Talk:613 commandments/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Explanations

Please explain the title of the article. What is a mitzvot, and what are the other 612+? -- Zoe

OK, will do, I have just started working on it. In the Judaism section there are descriptions of the mitzvot, see link, hope to name the 613 here...Thanks User:IZAK , P.S. By the way, where do I find the "straight" typed line to insert inbeteween names on "User name"...Thanks.

IZAK, do you mean your name? Just type three tildes (~) in a row, and it will automatically enter your logged-in name. -- Zoe

OK, here goes, I'm about to try it ... IZAK

Woe...thanks Zoe ...! IZAK

Ok, here's another question for you: What is "UTC" time and how do I know what it is in relation to where I am ? This is for the settings on the "Preferences" page. Thanks IZAK

See UTC. --Brion

Love converts or love strangers?

Maimonides' mitzvah No 14 is listed as: "To love converts". But this translation is not correct. The bible does not command us to love converts, but to love strangers; it says: "Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Dewarim/Deuteronomium 10:19). I do not see how you can translate the Hebrew word 'Geer' by 'convert' in the first part of this sentence and translate exactly the same word as 'stranger' in the second part. Mkatan 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there really 613 commandments?

This idea is "accepted" by all of Judaism? Not at all. It is unfortunate that popular books on this subject (both medieval and modern) are so selective about quoting classical rabbinic literature. The idea that there are really 613 commandments is vociferously disputed by many classical rabbinic sources. This article should describe the full array of traditional Jewish views on this issue, not just one. I will offer some specific quotes (Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, etc.) with sources this weekend; I have my books at home. RK 21:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rescinded comment in light of final paragraph of section 2.


Subset of applicabel mitzwot!?

Hi! is there a list of "140"(?) applicable mitzwot? will you edit them? --217.184.19.141 00:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are there really 613 commandments?

This idea is "accepted" by all of Judaism? Not at all. It is unfortunate that popular books on this subject (both medieval and modern) are so selective about quoting classical rabbinic literature. The idea that there are really 613 commandments is vociferously disputed by many classical rabbinic sources. This article should describe the full array of traditional Jewish views on this issue, not just one. I will offer some specific quotes (Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, etc.) with sources this weekend; I have my books at home. RK 21:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rescinded comment in light of final paragraph of section 2.

FDuffy's intervention

I'm quite unhappy about FDuffy (talk · contribs)'s work on this page. For one thing, there is no source for the JEDPR attribution given for each mitzvah. Furthermore, using the colour coding creates the impression that this attribution is authoratitive, which in my mind is simply an attempt at POV.

I'm not going to revert the large amount of work FDuffy has put into this, but some explanations are called for. JFW | T@lk 10:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this as well. It does seem rather POV: in an article about the Rabbinic canon of mitzvot, not just about 'Pentateuchal law', surely a source-critical approach is not directly relevant. A response from FDuffy would be good, as I see good reason to not have this included on the page, despite the work he may have put in without consultation. --jnothman talk 12:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute the need to mention the DH attribution, but:

  • There's no source
  • The colouring makes it look authoritative, which it is not. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm with jnothman; this kind of information, if properly sourced, would be interesting in an article about the DH, but it doesn't belong in an article about the Rabbinic conception of the 613 mitzvot. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

FDuffy has been linking excessively to DH-related Wikisource entries, some of which I removed because they were tangential. Again, the DH is a widely held theory and Wikipedia should not suppress its significance, but the approach taken on this page was inappropriate. JFW | T@lk 02:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The source is Richard E. Friedman:"Who wrote the bible" and more particularly Richard E. Friedman:"The bible, with sources revealed", which is considered the definitive work on the matter in academic circles (at least in the UK). The attribution clearly states at the top that it is "according to the documentary hypothesis". The colouring is just meant to aid those who wish to see where and how each of the documentary hypothesis attributions form chunks, it wasn't intended to be strong colouring, and I have tried extensively to make it fainter, but it has to be "web safe" doesn't it, and these are as light as I could find on the list of web safe colours, without making them look the same? --francis 21:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Why did you reinstate it just the same before concluding the discussion with others here???? That is rude to those of us here trying to discuss the issue. Consider our arguments that it's simply not relevant here, even if it is on good authority. Still you have not cited that authority in the text of the article. The reason why it stands out too much is because you're highlighting the whole row rather than just the final cell, which is what you should be doing if we collectively decide that this stuff should be in the article at all. --jnothman talk 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Francis, just get rid of that colour code. It is too much. Please don't expect the reader to agree with the DH. I'm not asking you again. JFW | T@lk 01:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • One cannot follow "Friedman" rather than Maimonides when discussing Judaism. IZAK 02:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is article about how Judaism views the commandments

It is foolish to use a method that goes AGAINST classical Judaism, i.e the "documentary hypothesis", for an article that aims to convey what Judaism teaches in the first place, and not merely what latter-day controversial critical writers think. According to Judaism the Hebrew Bible and its commandments are of Divine origin, so it's plain stupid to teach that the commandments are written by latter-day authors when it has never been the normative view of the Jewish religion for thousands of years. IZAK 02:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone's overplaying his hand. A glance at the history of Ten Commandments will do. JFW | T@lk 12:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with IZAK, there is tons of information proving the Ten Commandments could be written by God. New Evidence by Josh McDowell has a rather long chapter devoted to it, very good. Of course, anything by God would be otherworldly, thus not conforming to the documentary hypothesis' belief that religion has to evolve. 70.188.25.34 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article called "613 mitzvot"

According to the only rules I can find, articles are only restricted to being about what their title states. This title is not Jewish views of there being 613 commandments.

Clearly all this title specifies is mitzvah and 613. It can therefore be understood as an article concerning the enumeration of the mitzvah, which for various reasons, which need to be expressed in the article, has become fixed as 613.

Including only the enumeration according to Jewish sources violates NPOV policy, particularly considering the relevance of a hypothesis supported by the academic community in a ration of 9:1.

