לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ לִשְׁמֹ֗ר אֶת־מִצְוֺת֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶֽם׃
איר זאָלט ניט צולײגן צו דעם װאָרט װאָס איך געביט אײַך, און איר זאָלט ניט מינערן דערפֿון, כּדי צו היטן די געבאָט פֿון ה׳ אײַער גאָט, װאָס איך געביט אײַך.
German Commentary
R. Gamliel sagt: jezwei (Paare. Die Tora verbietet im 5. Buche (4, 2 und 13, 1), dem Worte Gottes etwas hinzuzufügen. Dieses Verbot kann unmöglich die Auferlegung neuer, in der Tora nicht begründeter Pflichten untersagen wollen. Denn was die freiwillig übernommenen Verpflichtungen betrifft, so hat die Tora selbst im 4. Buche 30,3 nichts gegen dieselben einzuwenden; hinsichtlich der mit allgemeiner Verbindlichkeit von der zuständigen Behörde erlassenen Anordnungen aber braucht nur darauf hingewiesen zu werden, dass die Propheten die Hinzufügung von 4 Fasttagen (Zecharja 8,19) zu dem Versöhnungstage geschehen Hessen. Auch die von den Männern der grossen Versammlung eingeführte Gebetordnung fiele unter dieses Verbot, wenn es wirklich den Sinn hätte, welchen die sich rationell nennende Auslegung in dasselbe hineinlegt. Und da das Religionsgesetz zugleich die Grundzüge eines bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches enthält, so könnte in aller Zukunft keine neue Rechtsfrage entschieden werden, denn es wäre ja kein Gerichtshof befugt, neue Rechtssätze aufzustellen. Vernunft wird Unsinn, wenn eine solche Exegese sich die vernunftgemässe nennen darf. Wie viel rationeller ist da die überlieferte Auflassung, nach welcher in Deut. 4,2 und 13,1 nur solche Zusätze verboten sind, welche entweder in eine Fälschung des Gotteswortes oder in eine Abweichung von demselben ausarten: In eine Fälschung, sofern es neue Verordnungen sind, welche mit dem Anspruch auf Göttlichkeit auftreten, Menschensatzung, die sich anmaasst, göttlichen Ursprungs zu sein; in eine Abweichung, sofern es sich um bestehende Religionsvorschriften handelt, welche bei der Ausübung derselben durch willkürliche Zuthaten mehr oder weniger in ihrem Wesen abgeändert und verunstaltet werden (רמב״ם und ראב״ד Hil. Mamrim II 9). Indem die Tora uns an beiden Stellen eine gewissenhafte Beobachtung ihrer Gebote an’s Herz legt, macht sie uns zur Pflicht, dieselben genau in der vorgeschriebenen Weise ohne jeden Zusatz wie ohne jede Weglassung zu erfüllen. Es liegt nun in der Natur der Sache, dass eine Verletzung des in Rede stehenden Verbotes ohne die Absicht, ein göttliches Gebot zu erfüllen, durch »Fälschung« undenkbar, wohl aber durch »Abweichung« möglich ist. Ein Kohen z. B., der die Gemeinde segnet und hierbei aus Versehen, Irrtum oder Unwissenheit zu den drei vorgeschriebenen Segenssprüchen einen vierten hinzufügt, hat es ohne Vorsatz übertreten, selbst wenn er dabei an das Gebot in Num. 6, 23—27 gar nicht dachte, und ihm die Absicht, es auszuüben, damals noch so fern lag; desgleichen wer am ersten Tag des Hüttenfestes statt der vorschriftsmässigen vier Pflanzenarten (Lev. 23, 40) deren fünf nimmt. Also auch derjenige, welcher zwei Paar Tefillin anlegt, und geschähe es auch ohne jeden Gedanken an das Tefillin gebot, und geschähe es auch nur, um sie vor Verunglimpfung zu bewahren? Ohne Zweifel — vorausgesetzt, dass er es nicht zu einer Zeit tut, welche der Tefillinpflicht gar nicht unterliegt. Bei der Ausübung von Geboten, welche an eine gewisse Zeit gebunden sind, ist nämlich — und auch das liegt in der Natur der Sache — ein gedankenloses Hinzutun zum Worte Gottes nur innerhalb dieser Zeit möglich; ausserhalb derselben ist es nicht mehr das Wort Gottes, welches durch die Zutat entstellt wird, es sei denn, dass die Absicht vorhanden ist, das biblische Gebot in dieser veränderten Form zu erfüllen — dann aber ist es wieder kein unbeabsichtigtes Hinzutun. Ausserhalb des Hüttenfestes ist es gestattet, den erwähnten vier Pflanzenarten so viele hinzuzufügen, als man nur irgend will, sofern man sich nicht einbildet, dadurch die Vorschrift der Tora zu erfüllen. R. Gamliel ist nun der Ansicht, dass das Tefillingebot auf die Wochentage beschränkt ist. Am Schabbat ist es daher gleichviel, ob man nur ein Paar Tefillin oder deren mehrere anlegt. Beides ist verboten, wenn man dabei die Absicht hat, einer uns von Gott auferlegten Pflicht gerecht zu werden; beides ist gestattet, wenn man sich mit den Tefillin blos schmücken oder dieselben wie im vorliegenden Falle