(ב) לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ לִשְׁמֹ֗ר אֶת־מִצְוֺת֙ ה' אֱלֹֽקֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶֽם׃
(2) You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I enjoin upon you.
Introduction
In this week’s Torah portion we learn about the commands to “not add to” (lo tosif) and “not take away from” (lo tigra) any detail of God’s commandments (Deuteronomy 4:2). The context of the Torah portion seems to refer to the specific commands God enjoins upon Israel at the moment of Revelation (see Deuteronomy 4:40 and 5:3). So if the commands we read in the Torah are, in layman’s terms, not to be messed with, what gave the rabbis the right to mess with them? For that matter, what gives us the right to mess with them? Should we accept the Torah’s teachings as they are, or is there room for us to play with them to make them relevant for us today? And finally, if we determine we can play with these commandments, how do we determine the rules of the game?
Torah Teaser question for this week.
New Torah Teaser questions asked each week.
Contact the office if you'd like to be added to the list.
(א) אֵ֣ת כָּל־הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֹת֥וֹ תִשְׁמְר֖וּ לַעֲשׂ֑וֹת לֹא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּוּ׃
(1) Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it.
(יא) עַל־פִּ֨י הַתּוֹרָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יוֹר֗וּךָ וְעַל־הַמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט אֲשֶׁר־יֹאמְר֥וּ לְךָ֖ תַּעֲשֶׂ֑ה לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידֽוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃
(11) You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left.
Rashba
(1235 - 1310 CE)
Shlomo ben Avraham ibn Adret (Rashba) was a Spanish rabbi, Talmudic commentator, posek and community leader in the 14th century. He lived his entire life in Barcelona. He is considered the most outstanding student of the Ramban, and continued his approach in Talmudic exposition, authoring chiddushim (Talmudic novellae) on many tractates which remain mainstays of Torah study to this day. His yeshiva drew exceptional students from throughout the Jewish world, including quite a number from Germany. He functioned as chief rabbi of Spain and wrote over one thousand responsa to individuals and communities throughout the Jewish world. He was involved in opposition to Rambam's philosophical writings and prohibited the study of philosophy under the age of 25. He also defended Judaism to Christian and Moslem polemicists.
למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין ותוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין כדי לערבב את השטן. הקשו בתוס' והא קא עבר משום בל תוסיף...
והם ז"ל תירצו דלא שייך בל תוסיף בעשיית המצוה שתי פעמים...והם ז"ל...מסתברא דלא...איכא משום בל תוסיף, אלא במה שהוא מוסיף מדעת עצמו כגון כהן שהוסיף ברכה משלו...
אבל במה שעמדו חכמים ותקנו לצורך אין כאן בל תוסיף דכבר אמרה תורה (דברים יז, יא) על פי התורה אשר יורוך...
אלמא כל לצורך בית דין גוזרין ומוסיפין והרשות בידן. והוא הדין בבל תגרע לצורך כגון יום טוב של ראש השנה שחל להיות בשבת, אע"ג דאמרה תורה תקעו עמדו וגזרו שלא לתקוע וכל זה לצורך. והכי נמי לצורך ראו לתקוע ולחזור ולתקוע, ומצוה לשמוע לדברי חכמים מלא תסור, כך נראה לי.
Why is the shofar sounded not during the recitation of the Amidah and sounded during the recitation of the Amidah? In order to confuse the satan. [Concerning the matter] the Tosafot raised the objection that [sounding the shofar twice] constitutes a violation of "not adding" (Bal tosif)...
And they, of blessed memory, explained that Bal Tosif does not apply to the fulfillment of a mitzvah twice...And they of blessed memory...never claimed that Bal tosif applies except when one adds on his own (mi-da'at atzmo), as, for example, a priest who adds his own benediction...
But concerning anything that the sages ordained for some cause (tikkenu le-tzorekh), the prohibition of Bal tosif does not apply, for the Torah already states "According to the instruction which they render, etc." (Deuteronomy 17:11)...
Therefore, they are empowered to enact an addition (gozerin u-mosifin) for some reason. And the same is true of Bal tigra ("not taking away") for a reason, as, for example, Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat, concerning which they decreed with reason not to sound the shofar, even though the Torah requires that it be sounded. Here too [i.e., the sounding of the shofar twice] they saw some cause to sound it once and then again, and it is a mitzvah to obey the words of the sages from the verse "You shall not deviate (Lo tasur)" (Deuteronomy 17:11). (Halakhic Process, 157-158)
Maimonides (Rambam)
(1137 - 1204 CE)
Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) was perhaps the greatest intellectual and spiritual figure of post-Talmudic Judaism. He wrote indispensable works of philosophy, Halacha, commentary, and responsa. Born in Spain, his family fled while he was still a youth. After an extended period in Morocco, he settled in Egypt, where he became Nagid (leader) of the Jewish community. His works were all foundational in their field. He was the first to produce a comprehensive commentary on the entire Mishnah. His great work of philosophy, Moreh Nevuchim, spawned an entire discipline and had incalculable influence upon enthusiastic promoters and vehement opponents alike. His code of law, Mishneh Torah, is the first and unsurpassed comprehensive code of Jewish law and practice. He also served as court physician to the Muslim leader Saladin. All of his works were written in Judeo-Arabic except for Mishneh Torah, which was written in Hebrew.