--francis 17:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, your color coding is intrusive and less NPOV than the previous version. You have also failed to mention your source, so your whole attribution may well be original research as well as being unverifiable. Please do not reinstate your version until you have dealt with this. I will support color coding of only the collumn in which you link the JEDPR attribution, but not the whole line.
I would be in favour of a color coding that clearly shows whether a mitzvah is a positive or negative one; say - green for mitzvoth aseh and red for mitzvoth lo taaseh. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
What about bold vs. underlined+italic, thats quite distinct. Are there formal academic references for general consensus on which of Maimonides commandments are each.
  • "613 mitzvot" by definition means the Jewish view! No-one else calls it that! Thus it needs to be described and explained that way first and foremost. Then, as a very minor after-thought one may add what Bible critics or other haters of classical Judaism think of it. By the way, you will notice that normally basically none of the articles in Category:Biblical criticism contain refutations from normative Torah, Talmudical and Halakhic POVs because it's futile (perhaps even not logical) to have a Torah "POV" in them (even though they could well be provided -- it would be like having the Jews' "POV" on every article about Hitler and the Nazis -- or vice-versa) and likewise here it's a joke having a "Documentary hypothesis POV" on what is a virtually purely traditional Judaic topic. Francis you are making less sense by the hour! IZAK 05:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ask IZAK points out, this article is about the Jewish concept of the 613 commandments, not about Documentary hypothesis of the origins of various books of the Pentateuch. Jayjg (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In his edit summary (not logged in) Francis maintains that he generated this attribution from numerous sources. In other words, it is original research. Those whole concept is fascinating research but not suitable for Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikisource is the place to be. JFW | T@lk 22:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Biblical critics are not haters of classical Judaism. Calling them that is highly biased. Biblical critics are people who, rather than approaching a biblical subject with blind faith, choose to apply academic rigour. That is all. If this happens to throw up some results that classical Judaism finds distasteful, then this simply how searching for truth works, sometimes you just have to accept that what you believe is wrong, at least in some manner. On other occasions, it happens to throw things up that give you support. But one should always be interested in truth, rather than trying to cobble together faltering supports.

You will notice that normally basically none of the articles in Category:Biblical criticism contain refutations from normative Torah, Talmudical and Halakhic POVs not because it is futile, but because most of the subjects of those articles are general discussions of what Biblical Criticism is, discussions of people who are Biblical critics, or on subjects only relevant to the New Testament of Christianity, and consequently not that relevent to Talmudical POVs. This is an unfortunate side effect of the way that category is currently applied to articles, rather than any evidence of futility. If you think Talmudic, or other rabbinical POVs should be represented in the article, then go and add them. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be about improving article quality, not complaining about futility.

In my edit summary (logged out by Wikipedia half way through an edit for no known reason) Francis, I.e. me, maintains that he, i.e. I, generated, i.e. researched, this attribution from numerous sources. In other words, it is very carefully researched, and multiply attributed. If this constituted original research, then so would any other article that has more than 2 references, and so we should go and delete those articles right away, leaving wikipedia with about 12 moronic articles, about obscure computer games. The whole concept is fascinating research, which is exactly what perfect Wikipedia articles are meant to aim to be.

The attributions, just in case you aren't completely sure about how well respected they are in the academic community, are

as well as the somewhat less recent

--Francis 01:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It remains "original research" until you actually cite your sources, so we can verify whether these attributions are made by the actual authors, or whether there has still been extrapolation on your behalf. I strongly urge you to stop reverting - consensus here seems to be against you. I know, you've worked hard on it, but there are too many problems with your version. JFW | T@lk 07:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why, but you seem to have failed to notice that above, I gave the sources. I will repeat them again:

as well as the somewhat less recent

--User talk:FDuffy 14:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I have explained on your talkpage that you should mention those sources with title of the work, page numbers etc on the article page, not here. A good encyclopedia article lists its sources, just look at that Jewish Encyclopedia!
You have again not addressed my opposition to your use of color coding. The fact that it wasn't meant to be intrusive does not mean it doesn't come accross as such. I'll reiterate: I will support the tabled format if you limit the color code to the collumn that assigns the JEDPR attribution.
I note that the documentary hypothesis nowhere specifically addresses mitzvot given in groups. It only addresses fragments of text. This makes your application of the DH to this list of commandments a piece of original research. I will not press this matter, however. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
PS The color code is completely unnecessary if you consider that the commandments on this page are not listed according to the order of the verses.
Realistically, the DH is heavily interested in which bits of Mosaic law came from where, as well as which bits of narrative. So it's not so strange to be trying to apply the DH to legalistic portions of the Torah, but to apply it to the Mitzvot as enumerated by Maimonides is a little stranger. jnothman talk 00:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A comment

I changed number 160 from: "not to have sexual relationships with a married woman" to "Not to have sexual relations with someone else's wife", which better fits the original: "And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. " andreas_td 03:50, 25 feb 2006 (UTC+2)

Seeing as this listing is according to Maimonides, it is to that source that the article should be faithful. I don't have a copy with me. jnothman talk 11:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Move the list

The Maimonides' list is rather long. Perhaps it should be given its own page in order to cut down on the length of this page.

I disagree. The 613 mitzvot is the title and whole point of this page. It seems to me that [613 mitzvot] and [list of all 613 mitzvas] will soon be candidates for merging. Perhaps it could be put at the very end of the article so that people who don't want to read the (613 item long) list. However, if general consensus is for your idea, I don't object. Epl18 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this should be on Wikisource, or at least the list of the 613. See Template:Move to Wikisource. -Reuvenk[T][C] 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest naming the merger of the two files "Taryag Mitzot" after the Tiberian cantillation of the 613 Divine Mitzvot?AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Line

User:Keycard added the line

It is rumoured that if a pomegranite contains exactly 613 seeds, this will indicate that the Messiah is coming.

with the comment (I can't provide a direct source. it's common knowledge amongst Jewish people). I removed because I have never heard of it and it sound line a a jewish Urban legend, however, I would love to see a legitamate source for this. Jon513 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: About 35 years ago I counted them and there were exactly 613 Phil burnstein (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Phil, welcome to the project. I think you might find this informal study about the amount of seeds in pomegranates of different origins interesting. Irregardless of the true amount of pomegranate seeds, the idea that it contains 613 probably originates with the Rosh Hashana custom to eat a pomegranate and ask God to "increase on merits like a pomegranate"; Nevertheless I have not been able to find a source with says this. Jon513 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Prohibition of sex with daughter

The article as it stands now quotes Lev. 18:10 as the source for the prohibition "Not to have sexual relations with your daughter". But there is no specific rule against incest with daughters in Torah that I know of. Lev. 18:10 is about sex with granddaughters only and does not mention daughters. My understanding is that Maimonides derived the prohibition of sex with a daughter from this granddaughter clause. You have to be pretty depraved to interpret the absence of a specific prohibition as a permission for a father to have sex with his daughter, but amazingly this lack of an mention of daughters was quoted as a defense in a recent case of incest in a fundamentalist Christian family in the Netherlands: "if G-d felt sex with a daughter was wrong he would have told us so". The argument is not only perverse but clearly wrong because there is a general prohibition of incest in Torah: the long list of relatives not to be approached in Lev. 18:7-17 is preceded in Lev. 18:6 by a prohibition of having sex with any "close relative", and that of course includes daughters. I therefore feel that the article should quote Lev. 18:6 rather than, or in addition to, Lev. 18:10 when referring to the prohibition of sex with a daughter.

