Answers to Questions Asked of the Rabbi

For previous questions and answers go to Archive.

Question: In many articles about the mitzvot (plural of mitzvah, commandment) in the Torah , there is an explanatory sentence that says something like, "By the way, there are 613 mitzvot in total that Jews are expected to perform." My questions are, even for observant Jews, isn't this an exaggeration? Don't many of the 613 commandments actually refer to actions relating to animal sacrifices and other rituals surrounding the ancient Temple, and these are no longer possible? Has any modern scholar or rabbi actually enumerated the number of mitzvot that it is possible to perform in the 21st century?

Answer: This question, it would appear, has three separate parts ~ all relating to the traditional expression, "TaRYaG HaMitzvot" (tav=400; resh=200; yud=10; gimmel=3).

a) Is "613" an exaggeration? It is hard to know whether or not the number "613" is an exaggeration. I have had teachers who indicated that, if one were actually to count what "sound" like commandments in the Torah, these would number more than 1,000. Perhaps the number "613" then was an attempt to "consolidate"? Another thought is that "the 613 commandments" is a phrase intended to correct those who believed that there were only "10" commandments.  It also could be understood as a polemic against those who were of the belief that the commandments ~ as a group ~ were forever set aside (in the tradition of "Jesus"). In any case, there have been some attempts to explain why the rabbis actually settled on the specific number "613"). One suggestion is that "613" comes from the word "Torah" = 611 (gematria) + the two additional commandments that God spoke to Moses directly (the first two commandments of the Decalogue). A distinction between "positive" and "negative" commandments was also drawn with some attempt to extract meaning from the number 613: thus, 365 (= number of days in a year) "negative" commandments + 248 (= number of known bones and organs in the human body) "positive" commandments...

While the number "613" relating to the mitzvot is not "Biblical," it does appear in the Talmud (Makot 23b, Rabbi Simlai...). However, even as late a Biblical scholar as Ibn Ezra (1093-1167) is wary of this descriptive sum:

"Some sages enumerate 613 mitzvot in many diverse ways...but in truth there is no end to the number of mitzvot...and if we were to count only the root principles...the number of mitzvot would not reach 613" (Yesod Mora, Chapter 2; cited in Wikipedia, "613 Mitzvot"; see also Wikipedia for the most accepted list today by Rambam).

b) Are many of the "613" no longer possible? There is general agreement, even in the Orthodox communities, that many of these commandments are only applicable within "the land" (Israel) and could not be observed by those living in the Diaspora. However, I wouldn't necessarily refer to these commandments as "no longer possible." Rather, among some traditional Orthodox communities, they may be seen in "temporary suspension" ~ either for those who have yet to return to "the land," or until that time when the Temple will be rebuilt and the sacrificial cult reinstituted.

Here is a quote from "Judaism 101" {1}:

"Many of these 613 mitzvot cannot be observed at this time for various reasons. For example, a large portion of the laws relate to sacrifices and offerings, which can only be made in the Temple, and the Temple does not exist today. Some of the laws relate to the theocratic state of Israel, its king, its supreme court, and its system of justice, and cannot be observed because the theocratic state of Israel does not exist today. In addition, some laws do not apply to all people or places. Agricultural laws only apply within the state of Israel, and certain laws only apply to kohanim or Levites."

c) How many of the "613" remain possible to perform? Several more recent attempts have been made to enumerate those commandments that would still be considered "binding" on Jews living outside the land of Israel today. For example, the Chafetz Chayim (1838-1933) reduced the number to 77 positive mitzvot and 194 negative mitzvot which can be observed outside of Israel today (total = 271) {1} Yet other internet sources still find a few more: 297 "applicable" commandments ~ in other words, somewhat less than half of those listed by Rambam. {2,3} At this point, I cannot say whether any secular scholar of rabbinic law has attempted to discern a comparable number !

{1} http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mitzvot.html
{2}http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=130
{3} http://www.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224151754AAjcL1E

Question: A member of the Messianic Jewish community would like to apply for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.  Given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Israel, how will that application be viewed by the government of Israel?

Answer: On April 16, 2008, the Israel Supreme Court ruled that a Messianic Jew ~ if the applicant could demonstrate a Jewish lineage on the father's side ~ could be considered for citizenship under the (secular) Law of Return, but not if the mother was also Jewish.  The reasoning is that because the mother had been Jewish, the Messianic Jew would have been halachically Jewish at one point, and therefore would be considered to have "changed religions" by becoming a Messianic Jew.  This "change in religion" would disqualifying the applicant with regard to the Law of Return.  At this juncture, then, only those Messianic Jews who were not halachically Jewish at one time can apply.  (Such is the complexity of Israeli law, especially when it comes to religion. Yikes!). 

According to Amendment 4A (a) to the Law of Return, passed in 1970, "The rights of a Jew under this law... are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion."

The law defines a Jew as "a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."

Question:  I am a member of the "Universal Salvation" school of Christian thought. That is, we believe that eventually -- after the end of earth and hell -- God will reconcile with all souls...and that eventually "our" concept of God will "win"...  My theological question is this: do you find that oppressive / patronizing / nauseating?

Answer:  Actually, this isn't really asking a theological question as much as it is asking for a personal response to someone else's theology... 

Speaking just for 'me' ~ and not for Judaism in general, I suppose I can't really fathom how anyone on earth has any idea what God is going to do.  Not believing in a metaphysical 'hell,' (or a heaven, for that matter), the notion that there will be a post-historical period after hell/heaven simply doesn't resonate with me...

But more to the point ~ I am not nearly as concerned about what people "believe" as I am about what they do with their beliefs.  My guess is that many Christians expect that their concept of God will "win" and that Jews will eventually find the truth in Jesus.  If I let it "get to me," it could well drive me right up the wall.  That's why it's probably a wonderful thing that humans can't really read each other's thoughts.  So as long as folks keep these beliefs to themselves, I can't see where any harm is being done.  We Jews have our own particular theology that also does tend to exclude others; and as long as we keep it to ourselves and understand that we have no claim to "truth," I suppose no one gets hurt.

(Hmmm ~ as I write these words, I can see how easy it would be to make
an argument that these kinds of beliefs DO hurt, in ways that I
acknowledge would be difficult to measure.  But then again, one could
also mount the case that relativism and atheism are equally dangerous
templates through which to see the world.)

Summation: it appears that there are at least several "levels" on which one could answer whether or not another's theology is oppressive or patronizing.  If it brings you (me, anyone) to heal the sick, comfort the needy, care for the homeless, etc., etc., then the theological motivation seems to me less important than the deed.  If it brings us to injure "the other," then I guess it is oppressive, patronizing, and even nauseating...