Difference between revisions of "Adding and Subtracting from Torah/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Idolatry</b> – Chizkuni on Devarim 2 asserts that the prohibitions pertain to idolatry, warning both against worshiping additional gods and detracting from the worship of Hashem.<fn>Chizkuni does not elaborate upon what this would entail, writing only, "לא לגרוע מיראתו".  Today one might suggest that the verse warns against  both polytheism and atheism, but it is doubtful whether atheism existed in the time of Tanakh.</fn></li> | <li><b>Idolatry</b> – Chizkuni on Devarim 2 asserts that the prohibitions pertain to idolatry, warning both against worshiping additional gods and detracting from the worship of Hashem.<fn>Chizkuni does not elaborate upon what this would entail, writing only, "לא לגרוע מיראתו".  Today one might suggest that the verse warns against  both polytheism and atheism, but it is doubtful whether atheism existed in the time of Tanakh.</fn></li> | ||
| − | <li><b>Sacrifices</b> – R"Y Kara<fn>See also Chizkuni on Devarim 13.</fn> instead, suggest that the prohibition | + | <li><b>Sacrifices</b> – R"Y Kara,<fn>See also Chizkuni on Devarim 13.</fn> instead, suggest that the prohibition relates to the sacrificial service, and mandates that one bring sacrifices only from animals or birds, rather than from humans or from nothing at all.  One should not "add" and sacrifice also children, or "detract" and spare the animals.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Context</b> – The two readings are supported by the context of the prohibition:<br/> | <point><b>Context</b> – The two readings are supported by the context of the prohibition:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li>Chizkuni notes that the command appears twice in Torah, both times in the context of idolatry. Devarim 4 connects the prohibition with the sin of Baal Peor, while Devarim 13:1 follows a warning against imitating Canaanite idolatrous practices.<fn>Though the verse opens a new chapter, he assumes that it forms the conclusion of the previous | + | <li>Chizkuni notes that the command appears twice in Torah, both times in the context of idolatry. Devarim 4 connects the prohibition with the sin of Baal Peor, while Devarim 13:1 follows a warning against imitating Canaanite idolatrous practices.<fn>Though the verse opens a new chapter, he assumes that it forms the conclusion of the previous one.</fn></li> |
| − | <li>R"Y Kara looks to the broader context of Devarim 13:1, to Chapter 12 as a whole, which discusses centralization of worship and proper sacrifices. | + | <li>R"Y Kara looks to the broader context of Devarim 13:1, to Chapter 12 as a whole,<fn>He, too, views the verse as the conclusion to that chapter rather than an opening to Chapter 13.</fn> which discusses centralization of worship and proper sacrifices.<fn>The last verse of the chapter warns specifically against adopting cultic practices of surrounding nations such as child immolation, leading into the summary statement which forbids adding humans to the list of allowed sacrifices.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Purpose and necessity of law</b> – Considering that warnings against both idolatry in general and child sacrifice in particular exist elsewhere, one might question what is added by this prohibition.  These sources might agree that there is no new content being introduced and suggest that the verse simply provides yet another warning due to the severity of the crime.</point> | <point><b>Purpose and necessity of law</b> – Considering that warnings against both idolatry in general and child sacrifice in particular exist elsewhere, one might question what is added by this prohibition.  These sources might agree that there is no new content being introduced and suggest that the verse simply provides yet another warning due to the severity of the crime.</point> | ||
| − | <point><b>What about rabbinic laws?</b> As the prohibition of adding / detracting relates only to idolatry or cultic practice, it | + | <point><b>What about rabbinic laws?</b> As the prohibition of adding / detracting relates only to idolatry or cultic practice, it does not forbid adding to other existing laws or even instituting an entirely new one. Chizkuni emphasizes that Hashem never prohibited adding safeguards to ensure proper observance of His laws. Though he does not say so, his logic would suggest that even those without rabbinic authority should be allowed to do the same.</point> |
<point><b>Biblical cases</b></point> | <point><b>Biblical cases</b></point> | ||
<point><b>Polemics</b> – Chizkuni is explicitly polemical in his comments, opening by saying, "תשובה למיני ישראל שפקרו על התלמוד".  He might be referring to the Karaites who reject the Oral law and Rabbinic decrees, pointing to the prohibition of "do not add" as proof that these are invalid.<fn>See</fn>  In limiting the scope of the law, Chizkuni renders their arguments baseless.</point> | <point><b>Polemics</b> – Chizkuni is explicitly polemical in his comments, opening by saying, "תשובה למיני ישראל שפקרו על התלמוד".  He might be referring to the Karaites who reject the Oral law and Rabbinic decrees, pointing to the prohibition of "do not add" as proof that these are invalid.<fn>See</fn>  In limiting the scope of the law, Chizkuni renders their arguments baseless.</point> | ||
Version as of 23:07, 9 February 2021
Adding and Detracting from Torah
Exegetical Approaches
Limited to Specific Mitzvot
The prohibition relates only to aspects of religious worship such as the sacrificial service or the prohibition of idolatry.