Your thoughts on this are appreciated

Mkatan 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The prohibition of sex with ones daughter is, as you said, derived from the granddaughter clause. The general prohibition of incest is not used as it is unclear what incest is until the verses list all of the types of incest. Jon513 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Leviticus 18:6 (KJV) "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord." (Daughter is near kin.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.155.152 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There're 613 dead links

Every and each one of the reference links are dead (actually, you get a 'Invalid source given.' error). This needs fixing. --Wishmechaos 07:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that biblegateway (one which bibleverse relies) removed machon mamre as a source. I contact jnothman who created this template. Jon513 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

365 days?

Introduction, second paragraph: "According to tradition, of these 613 commandments, 248 are mitzvot aseh ("positive commandments" commands to perform certain actions) and 365 are mitzvot lo taaseh ("negative commandments" commands to abstain from certain actions). Three-hundred and sixty-five corresponded to the number of days in a year and 248 was believed by ancient Hebrews to be the number of bones and significant organs in the human body."

The Jewish calander is lunar, and therefore, only 354 days a year, with a 7 leap months every 19 years. If no source can be found for this paragraph, it should be removed, since 365 days in the year could not possibly be the reason for 365 "negative commandments" Chaztheweird 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish calendar is "modified solar", which is to say, months are measured by the moon, but years are measured by the sun, resulting in a 13th month 7 times in a 19 year cycle. Judaism recognizes the fact that the orbit of the earth is ~365 days. This passage is indeed correct. -- Y not? 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My request for a citation was reverted [1]. If there are indeed "countless" sources for these numbers, then there should be no trouble to cite one. MilesAgain (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I put in two refs. However, within Jewish studies this info is taken for granted and would not be footnoted in a tertiary work at all. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. As a member of "the general audience" it seemed more than a little like numerological piffle. MilesAgain (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured list drive?

Hi, I'm one of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Recently we helped improve an article about Palestinian culture for good article candidacy. It looks like this page isn't far from a featured list candidate - the main list is already complete and well referenced. Some suggestions:

  • Add citations for the introductory paragraphs.
  • Create stub articles for the redlinks in the introduction.
  • Select one or more images to accompany the page. I've found some candidate images here.
  • Copyedit - I can help with that.

If there are no objections lets move forward. Regards, DurovaCharge! 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Has the article been proofread for spelling errors? Is content that is a direct quote from a person or another article in quotation marks? Are any personal additions to said quotes in brackets or some other indicator that lets the reader know that it is not part of the original quote? Is there inline citations succeeding the quote? These things are important in scholarly articles.AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Maimonidies list

Maimonidies' list of 613 is broken up into two lists, positive and negative, which makes it quite difficult to shuffle them back together, so if someone could let me know how they did this efficiently, please do. Secondly, who put this together? It's incorrect. For example, as listed in the count of the mitzvos as an introduction to Maimonidies' Mishneh Torah, negative commandment #5 is listed as "Do not bow to idols, even if this is not the normal way to worship said idols," wheras the listing here puts #5 (counting negatives #2, 7, 8, 10 + 15) as "Do not hate fellow Jews." Similarly, the introduction to the Mishneh Torah indicates that negative commandment #365 (the last of the negative commandments, although not indicating where in the 613 this would lie) is "The king may not increase his gold and silver beyond the limit," whatever limit that may be, whereas the listing here puts #613 as the last negative commandment, indicating it is the negative commandment of selling the woman captured in wartime (eishas yifas to'ar) into servitude after being intimate with her (rather, she must be set free). I think this list needs to be rewritten, and perhaps from the Sefer Hachinuch, so that the order is consistant with the order of the verses in the Torah and that's the order that is most often referenced. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I will begin a new ordered list according to the Sefer Hachinuch. I think it would be best presented listed according to the parsha whithin which it lies (as listed by the Sefer Hachinuch) followed by the verse in which it is found and together with a short explanation or description, expecially for those that are not clear or intutive. I think it best remains here until it is at least completed to 613, at which time it can be moved to the article and the other additions can be made there. Please feel free to assist! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bereishit

1: Produce offspring

Lech Lecha

2: Circumcision

Vayishlach

3: Not to eat the gid hanasheh

Bo

4: Blessing of the new moon
5: Slaughtering the Passover offering
6: Eating of the Passover offering
7: Not to eat the Passover offering when undercooked or boiled
8: Not to allow any of the Passover offering to remain past its time
9: Removal of chametz from one's possession
10: Eating of matzah
11: Not to find chametz in ones domain on Passover
12: Not to eat anything that contains chametz
13: Not to give of the Passover offering to a Jewish apostate
14: Not to give of the Passover offering to a partial convert or to a non-Jewish resident of the Land of Israel
15: Not to remove meat of the Passover offering outside one's home
16: Not to break any bone of the Passover offering
17: Not to eat of the Passover offering if one is uncircumcised
18: Sanctification of firstborn animals in the Land of Israel
19: Not to eat chametz on Passover
20: Not to see chametz on Passover
21: Telling over of the story of the Exodus from Egypt
22: Redeedming of the firstborn donkey
23: Beheading of the firstborn donkey if not redeemed

Beshallach

24: Not to leave the city limits on Shabbos

Yitro

25: Belief in the existence of God
26: Not to believe in any other gods
27: Not to make an idol
28: Not to bow down in foreign worship
29: Not to worship idols in their customary manner
30: Not to swear in vain
31: Sactification of Shabbos with words
32: Not to perform forbidden acts on Shabbos
33: To give honor to one's mother and father
34: Not to kill an innocent individual
35: Not to be intimate with another man's wife
36: Not to kidnap
37: Not to give false testimony
38: Not to desire what belongs to someone else
39: Not to make carved human images, even for decoration
40: Not to build an alter with hewn stones
41: Not to take wide steps on the alter (Ex. 20:23.)

