Of course, this liberal reading of history is at odds with our tradition. We take very seriously the directive “Do not add to the word that I command you, nor subtract from it…” (Deut. 4:2). Unless there is a Sinaitic tradition, one may not deviate from the literal meaning of the Torah.
So how could Hillel come up with this circumvention?
The answer, in fact, is in the aforementioned text. According to the Netziv, Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, in his classic commentary Ha’amaik Davar, we must focus on verse 15:4. Directly after telling us about the law of remission, the Torah says, “Nevertheless, there shall be no needy among you….” Can this mean that there will be no needy people? Clearly, history teaches otherwise. Further, a few verses later, the Torah itself states, “For there will never cease to be needy within the land….” (15:11). What, then, can the statement “Nevertheless, there shall be no needy among you” mean?
Says the Netziv, “The Torah itself is stating that this law [of debt remission] should not be the cause of poverty. If commercial lenders will not do business, as their capital will not be returned, the credit markets will disappear and small business owners, other needy borrowers, and some lenders will in fact fall into poverty. The Torah, then, is explicitly saying to keep the law of remission insofar as it prevents poverty, but not if it causes it.”
Hillel, far from circumventing the Torah, was following it precisely.
