Komentarz do Powtórzonego Prawa 4:2

לא תספו YE SHALL NOT ADD — For instance, to place five chapters in the Tephillin, to employ five species of fruit and plants in the fulfilment of the command of Lulab And to place five fringes on one’s garment. Thus, too, must we explain the following words ולא תגרעו, Ye shall not diminish [from it]" (Sifrei Devarim 82:4).

YE SHALL NOT ADD [UNTO THE WORD WHICH I COMMAND YOU] — “such as placing five sections [of the Torah] in the phylacteries, five species in a lulav,²²The four species in the commandment of the lulav are: the palm-branch, the ethrog, the myrtle and the willows. — For phylacteries See Vol. II, p. 168, Note 406. five fringes [in a garment].²³Further 22:12. The same principle applies to the prohibition, neither shall ye diminish from it” [by placing three sections of the Torah in the phylacteries etc.]. This is Rashi’s language. And thus the Rabbis said in the Sifre:²⁴Sifre, R’eih 82. “Whence do we know that you are not to add to [the four species in the commandment of] the lulav,²²The four species in the commandment of the lulav are: the palm-branch, the ethrog, the myrtle and the willows. — For phylacteries See Vol. II, p. 168, Note 406. nor to the [four] fringes?²³Further 22:12. Scripture therefore says, Ye shall not add. And whence do we know that you are not to diminish from them? Because Scripture states, neither shall ye diminish. Whence do we know that if [a priest] began to recite the Priestly Blessing²⁵Numbers 6:24-26. he is not to say: ‘Since I began to bless [the people], I will [further] say, The Eternal, the G-d of your fathers, make you a thousand times so many more as ye are?’²⁶Above, 1:11. Because Scripture states, [Ye shall not add] unto the ‘word’ — even ‘a word’ you are not to add to it.” However, not only concerning these [commandments] have the Rabbis said [that the prohibitions neither to add nor to diminish, apply], but also in the case of someone who sleeps in a Booth on the eighth Day [of the Festival of Tabernacles]²⁷Leviticus 23:42: Ye shall dwell in Booths ‘seven’ days. Thus the Torah specifically states that the commandment to dwell in Booths applies to seven days only, and not to the eighth Day, which is a separate festival (Shemini Atzereth). Sleeping is part of the commandment “to dwell” in a Booth. [However, because of the general rule that he who feels uncomfortable is exempt from sitting in a Booth, sleeping there, in the colder climates in which we live, is practiced only by those who are very strict in religious observance (Orach Chayim 639:2, R’ma).] with the intent [of performing a religious duty] that he is liable to whipping [for having added to the commandment], as is mentioned in Tractate Rosh Hashanah.²⁸Rosh Hashanah 28 b. So also if he were to observe the Festival of Tabernacles for only six days, he would be transgressing this negative commandment [neither shall ye diminish from it].
In my opinion, even if someone devised an independent commandment [rather than altering an existing one] such as establishing a festival in a month which he had devised of his own accord,²⁹I Kings 12:33. as Jeroboam did,²⁹I Kings 12:33. he transgresses the negative commandment [Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you]. And so did the Rabbis say with reference to the reading of the Scroll of Esther [on Purim]:³⁰Megillah 14 a. “One hundred and eighty prophets³¹In our text of the Talmud: “Forty-eight prophets.” See my Hebrew commentary, page 360. arose in Israel and they did not diminish from nor add even one letter to what was written in the Torah, except for reading the Scroll of Esther [which was instituted by the prophets]. What basis did they have for that? etc.”