This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This message was left on my talkpage by Pce3@ij.net (talk · contribs):

Because you deleted the edit shown below I would like to discuss with you first any revision of this part of the Mitzvot article as to the role, place and adoption of Jewish law (or its derivatives) in both the Christian religion and in the secular law of other cultures, (American law in particular).

Deleted 17:19, 8 March 2006 by User:Jfdwolff from the Mitzvah article: "Some other faiths (esp. Christianity) have adopted some Mitzvot as part of their own set of beliefs and practice. "

-- PCE 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that because, as I stated with abundant clarity in the edit summary: "rv, Christianity has not adopted mitzvot, it has adopted certain ceremonies but does not call it mitzvot - sacraments is about the closest". Christianity has, in fact, renounced the concept that the Torah's law is binding (see Paul and his anti-legalism). Can you tell me which mitzvot you are referring to, by the way? JFW | T@lk 07:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My primary reference for the purpose of this discussion is the somewhat lengthy presentation on the History Channel of The Ten Commandmentsin which the List of the 613 Mitzvot is cited as to its adaptation and in some cases inclusion in both American law and Christianity. Aside from other citations I know from my own personal experience that few Christian denominations reject the Old Testament but rather base most of their teachings and beliefs (aside from their belief that Christ is Devine) on the Old Testament upon which the Mitzvot is based. This is especially true for the Seventh Day Adventists who have also adopted most if not all of the dietary restrictions. The History Channel presentation covers both the secular and the Christian adaptations and inclusions relatively well. -- PCE 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (My talk page)

Is the History Channel a reliable source? Anycase, there must be a way to phrase your views in a way that more accurately approximates the facts. I would suggest: "Various Jewish practices have been adopted by other religions". Doing "something Jewish" is not the same as doing "a mitzvah", which requires the appropriate intention and should be done not to satisfy Christian law (which would by definition remove it from the category "mitzvah") but to adhere to the Torah.

Please tell my if you find my suggestion reasonable. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I'm a long way from doing an edit. I am very much in a study or fact finding phase but in regard to the History Channel presentation all of the statements that were made are factual and do reflect the fact that many secular and Christian practices are based on the rules put forth in the Old Testament as reiterated in the List of the 613 Mitzvot. In fact the History Channel presentation attempted to correct several common misunderstandings such as "an eye for and eye" being a limitation rather than a requirement as is the common belief. In regard to "appropriate intention" in most of the Christian Bible classes that I have attended references to the Old Testament have been made in fact for the purpose of attaining the proper perspective so that the "appropriate intention" of the law will be known. Many Christian denominations have in fact come to exist as the result of their former religion subscribing to the law for the wrong intention or purpose. It appears therefore that rightful purpose in subscribing to the law is also a shared ideal which is most likely derived from Judaism. The majority of Christians I know subscribe to the Golden Rule and use it to weigh the validity of other law. No position is unreasonable to me since my interest is in understanding all aspects and regard for the law so as to be able to codify law in the form of a dichotomous key or more precisely in the form of a multichotomous key. -- PCE 00:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC) (My talk page)

Given the large number of mitzvot and the many points of view concerning the relative importance of the several commandments, I believe pulling out two favorites for display at the top of the article is not very encyclopedic, and may contravene neutral point of view and/or original research guidelines. If you are prepared to cite a source for the claim that these mitzvot are especially important, it may be appropriate to document that claim in the article. But I believe the section as currently written takes away from the flow and tone of the article. Any other opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbomber (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are we translating the word 'Mitzvot' as 'Commandments'? I think many people think only of the 10 Dibrot when they hear the word commandment. Within the context the word 'Law' is a better translation Pburnstein1 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Hebrew word for "army" is "tzavah", a command force. It's in the Hebrew Bible and is generally translated as "host" in King James translations, and it's the "Ts" in "Tsahal", the Hebrew acronym for the modern Israeli Defence Force. While it does reflect a classical theological view and there are other views, the translation "command" does reflect the etymological meaning of the Hebrew, particularly the term's etymological relationship to "army" and some of the connotations of that relationship, in a way the term "law" does not. --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See subject. Thanks, --Shlishke (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly true that this article primarily presents classical Jewish viewpoints and sources; You're welcome to add a better presentation of e.g. contemporary and academic viewpoints with appropriate sources. The sources included are not necessarily ideal but they are reliable for the viewpoints offered. One last thing: there isn't really any such thing as an "npov source." All sources have biases and perspectives, the issue is simply if a source is reliable for the viewpoint presented. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that there are also different ways to count the mitswot. 613 is the numbering used by Maimonides. but there are other numberings wich say there are less, or more mitswot. can anyone who knows more of this add some of this to the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.220.80 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mitzvah itself perhaps is different.

But regarding a link here.

• "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 of English "commandment".

And regarding categories, similarly compare with the following Google Books hits:

• positive commandment 9,110 + pl positive commandments 6,490 - and more WP:IRS
• positive mitzvah 545 + positive mitzvot 466 + positive mitzvoth 81, + positive mitzvos 164

It appears that some of the categories and articles in this area may have been created in good-faith unawareness of Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English)? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If one were to look at all times the word "mitzvah" was used in the last 100 years by those who call themselves Jews, including the non-Orthodox Jews who halakhically are unquestionably Jews, I'm sure there would be much more use of it as an informal synonym for "good deed" than as a reference to rabbinical mitzvot or anything along that line. Yet the article deals overwhelmingly with the latter, and has only one sentence on the former. This seems to me to be a distortion. deisenbe (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel a distinction needs to be drawn between Mitzvah (as defined here) and mitzveh (yiddish, 'good deed'). Redirecting mitzveh to Mitzvah seems wrong to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.116.3 (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The category Negative Mitzvoth has no definition, and no connection to this article. If an editor with expertise in the topic could fix this is would be beneficial. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this considered accurate? I'm not going to edit it because I am not an expert on Jewish belief, but I know that the Deuteronomic law was given in speeches by Moses on the plains of Moab and includes commandments not previously recorded. That said, maybe Jewish tradition holds that Moses was just remembering laws given that day on Mount Sinai that were not previously written down. Brianlayman (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]