vor Verunglimpfung bewahren will. Muss man sie zu diesem Zwecke auf freiem Felde oder gar auf öffentlicher Strasse tragen, darf man freilich nur zwei Paare zugleich anhaben, weil man sie dann vorschriftsmässig anlegen muss (Anm. 2), unter dieser Voraussetzung aber sowohl auf dem Kopfe als am Arme Dur Raum ist für je ein Paar derselben. R. Meïr dagegen ist der Meinung, dass sich das Tefillingebot auf den Schabbat miterstreckt. Wer daher an diesem Tage zwei Paar Tefillin anlegt, und tut er es auch zu ihrem Schutze, der hat in guter Absicht zwar, aber doch immerhin ein Verbot übertreten, indem er statt der vorgeschriebenen vier Bibelabschnitte deren acht um Stirn und Arm sich band. Darum gestattet er die gefundenen Tefillin nur paarweise in Sicherheit zu bringen.
Minchat Ani
In the B. Talmud, Berachot 9, we learn that the sages disagreed about when one was obligated to eat the Pesach offering. According to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah it had to be consumed by midnight. According to Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Joshua it could be consumed the entire night (until day break).
Yet in the story of the sages in B'nai Brak we learn that the sages "spoke of the Exodus from Egypt" until day break. Now if the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus must be performed when the Pesach, matzah and maror were on the Seder table, as we learn in the Haggadah; "You shall tell your son … that is, only when matzah and maror are before you," how could Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar perform the mitzvah of telling the story all night since, according to them, the matzah and maror would have been removed by midnight?34According to their interpretation, they would have had to stop telling the story of the Exodus once the matzah and maror were removed from the table when the Passover meal was finished at midnight. By the way, midnight in halachic literature does not mean 12 AM but literally the middle of the night – arrived at by dividing the number of hours between sunset and sunrise in half.
According to B. Talmud Rosh Hashanah 28a, "If a person who adds additional prayers of intention (to the performance of a commandment) once the proper time for the performance has ended, the person is guilty of bal toseef, of adding additional commandments."35See Deuteronomy 4:2. "In order to obey the mitzvot of Adonai your God which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it." Examples of bal toseef would be adding a fifth species to the lulav and etrog, or establishing a new mitzvah among the 613 commandments. See RH 28b - R. Shaman b. Abba raised the following objection against this view: ‘Whence do we learn that a priest who mounts the platform should not say, "Because the Torah has given me permission to bless Israel, I will add a blessing of my own, as for instance, The Lord, the God of your fathers, add unto you"? Because it says, “Ye shall not add unto the word.” According to this teaching, one must ask how Rabbis Eliezer and Elazar ben Azariah could continue telling the story of the Exodus all night. According to their interpretation of the law, the time for the telling of the Exodus story ended at midnight, at the same time when the consumption of the Pesach offering ended. By telling the story after midnight, they would be guilty of bal toseef. When the Haggadah says that they told the story of the Exodus all night long, it implies that they continued to perform this commandment after the allotted time. Even if one says that it was not Rabbis Eliezer's and Elazar's intention to continue performing the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus all night, they should have given some sign to indicate that they were not doing so to fulfill a particular commandment (but simply for the purpose of study). Unlike the other sages for whom the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus was a commandment all evening and for whom telling the story was permissible all night, they needed to clarify they weren’t “adding” to the commandments. We have such an example in B. Talmud, Sukkot 48a, where the sages suggest one must make a change in the way the sukkah was used if one planned to use it on the eighth day after the festival, to show that it was no longer being done in fulfillment of the commandment of dwelling in the sukkah.
