The Book of Commandments

Sefer ha-mitsvot, Introduction (selections)

ca. 1179

About This Entry

Moses Maimonides’ Judeo-Arabic The Book of Commandments (Sefer ha-mitsvot) is easily the most influential enumeration of the 613 Jewish commandments ever written. It ostensibly serves to substantiate Maimonides’ claim to having reviewed all of Jewish law. The Book of the Commandments begins with fourteen methodological principles, which are perhaps the most innovative aspect of this work. Maimonides takes the opportunity here to reflect on problems such as legal authority, textual interpretation, and the abrogation of divine law. The remainder of the work lists the commandments and proves why these—and only these—should be on the list. In the first principle, he rejects a widespread geonic approach to Jewish law, which emphasizes the divine authority behind “rabbinic” enactments. In fact, the argument for the divine source for the postbiblical holiday of Hanukkah that Maimonides forcefully rebuts was made by none other than Se‘adya Ga’on. In the second principle, Maimonides seeks to identify cases of rabbinic interpretation that reflect excessive ingenuity.

Principle One

The first principle of these, that it is not appropriate to count in this sum commandments which are rabbinic.

Know that this matter should not require noting due to its obviousness, for if the formulation of the Talmud is “six hundred and thirteen commandments were said to Moses at Sinai” [b. Makkot 23b], how can we say about something rabbinic that it is included in that number?

Nevertheless, we have noted this since [some] have already erred with regard to it and counted Hanukkah lights and megillah recitation in the sum of positive commandments. So too one hundred benedictions every day, and comforting mourners, and visiting the sick, and burying the dead, and clothing the naked, and calculating the seasons, and eighteen days on which Hallel is completed. Consider and be amazed at one who hears their formulation “were said to Moses at Sinai” and counts the recitation of Hallel, by which David praised God, may He be exalted, as if it was legislated to Moses, as well as counting Hanukkah lights, which the sages established in the second Temple, and likewise megillah recitation. As for [the idea] that it was stated to Moses at Sinai that he commanded us that if at the end of our dominion such and such would befall us with the Greeks, he would require us to establish Hanukkah lights, I do not see how anyone could conceive of this or have it arise in his imagination. [ . . . ]

If they counted [these rabbinic laws] for this reason, they should count everything that is rabbinic, as everything that the sages commanded be done or from which they prohibited us has already been commanded to Moses our master at Sinai that he command us to follow it; this is His statement: According to the law that they teach you and the judgement they say to you, do (Deuteronomy 17:11). And He prohibited us from violating anything they established or derived, saying, “do not stray from the words they tell you right or left.”¹ So if everything rabbinic is counted in the sum of six hundred and thirteen commandments because it is subsumed in His statement, may He be exalted: “do not stray,” and the judgement they say to you, do, why specify these and not others? Just as they counted Hanukkah lights and megillah recitation, they should have counted washing hands and the commandment of eruv; we bless “that He sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us about washing hands” and “. . . on the commandment of eruv,” like we bless “. . . about megillah recitation” and “. . . to light a candle for Hanukkah,” and all are rabbinic. [ . . . ] This is an obvious matter without any secret to it at all; that is, that anything which is rabbinic is not counted in the sum of six hundred and thirteen commandments, as this sum consists exclusively of formulations from the Torah—it has nothing rabbinic in it, as we explain. [ . . . ]

Principle Two

The second principle, that not everything derived from one of the thirteen hermeneutical devices through which the Torah is interpreted, or through superfluity, should be counted.