³²“Rabbi Chiya bar Abbin in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha said: It is a matter of kal vachomer (reasoning from minor to major): If [when Israel was delivered] from slavery to freedom they sang [in praise of G-d], how much more ought they to do so when they were saved from death [that was decreed upon Israel through the plot of Haman] to life!” (Megillah 14 b). The reading of the Scroll of Esther constitutes the praise to G-d for our deliverance (ibid.). And in the Yerushalmi it is stated:³³Yerushalmi Megillah I, 7. On the term “Yerushalmi” see Vol. III, p. 192, Note 44. “Eighty-five elders, among them many prophets, were troubled about the matter [of the new duty to read the Scroll of Esther]. They said, ‘It is written, These are the commandments which the Eternal commanded Moses.³⁴Leviticus 27:34. These are the commandments that [we] were ordered by the mouth of Moses, and Moses told us that no other prophet is destined to establish anything new for you — and Mordecai and Esther want to establish something new for us!’ They did not move from there while discussing the matter, until the Holy One, blessed be He, enlightened their eyes [and they found the new commandment intimated in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings].” Thus you see that [the institution of] this commandment [of reading the Scroll of Esther on Purim] would have been forbidden to them [were it not for the fact that ultimately they found it intimated in the Torah, etc.]; otherwise it would have been included in the principle, thou shalt not add thereto.³⁵Further, 13:1. — It should be noted that at this point Ramban cites the later verse (13:1) instead of the verse here. The reason would seem to be that the verse here relates to adding to, or diminishing from, a Divine commandment, such as placing five sections of the Torah, or only three, in the phylacteries instead of the four sections ordained. The verse of 13:1, however, refers to adding a completely new commandment to the number of Taryag (613) Commandments, or of abolishing altogether one of the Divine precepts. In speaking, therefore, of the prophetic precept of reading the Scroll of Esther on Purim, Ramban thus rightly cites the verse from further on (13:1), for were it not that the prophets and Sages of that time found it intimated in the Torah, the prohibition against instituting such a new commandment would have come under the admonition, thou shalt not add thereto. However, the prohibition against adding [to the Torah] by word of a prophet we derive only from the verse stating, These are the commandments,³⁴Leviticus 27:34. which establishes,³⁶Torath Kohanim, at end of Bechukothai. “From now on, no prophet is permitted to originate anything [in the Torah].” Whatever [laws] the Sages have established in the nature of “a fence [around the Torah],” such as the secondary degrees of forbidden marriages³⁷Yebamoth 21a-b. — that activity of [establishing fences] is itself a requirement of the Torah, provided only that one realizes that these [laws] are a result of a particular fence and that they are not [expressly] from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Torah.³⁸In other words, the duty devolving upon the Sages to establish “fences” [i.e., safeguards against trespassing the law of the Torah] is specifically stated in the Torah, but the precise terms of these “fences” are not written. — The duty of establishing such preventive Rabbinical laws is based on the verse, ushmartem eth mishmarti (and ye shall keep My charge — Leviticus 18:30), tradition interpreting this to mean: “Make a mishmereth (a protection, a fence as a safeguard) l’mishmarti (for My commandment)” (Yebamoth 21 b).