This is not a problem. Besides the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus on the eve of Passover, we are also commanded to mention the Exodus each day.36See www.sefaria.org/Maaseh_Nissim_on_Pesach_Haggadah,_Magid,_Story_of_the_Five_Rabbis. Even though one need only mention the Exodus to fulfill this commandment37The paragraph dealing with the commandment of wearing fringes fulfills this obligation to mention the Exodus: "I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt." Numbers 15: 37-41, as we do when we recite the third paragraph of the Sh'ma, one can dwell on it as much as one wants. Therefore, when Rabbis Eliezer and Elazar ben Azariah continued to dwell on the Exodus and discuss after midnight, they were not guilty of transgressing bal toseef, but were fulfilling the commandment of mentioning the Exodus from Egypt daily. This explains why it was necessary to include the passage regarding Rabbi Eliezer and mentioning the Exodus at night. If there was no obligation to make mention of the Exodus at night as Ben Zoma suggests, then he and Rabbi Eliezer would have been guilty of bal toseef. This passage was brought to answer the difficulty of the students who could not understand how Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar could tell the story of the Exodus all night. Ben Zoma is not discussing the obligation of telling the story of the Exodus on Passover eve but the obligation to mention the Exodus both day and night.
There is yet another way to explain why these passages appear together in the Haggadah. In the previous passage we read: "Even if we are all sages, all discerning, all elders, we must investigate why it was then necessary to quote Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah who said, "I am like a seventy year old," and also why he didn’t know how to interpret the word "kol," all, "All the days of our lives," to include the evenings, as Ben Zoma suggested. If Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah interpreted the word kol to include the days of the Messiah, as the sages did, what insight did Ben Zoma offer him to change his mind?
We will begin to answer these questions by explaining the following verse, "In the morning sow your seeds and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good." (Eccl. 11:6) “Rabbi Joshua taught: If a needy person comes to you in the morning give him tzedakah; if he comes to you at night, give tzedakah to him, since you do not know which one the Holy One will write down on your behalf, either this one or that, or if both alike will be good.38Bereishit Rabbah 61:3 What can we learn from this passage and what difference should it make, if both are good? This verse can be explained as follows: a poor person knows that he cannot go to a benefactor in the middle of the day when he is busy with his work and doesn’t want to be bothered. Therefore, he comes to the rich person in the morning in order to make his plea and to ask for charitable help. The rich man answers, "I am not free now to hear what you have to say because I am about to go to work." The poor person comes to him again in the evening after the rich man has finished work to ask for his assistance, and the rich man answers: "Is there no rest for a person who works all day? Why are you bothering me now and asking me to listen to your plea?" The poor person leaves a second time disappointed. This verse warns the rich person: If a poor person comes to you in the morning, give him what he asks for and do not say, "I don’t have time." If he comes to you in the evening give him tzedakah and don’t say to him, "Let me have my rest from my busy day." You don’t know which one God will inscribe to double your reward, whether you take time from your work to listen to the needs of the poor person or if you set aside your relaxation to tend to the needy person. (Bereshit Rabbah 61:3)
There is another explanation for this verse; in particular the last part of the passage: "whether both alike will be good," based on the passage from the book of Job attributed to Elihu: "I am young, and you are very old; Wherefore I held back, and did not declare to you my opinion. I said: ‘Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.’ But it is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding. It is not the great that are wise, nor the aged that discern judgment. (Job 32:6-9) These verses addresses the issue of whether wisdom is more likely found in the elderly or if it is already found in the young. In Pirkei Avot we learn: Elisha ben Abuya said, ‘One who learns from elders is compared to what? To one who eats ripe grapes and drinks aged wine.’ Rabbi says: ‘Do not look at the jug but rather at what is in it. For there are new jugs full of old, and old that do not have even new within them.’ (Pirkei Avot 4:20)39Rabbi Ettlinger inadvertently conflated the beginning and end of this Mishnah. The Mishnah begins "Elisha Ben Abuya said, One who learns as a child to what is he compared?" the second half of the Mishnah is quoted in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Judah. According to the first opinion, our thinking becomes clear and the power of reasoning is better in old age. Others are of the opinion that reason and wisdom are based in the spirit and not in the body, so that wisdom is not founded in age since the power of reason is based in the holiness of the soul (and not on age). Elihu, one of Job's visitors, explains that initially as a young man he was under the impression that wisdom comes with age - similar to the opinion of Elisha ben Abuya who believed that wisdom grows with age. But Elihu goes on to say that he changed his mind; sometimes "It is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding." Therefore there is no difference between old age and youth in matters of wisdom, following the opinion of Rabbi: the power of reasoning and wisdom is present in the morning of human life and in the evening of human life it becomes clear so that "both of them are good."40Ettlinger understands the passage from Job to be a discussion in which Elihu, Job's fourth visitor, debates the superiority of youth and age but in Ettlinger's understanding concludes that both are relevant.
