EN ES
The Laws › Commandment #379
Commandment #379 · Negative #379

Do Not Add to the Commandments

לֹא תְּסַפּוּ לַדָּבָר
Deuteronomy 4:2 · Courts & Justice
לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת-מִצְוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם
“You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you”

The Sealed Word — What Addition Prohibits

Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it.” The prohibition on adding (lo tosiphu) and subtracting (lo tigre’u) occupies a single verse because the two represent the same type of violation: human modification of the divine word. Commandment #379 specifically prohibits the former. Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvot, Neg #313, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:9) explains: a prophet may not add new commandments to the Torah and claim divine authority for them. A court (Sanhedrin) may issue rabbinic enactments (takanot and gezerot), but these must be presented as human legislative authority, not as new divine commandments. The Torah’s 613 commandments are fixed; no one may add a 614th.

The prohibition applies at three levels: prophetic, judicial, and individual. At the prophetic level, any prophet who declares a new commandment as divinely revealed is a false prophet (#362). At the judicial level, courts may create protective fences around the Torah (the rabbinic principle of “making a fence around the Torah,” Avot 1:1) but may not present these enactments as Torah commandments. At the individual level, no person may innovate in religious practice in ways that claim to complete or supplement the divine commandments. Deuteronomy 4:3: “Your eyes have seen what the LORD did at Baal-peor” — the verse immediately following grounds the prohibition in the Baal-peor incident (#4:3), where Israel adopted Moabite religious practices.

Jeroboam’s Innovation — The Historical Violation

1 Kings 12:28–33: Jeroboam made two golden calves and said, “Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” He established shrines at Bethel and Dan, appointed non-Levitical priests, “and he offered sacrifices on the altar. He did this on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, the month he had devised in his own heart.” The phrase “the month he had devised in his own heart” (“b’dah me’libbo”) is the text’s indictment of the addition: Jeroboam created a new festival month that did not exist in the Torah’s calendar. He moved the Festival to the eighth month instead of the seventh, appointed priests not from the Levitical line, and established parallel shrines to compete with Jerusalem.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 101b–102a) discusses Jeroboam’s sin at length. The rabbis note that he was offered the opportunity to repent and told he would walk alongside David and God in the Garden of Eden — and refused because David would precede him. His innovations were not accidental or ignorant; they were deliberate political-religious constructions designed to keep the northern kingdom from returning to Jerusalem and potentially shifting loyalty back to the Davidic house. The religious addition was built on a political calculation. Commandment #379 is violated not only by sincere but mistaken religious innovation but also by innovation that is instrumentalized for political goals.

Balaam’s Constraint — The Principle Illustrated in Reverse

Numbers 22:35–38: the angel of the LORD told Balaam, “Go with the men, but speak only the word that I tell you.” When Balaam arrived at Balak’s location, Balak asked why he had delayed. Balaam replied: “I have come to you now, but have I any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.” Numbers 23:12: when Balak challenged Balaam’s failure to curse, Balaam replied: “Must I not take care to speak what the LORD puts in my mouth?”

Balaam was commissioned to add a curse to Israel — to speak words against the covenant people that had no divine authorization. He could not. The principle of commandment #379 is illustrated in reverse through his failure: a prophet cannot manufacture divine speech, even under extreme pressure, substantial payment, and royal command. What God gives, the prophet speaks; what God does not give, the prophet cannot supply. The same constraint that prevented Balaam from cursing Israel is what prevents any prophet from adding commandments: the word that God put in Moses’ mouth (Deut 4:2) is what Israel keeps; no one may add to it.

For reflection and group study
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 101b-102a) records that Jeroboam was offered the chance to repent — God would walk alongside him and David in Eden — and refused because David would walk ahead of him. His religious innovations were thus not sincere error but deliberate political construction. What does this reveal about the nature of commandment #379's violation? Is the prohibition about sincere religious creativity, or specifically about religious authority claims that serve political or self-interested ends?
Balaam could not curse Israel because God did not authorize a curse. He explicitly said: 'I have come to you now, but have I any power of my own to speak anything?' (Num 22:38). The constraint on the prophet is the same as the constraint on the Torah itself: neither can be added to or supplemented. What does the Balaam narrative reveal about the Torah's understanding of the relationship between divine speech and human authority? Can a prophet have 'power of their own' — or is prophetic authority entirely derivative?

Read the source passage in the Torah reader.

Read in the Torah Reader — Deuteronomy 4:2