The number of commandments
Peace and blessings, Rabbi!
1. Forgive my ignorance, a dispute over the number of mitzvot entails a halakhic dispute. In fact, will the doubt be about the kollah or the khumrah, etc.? Or is it purely semantic?
If this is serious – why don’t we find such disputes in the Gemara? Did all the disputes start after the Gemara? It seems that perhaps they looked at every detail, whether it was Torah or rabbinic, without thinking about whether this is actually my 614 and I should now take down another mitzvah, or all sorts of calculations like that.
And if this is semantics – what is the great enthusiasm to list the mitzvot if there is no merit, and at least among those who count the mitzvot, one sees an abysmal seriousness about the subject, even if this seriousness did not trickle down to the Rishonim who did not deal with the subject, nor to the Gemara?
2. And further – in the introduction to the Rambam’s roots, it seems from his words that he was supposedly dragged into this in order to write the Mishnah Torah, and even though he really wanted to deal with it all these years, he didn’t do it until he had a more serious reason, for the purpose of the Mishnah Torah?
3. In the introduction to the translation, Rabbi Moshe Ibn Tibbon writes that the Maimonides wrote the Book of Commandments in Arabic, even though it is an introduction to a Mishnah Torah written in Hebrew, in order to intentionally separate it from being considered part of a Mishnah Torah. Why was it so important to write it in Arabic? (In general, he wrote all of his works in Arabic, so why does Rabbi Tibbon say that he fundamentally wanted to write the Book of Commandments in Hebrew and only because of the above did he write it in Arabic?)
Thank you very much, Git Shabas!
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the Gemara we do not find discussions about the number of commandments, and Rishonim and Acharyim have already commented on this. But we find disagreements in various religions as to whether they are from the Torah or from the Rabbis. This will have implications for the number, and the Talmud does not touch on these implications (because they have no practical significance). There were several Rishonim (the Shabazz, Ramban at the beginning of his understanding of the root A, and others) who actually wrote that the number 313 is not a known and given number, but rather the result of Rabbi Shimlai. And if someone disputes it, then they will have a different number of commandments. According to this, there is no consequence. Although the majority opinion is that the number is indeed agreed upon. Rabbi Yerucham Perla, in his introduction, insists on this and writes that there can indeed be halachic implications for disputes over the number of mitzvot, because explanations will be needed as to why a certain law is included or not, and this can depend on halachic statements. Indeed, we find quite a few of these between Maimonides and Ramban. But the Talmud does not deal with this. And this is also irrelevant if we follow the Shabazz. This could be the explanation why they dealt with the number of mitzvot. And in fact, the Gra’s brother wrote that his brother did not deal with it at all because it has no halakhic significance.
2. What is the question? Indeed, as he writes. From his perspective, this is the skeleton of the Mishnah Torah.
3. I have no idea. The Pihma’s Naqab is also in Arabic. I think it’s a matter of age and not of a fundamental division. He wrote his compositions in Arabic at an early age. Although there is another hint in his introduction, that he wrote the Pihma’s Naqab in Arabic and not in the language of the Sages so that it would be understood. And in the Mishnah Torah, he wanted a renovation throughout the Jewish world, even those who do not speak Arabic. This is what I argued in my above-mentioned article, which later became the introduction to our book ‘Yishlach Sharashiyo’. See here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%9D/
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Regarding question 2, what I am asking is whether it is not proven from this that the Rambam does not attribute importance to the subject in itself and at most uses it as a crossword puzzle method.
It is certainly not like the crossword puzzle method, since he dealt with this minyan and put 333. He did this as a skeleton for a Mishnah Torah. Whatever you conclude from this, you will conclude.
Dr. Pinchas Heiman, who developed the Harevid method for studying the Talmud, had a claim that halachic statements, even those of the Amoraim, were always written in Hebrew, the sacred language. The discussion, on the other hand, was written in Aramaic. This distinction, he claimed, expresses a different metaphysical status for the halachic statements compared to the discussion itself, which can be done in any language. It is possible that the Maimonides also made this distinction. The commentary on the Mishnah and the Book of Commandments are a discussion and therefore are in Arabic. The Mishnah Torah is already a de facto halachic law, and as such it metaphysically had to be written in Hebrew, the sacred language.
Incidentally, at the end of his life, the Maimonides had already given up on writing the books in Arabic. He understood that the center of scholarly gravity had shifted to Christian Europe, which did not know Arabic.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
