Difference between revisions of "Adding and Subtracting from Torah/1"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
| (13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<page type="Introduction"> | <page type="Introduction"> | ||
| − | <h1>Adding and | + | <h1>Adding and Subtracting from Torah</h1> |
<div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | <div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | ||
<h2>The Scope of the Law</h2> | <h2>The Scope of the Law</h2> | ||
| − | At the beginning of Moshe's legal speech (Devarim 4:2), he warns the nation against adding or | + | At the beginning of Moshe's legal speech (<a href="Devarim4-1-3" data-aht="source">Devarim 4:2</a>), he warns the nation against adding or subtracting from Hashem's commands:<multilang style="overflow: auto;"> |
<q xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת מִצְוֺת י״י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם.</q> | <q xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת מִצְוֺת י״י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם.</q> | ||
<q xml:lang="en">You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Hashem your God which I command you.</q> | <q xml:lang="en">You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Hashem your God which I command you.</q> | ||
</multilang> | </multilang> | ||
| − | <p>The warning is repeated in very similar wording in Devarim 13:1:</p> | + | <p>The warning is repeated in very similar wording in <a href="Devarim13-1" data-aht="source">Devarim 13:1</a>:</p> |
<multilang style="overflow: auto;"> | <multilang style="overflow: auto;"> | ||
<q xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">אֵת כׇּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ.</q> | <q xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">אֵת כׇּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ.</q> | ||
<q xml:lang="en">Whatever thing I command you, that you shall observe to do: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.</q> | <q xml:lang="en">Whatever thing I command you, that you shall observe to do: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.</q> | ||
</multilang> | </multilang> | ||
| − | <p>The verses do not elucidate further, leaving the reader to wonder what exactly is included in the prohibition. How broad is its scope?  Does Moshe refer to changing the form of existing laws or to enacting new ones?  If one performs a commandment more times than required, or at a time not mandated, would that be a violation? Is voluntary performance of a mitzvah from which one is not obligated included in the prohibition? Finally, does the directive include only the total nullification of a law or also individual non-compliance?</p> | + | <p>The verses do not elucidate further, leaving the reader to wonder what exactly is included in the prohibition. How broad is its scope?  Does Moshe refer to changing the form of existing laws or to enacting new ones?  If one performs a commandment more times than required,<fn>For instance, is it prohibitted to blow the shofar multiple times throughout Rosh HaShannah?</fn> or at a time not mandated,<fn>For example, would it be a problem to sit in a sukkah after the holiday?</fn> would that be a violation? Is voluntary performance of a mitzvah from which one is not obligated included in the prohibition?<fn>For example, is it problematic for women to observe positive commandments which are time bound and from which they are exempt?</fn> Finally, does the directive include only the total nullification of a law or also individual non-compliance?<fn>In other words, when one transgresses a command does this always count as two transgressions, one for the specific law, and the other for "do not subtract"?  Or, is the verse only speaking of a case where one decides that a certain law is no longer relevant at all.</fn></p> |
<h2>Rabbinic Laws</h2> | <h2>Rabbinic Laws</h2> | ||
| − | One of the most troubling questions raised by the prohibition not to add or | + | <p>One of the most troubling questions raised by the prohibition not to add or subtract from Torah relates to Rabbinic law. R. Kahana in <multilink><a href="BavliYevamot21a" data-aht="source">Bavli Yevamot 21a</a><a href="BavliYevamot21a" data-aht="source">Yevamot 21a</a><a href="BavliYevamot90b" data-aht="source">Yevamot 90b</a><a href="Bavli Yevamot" data-aht="parshan">About Bavli Yevamot</a></multilink> learns from <a href="Vayikra18-30" data-aht="source">Vayikra 18:30</a>, "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי", that one is obligated to make safeguards to Torah law.<fn>The context of the discussion is the question of what is the source for the Rabbinic additions to the list of prohibited unions.</fn>  <multilink><a href="MishnaAvot1-1" data-aht="source">Mishna Avot</a><a href="MishnaAvot1-1" data-aht="source">Avot 1:1</a><a href="Mishna" data-aht="parshan">About the Mishna</a></multilink> similarly teaches the importance of "making fences around Torah". There are also Rabbinic enactments, like the institutions of Chanukkah, Purim, or the washing of hands, which are not even meant to protect Hashem's commands, but are simply totally new laws. Given the prohibition of our verses, though, why are such Rabbinic decrees and safeguards allowed?<fn>In fact, Karaites who reject the Oral Law, point to our verses as proof of their position!</fn> </p> |