In Deuteronomy 16:3, we read, "You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter you shall eat unleavened bread, bread of distress, for you departed from the land of Egypt in haste, so that you may remember the day of your departing from the land of Egypt all the days of your life." The statement, "For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread," needs to be explained. One should avoid eating leaven during the seven days of Passover but one should only be required to eat matzah on the first day of the holiday since it is the day on which we left Egypt. The expression "all the days of your life" means that we should observe the Passover day and night throughout the week of Passover without separating one from the other all seven days. According to Ben Zoma, then, this verse teaches us that we must make mention of the Exodus both in the day and in the night, even though the actual redemption took place in the daytime.
“For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread,” can also be explained according to the interpretation of Alshikh:41Moshe Alshikh was a prominent rabbi, preacher, and biblical commentator in the latter part of the 16th century. The Alshikh was born in 1508 in the Ottoman Empire, and was the son of Hayyim Alshikh. He later moved to Safed where he became a student of Rabbi Joseph Caro. He died in Safed in 1593. Seven days is an allusion to the seven decades of life - they add up to seventy years. During this time we must strive to destroy the 'leaven which is in the dough,'42This is an expression used in the Talmud to refer to the yetzer harah, the evil inclination. Evil ferments and causes the dough to become puffed up/arrogant. the evil inclination, and only eat matzah which is an allusion to the good inclination for seven days/decades. According to this interpretation of the verse, we must contemplate this verse both in our youth and in our old age, 'seven' days. The Torah commands us to eat matzah for seven days as a reminder that we must continue to do so for the seventy years of our lives.
After mentioning the Exodus from Egypt so many times in one's youth, one might conclude that it is not necessary to do so in one's old age. The Torah commands us to eat to matzah for "seven days" in order to allude to the teaching that one must continue to contemplate the Exodus during all the decades of one's life. This teaching is relevant to the teaching of Elisha ben Abuyah who believed that the wisdom of old age is superior to that of one's youth.
But we have seen that Rabbi taught us that wisdom is not limited by age. In fact, Ben Zoma taught his interpretation while he was still a young man. (We know this from the fact that was referred to as Ben Zoma without his first name, Shimon.) Still, he was able to teach before the sages, showing that there is no preference for wisdom in age. From this we can conclude that there is no precedence to wisdom because of age over youth. So we can see that the second interpretation of this verse (that of Alshikh) does not give more importance to wisdom that comes with age.
We can now understand why Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said, "I'm like a man of seventy…" He said this on the day he was appointed head of the Sanhedrin in his youth. Rabbi Elazar did not want to accept the presidency of the Sanhedrin because his hair was not yet white and he did not appear like an elder. A miracle occurred, and he gained the appearance of a seventy year old man (his hair turned prematurely white). Because of this, he knew that God had approved of his appointment and that age takes precedence over youth in matters of wisdom, and it is why he interpreted this verse to include old age in the expression, "all the days of your life, according to the second interpretation above. When he said, "I am like a man of seventy," he was stating that he was not just accepting Ben Zoma's interpretation but he was stating that he had learned that wisdom is accessible both in youth and with age.43Like Elihu in the book of Job, Rabbi Elazar embraces the wisdom of age but recognizes like Rabbi (Rabbi Judah the Prince) that wisdom is not defined by age.
