commandments.] In Positive Commandment Number 4, the Ramban mentions this explanation of the Sifri [as noted in the beginning of this note.]

Indeed it is the view of some Rishonim [such as the Ramban] that the commandment of living in the Land of Israel is applicable and in force even today. However this is not the opinion of the Rambam. He omitted this commandment from his count of commandments and so did other Rishonim. Their opinion is that there is no commandment to live in the Land of Israel until the final redemption comes. However, after the [Roman] exile there is not current commandment to live in the Land of Israel until the final redemption.

Through this explanation that we have written that the reason why living in the Land of Israel is weighed equally to all the other commandments is due to the Land being the foundation and enabler of all the commandments in the Torah, it would appear that the core reading of this commandment is according to the Rambam and his supporters. The reason for this is because in our day, even in the Land of Israel, it is impossible to fulfill all the commandments. This is because many of those unfulfilled commandments depend on the building of the [third] holy temple. [This being the case, the principal value of living in the Land of Israel as the enabler of fulfilling all the commendments of the Torah is not currently active.] Check out the Gemora Sota 14(a) and the explanation of Rabbi Simlai there and you will find support for our opinion.  

Translator Note: The translator is very aware that there is a wide, wide difference of opinion amongst religious Jews on this topic. I have chosen to translate this note to inform readers of some of the differences of opinion and to publicize the Torah Temimah’s opinion. To the translator (me) this has nothing to do with a debate over Zionism. Rather, the Torah Temimah is discussing whether there is a technical commandment to live in the Land of Israel in our times.

Deuteronomy 11:27 – 28.The blessing, that you will listen to the commandments of the Lord your G-d, which I command you today;  and the curse, if you will not listen to commandments of the Lord your G-d, and you will turn away from what I command you this day, to follow other gods, which you did not know.

Sifri: From here they say that anyone who accepts idol worship is as though he denies the whole Torah; also, anyone who accepts the Torah is as though he denies idol worship

Torah Temimah – Colloquial translation of Note #66 (second paragraph)

In general we need to examine the issue of why the blessing seems to be short and abbreviated – just saying that you will listen. The curse, on the other hand, explains in more detail saying, “You will not listen and you will turn away….”

Perhaps the explanation is according to what it says in the Gemora Kedoshim 40(a) and in other places. There it says that a good thought is considered by G-d as though you have also done a good deed; however, G-d does not do the same with a bad thought.

Therefore, with the blessing it is sufficient to say merely “you will hear”. [That is the blessing, in and of itself!] In other words, you will hear and accept these words. If you do this, you will immediately merit the reward.

On the other hand, for a curse, you will not merit a curse just by not listening. Rather, you must also do an actual bad deed, “turn away from what I command you this day”.  Therefore, as long as you don’t actually do a bad deed, your bad thoughts do not bring you to a punishment.

Translator Note: I think that this is an important point. We can’t go around beating ourselves up over bad thoughts. They don’t “count” against us unless we put them into action.

Deuteronomy 31:19 – And now, write for yourselves this song, and teach it to the Children of Israel. Place it into their mouths, in order that this song will be for Me as a witness for the children of Israel

Tosefet B’racha: Translation of one of his notes on this verse

The simple meaning of the text has the words “this song” referring to the “ha’azinu” song [that immediately follows this Torah section.] Our wise sages, however, understand the word “song” as referring to the entire Torah. This would be in accordance with the statement in the Gemora Sanhedrin (21b) – Even if a person inherits a Torah scroll, it is still a commandment for everyone to write his own. The Gemora then cites our verse as the proof text. This shows that the wise sages understood the word “song” in our verse as applying to the whole Torah.

The Rambam, however, in Chapter 7:1 writes as follows: “It is a positive commandment on every person to write a Torah scroll as it says in the verse ‘write for yourselves this song’; in other words write for yourselves the Torah that contains this song”. [In other words, the Rambam did not want to explicitly call the Torah itself a song.]

It is possible to bring support for this explanation of the Rambam from the fact that we see that King David was actually punished for referring to Torah as ‘tunes’ as it says in Psalms 119:54 – Your laws were to me as tunes in the house of my sojournings.” Tunes and song are the same thing as is proven in Gemora Gittin (7a). Additionally in Gemora Betza (24a) a person is criticized for singing the Torah verses as though it were a song. If all of this is so, how can it be that HaShem himself would refer to the Torah as a song in the verse above?

The answer to this question is that even though [perhaps] it may not be respectful to describe the Torah as a song as is explained above, nevertheless regarding the content [and process] of learning Torah it is appropriate to compare it to a song or a tune.

This approach can be explained following the approach of the Gemora Chagigah on the verse in Ecclesiastes 12:11 “The words of the wise are like goads, and like well-fastened [collected] nails with large heads, given from one shepherd.” Regarding this verse, the Gemora comments that the collected nails are referring to the sages who gather together in groups/collections and occupy themselves in Torah. These judge a case and say “pure” while these judge a case and say “impure”. These judge a case and say “forbidden” while these judge the same case and say “permitted”. Even though they disagree, they are all given from the same shepherd. As it says in the Gemora Eruvin (13b), “These and these are the [all] the words of the Living G-d.”

At first glance this is astonishing. How can it be that one who says “impure” – his words are the words of the Living G-d; yet this other judge in the same case who says “pure” – his words are also the words of the Living G-d? Isn’t the truth only with one of them? It the answer is either “pure” or “impure” – [it can’t be both!}

Rather the parable to a song is exactly appropriate here. It is similar to a choir or an orchestra. Each person in the choir has a voice that is different from his colleagues. One has a high voice and one has a low voice. One has a thin voice and one has a loud voice. One has a voice that sounds like a lion roarding and one has a voice that sounds like a bird chirping. At first glance it looks like total chaos between them. Or perhaps that each one is doing with his voice something different from his friend in order to anger or upset his friend.  

But the truth is that this is not the case. Rather, because of the differences of the voices, there actually comes out at the end a beautiful song and a mixture that is sweet to the ear.

This is exactly the process of learning Torah with a study partner. When one disagrees and argues with his study partner or brings proofs against his partner’s ideas or challenges his assumptions or his logic and they dig together. Only then, when they consider together the issue from all points of view – only then can the issue become clarified and a true, lasting judgement result.

This process is also referred to in Gemora Baba Metzia (84a). This is why this process is referred to as the War of Torah (in Gemora Megilah 16b). This is also alluded to in Gemora Berachos 56b where it states that one who dreams of a goring ox will have children who attack halachic issues, meaning that they will be skilled at debating and arguing and dissecting points of view.

Thus, we see that these types of disagreements are appropriate and necessary for the desired outcome. This is why all the different, opposing points of view are all called “words of the Living G-d”. It is because exactly through these differing points of the view that the Halacha becomes clarified in a clear and true way. This being the case, we can see the similar process and content between the Torah and a song.

See also my comment in Parshat VaYigash on the verse (Genesis 45:24 –  “And he sent off his brothers, and they went, and he said to them, ‘Do not quarrel on the way.’”

Translator Note: I think that the Torah Temimah often emphasizes the issue of “these and these are the words of the Living G-d.” He has several different explanations. This explanation here and analogy to a choir which actually requires different voices to have the desired outcome is, for me, a key point that the Torah Temimah seems to emphasize a lot.