Adding and Subtracting from Torah/2

Adding and Detracting from Torah

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Limited to Specific Mitzvot

The prohibition is limited in scope and is relevant only in the realm of religious worship.

Sources:R. Yosef KaraDevarim 13:1About R. Yosef Kara, ChizkuniDevarim 4:2Devarim 13:1About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach #2,

The exact prohibition – Though both sources agree that the prohibition forbids adopting Canaanite practices into one's worship of Hashem, they offer two variations of the specific actions which are 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.¹
• Sacrifices – R"Y Kara (and Chizkuni on Devarim 13),² instead, suggest that the prohibitions relate to the sacrificial service, and that they mandate 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 warning³ against imitating Canaanite idolatrous practices and precedes laws⁴ regarding those who incite to idolatry.⁵
• R"Y Kara looks to the broader context of Devarim 13:1, to Chapter 12 as a whole,⁶ which discusses centralization of worship and proper sacrifices.⁷

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.

Biblical cases – Given the limited parameters of the law,  none of the Biblical characters who enacted their own decrees,⁸ temporarily suspended⁹ or adjusted existing laws,¹⁰ were in violation of "לֹא תֹסֵף".

What about rabbinic laws? As the prohibition of adding / detracting is limited to the realm of cultic practice, it does not forbid adding to other existing laws or even instituting an entirely new one. Chizkuni, thus, emphasizes that Hashem never prohibited adding safeguards to ensure proper observance of His laws. Though Chizkuni does not say so, according to his reading, it would appear that even those without rabbinic authority should be allowed to do so.

Other potential cases of "לֹא תֹסֵף" – According to this approach, observing a mitzvah outside of its mandated time, performing it multiple times, or voluntarily taking on a mitzvah from which one is exempt would not be a violation of "לֹא תֹסֵף".

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.¹¹  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.

Relationship between Devarim 4 and 13 – This approach could say¹² that each verse prohibits additions to a distinct mitzvah: one warns against worshiping additional gods and the other against adding to the list of permitted sacrificial items.

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 Devarim13:1About Sifre Devarim, RashiDevarim 4:2Eiruvin 96bEiruvin 96aRosh HaShanah 33aAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorDevarim 4:2About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RaavadHilkhot Mamrim 2:9About R. Avraham b. David, ?MeiriBavli Rosh HaShanah 28bAbout R. Menachem HaMeiri?, perhaps Sefer HaChinukh454About Sefer HaChinukh,¹³ R"Y Albo3:14About R. Yosef Albo, R. Shemuel EidelsMaharsha Chidushei Halakhot Rosh HaShanah 33aAbout R. Shemuel Eidels (Maharsha), perhaps ShadalDevarim 4:2Devarim 13:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

Specifics of prohibition – 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 any positive directive.  He cites examples from the Sifre such as not adding or subtracting from the four species of the lulav,¹⁴ four strands of tzitzit, or three priestly blessings.

Purpose of the law – Sefer HaChinukh asserts that one cannot change the form of Hashem's laws since they are complete and perfect as commanded.  Shadal elaborates that just because someone thinks an action will be pleasing to Hashem does not make it so, and thus one cannot decide on one's own to add to Hashem's command.  Moreover, innocent additions often unintentionally lead to problematic ones.¹⁵

Relationship between "לֹא תֹסֵף" and "לֹא תִגְרַע"

• Elaboration – It is possible that these are not two distinct prohibitions but rather that the second phrase (לֹא תִגְרַע) comes to explain the first:
• R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that the words "לֹא תִגְרַע" teach that it is prohibited to add to a law only if doing so will detract from its intended observance.¹⁶
• Sefer HaChinukh,, in contrast, implies that the verse is saying that due to the perfection of Hashem's laws' all additions to a mitzvah are by definition a detraction.¹⁷ [See below for the legal ramifications of these different readings.]
• Distinct prohibitions – This position could alternatively explain that each prohibition is distinct and simply the inverse of the other.  Just as one cannot add details, one cannot omit or lessen them.

