11

The mitzvos of Purim and Chanuka definitely fit the bill for the violation of lo sosifu according to the Ramban (vaeschanan 4:2). More specifically, the Yerushalmi quotes a different pasuk- These are the mitzvos that Hashem commanded Moshe. Lo sosifu refers to adding in general, but the former pasuk forbids adding even through prophecy. Both the Bavli (...


10

In order for the Torah Shebal Peh to be "added" to the Torah it would be necessary to conclude from independent evidence that it wasn't part of the Torah to begin with. To argue that Torah Shebal Peh is not divine because it was "added" is to either argue in a circle or merely beg the question. The verse does not proscribe adding to the "written" Torah but ...


5

That statement about quoting something not from one's teacher is taken by Rambam (Hil. Talmud Torah 5:9) to mean that by failing to quote the author, one implies that his teacher made this statement (since it can be generally assumed that whatever a student says comes from his teacher). In other words, the problem isn't saying "Rabbi X said Y" when he never ...


4

First, a correction to the question. The Ramban does not say that Megillah is not a problem because it was instituted by nevi'im, rather he says that it is not a problem because a source was found within the Torah. See Ramban's hasagot to Sefer Hamitzvot, Shoresh 2: וכבר אמרו(מגלה יד.) ״ארבעים ושמונה נביאים ושבע נביאות עמדו להם לישראל לא פיחתו ולא הותירו ...


4

Rambam answers in his introduction to Mishneh Torah that Bal Tosif isnt violated since megilah doesnt purport to be Biblical, but rather is clearly rabbinic. "He is not saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us to make an eruv or read the Megillah at its [appointed] time. Were he to say so, he would be adding to the Torah. Instead, we are ...


4

It does apply: you cannot add or subtract from the Oral Torah. (Rambam Koteret to Hilkhot Mamrim, Sefer HaChinukh 454)


3

OUTLINES OF HALACHOS FROM THE DAF This is actually answered by whether or not one is required to bind the arbah minim together or can hold them together without binding them Question: Also regarding Lulav, if one adds other species to the four, he invalidates the Mitzvah! Answer: If Ein Tzarich Eged (the species need not be tied), holding additional ...


2

See Shabbat 23a where Rav Avia and Rav Nehemiah each pose their own answer, both using proof-texts from the book of Deuteronomy.


2

Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot explains that the Ramban is only bothered by Purim because it was an institution of the Nevi'im - prophets. What does Rashi mean? A simple understanding of his words would seem to indicate that he doesn't believe that Chanuka presents a problem, since its source is not a takanat nevi'im. Only a mitzva which is introduced as falling ...


1

Read the first 4 paragraphs toRambam's Mishneh Torah. It cites an important verse as the proof that the Torah shebichtav (written) and B'al Peh (Oral) were both given on Mt. Sinai and were both taught by Moses. The remaining paragraphs go through various generations until he explains how the Oral law became written in the form of the Mishnah. Rather than my ...


1

I am basing this answer on the assumption that you are interested in Bal Tosef in general and not just the specific case of Lulav you gave as an example. Lulav is slightly more complicated. There is a girsa discrepancy in the Rambam chapter seven of Lulav halacha seven if the lulav becomes passul or not by adding to it in a way that is Bal Tosef. See Raavad ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible