Q&A: Do Not Add to It and Do Not Subtract from It
Do Not Add to It and Do Not Subtract from It
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi,
I wanted to ask how you understand the prohibition in the Torah, “Do not add to it and do not subtract from it.” Didn’t the Sages add new things, such as the Amidah prayer or Hanukkah?
Personally, in trying to deal with this question, I set this verse against “do not deviate” regarding the enactments of the Sanhedrin. After all, if you detach both from their context (since “do not add to it,” etc., is said in the context of idolatry, and the enactments of the Sanhedrin are in the context of doubts), then seemingly you have a real contradiction. The answer that seems to me to work is the distinction between Torah-level law and rabbinic law, but that seems a bit weak to me.
I would be glad if you could expand a bit on the subject and explain how you understand “do not add to it and do not subtract from it,” and how this prohibition fits together with the enactments of the Sages.
Thanks in advance, and have a great morning.
Answer
Hello.
This question was already asked by the medieval authorities (Rishonim), and there is a dispute among them on this matter (see Tosafot and Rashba on Rosh Hashanah 16b, and Maimonides at the beginning of the Laws of Rebels).
In principle, some of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) understand that the prohibition of “do not add” does not apply to the Sages at all, since the Torah itself commands them, “Make a safeguard for My safeguard,” and also to interpret the Torah and to institute and decree new halakhic laws. Others argue that what the Sages do is not included within the parameters of the prohibition (for example, because the prohibition is only against adding details, not against adding laws. Or: the prohibition is against adding Torah-level laws, but not rabbinic laws that are explicitly declared and presented as such. This is Maimonides’ view at the beginning of the Laws of Rebels).
Beyond that, you need to distinguish between interpretation of Torah-level law and enactments and decrees, which are legislation that creates rabbinic laws. So for example, the Amidah prayer that you mentioned: according to Maimonides (who holds that prayer is Torah-level), this is only interpretation (which determines the form of prayer) or a rabbinic addition (while on the Torah level any prayer is acceptable). And according to Nachmanides, the entire institution of prayer is an innovation of the Sages, and within that framework they established saying 18 blessings.
The Hanukkah lamp is of course a rabbinic enactment, and as long as it is declared that this is not a Torah-level commandment, there is no violation of “do not add.”
I did not understand what contradiction you found between “do not deviate” and “do not add.” Beyond that, I also do not agree that the accepted interpretation of “do not deviate” is taking it out of context. Not at all (see my comments in response to the igod videos).
Discussion on Answer
Hello.
The authority of the Sages is not to add, but to legislate rabbinic laws, or to interpret the Torah (which is completely parallel to resolving doubts).
By the way, even regarding “do not add,” I don’t think the plain meaning is only about idolatry. It refers to all the commandments. See also the verse that concludes the chapter.
Honorable Rabbi,
What do you mean when you say: “the entire institution of prayer is an innovation of the Sages, and within that framework they established saying 18 blessings”?
How did people pray before this innovation?
In free form. Each person however he wanted. That is according to Maimonides, who holds that obligatory prayer is Torah-level and only the wording is rabbinic. But according to Nachmanides, the enactment of prayer established obligatory prayer. Before that, either they didn’t pray, or at least there was no obligatory prayer.
Private prayer?
Didn’t they say Kaddish?
But it is written, “And you shall serve the Lord your God,” and Daniel prayed even when there was a royal prohibition against praying.
And why did they say Abraham instituted Shacharit, Isaac Minchah, and Jacob Arvit—if they didn’t have a text? “In assemblies bless the Lord…”
Is this considered an enactment to pray? Or a commandment? Why don’t we recite a blessing before prayer, “who commanded us to pray and to serve Him”? Or perhaps one fulfills that through the blessing “Who hears prayer”?
Kaddish is an enactment of the Geonim. That was not said even in the time of the Talmud.
That the Patriarchs instituted the prayers is a matter of dispute. But in any case, they certainly did not institute the text of the Amidah, but rather the obligation (or the idea) to pray at Shacharit, Minchah, and Arvit, without a fixed text.
They did not institute a blessing over prayer probably because it itself contains several blessings. Why shouldn’t one then recite a blessing before reciting a blessing before reciting a blessing before the prayer? In any case, this is agreed by both Maimonides and Nachmanides, so it is not connected to our discussion.