Mishpatim

42: To purchase a Hebrew slave in accordance with the prescribed laws. (Ex. 21:2.)
43: To betroth the Jewish maidservant. (Ex. 21:8.)
44: To redeem Jewish maidservants. (Ex. 21:8.)
45: The master must not sell his Jewish maidservant. (Ex. 21:8.)
46: Not to withhold food, clothing, or sexual relations from one's wife. (Ex. 21:10.)
47: The courts must execute by strangulation those who deserve it. (Ex. 21:12.)
48: Not to strike one's father or mother. (Ex. 21:15.)
49: The court must implement laws against the one who assaults another or damages another's property. (Ex. 21:18–19.)
50: The court must carry out the death penalty of the sword. (Ex. 21:20.)
51: The court must judge the damages incurred by a goring ox. (Ex. 21:28.)
52: Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned. (Ex. 21:28.)
53: The court must judge the damages incurred by a pit. (Ex. 21:33.)
54: The court must implement punitive measures against the thief. (Ex. 21:37.)
55: The court must judge the damages incurred by an animal eating. (Ex. 22:4.)
56: The court must judge the damages incurred by fire. (Ex. 22:5.)
57: The courts must carry out the laws of an unpaid guard. (Ex. 22:6.)
58: The courts must carry out the laws of the plaintiff, admitter, or denier. (Ex. 22:8.)
59: The courts must carry out the laws of a hired worker and hired guard. (Ex. 22:9.)
60: The courts must carry out the laws of a borrower. (Ex. 22:13.)
61: The court must fine one who seduces a maiden. (Ex. 22:15–16.)
62: The court must not let the sorcerer live. (Ex. 22:17.)
63: Not to insult or harm a sincere convert with words. (Ex. 22:20.)
64: Not to cheat a sincere convert monetarily. (Ex. 22:20.)
65: Not to afflict any orphan or widow. (Ex. 22:21.)
66: To lend to the poor and destitute. (Ex. 22:24.)
67: Not to press them for payment if you know they don't have it.(Ex. 22:24.)
68: Not to intermediate in an interest loan, guarantee, witness, or write the promissory note (Ex. 22:24.)
69: Not to curse judges.. (Ex. 22:27.)
70: Not to blaspheme. (Ex. 22:27.)
71: Not to curse the head of state or leader of the Sanhedrin. (Ex. 22:27.)
72: Not to preface one tithe to the next, but separate them in their proper order. (Ex. 22:28.)
73: Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded (Ex. 22:30.)
74: Judges must not accept testimony unless both parties are present. (Ex. 23:1.)
75: Transgressors must not testify. (Ex. 23:1.)
76: The court must not execute through a majority of one; at least a majority of two is required. (Ex. 23:2.)
77: A judge who presented an acquittal plea must not present an argument for conviction in capital cases. (Ex. 23:2.)
78: To decide by majority in case of disagreementv (Ex. 23:2.)
79: Not to pity a poor man in judgment. (Ex. 23:3.)
80: To help another remove the load from a beast which can no longer carry it. (Ex. 23:5.)
81: A judge must not decide unjustly the case of the habitual transgressor. (Ex. 23:6.)
82: The court must not kill anybody on circumstantial evidence. (Ex. 23:7.)
83: Judges must not accept bribes. (Ex. 23:8.)
84: To leave free all produce that grew in the Sabbatical year. (Ex. 23:11.)
85: To rest on the seventh day. (Ex. 23:12.)
86: Not to swear in the name of an idol. (Ex. 23:13.)
87: Not to turn Israelites to idolatry. (Ex. 23:13.)
88: To celebrate on the three Festivals of Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. (Ex. 23:14.)
89: Not to slaughter the Passover lamb while in possession of leaven. (Ex. 23:18.)
90: Not to leave the fat overnight. (Ex. 23:18.)
91: To set aside the first fruits and bring them to the Temple. (Ex. 23:19.)
92: Not to eat meat and milk cooked together. (Ex. 23:19.)
93: Not to make any treaty with the seven nations to be extirpated, or with any idol worshiper. (Ex. 23:32.)
94: Not to let them dwell in our land. (Ex. 23:33.)


If you see all of the article on the parsha the mitzvot in each parsha is listed. A list of the parsha articles can be found at Weekly Torah portion. Jon513 (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If you don't mind my saying so, the current set up has been there for a while and it would be appropriate, since you'd like to change it, to call for a discussion. Perhaps we could look at several different options (arrangements) and have a conversation, maybe notify the WikiProject, too. I think it's premature to switch to Sefer ha-Chinuch. We should also clarify the source of the current list, too. Anyway, I'd think the Rambam arrangement is the most common for our readership and most prevalent among the sources. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 03:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User HG (talk · contribs). Also to use the Sefer Hachinuch alone is a mistake because Maimonides is a greater universally regarded authority. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Quote User HG. There is of course a lot of saying, discussing and maybe arguing on this issue, but the Rambam edition seems to me quite well established in the common Jewish practice, and I for one would be at a loss if dropped in a different listing. Moreover, would find it strange to create a hierarchy between two cornerstones of Jewish faith - would it not be wise to house in the article the two listings? and, probably, more educational and interesting?--UbUb (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi UbUb: There is no end to the amount of ways the 613 Mitzvot, or any grouping of laws and information, can be organized: By those relating to "bein adam lachaveiro" ("person to person") vs "adam lamakom" ("Man to God"); or between those that deal with everyday life and mundane events vs ones that are about holy days and holy actions; or any of the ways that the Mishnah subdivides them following the order of the six sedorim ("orders"). Thus after all is said and done, all the tampering may ruin it. The problem with having two listings of the same information is that although you and I may not mind having (at least) two ways of listing the same Mitzvot, at some point in the future another set of editors will no doubt arise, and having not much else to do will decide that having two lists of the same facts is redundant and therefore one of them should go, which would then bring us full circle to having only one list. IZAK (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The Chinuch says, just before his listing of the mitzvot, that his list is identical to the Rambam's list. The only difference is that his list is in a different order. Phil Burnstein (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

the Rambam arrangement is the most common for our readership If 'our readership' is defined as scholars, you might be right. I believe that most of our readership consists of people who don't read Hebrew, and as such they are much more familiar withe the bible. Phil Burnstein (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think having both lists is valueable, but this article has only room for one. I think that DRosenbach's list should be put into another article (List of ...) and this article should reference it. I also think that another article's list should conform to the Sefer HaMitzvot. I will be glad to help. Phil Burnstein (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Worth dying before committing

Every single law is worth dying over before committing. What type of Jew is so lax in their profession to believe that certain laws aren't worth dying before breaking? ICXC 70.188.25.34 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

At a time when the Jews are being persecuted for their religious beliefs, (as opposed to the Nazis) you are absolutely correct. At other times, saving a human life takes precedence over most laws. Phil Burnstein (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Bug in template that shows Hebrew verse and English translation

There is a bug in the Bibleverse template. When we put in ({{Bibleverse||Ex.|20:3.|HE}}) it shows (Ex. 20:3.) as it should. However, if you click on that link, it will show you verse 4, which is verse 3 on Machon-Mamre.org.
Verse 3 in the Ashkenazi and Sephardi tradition is Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.. In the Yemenite tradition those words are part of verse 2, and verse 3 is Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image,...