We have already clarified in the introduction to our composition commenting on the Mishnah that most laws in the legal corpus were extracted using the thirteen hermeneutical devices through which the Torah is interpreted and that a law extracted through one of these hermeneutical devices might be subject to dispute, while there are laws which are transmitted interpretations from Moses our master which are not subject to dispute even if they are indicated by one of the thirteen hermeneutical devices² because the wisdom of the text is such that it is possible to find hints in it which indicate these transmitted interpretations, or hermeneutical analysis may indicate them, and we clarified this issue there. If that is accurate, not everything we find that the sages extracted through one of the thirteen hermeneutical devices can we say was told to Moses at Sinai. We similarly cannot say that everything we find in the Talmud that they attributed to one of the thirteen hermeneutical devices is rabbinic, since it could be a traditional interpretation. The approach for this is that anything for which a textual source in the Torah cannot be found and the Talmud has learned it through one of the thirteen hermeneutical devices, if they themselves clarified and said that this is “the essence of Torah” or that it is “biblical,” then it is appropriate to count it since the transmitters of tradition said that it is biblical. If they do not clarify that or expressly state it, it is rabbinic since there is no textual source indicating it. [ . . . ]

Their negligence has brought them to more serious [errors] than this; that is, if they found an interpretation of a verse which requires, through that interpretation, performing certain actions or avoiding certain things—all of which are without a doubt rabbinic—they count them in the sum of the commandments even though the sense of the text does not indicate any of these things, despite the principle which [the sages], peace be upon them, laid down for us. That is their statement “the Biblical text does not leave its apparent sense” [b. Shabbat 63a], and the Talmud investigates in every instance, saying, “the essence of the verse—what is it talking about?” if they find a text from which many things are derived by means of commentary and inference. Due to their reliance on this delusion, they counted in the sum of commandments the positive commandments of visiting the sick, comforting mourners, and burying the dead because of the interpretation mentioned with regard to His statement, may He be exalted: And you shall show them the path upon which they should walk and the deed that they should do (Exodus 18:20). Their statement on this is “‘the path’—this is performing kindness, ‘they should walk’—this is visiting the sick, ‘upon which’—this is burying the dead, ‘and the deed’—these are the laws, ‘that they should do’—this is exceeding the letter of the law” [see b. Bava Kamma 100a]. They thought that each of these actions is an independent commandment, and they did not know that all these actions, and ones like them, are subsumed under one commandment in the sum of commandments which is clearly expressed in the Torah, which is His statement, may He be exalted: Love your neighbor like yourself (Leviticus 19:18). In this exact manner they counted calculating the seasons as a commandment because of the interpretation mentioned with regard to His statement, “for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations”; this is their statement, “what is the wisdom and understanding which is in the eyes of the nations? This is the calculation of seasons and constellations” [b. Shabbat 75a]. [ . . . ]

Perhaps you think that we eschew counting them because they are not certain, and that a rule derived from these hermeneutical devices might be correct or incorrect, but this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that all which are derived are branches from the roots which were said to Moses at Sinai explicitly; that is, the six hundred and thirteen commandments. Even if Moses himself were the one deriving them, they should not be counted. [ . . . ] And it has been clarified that the six hundred and thirteen commandments which were said to Moses at Sinai should not have counted among them anything learned from the thirteen hermeneutical devices even if [it was derived] in his time, peace be upon him. [ . . . ] Rather, only something which is a transmitted interpretation should be counted, which is when the scholars of tradition clarify and say that this thing is forbidden to do and this prohibition is biblical, or they say that it is the essence of Torah. Then we will count it because it was learned through tradition and not through hermeneutical analysis.

Translated by Ezra Blaustein.

We’re sorry. The Posen Library’s licensing agreements prevent this text from being printed or downloaded.

Notes

Words in brackets appear in the original translation.

See Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mamrim 1:2.

In other words, even if the Talmud presents a certain law as having been derived through one of these hermeneutical techniques, that law may actually have been passed down as a tradition from Moses, and the hermeneutical device is just a support or mnemonic for that law, in which case no dispute is possible.

Credits

Moses Maimonides, The Book of Commandments, trans. Ezra Blaustein, in Ezra Blaustein, “Cataloging Revelation: Echoes of Islamic Legal Theory in Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mitsvot [Book of Commandments]” (PhD. diss., University of Chicago, 2019), 255–66. Used with permission of the translator.

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 3: Encountering Christianity and Islam.