<h2>Biblical Cases</h2> | <h2>Biblical Cases</h2> | ||
| − | Throughout Tanakh, Biblical figures from Shelomo to Esther appear to change, suspend, or enact new laws.  In building the Mikdash, Shelomo does not suffice with the vessels made for the Mishkan, but adds ten tables and lamps. He further celebrates "the holiday" (Sukkot) for fourteen days, rather than the week prescribed in Torah.  Ezra mandates a third of a shekel contribution rather than half a | + | Throughout Tanakh, Biblical figures from Shelomo to Esther appear to change, suspend, or enact new laws.  In building the Mikdash, Shelomo does not suffice with the vessels made for the Mishkan, but adds ten tables and lamps (<a href="MelakhimI7-49" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 7:49</a>). He further celebrates "the holiday" (Sukkot) for fourteen days ( <a href="MelakhimI8-65" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 8:65</a>), rather than the week prescribed in Torah.  Ezra mandates a third of a shekel contribution rather than the half shekel discussed in Torah (<a href="Nechemyah10-33" data-aht="source">Nechemyah 10:33</a>). Eliyahu builds a private altar in an era when these are forbidden (<a href="MelakhimI18-31-38" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 18:32</a>), and Esther creates an entirely new holiday (<a href="Esther9-20-32" data-aht="source">Esther 9</a>).  Are any of these actions a transgression of the prohibition of "לֹא תֹסֵף"? None of the leaders are rebuked for their deeds, suggesting that their actions were not problematic.  What, then, might these examples suggest about what is or is not included in the prohibition? |
| − | <h2> | + | <h2>Additional Questions</h2> |
| − | <p>Our verses raise several | + | <p>Our verses raise several other questions as well:</p> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li><b>Context</b> – The context of the prohibition in Devarim 4 is a discussion of the sin of Baal Peor (and idolatry in general), while the directive in Devarim 13 follows | + | <li><b>Context</b> – The context of the prohibition in Devarim 4 is a discussion of the sin of Baal Peor (and idolatry in general), while the directive in Devarim 13 follows laws regarding sacrificing in "the place which Hashem shall choose" and appears immediately after a warning against child immolation. What might the context teach about the nature of the prohibition?</li> |
| − | <li><b>Relationship between Devarim 4 and 13</b> – Why is the prohibition mentioned twice? Is there any significance to the slight changes in wording?  Why is Devarim 4:2 formulated in the plural while Devarim 13:1 is worded in the singular?</li> | + | <li><b>Relationship between Devarim 4 and 13</b> – Why is the prohibition mentioned twice? Is there any significance to the slight changes in wording?  Why is <a href="Devarim4-1-3" data-aht="source">Devarim 4:2</a> formulated in the plural while <a href="Devarim13-1" data-aht="source">Devarim 13:1</a> is worded in the singular?</li> |
<li><b>Relationship between "לֹא תֹסֵף" and "לֹא תִגְרַע"</b> – Are these two prohibition simply the inverse of one another, or is it possible that the second phrase comes to elaborate on the first, perhaps teaching something about the nature of the prohibited addition?</li> | <li><b>Relationship between "לֹא תֹסֵף" and "לֹא תִגְרַע"</b> – Are these two prohibition simply the inverse of one another, or is it possible that the second phrase comes to elaborate on the first, perhaps teaching something about the nature of the prohibited addition?</li> | ||
| + | <li><b>Eternal nature of Torah</b> – What does this prohibition suggest about the eternal nature of Torah? If one assumes that the prohibition is all encompassing, it would seem that it is meant to protect Torah's Divine status, and ensure that it remains exactly as given. However, would a more narrow definition of the prohibition suggest that certain aspects of Torah may indeed change?</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
</page> | </page> | ||
</aht-xml> | </aht-xml> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:13, 8 March 2021
Adding and Subtracting from Torah
Introduction
The Scope of the Law
At the beginning of Moshe's legal speech (Devarim 4:2), he warns the nation against adding or subtracting from Hashem's commands:
EN/HEע/E
לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת מִצְוֺת י״י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם.