The exact prohibition – These sources agree that the prohibition is relevant only within the realm of religious worship, but offer two variations of the specific action which is being forbidden:
- Idolatry – Chizkuni on Devarim 2 asserts that the prohibitions pertain to idolatry, warning both against worshiping additional gods and detracting from the worship of Hashem.2
- Sacrifices – R"Y Kara,3 instead, suggest that the prohibition relates to the sacrificial service, and mandates that one bring sacrifices only from animals or birds, rather than from humans or from nothing at all. One should not "add" and sacrifice also children, or "detract" and spare the animals.
Context – The two readings are supported by the context of the prohibition:
- Chizkuni notes that the command appears twice in Torah, both times in the context of idolatry. Devarim 4 connects the prohibition with the sin of Baal Peor, while Devarim 13:1 follows a warning against imitating Canaanite idolatrous practices.4
- R"Y Kara looks to the broader context of Devarim 13:1, to Chapter 12 as a whole,5 which discusses centralization of worship and proper sacrifices.6
Purpose and necessity of law – Considering that warnings against both idolatry in general and child sacrifice in particular exist elsewhere, one might question what is added by this prohibition. These sources might agree that there is no new content being introduced and suggest that the verse simply provides yet another warning due to the severity of the crime.
What about rabbinic laws? As the prohibition of adding / detracting relates only to idolatry or cultic practice, it does not forbid adding to other existing laws or even instituting an entirely new one. Chizkuni emphasizes that Hashem never prohibited adding safeguards to ensure proper observance of His laws. Though he does not say so, his logic would suggest that even those without rabbinic authority should be allowed to do the same.
Biblical cases
Polemics – Chizkuni is explicitly polemical in his comments, opening by saying, "תשובה למיני ישראל שפקרו על התלמוד". He might be referring to the Karaites who reject the Oral law and Rabbinic decrees, pointing to the prohibition of "do not add" as proof that these are invalid.7 In limiting the scope of the law, Chizkuni renders their arguments baseless.
Relationship between "לֹא תֹסֵף" and "לֹא תִגְרַע" – According to this approach, the two statements constitute two distinct prohibitions, each the flip side of the other.
Limited to Mitzvah Details
The prohibition refers only to adding to or subtracting from the form or details of an already existing mitzvah, not to instituting new commands.
Sources:Sifre Devarim, Rashi, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Raavad, Semag, ?Meiri?, Sefer HaChinukh, R. Bachya, R"Y Albo
Specifics of prohibition – The Raavad asserts that the prohibition of "לֹא תֹסֵף" refers only to adding to existing positive commands: one may not add or detract from the proscribed method of performing the mitzvah. Sifre gives the well known examples of not adding or subtracting from the four species of the lulav, four strands of tzitzit, or three priestly blessings.
What about rabbinic laws? As "לֹא תֹסֵף" does not relate to enacting new laws, rabbinic decrees are not problematic. Adding prohibitions to safeguard the Torah and even instituting new laws such as washing hands or reading the megillah do not fall under the.
Biblical Cases
Context
Relationship between Devarim 4 and 13 – This position does not distinguish between the two and assumes that the difference between the isngular and plural formulation is insignificant.
Fluidity of Torah
Purpose
Applicable Only to the Masses
The directive is aimed only at the masses. Leaders such as prophets or judges are given the right to add to the Torah's commandments.
Includes Also Adding Mitzvot
The prohibition includes both adding to the details of a mitzvah and creating an entirely new one.
Sources:Rambam, Ramban, Ralbag, Vilna Gaon, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, R. HIrsch (like Rambam), Malbim, R. David Zvi Hoffmann