Note that this only effects the Ten Commanedments. Phil Burnstein (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What do these cites refer to?

Our Editor says that there are two citations needed in the following paragraph.

Sefer Hamitzvot ("Book of Commandments") by Maimonides, with a critical commentary by Nachmanides.[citation needed] Maimonides employs a set of fourteen rules (shorashim) which determine inclusion into the list. In this work, he supports his specification of each Mitzvah through quotations from the midrash halakha and the Gemara. Nachmanides makes a number of critical points and replaces some items of the list with others.[citation needed]

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what facts our Editor is referring to. Phil_burnstein (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably they want a link for the book in the first one, and page number(s) for the second. You shouldn't say someone said something (i.e. "critical points") without cited where they said it. 71.155.237.130 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

613 is the magic number, yes it is, it's the magic number

Quote: The Talmud notes that the Hebrew numerical value (gematria) of the word "Torah" is 611, and combining Moses's 611 commandments with the two received directly from God adds up to 613.

Unfortunately I was sick a lot during Sunday school, but I thought that Moses received 10 commandments directly from god, not 2 directly and 611 indirectly. I've also read elsewhere that the 613 adds up from the ten commandments plus 603 (and I'd like to know what the basis for the number 603 is). Thanks, Maikel (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC) the gemara is speaking of the the jewish tradition that when god was giving the ten commandments to the jewish people, thye were so terrified and so awed that after two commandments (in some versions first god said all ten commandments simoultaniously in a manner that they could not understand and than went back and started explaining them in which case this would be the second commandment of the explanation they asked mosheh (moses) to act as an intermediary so they would not have to listen directly to god anymore which they feared would kill them, the other 611 commandments were given to the jewish people indirectly through moses as an intermidiary. the term ten commandments is actually a mistranslation, the hebrew word dibrah litterally translates as "spoken statement", but the ten spoken statements doesent make a good movie title :-) there are far more commandments in the torah than those teng.j.g (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cherem

Mitzvot 231-233 have references to cherem, which I find unclear. Can someone explain? Peter Chastain (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Human shaped decorations?

31. Not to make human forms even for decorative purposes Ex. 20:20

I'm not very knowledgeable about this, but how is that derived form the cited verse? 71.155.237.130 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking ALL mitzvot to an article

Mitzvot 45

Just scrolling through these I realized #45 is definitely not correct. Someone with more knowledge about the Mitzvots should take a look at this one. 70.59.62.59 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that #45 is not correct? Rebele | Talk The only way to win the game is to not play the game. 04:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected bug in Ex. 20

I fixed it in Mitzva #2. If there is no objection, I will fix the rest of chapter 20. It would be nice to use the Torah in wikisourse instead of Machon Mamre, but I don't know enough php to change the bibleverse template. Rebele | Talk The only way to win the game is to not play the game. 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Pesukim?

I wrote a program to put the mitzvot in biblical order in order to make a "list of". I find that they do not come out in the same order as the sefer hachinuch. The reason is that the chinuch occasionally chooses a different verse than we do. For example, the article on bris mila lists two different verses. Our list chose one, the chinuch chose the other.

I wpuld like to change our choice of verses to correspond to the chinuch's. Does anyone agree or disagree? Rebele | Talk The only way to win the game is to not play the game. 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I found 5 sources that say that we chose the wrong verse for brit mila. I'm just going to change it. Rebele | Talk The only way to win the game is to not play the game. 08:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

67. Magic??

I'm aware on how versions of Tanakh/Bible may differ but in

67. Not to perform acts of magic Deut. 18:10

I think that there magic refered to is actually Black magic, but since my Bible is Swedish, it might just be that my Bible is written according to modern interpretation (= tendentiously). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

According to the above Wikipedia policy:

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources

note that most mainstream sources use "commandment" for mitzva in English, and the majority of sources on the Law of Moses (which currently redirects to Moses) such as Arthur Kurzweil The Torah For Dummies 2011 p57 has "Breaking down the 613 commandments In the Talmud, the Jewish sages teach that there are 613 commandments in the Torah (see ... In a sense, the idea of 613 commandments is misleading because there are actually thousands of correct and ..." is this page following Wikipedia convention? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • "613 commandments" gets 8,840 hits on Google Books
  • "613 mitzvoth" gets 247
  • "613 mitzvot" gets 2,270
  • "613 mitzvos" gets 447

Those that would count as WP:IRS are overwhelmingly in favour "commandment". In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 613 commandments Mike Cline (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


613 Mitzvot → 613 commandments - relisted - Mike Cline (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC) – per WP:EN and WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

The 613 commandments (Hebrew: תרי"ג מצוות: taryag mitzvot, "613 Mitzvot"; Biblical Hebrew: Miṣwoth) is a numbering of the statements and principles of law, ethics, and spiritual practice which have been derived by religious interpretation of the Torah or Five Books of Moses. The numbering was first made by Rabbi Simlai in Talmud Makkot 23b.


This was removed on the grounds that This wording

The 613 commandments (Hebrew: תרי"ג מצוות: taryag mitzvot, "613 Mitzvot"; Biblical Hebrew: Miṣwoth) is a numbering of the statements and principles of law, ethics, and spiritual practice contained in the Torah or Five Books of Moses. The numbering was first made by Rabbi Simlai in Talmud Makkot 23b.

Is standard on wikipedia. that is not a good reason for a revert. Wikipedia policy is to not give religious views any priority over any other views. The present wording is POV, and has been replaced.31.54.112.95 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And you are reverted again. Per WP:BOLD you should not repeat your edit till we reach consensus here.
The main reason I reverted you is that articles about religious subjects, should be written first and foremost from the view of that religion. Academic comments and criticism should have their own section (or sometimes even their own article). Debresser (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

613 commandments is not a numbering "of the statements and principles of law, ethics, and spiritual practice contained in the Torah", it is a numbering of what the Talmud and Maimonides in his Book of Mitzvot say "of commandments were given to Moses on Sinai". It does not include all statements and principles of law, ethics, and spiritual practice contained in the Torah, as those number well over a thousand. Maimonides has a huge work in the beginning of the Book of Mitzvoht in which he establishes 14 "roots" as to what constitutes a commandment that was given to Moses on Sinai, and what is an ethic or rule that is stated in the Torah and not included in the count of commandments that were given to Moses on Sinai.

