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 relates only to aspects of religious worship such as the sacrificial service or the prohibition of idolatry.

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

The exact prohibition – These sources agree that the prohibition of "לֹא תֹסֵף" 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 is limited to the laws of 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, it would seem that even those without rabbinic authority should be allowed to do the same.

Biblical cases – Given the limited parameters of the law,  none the Biblical characters who enacted their own decrees,⁷ temporarily suspended⁸ or adjusted existing laws, were in 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.⁹  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 Devarim13:1About Sifre Devarim, RashiDevarim 4:2Eiruvin 96bRosh 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?, Sefer HaChinukh, R. BachyaDevarim 4:2About R. Bachya b. Asher, R"Y Albo3:14About R. Yosef 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,¹⁰ four strands of tzitzit, or three priestly blessings.

Relationship between "לֹא תֹסֵף" and "לֹא תִגְרַע"

• According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, these are not two distinct prohibitions but rather one is the elaboration of another: it is prohibited to add in a manner which will cause a detraction.¹¹
• This position could alternatively explain that each prohibition is simply the inverse of the another.  Just as one cannot add details, one cannot detract.

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 would not fall under the prohibition.

Performing a mitzvah multiple times
E
Performing a mtzvah one is not obligatedin – xtending the time frame of a mitzvah

Biblical Cases

Context – R"Y Albo suggests that in context (Devarim 12-13), the prohibition constituted a warning against adopting and adding Canaanite practices to one's worship of Hashem.¹² This, though, was 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.

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

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.

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

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 See also R"Y Albo who thinks that the initial focus of the mitzvah related only to the worship of Hashem and prohibition of adopting idolatrous forms of worship as one serves God, but that it was expanded to include other similar additions to the details of any individual commandment.

² 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.

³ See also Chizkuni on Devarim 13.  Cf. the commentary Keter Torah by the Karaite, Aharon b. Eliyahu, who explains that the prohibition of Devarim 13:1 relates  adding or detracting from all areas of the sacrificial service. As an example, 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).

⁴ Though the verse opens a new chapter, he assumes that it forms the conclusion of the previous one.

⁵ He, too, views the verse as the conclusion to that chapter rather than an opening to Chapter 13.

⁶ 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.

⁷ An example would be Esther's creating of a new holiday.

⁸

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".

⁹ See the Karaite, Aharon b. Eliyahu's Keter Torah on Devarim 4:2.

¹⁰ There is a dispute regarding

¹¹ Thus, he suggests that as adding a fifth species to to a lulav effectively nullifies the entire mitzvah, it is 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 form the original holiday.

¹² See the opinion of R"Y Kara above.