Q&A: The Scoundrel Paradox
The Scoundrel Paradox
Question
What you wrote regarding “You shall be holy,” that according to Nachmanides this is a commandment not to be a scoundrel within the bounds of the Torah, and that it is not counted because of the paradox—
forgive me, but it is well known that there are commandments that are Torah-level commandments even though they are not counted, whether because they are subcategories, or a general prohibition, or for some other reason. For example, even the commandment of remembering the Exodus from Egypt at night, which Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah wrote is a commandment, he did not count among the 613. And there are many more examples.
So if you wanted to explain that there was some escape here from the paradox, there isn’t. Because there is indeed such a commandment; and what difference does it make whether it is counted or not? As above regarding the commandment of remembering the Exodus from Egypt, and others.
Answer
I hope you understand what you wrote here, though I have my doubts. In any case, I didn’t understand a thing.
It is impossible to count such a commandment. I did not write this as an excuse for anything.
Discussion on Answer
There are things that are not in the count because of technical considerations. But this is not in the count because it is not a commandment. How do I know? Because of the paradox.
But you’re not being clear, and I’ll explain: because even if it is not counted among the 613 at all, it is still a Torah-level commandment, so there is a paradox here, because we were in fact commanded by the Torah not to be a scoundrel.
I don’t understand how the paradox escaped you just because it didn’t enter the 613.
Sorry, this was omitted from the previous comment.
The language of Nachmanides is explicit that this is a commandment (even without needing Nachmanides, since the very fact that it is written in the Torah makes it a commandment, and this is also explained in Maimonides’ Book of Commandments).
And these are the words of Nachmanides: “The idea is that the Torah warned… and permitted… so that a pleasure-seeker could find room… and thus he would be a scoundrel within the bounds of the Torah. Therefore Scripture came, after specifying the prohibitions that it forbade completely, and commanded, and commanded, and commanded, and commanded, and commanded in a general matter that we should be separated from excesses…. In these and similar matters came this general commandment.”
Even if you disagree with Nachmanides that this is not a commandment (contrary to what your words in the article imply), that still won’t help, because if it is written in the Torah then it is a commandment, as stated; even if it is not counted. And after all, according to Nachmanides and according to your words, it is written in the Torah.
I’m not disagreeing with Nachmanides; you just need to stop insisting. The Torah does not command here, but rather expects. That is his intention too. That’s it. I’m done.
Indeed, I agreed that it is not included in the count.
But I said that practically speaking there is no real difference whether it is in the count or not.
After all, your whole explanation is built on why Nachmanides did not include it in the count, and to that you answered that otherwise there would be a paradox.
And to that I am explaining: the fact that it is not in the count makes no difference regarding the paradox, because practically speaking it is a Torah-level commandment just like the commandments that are in the count. And the count of commandments has practical significance for other matters, as brought by Maimonides, and as in the example of the commandment of remembering the Exodus from Egypt at night that I mentioned. If so, the paradox still stands in full force.