We can now understand the connection between the initial statement, "even if we are all sages, all discerning, all elders, it would be our obligation to tell the story of the Exodus. As proof of this we have the story of the five sages, who discussed the story of the Exodus throughout the night. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah's statement is further proof that we must continue to tell the story of the Exodus even in our old age - he was like a man of seventy even though he was much younger. Finally Ben Zoma's teaching about mentioning the Exodus at night follows the same approach. Even though the sages did not agree with him (they said it teaches that we will continue to mention the Exodus in the days of the Messiah), they understand that it implied that we should continue to study and practice Torah both in youth and in old age.
Yet in the story of the sages in B'nai Brak we learn that the sages "spoke of the Exodus from Egypt" until day break. Now if the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus must be performed when the Pesach, matzah and maror were on the Seder table, as we learn in the Haggadah; "You shall tell your son … that is, only when matzah and maror are before you," how could Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar perform the mitzvah of telling the story all night since, according to them, the matzah and maror would have been removed by midnight?34According to their interpretation, they would have had to stop telling the story of the Exodus once the matzah and maror were removed from the table when the Passover meal was finished at midnight. By the way, midnight in halachic literature does not mean 12 AM but literally the middle of the night – arrived at by dividing the number of hours between sunset and sunrise in half.
According to B. Talmud Rosh Hashanah 28a, "If a person who adds additional prayers of intention (to the performance of a commandment) once the proper time for the performance has ended, the person is guilty of bal toseef, of adding additional commandments."35See Deuteronomy 4:2. "In order to obey the mitzvot of Adonai your God which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it." Examples of bal toseef would be adding a fifth species to the lulav and etrog, or establishing a new mitzvah among the 613 commandments. See RH 28b - R. Shaman b. Abba raised the following objection against this view: ‘Whence do we learn that a priest who mounts the platform should not say, "Because the Torah has given me permission to bless Israel, I will add a blessing of my own, as for instance, The Lord, the God of your fathers, add unto you"? Because it says, “Ye shall not add unto the word.” According to this teaching, one must ask how Rabbis Eliezer and Elazar ben Azariah could continue telling the story of the Exodus all night. According to their interpretation of the law, the time for the telling of the Exodus story ended at midnight, at the same time when the consumption of the Pesach offering ended. By telling the story after midnight, they would be guilty of bal toseef. When the Haggadah says that they told the story of the Exodus all night long, it implies that they continued to perform this commandment after the allotted time. Even if one says that it was not Rabbis Eliezer's and Elazar's intention to continue performing the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus all night, they should have given some sign to indicate that they were not doing so to fulfill a particular commandment (but simply for the purpose of study). Unlike the other sages for whom the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus was a commandment all evening and for whom telling the story was permissible all night, they needed to clarify they weren’t “adding” to the commandments. We have such an example in B. Talmud, Sukkot 48a, where the sages suggest one must make a change in the way the sukkah was used if one planned to use it on the eighth day after the festival, to show that it was no longer being done in fulfillment of the commandment of dwelling in the sukkah.
This is not a problem. Besides the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus on the eve of Passover, we are also commanded to mention the Exodus each day.36See www.sefaria.org/Maaseh_Nissim_on_Pesach_Haggadah,_Magid,_Story_of_the_Five_Rabbis. Even though one need only mention the Exodus to fulfill this commandment37The paragraph dealing with the commandment of wearing fringes fulfills this obligation to mention the Exodus: "I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt." Numbers 15: 37-41, as we do when we recite the third paragraph of the Sh'ma, one can dwell on it as much as one wants. Therefore, when Rabbis Eliezer and Elazar ben Azariah continued to dwell on the Exodus and discuss after midnight, they were not guilty of transgressing bal toseef, but were fulfilling the commandment of mentioning the Exodus from Egypt daily. This explains why it was necessary to include the passage regarding Rabbi Eliezer and mentioning the Exodus at night. If there was no obligation to make mention of the Exodus at night as Ben Zoma suggests, then he and Rabbi Eliezer would have been guilty of bal toseef. This passage was brought to answer the difficulty of the students who could not understand how Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Elazar could tell the story of the Exodus all night. Ben Zoma is not discussing the obligation of telling the story of the Exodus on Passover eve but the obligation to mention the Exodus both day and night.