What about rabbinic laws? As "לֹא תֹסֵף" does not relate to enacting new laws and prohibitions, only to changing existing ones, rabbinic decrees are not problematic. Adding prohibitions to safeguard the Torah is permitted¹⁸ and even instituting new laws such as washing hands or making the holiday of Purim would not constitute a violation.

Potential cases of "bal tosif"

• Performing a mitzvah multiple times – As repeatedly performing a mitzvah does not alter Hashem's original command, this would not be considered problematic.¹⁹
• Extending the time frame of a mitzvah – According to R"Y Bekhor, since observing a mitzvah not in its proper time has no effect on and does not nullify the original observance, this would not be problematic.²⁰  According to Sefer HaChinukh, in contrast, any change to the mitzvah lessens it and so this, too, would be problematic.²¹
• Voluntary performance of a mitzvah – Since observing a command from which one is exempt does not change the nature of the law, this would not be a violation.²²

Biblical Cases – ‏This position must explain several cases in Tanakh in which Biblical figures appear to add to or detract from existing positive commandments:²³

• Ezra's 1/3 shekel – This position might explain, as does Ralbag, that due to changes in currency, in Ezra's time a third of a shekel was equivalent in value to a Biblical half shekel and thus there was no change at all in the law.
• Shelomo's 14 day holiday – Rashi notes that from Divrei HaYamim it is clear that Shelomo did not celebrate Sukkot for two weeks, but celebrated the dedication of the Mikdash for seven days and the festival for seven says.
• Extra lamps and tables in Mikdash – These sources might suggest that Torah speaks only of the vessels of the Tabernacle and nowhere mandates that the vessels of the Mikdash need be the same number or size.

Context – R"Y Albo suggests that, in context (Devarim 12-13), the prohibition constitutes a warning against adding Canaanite practices to one's worship of Hashem.²⁴ This, though, is simply a prototype laying out the nature of the law, which is understood to also apply to any similar case of adding to an existing practice.²⁵

Relationship between Devarim 4 and 13 – This position does not distinguish between the two and assumes that the difference between the singular and plural formulation is insignificant.

Fluidity of Torah

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.

Sources:Kuzari3:39-41About R. Yehuda HaLevi, Hoil MosheVayikra 16:8Vayikra 19:19Vayikra 24:19Bemidbar 15:23Bemidbar 30:2About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

Textual evidence that leaders may "add" and "detract"

• The Kuzari points to verses such as Devarim 17:9-11 or Devarim 18:18-19 which dictate that one must act according to what is directed by the priest, prophet or judge, implying that they have the authority to make their own enactments.  
• Hoil Moshe also points to Bemidbar 15:23 "אֵת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י״י אֲלֵיכֶם בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה מִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י״י וָהָלְאָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם" as proof that even after Moshe, laws can change, based on what Hashem commands his prophets.

Why are leaders exempt?

• Unlikely to err – R. Yehuda HaLevi  explains that since these leaders are close to the Shekhinah, are blessed in natural and acquired wisdom, often have some prophetic ability, and are checked by their peers, they are very unlikely to err. One cannot say the same about the masses.
• Oral tradition – Hoil Moshe suggests that already when given, many laws might have been accompanied by conditions and secret instructions which allowed for adaptation.²⁶  These were relayed to the leaders of the time so that laws could be changed later when the era necessitated or allowed for it.²⁷ In other words, many later changes might be rooted in an oral tradition going back all the way to Moshe.

Limits to leaders' authority – Hoil Moshe places one limit on the ability of prophets and sages to innovate laws - that such laws do not affect the principles of faith or fundamentals of Torah.  However, he does not explain what is included in such "principles" or who has the right to determine what these are, leaving room for one to nullify or change almost any law.

Biblical cases – The Kuzari points to adjustments and new laws made by David, Shelomo and Ezra as evidence that such changes are permitted.