(ט) הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לְבֵית דִּין לִגְזֹר וְלֶאֱסֹר דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר וְיַעֲמֹד אִסּוּרוֹ לְדוֹרוֹת וְכֵן יֵשׁ לָהֶן לְהַתִּיר אִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה לְפִי שָׁעָה. מַהוּ זֶה שֶׁהִזְהִירָה תּוֹרָה (דברים יג א) "לֹא תּוֹסִיף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ". שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה וְלֹא לִגְרֹעַ מֵהֶן וְלִקְבֹּעַ הַדָּבָר לְעוֹלָם בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִן הַתּוֹרָה בֵּין בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב בֵּין בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. כֵּיצַד?
הֲרֵי כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (שמות כג יט) "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה הַכָּתוּב אָסַר לְבַשֵּׁל ולֶאֱכל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב. בֵּין בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה בֵּין בְּשַׂר חַיָּה. אֲבָל בְּשַׂר הָעוֹף מֻתָּר בְּחָלָב מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אִם יָבוֹא בֵּית דִּין וְיַתִּיר בְּשַׂר חַיָּה בְּחָלָב הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹרֵעַ. וְאִם יֶאֱסֹר בְּשַׂר הָעוֹף וְיֹאמַר שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלַל הַגְּדִי וְהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹסִיף. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר בְּשַׂר הָעוֹף מֻתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאָנוּ נֶאֱסֹר אוֹתוֹ וְנוֹדִיעַ לָעָם שֶׁהוּא גְּזֵרָה שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹא מִן הַדָּבָר חוֹבָה וְיֹאמְרוּ הָעוֹף מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ כָּךְ הַחַיָּה מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְפָּרְשָׁה. וְיָבוֹא אַחֵר לוֹמַר אַף בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מֻתֶּרֶת חוּץ מִן הָעֵז. וְיָבוֹא אַחֵר לוֹמַר אַף בְּשַׂר הָעֵז מֻתָּר בַּחֲלֵב פָּרָה אוֹ הַכִּבְשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ שֶׁהִיא מִינוֹ. וְיָבוֹא אַחֵר לוֹמַר אַף בַּחֲלֵב הָעֵז שֶׁאֵינָהּ אִמּוֹ מֻתָּר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אִמּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ נֶאֱסֹר כָּל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׂר עוֹף. אֵין זֶה מוֹסִיף אֶלָּא עוֹשֶׂה סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
Since the court may make an enactment that forbids that which is permissible (and its forbidden nature becomes permanent), and may, as well, permit temporarily (le-fi-sha'ah) matters that are forbidden according to the Torah, what is the meaning of the Torah's warning, "You shall not add to it, nor take away from it"(Deuteronomy 13:1)? [It means] that one may neither add to the words of the Torah nor diminish from them, and establish that matter in perpetuity as from the Torah, either concerning the written or the oral Torah. How?
It is written in the Torah: "You should not cook a kid in it's mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19). On the basis of tradition we have learned that this verse forbids the cooking and eating of meat and milk, both the meat of domesticated animals (behemah) and of beasts of chase (chayyah), but that the meat of poultry with milk is permissible from the Torah. If some court were to declare the meat of beasts of chase with milk permissible that would be taking away. And if it were to forbid the meat of fowl [with milk] by maintaining that it is included in the category of "kid," and is forbidden from the Torah, that would be adding. But if [the court] said, "The meat of fowl is permissible from the Torah, but we forbid it; and we shall inform the people that it is an enactment, in order that the matter not bear negative results, that people might say that fowl is permissible, since it is not stated explicitly, and someone else will claim that the meat of domesticated animals is also permissible, except for goats; and some else will claim that even the meat of goats is permissible in the milk of a cow or a ew, since naught is stated other than "its mother," who is of the same species; and yet another will claim that [even the meat of a goat] is permissible save in its own mother's milk, since only its mother is stated explicitly, therefore, we forbid all meat with milk , even the meat of fowl," this is not adding but putting up a fence around the Torah. And so anything similar. (Halakhic Process, 159-160)
We're worried about losing what's most important
Torah Temimah on Deuteronomy 4:2
It seems to me, the entire matter of Bal tosif ought to be understood [insofar as] the primary concern is that an addition should not bring in its wake a taking away. But were it not for this [concern], there is no sufficient reason for the prohibition of Bal tosif. For what does it matter to us, for example, if one were to use two etrogim, two palms [for the mitzvah of waving lulav and etrog on Sukkot]...But according to our explanation, the matter is clear. Namely, that when one would see concerning that which is written in the Torah [i.e. one etrog], that the number is not meant literally, he would be inclined to deduce permission also to take away, i.e. to fulfill his obligation with a defective etrog...[And the explanation of the Rashba] makes sense according to our interpretation, according to which the basic reason for the prohibition [of adding] is that it should not result in taking away, since that concern applies only to additions that an individual makes for himself, by his own decision and based on his own judgment. But it does not apply to the enactments of the sages -- general enactments for all Jews, the authenticity of which is uncontested (she-ein meharharin ba-zeh) -- who will not be inclined to base some other change, resulting in taking away and subtraction, upon it. (Halakhic Process, 166)
Barukh HaLevi Epstein
(1860 - 1942 CE)
Barukh HaLevi Epstein was a Lithuanian scholar who is best known for his Torah commentary, Torah Temimah. The son of R. Yechiel Michel Epstein, he was a prodigious learner and a student at the Volozhin Yeshiva, where he studied with his illustrious uncle, R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin. Though he received rabbinic ordination, he had no desire to work as a rabbi and instead became an accountant and a banker in Pinsk. When the dire financial situation of Pinsk during WWI made it impossible for him to concentrate on his Talmud studies, he wrote a memoir which reflects on many of the greatest Jewish figures of the 19th century. Part of the memoir was translated as "My Uncle, the Netziv."