In his introduction to Mishneh Torah and in much greater detail in his introduction to his Commentary on The Mishnah Maimonides explains the distinction between a commandment that was given to Moses on Sinai and a rule or ethic that is stated in the Torah. A commandment that was given on Sinai was given with a full interpretation and additional laws as to what the commandment constitutes, which is the Oral Torah. The Torah itself, however was merely dictated to Moses with God telling him only the words and not an interpretation(See Maimonides Commentary on Mishnah, Sanhedrin 11:1 article 8 about how God dictated the Torah to Moses). For this reason there is only an Oral Torah on those 613 commandments and not on the bulk of the Torah. For example Gensis 1:1 has no accepted oral interpretation from Moses of that verse (there is a disagreement between the medieval commentators Rashi and Nachmanides over that) the way that there is an oral interpretation on commandments, defining for example what matzoh means in the commandment to eat matzoh on Passover, and the same for all of the 613 commandments that were given on Sinai. This is the reason that the count of 613 and what is included in it is so significant and why Maimonides established his 14 "roots" and dedicated a complete book (as many others did) in determining what the 613 commandments are. Maimonides explains all of this, and he did not write a complete book simply to explain a single statement from a sage in the Talmud. Learned69 (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Commandments pertaining to sexual intercourse

The article consistently uses the term "not to have sexual relations" in describing commandments that prohibit only sexual intercourse. There is a general commandment prohibiting having any sexual contact with those with whom there is a commandment prohibiting sexual intercourse with, but that is a separate commandment and not part of the commandment prohibiting sexual intercourse. That general prohibition is only counted as one commandment and is not included in the commandments that prohibit sexual intercourse. Prohibitions on sexual intercourse are usually punishable by death or kareth, while the general prohibition on sexual relations with people with whom sexual intercourse is prohibited is not. Therefore the term sexual relations is inaccurate and misleading and should be changed to state sexual intercourse. Learned69 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain your point? You wan to say that "sexual relations" and "sexual intercourse" is not the same? Debresser (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No they are not, oral sex is an example. What about hugging and kissing. The point is that sexual relations to not mean only sexual intercourse and a commandment must describe the commandment. Learned69 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

But the commandment prohibits only the actual intercourse. Oral sex, hugging and kissing, are prohibited only by rabbinical law (according to almost all opinions). Debresser (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That is the point. The commandment prohibits only the actual intercourse, and not all sexual relations. Sexual relations implies actions that are not part of the commandment Learned69 (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should say "sexual intercourse" instead of "sexual relations" bobmutch (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I am not happy with the lead sentence. Not the previous version not the new one. Any suggestion?

(previous version): The 613 commandments is a numbering of the statements and principles of law, ethics, and spiritual practice which have been derived by religious interpretation of the Torah or Five Books of Moses.
(new version): The 613 commandments is the number of commandments that, according to the Talmud[1], were given to Moses on Sinai.

The new version refers to the Talmud, but it is unclear whether that means that the Talmud mentions the number 613 or that the commandments are God-given. Also I think the description "statements and principles of law, ethics, and spiritual practice" of the word "commandments" was a good thing to have.

What I would like to change in the previous version is the word "numbering". Perhaps replace it by "traditional number"? Debresser (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I would keep it simpler. This is the article on 613, not on Mitzvos, so the first sentence should have the word mitzvah with a link to that article. I would use something along the lines of: 613 Commandments refer to the number of Mitzvath enumerated in the Torah. That should be enough for the first sentence. Yossiea (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd keep out the part about the Talmud. So do Bereytot, oral transmissions before Talmud was written, etc... Doesn't seem to add anything to the lead. How about:

The 613 commandments are the number of mitzvot enscribed in Jewish law.

It's a start anyway. --Jethro B 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I made a change, I think this is short, nice and simple. The details are all in the article, first sentence is the summary. Yossiea (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see explanation in section NPOV about why enumerated in the Torah is not correct. Learned69 (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You may think you are right, but others disagree with you. In addition, your insistence on having it your way is called "edit warring" or "disruptive editing" on Wikipedia, and may get you banned in the long end. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Talmud, Makkot 23b

Maimonides' list sorted by occurrence in the Torah

I just added a new section at the bottom where I sorted the whole list. I just saw that some guys started doing that in 2008, but I decided doing it anew as a whole thing.

Things that could be helpful at the moment:

- People who know their stuff with the Taryag Mitzvot could check if I ordered the verses correctly which have 2 (or more) mitzvot in one verse.

- We could add the Maimonides numbers at the end of the verse, which could look like this:

  1. Gen. 1:28 — To have children with one's wife (#125)
  2. Gen. 17:10 — To circumcise all males on the eighth day after their birth (#86)
  3. Gen. 32:33 — Not to eat the sinew of the thigh (#194)

- And think about if the collapsible table at the bottom is the best way to present the sorted list, because I'm not sure on how many people actually click on it.

Best regards, Wuschelkopf (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing a great job. I agree with you that one of the lists should be collapsed and the other not. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of Maimonides numbers at the end of each mitzvah in the sorted list. I like the collapsible table where it is now above the non-sorted list. bobmutch (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Add heading between Sorted and Non-Sorted List?

When you expand the sorted list there is no heading separating the sorted and non-sorted list. I think one should be inserted.

How about "Maimonides' list non-sorted"

It would look like this.


611. Deut. 31:12 — To assemble all the people on the Sukkot following the seventh year

612. Deut. 31:19 — Each male must write a Torah scroll

613 Deut. 32:38 — Not to drink wine poured in service to idols


Maimonides' list non-sorted


1. To know there is a God — Ex. 20:2

2. Not to even think that there are other gods besides Him — Standard->Ex. 20:3 Yemenite->Ex. 20:2

3. To know that He is One — Deut. 6:4


The way they are now they just run together like this.