Rabbinic law – This approach clearly allows for rabbinic decrees, and does not limit these to those which are meant to safeguard existing commandments.

Rationale for allowing change – Hoil Moshe

Fluidity of Torah – Hoil Moshe views Torah law as

Purpose of the law

"אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם": extension of Rabbinic authority – Kuzari explains that the words "אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה" include not only commands that were relayed to the nation via Moshe, but those relayed by any valid prophet, priest, or judge from the Temple. The verse is saying that the masses can't add or detract from laws relayed by any of their leaders, not that the leaders themselves cannot enact laws and safeguards.

Polemics – The Kuzari refers to the Karaites explicitly and most of his comments appear to be directed at them.  He, thus, goes out of his way to both validate Rabbinic authority (which they reject) and to invalidate individual innovations or interpretations (like those of the Karaites)²⁸ which affect the law.²⁹

Dangers of this approach

Includes Also Adding Mitzvot

The prohibition includes both adding to the details of a mitzvah and creating an entirely new one.

Sources:RambamMishneh Torah Minyan HaMitzvot ConclusionHilkhot Yesodei HaTorah 9:1-2Hilkhot Tefillah uBirkat Kohanim 14:12Hilkhot Mamrim 2:9About R. Moshe b. Maimon, RambanDevarim 4:2About R. Moshe b. Nachman, RalbagDevarim 4:2Melakhim I 8:65Devarim Toalot 4:2About R. Levi b. Gershom, Vilna GaonDevarim 13:1About R. Eliyahu of Vilna,  HaKetav VeHaKabbalahDevarim 4:2Devarim 13:1About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, R. HIrsch (like Rambam), MalbimDevarim 4:2Esther 9:31About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, R. David Zvi HoffmannDevarim 4:2Devarim 13:1About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

¹ 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.

² Cf. the commentary Keter Torah by the Karaite, Aharon b. Eliyahu, who explains that the prohibition of Devarim 13:1 relates to adding or detracting from any aspect of the sacrificial service (and not simply what one may offer as a sacrifice). He points to the nation's not lighting the lamps or offering incense in the time of Achaz (as described in Divrei HaYamim II 29:7) as an example of transgressing "do not detract".

³ See Devarim 12:31.

⁴ See Devarim 13:2ff.

⁵ Chizkuni only mentions the context of Devarim 12, likely viewing 13:1 as forming a conclusion to that chapter, rather than an introduction to the next.

⁶ He, too, views the verse as the conclusion to that chapter rather than an opening to Chapter 13.

⁷ The last verse of the chapter warns specifically against adopting cultic practices of surrounding nations such as child immolation.  This leads directly into the prohibition of not adding humans to the list of allowed sacrifices.

⁸ An example would be Esther's creating of a new holiday.

⁹ Thus, Eliyahu making an altar on Mt. Carmel in the period in which individual altars are forbidden would not be seen as an example of "do not detract"

¹⁰ See, for example, Ezra who appears to change the directive to give a half shekel donation, reducing the amount to 1/3.  [According to Ibn Ezra, in contrast, he actually increases the amount, mandating that the nation bring 1/3 a shekel in addition to the normal 1/2.].

¹¹ See the Karaite, Aharon b. Eliyahu (Keter Torah) on Devarim 4:2, who writes: "על כן בעלי הקבלה כשמוסיפין וגורעין עוברים במה שגזרה תורה ומוסיפין חטא על חטא."

¹² Though Chizkuni mentions both variations of the prohibition, he does not limit the derivation of each from just one verse.

¹³ Sefer HaChinukh also brings Rambam's understanding of the mitzvah that it is prohibited to present a Rabbinic decree as if it  is mandated from the Torah, or to present a Torah law as if it is only rabbinic in nature.  It seems, however, that his preferred understanding is that it relates only to adding to the details of already existing mitzvot.

