347 —מנין מצות דרבנן, מונחי חכמה בתנ"ך, והבדל בין בינה לתבונה

B"H, 18 Adar Sheni, 5708.

Harav Hachassid Ish Emet Ne'eman Maschil Al Davar Tov Askan etc. Morenu Harav N. Sheyichye Mindel

Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter:

A. Regarding the count of rabbinic mitzvos. The question divides into three: (a) What is the number of rabbinic mitzvos? (b) Which enactments of the sages are included in this count? (c) Why were specifically these enactments included and not others? I will address each point in order.

(a) The number of rabbinic mitzvos: The Shelah (Parshas Yisro, section Torah Or at its beginning) writes: In the Ten Commandments there are 620 letters, corresponding to Keter Torah. There are 613 letters—each letter representing one of the 613 mitzvos—and seven extra letters which correspond to the seven rabbinic mitzvos as written by earlier authorities. Similarly, seven rabbinic mitzvos are counted by Sefer HaChinuch (at the end of his indices), Megaleh Amukos (Ophen 70), Me'orei Or (letter zayin, subsection 13), Admor Hazaken (Iggeres HaKodesh section 29 and elsewhere), the Gra (in Sefer Beit Yitzchak in his name), Heichal HaBeracha al HaTorah at its end, Mitzvas Hashem (on mitzvos) at its end, and others. Only R. David Nieto in Sefer Kuzari Sheni (Dialogue 3:1) counts ten rabbinic mitzvos.

(b) Which enactments are included in the count of rabbinic mitzvos: Netilat Yadayim (ritual handwashing), Eruvin, Berachos (blessings), Shabbat candle lighting, Megillah reading, Chanukah candle lighting, Hallel. These are detailed in Sefer HaChinuch, Megaleh Amukos, Heichal HaBeracha, Mitzvas Hashem mentioned above and others.

(c) Why were specifically these enactments counted: Only those enactments that do not have a basis in Torah law itself and for which the sages instituted a blessing over their fulfillment were included as independent mitzvos (Mitzvas Hashem).

Note: The Semag (at the end of positive commandments) and Shaarei Kedusha by R. Chaim Vital (part I section four) include other enactments among rabbinic mitzvos and omit some of those listed above; but neither specifies how many rabbinic mitzvos there are. Therefore it can be said that they do not disagree with all those who count seven rabbinic mitzvos but differ on which enactments to include or omit—just as we find disputes regarding which Torah commandments are counted among the total of 613 even though all agree on that number.

B. Whether the terms chochmah, binah, daas appear together in Tanach: In Shemos (31:2), "bechochmah u'vetevunah u'vedaas" appears. The phrase "chochmah binah" together appears in Devarim 4:6; Yeshayahu 29:14; Mishlei 4:5-7; 7:4; 16:16; 23:23; Iyov 28:12; 28:20; 38:36; 39:17. The phrases "chochmah binah daas" together appear in Yeshayahu 11:2; Mishlei 3:5-7; 8:12-14; 9:10; 30:2-3.

C. What is the difference between bina and tevunah? In levels of intellect bina refers to a higher level or—as stated in Zohar III p.276a—bina ila'ah is above tevunah. That is—even though bina is when intellect has already come into explanation and understanding in detail and comprehension from one thing to another (whereas chochmah refers to intellectual flash or initial revelation in the mind—see Tanya chs.3 &18)—still its main aspect is intellectual analysis and reasoning. When after such analysis one arrives at practical conclusions which become primary while intellectual explanation becomes secondary or concealed—then it is called tevunah (see there in Zohar and commentaries on Mishlei 2:3 where both terms appear together). Of course these distinctions between bina/tevunah or chochmah/bina apply where scriptural or rabbinic sources intend such detail; but where such distinctions make no practical difference for that context they may use whichever term fits best even if it also refers to other intellectual levels.

D. Regarding Rashi's commentary on Shemos (32:4) that it was the erev rav who made the Golden Calf—therefore they said "eleh elohecha Yisrael" (“these are your gods O Israel”) rather than "eloheinu Yisrael" (“our G-d O Israel”). How then should we understand "Shema Yisrael"? Rashi's precision is that they said "elohecha" not "eloheinu", explaining that the speaker could not include himself among those addressed—but with "Shema Yisrael", it continues immediately with "Hashem Elokeinu..." (“the L-rd our G-d...”). Furthermore when a leader addresses the people he often uses language excluding himself from them—but regarding the Golden Calf episode since “these are your gods O Israel” was also proclaimed by part of the people themselves it is explained as coming from a separate group—the erev rav (“mixed multitude”). The phrase “to your tents O Israel” (I Kings 12:16) does not apply here since there each person literally had his own tent.

With wishes for success and blessing—that your speeches be words that come from the heart and enter into listeners’ hearts to increase their knowledge of G-d and strengthen them in observance of Torah and mitzvah—and regards to all members of your group sheyichyu.

Summary

This letter clarifies how seven specific rabbinic mitzvos are counted by most authorities, explores wisdom terminology found throughout Tanach—including distinctions between bina and tevunah—and offers insight into Rashi’s commentary on communal versus individual speech patterns in scripture.