There is yet another way to explain why these passages appear together in the Haggadah. In the previous passage we read: "Even if we are all sages, all discerning, all elders, we must investigate why it was then necessary to quote Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah who said, "I am like a seventy year old," and also why he didn’t know how to interpret the word "kol," all, "All the days of our lives," to include the evenings, as Ben Zoma suggested. If Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah interpreted the word kol to include the days of the Messiah, as the sages did, what insight did Ben Zoma offer him to change his mind?
We will begin to answer these questions by explaining the following verse, "In the morning sow your seeds and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good." (Eccl. 11:6) “Rabbi Joshua taught: If a needy person comes to you in the morning give him tzedakah; if he comes to you at night, give tzedakah to him, since you do not know which one the Holy One will write down on your behalf, either this one or that, or if both alike will be good.38Bereishit Rabbah 61:3 What can we learn from this passage and what difference should it make, if both are good? This verse can be explained as follows: a poor person knows that he cannot go to a benefactor in the middle of the day when he is busy with his work and doesn’t want to be bothered. Therefore, he comes to the rich person in the morning in order to make his plea and to ask for charitable help. The rich man answers, "I am not free now to hear what you have to say because I am about to go to work." The poor person comes to him again in the evening after the rich man has finished work to ask for his assistance, and the rich man answers: "Is there no rest for a person who works all day? Why are you bothering me now and asking me to listen to your plea?" The poor person leaves a second time disappointed. This verse warns the rich person: If a poor person comes to you in the morning, give him what he asks for and do not say, "I don’t have time." If he comes to you in the evening give him tzedakah and don’t say to him, "Let me have my rest from my busy day." You don’t know which one God will inscribe to double your reward, whether you take time from your work to listen to the needs of the poor person or if you set aside your relaxation to tend to the needy person. (Bereshit Rabbah 61:3)
There is another explanation for this verse; in particular the last part of the passage: "whether both alike will be good," based on the passage from the book of Job attributed to Elihu: "I am young, and you are very old; Wherefore I held back, and did not declare to you my opinion. I said: ‘Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.’ But it is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding. It is not the great that are wise, nor the aged that discern judgment. (Job 32:6-9) These verses addresses the issue of whether wisdom is more likely found in the elderly or if it is already found in the young. In Pirkei Avot we learn: Elisha ben Abuya said, ‘One who learns from elders is compared to what? To one who eats ripe grapes and drinks aged wine.’ Rabbi says: ‘Do not look at the jug but rather at what is in it. For there are new jugs full of old, and old that do not have even new within them.’ (Pirkei Avot 4:20)39Rabbi Ettlinger inadvertently conflated the beginning and end of this Mishnah. The Mishnah begins "Elisha Ben Abuya said, One who learns as a child to what is he compared?" the second half of the Mishnah is quoted in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Judah. According to the first opinion, our thinking becomes clear and the power of reasoning is better in old age. Others are of the opinion that reason and wisdom are based in the spirit and not in the body, so that wisdom is not founded in age since the power of reason is based in the holiness of the soul (and not on age). Elihu, one of Job's visitors, explains that initially as a young man he was under the impression that wisdom comes with age - similar to the opinion of Elisha ben Abuya who believed that wisdom grows with age. But Elihu goes on to say that he changed his mind; sometimes "It is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding." Therefore there is no difference between old age and youth in matters of wisdom, following the opinion of Rabbi: the power of reasoning and wisdom is present in the morning of human life and in the evening of human life it becomes clear so that "both of them are good."40Ettlinger understands the passage from Job to be a discussion in which Elihu, Job's fourth visitor, debates the superiority of youth and age but in Ettlinger's understanding concludes that both are relevant.