I didn’t understand what you mean by fulfilling it through “Who hears prayer.”
But Rabbi, you said that the blessings were instituted, so why did they refrain from instituting one for the Torah commandment to pray—on the Torah level!
Rabbi, this is connected to the discussion because it deals with things that are added to commandments or subtracted from them! Just as putting on tefillin is a commandment and we recite a blessing, and putting on tzitzit and a tallit we recite “who commanded us…”
If the Patriarchs didn’t institute the three prayers—who did? What are the opinions about who did institute them? According to Na’im Zemirot, he was accustomed to pray seven prayers…
As for Abraham, it says explicitly: “For I have known him, so that he will command his children and his household after him, and they will keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice,” and that certainly includes service of God and prayers. Rabbi Shimon said: A father did not teach him, and he had no rabbi—so from where did he learn Torah?
Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, assigned him his two kidneys like two rabbis, and they flowed and taught him Torah and wisdom, as it says: “I will bless the Lord, who has counseled me; even at night my kidneys instruct me.”
No!!! To recite a blessing over the commandment of serving God with all our heart, and afterward Psalms of Praise and so on, Shema and the Amidah and so on—not “who commanded us” over the blessings within the prayer…
To recite a blessing over the very commandment of prayer, and not “who commanded us” over blessings from the prayer…
Fine, about Kaddish I’ll ask elsewhere.
You lost me.
1. What does it mean to institute a Torah commandment? If it is an enactment, then it is rabbinic.
2. In Berakhot 26b this appears as a dispute.
3. As for “For I have known him” about our forefather Abraham—that this certainly includes prayers—that is exactly the joke about Abraham our forefather and his hat. I have nothing to say about that kind of begging the question.
It seems to me that we’re not really making progress.
Yes, we’re going deep only on the surface.
Apparently on things like this one has to discuss in chavruta and orally, the way they learned Talmud in their time.
I also didn’t understand anything—on the contrary, I only got buried under the rubble.
3. Although I’m pretty new here, I understand your argument well, and there are differences, because there is also logic beyond mere assumptions. For example, you can’t assume that Abraham will succeed on a test because he has luck, and from there conclude that anyone who succeeds on a test has luck. Abraham our forefather is a special person; his kidneys were like rabbis teaching him Torah. The Holy One, blessed be He, concealed nothing from Abraham, because Abraham clung to Him (is it possible to cling to God without prayer?) Seriously—so why did you write that this is similar to the “joke” about Abraham our forefather and the hat (or kippah)? They say that the Holy One delayed their bringing forth “fruit,” children, because they made many souls. The gentiles said about him, “You are a prince of God among us”; they saw that he clung to God. God said, “And they shall say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people”—in other words, it refers to the esteem the gentiles give us, and to recognition that there is beneficence in the world. The Holy One even revealed to him, “Know for certain that your offspring will be strangers…”
Let’s return to point 1, and I’ll try to explain in more words. The problem is that Maimonides says that in matters where there is dispute, they are not from Moses at Sinai. So forgive me that I don’t know how to explain more than what I wrote, because the matter is clear to one who understands, even though I have labored over it, and as we say אצלנו, it requires further examination…
Thank you for the response. I understand from your words that indeed the correct distinction (according to the decisors who hold that this applies to the Sages) is between Torah-level and rabbinic law, as I said. So if I’m right, thank you very much for giving that a basis.
As for the contradiction: on the one hand, one must not add to what is written in the Torah, and on the other hand the Sages have authority to do exactly that (if you detach it from the context of doubts [although I personally do not think there is any need to detach it, but even so for those who do hold that way—and in the next paragraph I’ll explain]).
I also do not agree that this is taking it out of context, but even so, for someone who holds that the context limits “do not deviate” only to cases of doubt, etc. (which I don’t accept, because in the end instituting enactments is, in a certain sense, deciding a doubt): even if you were to accept that the context limits it that way, and it follows from that that only in cases of doubt do the Sages have authority to decide—if you want to keep it in its context, then you’ll also have to keep the verse of “do not add to it” in its context of idolatry.