If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
Not to add to the commandments of the Torah
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מהוסיף בתורה לא בכתוב ולא במקובל, והוא אמרו לא תוסיף עליו, ובבאור אמרו במקומות רבים ועובר משום בל תוסיף, עברת על בל תוסיף. (ראה, הלכות ממרים פ"ב):
He prohibited us from adding to the Torah, both to what is written and to what is received. And that is His saying, "do not add to it" (Deuteronomy 13:1). And in the explanation, they said in many places, "and he transgresses on account of, do not add"; "you have transgressed, do not add." (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Rebels 2.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a prohibition
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- Recorded as practiced today
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
- Lashes (malkot)
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
No ritual remedy is recorded.
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative Binding, with modification
- Reform Kept as an ethical principle
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Binding
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Specialibus Legibus 4.143 rationalized it Philo treats the divine laws as fixed and unalterable, presenting the non-addition/non-subtraction principle as a rational feature of a perfect legislation rather than an arbitrary cultic boundary.
Josephus
- Contra Apionem 1.42 The catalog describes this reception as: reused as formula Josephus invokes the inviolability of the scriptures — that no one has ventured to add, remove, or alter anything — deploying the Deuteronomic non-alteration principle to describe canonical integrity.
The New Testament
- Revelation 22:18-19 The catalog describes this reception as: reused as formula Literary echo of the Deuteronomic add/subtract formula, redeployed as a canonical-preservation curse on the book of Revelation itself rather than a direct affirmation of the Torah commandment.
- Matthew 5:17-19 reinterpreted it Jesus' claim not to abolish but fulfill the Torah engages the integrity-of-law concern thematically; the connection to bal tosif specifically is indirect.
The Qur'an and hadith
- Q 2:79 inverted it polemically
- Q 5:13-15 inverted it polemically
Beside the older legal codes of its world
The commandment set beside the ancient Near-Eastern legal collections scholars compare it to — a descriptive comparison, not a claim of dependence.
- code of hammurabi canonical-preservation clause protecting the integrity of an inscribed legal corpus Relationship to the parallel: parallel with divergence Epilogue (reverse columns xlvii-xlix of the stele); the closing warning to future rulers not to remove, alter, or efface the inscribed laws (Roth, pp. 133-140) Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. (SBLWAW 6, 1997)
- neo assyrian vassal treaties treaty-integrity clause prohibiting alteration of the sworn stipulations Relationship to the parallel: shared formulary Esarhaddon Succession Treaty (VTE), inviolability and curse sections (esp. lines 397ff.) Parpola & Watanabe, SAA 2 no. 6 (1988)
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Malkot (corporal punishment of up to thirty-nine lashes) for performing a religious practice with one extra element is irreconcilable with the prohibition on inflicting physical harm as a penal sanction for non-violent, victimless conduct.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
ICCPR Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; imposing lashes for an act of religious over-scrupulousness (adding to a ritual practice, e.g., five tefillin passages instead of four) constitutes degrading punishment under post-1966 international standards.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Corporal punishment for a non-violent, victimless act of religious excess violates the proportionality principle that penalties must bear a rational relationship to the harm caused; no measurable harm flows from performing a ritual with an additional element.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Malkot jurisdiction lapsed with the dissolution of the ordained Sanhedrin; enforcement of the bal tosif lashes sanction has been inoperative since late antiquity.