611. Deut. 31:12 — To assemble all the people on the Sukkot following the seventh year

612. Deut. 31:19 — Each male must write a Torah scroll

613 Deut. 32:38 — Not to drink wine poured in service to idols

1. To know there is a God — Ex. 20:2

2. Not to even think that there are other gods besides Him — Standard->Ex. 20:3 Yemenite->Ex. 20:2

3. To know that He is One — Deut. 6:4


If there is no objection to this in 30 days I will go head and do it. or if you have a better idea for a title let me know. bobmutch (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute regarding commandment 346

CLOSED (COMPROMISE) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
We would have left this RfC open, per the exchange at the bottom, except that a bot closed it automatically. As at least an interim solution, a compromise has been reached on this subject. The RfC has been closed without prejudice, meaning that if and when Debresser receives a response from JPS to his query, he can choose to reopen this RfC if the response warrants it.
StevenJ81 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion at User_talk:Debresser#613_Commandments seems to have reached an impasse. Greater editorial participation might bring this matter to a conclusive resolution. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I said that I will look into some sources today. How this qualifies as "impasse" is beyond me. Opening an RFC when there has been no previous discussion on the talkpage is also rather rash. In general I find this editor cares little for good argument, just repeats the content of his source and insists it is authoritative and relevant. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As to the issue itself. "the price of a dog" is understood literally by: Rashi (Deut. 23:19), Ibn Ezra (ib.), Ramban (ib.), Rikanti (ib.) Tora Tmima (ib.), Mishna (Tmura 6:3), Talmud (Tmura 30a), Sifri (Dvarim 261), Yalkut Shimoni (247), Rashi (Sota 26b), Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot (Mitzva 100 of the negative commandments), Sefer Yere'im (293), Sefer HaChinuch (571), Rambam Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Isurei Mizbeach 4:16), Mishna Brura (153:106), various responsa, etc. etc. In short, everybody. I found no other interpretations whatsoever. Conclusion, no other interpretations are part of Judaism's traditions. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
If opening an RFC is rash, then I'm poison ivy. Now, for the sources you alluded to above, please kindly provide: title of work, date of publication, and publisher. Otherwise, they are not correctly cited, any carry no weight whatsoever. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You go order somebody else around! Did I forgot to mention that you style comes over very bossy? In any case, these sources are complete as they are. You seem to be a novice editor, because you should know that the name of the author and the work are identical in these cases, and publisher and date of publication are not given. Next time somebody cites a bibleverse perhaps they should mention author and publisher as well? Debresser (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not necessary to provide an author and publisher for verses in the Hebrew Bible when used as a primary source (a literal translation of the ancient Hebrew text.) For synthetic and analytic claims, we DO require a publication of some currency. This you refuse to provide: "publisher and date of publication are not given" just won't cut the mustard. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It will, and always has. Just look around in Judaism articles. This has been discussed and confirmed at least twice in the 8 or so years I edit Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe for uncontroversial motherhood-and-apple-pie content. Here, there is an acrimonious dispute, so I need to be able verify your citations, so publisher and date must be given. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. Take it easy, folks.
David, all of the sources cited except for the Mishnah and Talmud are what we call Rishonim and Acharonim, earlier and later Rabbinic commentators. They originally published anywhere from 1000 years ago to present. Conventionally, in many cases, the authors are better known in Jewish circles by the name of their work than by their own names.
Rashi, to take an example, is republished (in Hebrew) in most Hebrew and Hebrew-English Jewish Bibles. So for someone like me, Rashi (Deut. 23:19) is a legitimate citation: it means "go to any Bible, turn to Deut. 23:19, and look at Rashi's commentary there".
Let me do you a little favor. You can find the Rashi at this site. You can find the Mishnah and Gemara (Talmud) in this pdf; turn to page 139, where you will find the Mishnah cited in all caps in the middle of the page, and the rest of the Talmud following that.
Many of the older works here don't have a "publisher"—they date to before Gutenberg. Their "publication dates" may only be known to the decade or to the "late xth century". If you really want a citation to some recent published version or other of these, it is possible to provide them. But I've shown you a couple of them. If you want more, frankly I think you are asking this to be difficult and to put an unnecessary burden on Debresser (and the rest of us).
In my view, you are trying to impose an extra-Jewish interpretation on this that a wealth of Jewish sources does not support. Over on Debresser's talk page, I suggested adding that as a footnote: You are entitled to offer alternative interpretations on Wikipedia. But to say that a Catholic source is more definitive on a list of Jewish commandments than a Jewish source seems mighty peculiar to me. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
RfC Comment: StevenJ81 says above that this looks at least somewhat like an attempt to use a Catholic source for a Jewish article. Not really sure that's the best idea. As a Catholic myself, I don't know Rashi or some of the others by name like some Jews do, although I do recognize that within Judaism their comments on religion are by and large considered authoritative within the various branches of the religion of Judaism on what is here, basically, a subject which is primarily, if not exclusively, of relevance to that faith tradition. If we Catholics ever talk about the 613 or so commandments in our churches, I don't remember having ever heard it. So far as I can see, those sources are about as reliable for Judaism as the Catholic catechism and Thomas Aquinas are for Catholicism. If they take the phrase literally, and seemingly they do, I would have to assume that any claims to the contrary be supported by extraordinary evidence, and I don't think that a single Catholic source is necessarily sufficient for those purposes. Now, if there were a section or some other significant amount of material about the 613 commandments outside of Judaism in the article, such material might be relevant for inclusion in that material/section, but not necessarily in the article as it now stands. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have currently in my possession a copy of "Tanakh The Holy Scriptures" by The Jewish Publication Society, ISBN 978-0-8276-0252-6. They translate Deuteronomy 23:19 as follows: "You shall not bring the fee of a whore or the pay of a dogd into the house of the Lord your God in fulfillment of a vow, for both are abhorrent to the Lord your God." Footnote d reads as follows: "I.e., a male prostitute". So we now have a correctly cited Jewish reliable source that fully supports my position about the meaning of this verse. In general, Wikipedia prefers English-language sources of recent vintage to anything that was published pre-Gutenburg in Hebrew, making it nearly impossible for most editors to obtain a copy or comprehend its meaning. As noted above, the "Catholic Study Bible" concurs with The Jewish Publication Society on the meaning of Deut. 23:19, indicating the coherency of this interpretation across multiple faith traditions. I will revert the article in accordance with these reliable sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Undone. First of all, you should not edit without first establishing consensus. And especially not while a RFC is ongoing! Secondly, we should stick to the plain meaning of the text, which is the meaning accepted by all the Jewish sages which are mentioned above. And just to put your mind at rest, I have written an email to the Jewish Publication Society asking them to explain where they found this interpretation of the text in Jewish sources. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we answer to the sources; the sources do not answer to us. Now, as for "all the Jewish sages which are mentioned above", please indicate where their interpretations of Deut 23:19 have been quoted, in English, in a published source of recent vintage. Citing your sources as "Rashi", etc, simply does not cut the mustard when disputing against two correctly identified reliable sources, and has a distinct aura of original research. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
But in real life they do. :) In any case, asking them won't hurt. Don't bs me with "original research", please. All these have stated their opinion explicitly! If you would like to see for yourself, many can be found in any Mikraot Gedolot on the verse itself. Debresser (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you guys have got to come to a compromise at this point. On one hand, DLE, stating that "Rashi on Deut 23:19" is not a legitimate RS is ridiculous. And as far as it goes, I have provided you with links to Hebrew-English Rashi. You can't hide from that as a RS.
On the other hand, the JPS version is considered the very best in modern, cross-denominational Jewish scholarship. So DLE has got a point there.
I think this now must read:
346. Not to offer ... (Deut. 23:19). Some interpret "exchange for a dog" as referring to wage of a male cultic prostitute.Refs
You both have Jewish RS now, so you need to figure out how to fit both in. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer to wait for a response from the JPS. But if DavidLeighEllis wouldn't agree to wait, I would agree to the compromise proposed by StevenJ81. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The compromise proposal is acceptable. I will add it to the article shortly. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
May I mark this RfC as closed? (Debresser, I would note that almost regardless of what JPS responds, the fact will remain that the footnote exists in the JPS translation. Unless it is excluded in a future translation, with an active explanation of why so excluded, I would think this compromise is going to have to stay put.) StevenJ81 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with StevenJ81 on the parenthetical note. Also, DavidLeighEllis, why did you write "cultic" prostitute. According to your post here, that is not in the source. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I slipped that in, because based on what I am familiar with, that is usually what the male prostitutes were. But if it's not in the source, it's not in the source. I didn't feel strongly about that word with respect to the compromise.
 Done Removed. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I will leave the RfC open until/unless you hear something. I'm going to suggest that if you don't hear anything in a month that we close this without prejudice. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. And if and when I hear something, we'll see what needs and can be done. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is clearly more than a Start-class article at this point, and has more information than just a list, so it is not really just a List-class article either. I have marked it as C-class because it is still missing sources and has many red links. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradict -- traditional view