¹⁴ There is a dispute regarding whether this includes only adding a totally different species, or also adding more of each  (using 2 palm fronds rather than one).

¹⁵ As an example he notes that if one person thinks there is no problem in offering a deer to God, someone else might suggest that a human, too, is fine. Many of the abominations of idolaters stemmed from customs which were themselves upright, but were eventually twisted into something else.

¹⁶ For example, adding a fifth species to a lulav effectively nullifies the entire mitzvah, for it is never observed in its proper manner, and is thus prohibited. Celebrating a seven day holiday for eight days, on the other hand, would not be included in the prohibition, as the extra time does not detract from the original observance of the holiday.

¹⁷ Despite this reading of the verse, he nonetheless does count "לֹא תִגְרַע" and "לֹא תֹסֵף" as distinct commands.

¹⁸ In fact, if the purpose of the original prohibition is to maintain the perfection of Hashem's laws, adding such safeguards should even be encouraged.

¹⁹ Thus, if one were to blow shofar numerous times on Rosh HaShanah it would not be considered "adding" to the mitzvah.

²⁰ If one sits in a Sukkah after the holiday, it does not affect the observance of the original seven days which were done properly, so there is no "detraction".

²¹ This is on condition that the individual was doing the action intending it to be a mitzvah. According to Sefer HaChinukh, a person who intends to celebrate an eighth day of a seven day festival is changing the nature of the mitzvah, as the holiday was meant to be observed for only seven days.

²² See, though, Rashi on Bavli Rosh Hashana who explains that R. Yehuda's prohibiting of women from blowing shofar is due to the fact that they are not obligated to do so and, therefore, if they nonetheless perform the mitzvah, it is a violation of "do not add".  If Rashi holds that Cf. Rabbenu Tam in  who asserts that the law is not like R. Yehuda in this case, and see Ri in Tosafot Eiruvin Eiruvin 96aAbout Ba'alei HaTosafotwho says that those who do not permit women to blow shofar, lay tefillin and the like do not prohibit it due to the law of "do not add" but each for an individual reason. See also R. Shemuel EidelsMaharsha Chidushei Halakhot Rosh HaShanah 33aAbout R. Shemuel Eidels (Maharsha) who also questions Rashi and concludes that voluntary fulfillment of a mitzvah by women does not constitute a violation of "do not add", noting that this is not an expansion of an existing law and thus the prohibition does not apply.

²³ Cases where an entire mitzvah is added (Esther's institution of Purim) or temporarily suspended (Eliyahu's sacrificing on a private altar) are not problematic as such actions are not included in the prohibition of "do not add" according to this approach.

²⁴ See the opinion of R"Y Kara above.

²⁵ See Shadal similarly.

²⁶ See his comments to Vayikra 16:8, "ומי יודע מה דבר הורה משה רבנו בעל פה לנשיאי העדה וזקניה להודיע לבאים אחריהם בהתחלף מצב האומה ואמונותיה" or Bemidbar 30:2, "אבל דבר בלתי מסופק הוא שלנשיאים הורה משה בדבר ה׳ בתורת סוד שבימים הבאים שֶׁיֵּרַךְ עורף העם יָקֵלּוּ מקושי המשפטים מבלי נטות מתורת ה׳ חלילה"

²⁷ For example, he suggests that the generation which left Egypt were in need of a harsh penal code and were thus penalized to literally pay an "eye for an eye". Recognizing that later generations were not in need of such severe punishments,  the sages implemented a lighter penalty, monetary compensation, implementing a metaphoric understating of the verse.

²⁸ As Karaites place individual interpretation of Torah at the fore, believing that each person must determine for themselves the correct meaning of the commandments rather than relying on the interpretation of some centralized authority, they are a prime example of the "masses" referred to by the Kuzari.

²⁹ He points to the debate between the Karaites and Rabbinate regarding the meaning of the words "ממחרת השבת" and the dating of the Omer offering as an example of where the masses have no authority to determine the law, whereas the priests,  judges and sages do.