In Deuteronomy 16:3, we read, "You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter you shall eat unleavened bread, bread of distress, for you departed from the land of Egypt in haste, so that you may remember the day of your departing from the land of Egypt all the days of your life." The statement, "For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread," needs to be explained. One should avoid eating leaven during the seven days of Passover but one should only be required to eat matzah on the first day of the holiday since it is the day on which we left Egypt. The expression "all the days of your life" means that we should observe the Passover day and night throughout the week of Passover without separating one from the other all seven days. According to Ben Zoma, then, this verse teaches us that we must make mention of the Exodus both in the day and in the night, even though the actual redemption took place in the daytime.
“For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread,” can also be explained according to the interpretation of Alshikh:41Moshe Alshikh was a prominent rabbi, preacher, and biblical commentator in the latter part of the 16th century. The Alshikh was born in 1508 in the Ottoman Empire, and was the son of Hayyim Alshikh. He later moved to Safed where he became a student of Rabbi Joseph Caro. He died in Safed in 1593. Seven days is an allusion to the seven decades of life - they add up to seventy years. During this time we must strive to destroy the 'leaven which is in the dough,'42This is an expression used in the Talmud to refer to the yetzer harah, the evil inclination. Evil ferments and causes the dough to become puffed up/arrogant. the evil inclination, and only eat matzah which is an allusion to the good inclination for seven days/decades. According to this interpretation of the verse, we must contemplate this verse both in our youth and in our old age, 'seven' days. The Torah commands us to eat matzah for seven days as a reminder that we must continue to do so for the seventy years of our lives.
After mentioning the Exodus from Egypt so many times in one's youth, one might conclude that it is not necessary to do so in one's old age. The Torah commands us to eat to matzah for "seven days" in order to allude to the teaching that one must continue to contemplate the Exodus during all the decades of one's life. This teaching is relevant to the teaching of Elisha ben Abuyah who believed that the wisdom of old age is superior to that of one's youth.
But we have seen that Rabbi taught us that wisdom is not limited by age. In fact, Ben Zoma taught his interpretation while he was still a young man. (We know this from the fact that was referred to as Ben Zoma without his first name, Shimon.) Still, he was able to teach before the sages, showing that there is no preference for wisdom in age. From this we can conclude that there is no precedence to wisdom because of age over youth. So we can see that the second interpretation of this verse (that of Alshikh) does not give more importance to wisdom that comes with age.
We can now understand why Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said, "I'm like a man of seventy…" He said this on the day he was appointed head of the Sanhedrin in his youth. Rabbi Elazar did not want to accept the presidency of the Sanhedrin because his hair was not yet white and he did not appear like an elder. A miracle occurred, and he gained the appearance of a seventy year old man (his hair turned prematurely white). Because of this, he knew that God had approved of his appointment and that age takes precedence over youth in matters of wisdom, and it is why he interpreted this verse to include old age in the expression, "all the days of your life, according to the second interpretation above. When he said, "I am like a man of seventy," he was stating that he was not just accepting Ben Zoma's interpretation but he was stating that he had learned that wisdom is accessible both in youth and with age.43Like Elihu in the book of Job, Rabbi Elazar embraces the wisdom of age but recognizes like Rabbi (Rabbi Judah the Prince) that wisdom is not defined by age.
We can now understand the connection between the initial statement, "even if we are all sages, all discerning, all elders, it would be our obligation to tell the story of the Exodus. As proof of this we have the story of the five sages, who discussed the story of the Exodus throughout the night. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah's statement is further proof that we must continue to tell the story of the Exodus even in our old age - he was like a man of seventy even though he was much younger. Finally Ben Zoma's teaching about mentioning the Exodus at night follows the same approach. Even though the sages did not agree with him (they said it teaches that we will continue to mention the Exodus in the days of the Messiah), they understand that it implied that we should continue to study and practice Torah both in youth and in old age.
Chizkuni
לא יוסיף, “he must not exceed this number;” why was this repeated seeing that we read it already in Deuteronomy 4,2, where it appeared as a general rule? According to the Rabbis, it means that whereas the sages do not have the right to increase this mode of punishment, they may impose fewer lashes, such as when the health of the sinner is fragile, and similar considerations. This is also why the Rabbis divided the areas of the body to which these lashes are to be applied, to shoulder, chest, and the upper back where it joins the shoulder.