@Sir Joseph: The "traditional view" cannot both "be based of the Maimonides' enumeration" and also predate Maimonides' enumeration. I tried to restate what I thought was intented but was revered without helpful outcome. tahc chat 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The counts are based off Maimonides enumeration. The view that there are 613 commandments might predate him, there are opinions to that, and the traditional 613 commandments come from Maimonidies. The lead says there is a tradition that there is 613 commandments from the 3rd CE, then Maimonidies enumerates those commandments. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
YES, that is what my edit said-- traditional view predates him but the most traditional enumeration is Maimonides' -- why did you revert my edit? tahc chat 21:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Because the way it's written now, the traditional view is based on Maimonides' enumeration, is correct. Yours was "the most traditional enumeration is Maimonides'." But because there are discrepancies in the enumerations, the base enumeration is Maimonidies'.Sir Joseph (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Maimonides is the basis for the enumeration but not the tradition of there being 613.
If we agree "the base enumeration is Maimonidies'" why don't you say that instead of claiming that Maimonides is the origin for the tradition. tahc chat 22:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Just expressing my agreement that the tradition of there being 613 commandments is Talmudic. There are various opinions which commandments are those 613. and the enumeration of Maimonides is only one of them, albeit the most popular. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that the new text as proposed by Tahc explains this well. However I don't think that justified adding the "Contradiction" template to the whole article. At most "Contradiction inline" could have been used.
By the way, Tahc, Maimonides is not from the 18th century. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sefer Ha-Hinuch

Assuming a professionally-published mainstream academic source was cited for it, including the version of the 613 commandments from Sefer Ha-Hinuch wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea... if done right.

Were we to include versions besides Maimonides's, I think it would be best to do one list, noting variations. This potentially goes against WP:SYNTH but it's just neater than listing 613 entries potentially several times, especially when some of the lists are derived from others. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am the guy [GoodJBoy] who tried to put the mitzvos of the Sefer Ha-Hinuch into this article. I did this for a few reasons: 1. First and foremost, there is no online English translation of the Sefer Ha-Hinuch Mitzvos. This would be THE only spot on the net with an English translation. 2. When it comes to learning the mitzvos, the two most respected authorities are Rambam and the Sefer Ha-Hinuch. The lists are similar but not the same. There are important differences. 3. The Rambam's list is organized by subject. The Sefer Ha-Hinuch is organized by their sources in the weekly Parsha. This means, as people read the weekly parsha, they can look into the Sefer Ha-Hinuch and see which mitzvos are sourced in that parsha and learn about them. In this way, as the entire Chumash is read each year, a person can travel through all the mitzvos in order as they appear in the parsha each year as well with the Sefer Ha-Hinuch. 4. The title of the article is "613 Commandments". It is not the "Rambam's 613 Commandments". If you are going to have an article about the 613 Commandments, even if it is a long article, it should contain the differing respected classic opinions on what the actual 613 mitzvos are. Hands down, the two most respected and classic listings are Rambam and the Sefer Ha-Hinuch.

The English listing posted was typed up and edited by myself (since there is no existing English list online) from the Feldheim version. I am not a regular contributor onto Wikipedia so I am not versed in how to properly format or cite things. My apologies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodJBoy (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I see there is a separate article on the Sefer Ha-Hinuch. I am trying to get the editors to accept publishing a listing of the Mitzvos on that page. If that is successful, rather than publish the Sefer Ha-Hinuch Mitzvos here, we can simply reference a link to the other article and keep this length of this article at a more normal length. Perhaps this should be the case for Rambam's listing of the mitzvos as well. It is probably better to cite the listing in other articles otherwise this article can grow gigantic. If you are going to post Rambam's list here, why not the B'Hag and Sefer HaHinuch and everyone else's list? I think the best approach is to post the content of the actual mitzva listings in the articles specific to each list and have this article cite those listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodJBoy (talk • contribs) 12:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You could rescue the list from the historical versions of this page, place them on a subpage of your user page, and work to format them, while waiting to see if it is appropriate to add them in somewhere. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

My View On The Number

613=6+1+3=10, swap the order of two numbers 1 and 0, we have "01", it means "no the One" for mockery purpose. Someone said the 613=611 + 2 (received directly from God), my view also works on this number, 611+2=6+4+2=12=1+2=3 (sacred number of Satan), the 4 number came from 11 number if we "join" them, not "add" them as tradition view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.55.181.153 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:613_commandments/Archive_1&oldid=1217041670"