General Commandments

There is the book The Tastes of the Mitzvot in Israeli Literature by Yitzhak Heinemann, which gives a nice overview.

What is a commandment?

Thank you.

Mitzvot are the dos and don'ts of God to us.

Sources, validity, classifications, general reasons, what is a halachic ruling... (similar, for example, to the introduction of the Rambam to the Hadith of the Possession or the letter of Rav Sharira Gaon)

There is an article of mine in the book Jubil Shamonim for Reberbinovich. It also appears here on the site.
Halacha rulings are a completely different matter.

Thank you. Maybe that's what you call reflexive literature there.
If there is also a more basic one and not just Maimonides.

Anyway, thanks for this article.

I don't know. My article contains many references to articles and books.

I was unable to understand the hierarchy between 1 – mitzvot called “halakha Moshe Masin” and 2 – mitzvot that are learned from the standards that the Torah requires.
I understood that group 2 can include mitzvot for which there is a strong tradition, and mitzvot for which there is no strong tradition, but they are all also learned in the sermon from the Scripture.
I did not understand what group 1 includes – mitzvot that are called “halakha Moshe Masin” – Do these also have references from the Scriptures or do they exist only by virtue of the strong tradition?
Is group 2 not in any way called “halakha Moshe Masin” even when there is a strong tradition?

There is no hierarchy. There are differences. For most systems, both are from Torah. For Rambam, both are from scribes.
There is a confusion here between mitzvot and halakhot. Mitzvot are the 33 that are written in the Torah or learned from it in a simple sermon. All the rest are halakhot (Doraith or rabbinic) but not mitzvot.
The halakhot is by definition a halakha that exists in connection with the tradition from Sinai. This is not a question of strong or weak. Halakhot that are required from Scripture are usually halakha that have no tradition, unless the sermon is authoritative. In any case, these are halakha and not mitzvot.
Literally, the halakha from Sinai to Moses is everything that was given to Moses at Sinai. But in the accepted terminology, we are talking about halakha that has no anchor in Scripture but only oral tradition. Again, these are not mitzvot but halakha.

Oh, sorry, how basic it is and it's not clear to me. From what you said, I understood that the halakha is: Everything that is determined by the Torah on how to fulfill a mitzvah from the 13th century + everything that is determined by the rabbis on how to fulfill a mitzvah from the 13th century + everything that is determined from the rabbis from the beginning and is completely outside the 13th century, such as lighting Hanukkah candles? In fact, there is no such thing as a mitzvah that is only from the Torah Sheva, and there is also no such thing as a mitzvah that is from the rabbis?
I understood that there is no hierarchy here, these are types. But the definitions are not clear.
Thank you for your patience

Halacha is everything that God expects us to do. This includes mitzvot, which are written in the Torah, and in addition several other types of halakhic laws (which are not commonly called mitzvot): laws that are taught in midrash, laws of Moses from Sinai, laws of rabbis (regulations and decrees). What is written in the written Torah and what was received in the Halacha (oral) are laws that came in tradition from Sinai. All the rest are laws that were created over the generations. Halacha does not have the status of a weak or strong tradition. Of course, even the laws received at Sinai are interpreted according to the understanding of the Sages.
The division between Tosheva and Tosheva is a vague division and has no halakhic meaning. It is a non-halakhic term. An interpretation or sermon on the written Torah is a Tosheva, but this interpretation determines what is commanded in the written Torah. It is generally accepted not to associate the laws of the Rabbis with the Tosheva, but again this is just a matter of terminology.
There is a hierarchy in Halacha, for example between the laws of the Torah and the laws of the Rabbis. There are also different degrees of severity within the Torah. But there is no hierarchy between the laws of the LBM and the laws taught in the Midrash. Both types are of the same status.

Thank you very much. I understood a few things, but I was actually left with the first question open. And the article also says that “laws taught in midrashim are not counted in the number of mitzvot, unless the Sages have determined that these are laws of the Torah, and then they must be counted.”
So it’s a bit confusing. I just want to make sure I’m not mistaken now:
1. Laws taught in midrashim are sometimes in the status of the Torah and sometimes in the status of the rabbis. But the LBM is always considered to be the Torah. That is, there can be a hierarchy between them in this respect.
2. Laws taught in midrashim that the Sages have determined to be the Torah do not automatically become “mitzvot.” Rather, it depends on additional criteria that distinguish between a law and a mitzvah.
3. In terms of terminology, only the LBM is a law that is both oral Torah and always in the status of the Torah.

What you brought from the article is the Rambam's method. He believes that everything that is not explicitly written in the Torah or taught in simple ways is not included in the number of mitzvot.
1. Laws that are taught in midrashits according to the Rambam are in the status of scribes' words and not from the Torah (this is evident from his language in the second root, although many of his commentators do not agree with this. In my opinion, they are wrong). There are exceptional cases in which Chazal tell us that it is a sermon that confirms and not a creator (meaning that the sermon only confirms a known halakhah in retrospect), and then it is from the Torah and so it is counted. But these are the exceptions.
The LBM is always scribes' words according to the Rambam.
2. No. According to the Rambam, if the sermon confirms, then these are mitzvot that are counted.
3. No. The LBM is a law that passes through tradition from Sinai and has no anchor in the Scriptures or the Midrash of the Scriptures.
And all of this is just the Rambam's method, about which there are also disputes.
It is very difficult to explain a complicated subject from the beginning in a thread like this.

Well, thanks for the experience. If there is a book or series of articles that explains this from the beginning even for those who are not in the depths of things, I would be happy to hear it.
For those who look from the outside and try to understand the classification of what is called halakha and the truths of its intertwining, it is almost impossible and feels like one meaningless mess. (“The Torah, and everything the rabbis added..”). But even for those who are inside and grew up on vague concepts and partial Torah education, there is a mess in their heads.
It feels like there is a lack of terms. The same term includes several different entities and then it complicates what is already complex even more. Those who are in the depths of things probably do not need more terms and therefore do not create them.
Perhaps a thousand years after the Mishnah Torah and five hundred years after the Shulchan Aruch, this too can be arranged in a clearer way.
Thank you very much anyway.