ולא תגרעו ממנו לשמור, a person should not make the mistake made by King Solomon that he can ignore a prohibition since he knows the reason for the prohibition and can create conditions when such a prohibition would not be justified. [the Torah had forbidden a king to marry too many women, warning that these could lead him astray. Solomon relied on his wisdom not to lead him astray and ignored the Torah’s law with disastrous consequences for his kingdom. Ed.]

לא תוסיפו, “do not seek to improve by adding, etc.;” an example would be adding a fifth paragraph to the four paragraphs of the Torah embedded inside the phylacteries. Nachmanides writes that the addition of a non-existent commandment to form say #614 instead of the traditional 613 commandments, is also included in the wording לא תוסיפו. However, Rabbinic decrees, based on legitimate inter-pretations of the Torah, and introduced as Rabbinic decrees are not included under the heading of the prohibition לא תוסיפו על הדבר אשר אני מצוה אתכם ולא תגרעו ממנו, “do not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it.” These Rabbinic decrees, as a rule, serve to protect the average Jew from running afoul of Biblical decrees, and thereby become guilty of various kinds of penalties.

לא תוסיפו על הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם, ולא תגרעו ממנו “do not add to the words which I command you, nor subtract from it.” This is a warning for man not to try and be smarter than G’d by saying that he will do more than G’d commanded, by thinking that the addition will be considered part of his serving the Lord. This is why Moses had to point out that the Torah is perfect. Not only does it not need additions or subtractions but any addition is in fact a subtraction (Sanhedrin 29). Our sages in Sifri Re'ay 82 quote examples of what the Torah means by additions or subtractions. If someone were to take five paragraphs from the Torah and place them inside the phylacteries of the head, doing so deliberately as an addition to what the sages said, or if he were to present G’d with five species of plants on the festival of Sukkot, instead of the four species mentioned in the Torah, or if a priest were to add a fourth verse to the three verses which form the priestly blessing, such a person would be guilty of violating this commandment.
On the other hand, if someone adds to the various Rabbinic “laws” instituted to protect Biblical laws against infringement and violation by the ignorant, such additions do not qualify as a violation of the commandment Moses speaks about here. Any Rabbinic ordinance introduced for the sole purpose of ensuring the observance of the Torah law as it is and protecting it against violation is not called “an addition.” It is in the nature of a fence around a vineyard, something that does not contribute to or enlarge the vineyard but merely protects it against thieves, marauders, etc. The classic Talmudic example for this is found in Shabbat 13 where the sages are quoted as encouraging a Nazirite to detour around a vineyard. It is not forbidden for a Nazirite to walk through a vineyard. However, if he does not walk through it it will be easier for him to resist the temptation of taking and eating from its grapes, something absolutely forbidden to him by Torah law. In fact, not only does observing the Rabbinic ordinances not constitute a violation of the commandment not to add to the Torah’s laws, but violating Rabbinic ordinances violates a specific Torah commandment of “do not depart from the word that they tell you right or left.” The “they” are the duly authorized Rabbis (Deut, 17,11).

V. 2. לא תספו וגו׳. Jedes uns von Gott erteilte Gebot soll von uns in seiner Integrität zur Ausführung gebracht werden; wir sollen dabei keinerlei Willkür, keinem subjektiven, beliebigen Hinzutun oder Ablassen Raum geben, z. B. nicht mehr oder weniger als die vorgeschriebenen vier Abschnitte der Tefillin, vier Pflanzenarten im Lulab, vier Doppelfäden der Zizith (Sanhedrin 88 b), nicht mehr oder weniger als die vorgeschriebenen drei Berachotsätze im Segen der Kohanim, als die vorgeschriebenen ein, zwei oder vier Bluthingebungen der Opfer (R. H. 28 b). Alle diese und ähnliche Gebote sind ein Gotteswort, eine Gottesrede an uns. Jedes willkürliche Zusetzen oder Abnehmen wäre ein Fälschen des Gotteswortes, ein Hineintragen menschlichen Dafürhaltens in die Wahrheit ewiger Gottesgedanken, ein Hinabziehen göttlicher Institutionen zu der Flachheit menschlicher Äußerlichkeiten.

'לא תוסיפו וגו, “do not add, etc.;” G–d implies that anyone adding to the words of the Torah,-however well meaning he may be,-will in fact detract from the value of the Torah. [If G–d is perfect, something that every believing Jew accepts as axiomatic, any addition to or deletion from His Torah would make it, ergo Him, imperfect. Ed.] For instance, when the Torah decreed 4 strings of tzitzit for the corners of a four-cornered garment, adding a fifth string would not only not make it holier, but would make it useless, and anyone reciting a benediction over such a tallit would desecrate the holy name of G–d by pronouncing such a benediction. The same reasoning applies to sitting in a sukkah for an extra day or adding another a fifth species to a lulav.

לא תוסיפו על הדברת ״, “do not add to the word, etc.” Moses reminds the people that when they had been told in Deut. 1,21 עלה רש “ascend and take ancestral possession,” they had added a condition of their own by requesting to dispatch spies. If they had not done so, they would have settled in the Holy Land 40 years earlier and would not have had to watch a whole generation die in the desert. Their fathers had become corpses in the desert.

לשמר את מצות ד׳ וגו׳, dieses gewissenhafte Innehalten des "nicht mehr und nicht minder" bei Erfüllung der göttlichen Gebote soll eben den Zweck haben, die göttlichen Gebote in ihrer Integrität unverkürzt und rein zur Verwirklichung zu bringen. In dieser Zweckbeifügung glauben wir aber sofort die Erinnerung zu finden, dass, was eben aus gewissenhafter Sorgfalt für möglichst genaue Erfüllung der göttlichen Gesetze und nicht aus dreister Reformierungssucht geschieht, nicht unter dieses Verbot לא תספו ׳וגו fällt, vielmehr eben aus der uns hier und so oft gebotenen שמירה der מצות resultiert. So, wenn der Zweifel, ספק, den יום טוב שני של גליות erzeugt hat, oder wir infolge einer Verschiedenheit der Überlieferungen die eine gebotene תרועה in zwei Weisen als שברים und תרועה darstellen etc. (siehe פ׳׳מ zu ט׳׳ז 2 ,34 א׳׳ח). Ebenso fällt eine wiederholte Erfüllung einer מצוה, wie z. B. תקיעות מיושב und תקיעות מעומד nicht unter dieses Verbot (׳ר׳׳ה תוספו b; — siehe auch 28 חידושי רשב׳׳א zu ר׳׳ה a 16).

ולא תגרעו ממנו, “nor must you diminish any of G-d’s words as spelled out in the Torah. After the debacle with the spies, when some of you had decided to after all fulfill G-d’s command of ascending to conquer, I had warned you that you would do so at your peril and that you would fail and suffer casualties (compare Numbers 14,42.) You decided to ignore my warning and as a result you paid dearly for that omission. (Compare Numbers 14,45) From now on I warn you to accept My commandments as given without emendations of any kind. A different interpretation of the verse commencing with: “do not add, etc.” The verse is a response to the heretics who deny the validity of the Talmud, by quoting this verse and by pointing out that the sages of the Talmud had ignored it, adding laws of their own by the hundreds. The answer of the sages is that the warning not to add or subtract from the laws of the Torah appears only twice, each time in connection with idolatry, i.e. not to violate the belief and service of the One and only Creator. Immediately following this warning, the Torah illustrates its meaning by reminding the people of what happened to those who had worshipped Peor in addition, (verse 3) Also in Deut. 13,1, the Torah illustrates what is meant by this law by reminding people not to sacrifice any of their children to the cult of the moloch. (Deut. 12,31) When it comes to any of the other commandments, however, the sages are not only entitled but encouraged to surround the Biblical laws with “fences,” in order to protect us not to violate the Biblical laws.

Nach הל׳ ממרים) רמב׳׳ם II, 9) brächte dieses Verbot den nationalen Gesetzesautoritäten zugleich die Warnung, dass sie diejenigen Anordnungen, תקנות und גזרות, die sie infolge ihrer Verpflichtung ושמרתם את משמרתי, die Gesetzeserfüllung zu schützen (siehe Wajikra 18, 30) zu treffen hatten, nicht als integrierende Bestandteile des göttlichen Gesetzes, nicht als דאוריתא, somit als הוספה, als "Zusatz zum göttlichen Gesetze" erscheinen lassen, sondern ihnen deutlich und klar ihren דרבנן-Charakter als סייגים, als Schutzgesetze erhalten sollen, eine Warnung, der auch die anordnenden Weisen mit gewissenhafter Sorgfalt nachgekommen sind und entschieden in ihren Überlieferungen und Erläuterungen die Scheidung zwischen דאוריתא und דרבנן aufrecht halten. Kap. 13, 1 steht dieses Verbot noch einmal, und zwar in folgender Fassung: את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אתו תשמרו לעשות לא תסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו. Es ist nicht unmöglich, dass jede dieser beiden Stellen sich insbesondere auf eine dieser beiden Vermehrungen und Verminderungen des Gesetzes beziehe. Unsere Stelle spricht das Verbot im Plural aus: לא תספו על הדבר וגו׳ ולא תגרעו ממנו, dürfte daher die nationale Gesamtheit verpflichten, den schriftlich und mündlich überlieferten göttlichen Gesetzen kein neues Gesetz als göttlich hinzuzufügen, noch einer als von Gott offenbart überlieferten Bestimmung diesen göttlichen Charakter abzuerkennen. Jene weitere Stelle (Kap. 13), die das Verbot im Singular ausspricht, לא תוסיף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו, dürfte hingegen jedem einzelnen die Verpflichtung bringen, ein jedes Gebot ohne Zusatz und ohne Verkürzung so, wie es die Gesetzüberlieferung vorschreibt, zu erfüllen. Hierfür spräche denn auch der Wortlaut: את כל הדבר וגו׳ אתו תשמרו לעשות לא תסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו. Dieses "אתו" dürfte erkennen lassen, dass das Objekt dieses Verbotes nicht sowohl der Komplex der ganzen Gesetzgebung, sondern jedes einzelne Gebot ist, das in der unangetasteten Integrität seiner Erfüllung geschützt bleiben soll.