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 relevant only within the realm of religious worship and refers solely to adding or detracting from 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 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 (and Chizkuni on Devarim 13),³ instead, suggest that the prohibition relates to the sacrificial service, and that it 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 and precedes laws of those who incites to idolatry.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.

Biblical cases – Given the limited parameters of the law,  none of the Biblical characters who enacted their own decrees,⁷ temporarily suspended⁸ or adjusted existing laws, were in violation of "לֹא תֹסֵף".

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, thus, emphasizes that Hashem never prohibited adding safeguards to ensure proper observance of His laws. Though he does not say so, according to his reading, it would appear that even those without rabbinic authority should be allowed to do so.

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.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?, perhaps Sefer HaChinukh454About Sefer HaChinukh,¹⁰ R"Y Albo3:14About R. Yosef Albo, 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,¹¹ four strands of tzitzit, or three priestly blessings.

Relationship between "לֹא תֹסֵף" and "לֹא תִגְרַע"

• Elaboration – It is possible that these are not two distinct prohibitions but rather one phrase comes to explain  the other:
• R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that the words "וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ" teach that it is prohibited to add to a law only if doing so will detract from its original observance.¹²
• Sefer HaChinukh,, in contrast, implies that the verse is saying that due to the perfection of Hashem laws' all additions to a mitzvah are by definition a detraction.¹³
• 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.

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 adds 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, it is a slippery slope as innocent additions often unintentionally lead to problematic ones.¹⁴

What about rabbinic laws? As "לֹא תֹסֵף" does not relate to enacting new laws, only changing existing ones, rabbinic decrees are not problematic. Adding prohibitions to safeguard the Torah is permitted and even instituting new laws such as washing hands or celebrating Purim would not violate the prohibition.

Potential cases of "bal tosif"

• Performing a mitzvah multiple times – As repeatedly performing a mitzvah does alter the command, this is not problematic.¹⁵
• 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 alter or nullify the original observance, this would not be problematic.¹⁶  According to Sefer HaChinukh, in contrast, any change to the mitzvah lessens it and so this, too, would be problematic.¹⁷
• 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 problematic.

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.¹⁸ 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.¹⁹

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 – R"Y Albo notes that Hashem's laws may change, as evidenced within Torah itself.²⁰ This does not detract from Hashem or Torah's perfection, but rather stems form human imperfection. Since humans change and have different needs at different times, Hashem needed to introduce new precepts to address those.  That said, from the time that the Torah was given through Moshe it has and will remain static, unless there is another Divine revelation as great as that at Mt. Sinai. This stance,

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 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. 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".

⁴ Chizkuni only mentions the context of Devarim 12, likely viewing 13:1 as forming a conclusion to to that chapter.

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 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.

¹¹ There is a dispute regarding

¹² 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 from the original holiday.

¹³ Despite this reading of the verse, he nonetheless does count "" and "" as distinct commands.  See below for the legal ramifications of the difference in understanding of R"Y Bekhor Shor and Sefer HaChinukh.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ Thus, if one were to blow shofar numerous times on Rosh HaShanah it would not be considered "adding" to the mitzvah.

¹⁶ 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".

¹⁷ 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.

¹⁸ See the opinion of R"Y Kara above.

¹⁹ See Shadal similarly.

²⁰ He points to the changing laws regarding the permissibility of eating meat and differences between Noachide laws and those given to Israel.