You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Hashem your God which I command you.
The warning is repeated in very similar wording in Devarim 13:1:
EN/HEע/E
אֵת כׇּל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ.
Whatever thing I command you, that you shall observe to do: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
The verses do not elucidate further, leaving the reader to wonder what exactly is included in the prohibition. How broad is its scope? Does Moshe refer to changing the form of existing laws or to enacting new ones? If one performs a commandment more times than required,1 or at a time not mandated,2 would that be a violation? Is voluntary performance of a mitzvah from which one is not obligated included in the prohibition?3 Finally, does the directive include only the total nullification of a law or also individual non-compliance?4
Rabbinic Laws
One of the most troubling questions raised by the prohibition not to add or subtract from Torah relates to Rabbinic law. R. Kahana in Bavli Yevamot 21a learns from Vayikra 18:30, "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי", that one is obligated to make safeguards to Torah law.5 Mishna Avot similarly teaches the importance of "making fences around Torah". There are also Rabbinic enactments, like the institutions of Chanukkah, Purim, or the washing of hands, which are not even meant to protect Hashem's commands, but are simply totally new laws. Given the prohibition of our verses, though, why are such Rabbinic decrees and safeguards allowed?6
Biblical Cases
Throughout Tanakh, Biblical figures from Shelomo to Esther appear to change, suspend, or enact new laws. In building the Mikdash, Shelomo does not suffice with the vessels made for the Mishkan, but adds ten tables and lamps (Melakhim I 7:49). He further celebrates "the holiday" (Sukkot) for fourteen days ( Melakhim I 8:65), rather than the week prescribed in Torah. Ezra mandates a third of a shekel contribution rather than the half shekel discussed in Torah (Nechemyah 10:33). Eliyahu builds a private altar in an era when these are forbidden (Melakhim I 18:32), and Esther creates an entirely new holiday (Esther 9). Are any of these actions a transgression of the prohibition of "לֹא תֹסֵף"? None of the leaders are rebuked for their deeds, suggesting that their actions were not problematic. What, then, might these examples suggest about what is or is not included in the prohibition?
Additional Questions
Our verses raise several other questions as well:
- Context – The context of the prohibition in Devarim 4 is a discussion of the sin of Baal Peor (and idolatry in general), while the directive in Devarim 13 follows laws regarding sacrificing in "the place which Hashem shall choose" and appears immediately after a warning against child immolation. What might the context teach about the nature of the prohibition?
- Relationship between Devarim 4 and 13 – Why is the prohibition mentioned twice? Is there any significance to the slight changes in wording? Why is Devarim 4:2 formulated in the plural while Devarim 13:1 is worded in the singular?
- Relationship between "לֹא תֹסֵף" and "לֹא תִגְרַע" – Are these two prohibition simply the inverse of one another, or is it possible that the second phrase comes to elaborate on the first, perhaps teaching something about the nature of the prohibited addition?
- Eternal nature of Torah – What does this prohibition suggest about the eternal nature of Torah? If one assumes that the prohibition is all encompassing, it would seem that it is meant to protect Torah's Divine status, and ensure that it remains exactly as given. However, would a more narrow definition of the prohibition suggest that certain aspects of Torah may indeed change?
