Sefer HaMitzvotSefer-HaMitzvot of Maimonides represents the turning point and culmination of the study of the TaRYaG .
Solomon ibn Gabirol (1361-1444) is the author of the most well known Azharot titled Sh’mor Libi Ma’aneh, based on the BeHaG [which S.Y. Agnon built on his experience while reading this Azharot designed for recitation of the first night of Shavuot]. Ibn Gabirol states, “And He will forgive the guilt (of popularizing the mitzvoth in poetic form], and He will increase the strength. And He will bestow the wisdom to make mortals understand, which is understood by Duran and R. Menachem of Troyes [Machzor Bologna, pirush on Azharah} to reflect the poets well intentioned searchings in attempting to popularly enumerate the precepts, while relying on the BeHaG. Nonetheless the Sefer-HaMitzvot of Maimonides represents the turning point and culmination of the study of the TaRYaG with the exception of the Sepher Yeraim by R. Eliezer of Metz, no TaRYaG work written after the 12th century fails to take cognizance of Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot.
The Tosafists R. Moses of Coucy, pupil of R. Judah Sir Leon, and author a Sefer HaMitzvot Gadol, and R. Isaac of Corbeil, pupil of the MaHaRam of Rothenburg, and author of Sefer Mitzvot Kattan, originally titled Shiv’a Amudei Olam. While the 13th century Spain was dominated by the enumeration of R. Moses of Coucy the later centuries were much influenced by the TaRYaG of R. Aaron of Barcelona HaLevy [ReAH (Rabbi Aaron HaLevi) ] author of Sefer Hachinuch.
Zohar Rakiah by Rabbi Shimon ben Zemach Duran is noteworthy in four ways. Firstly it is written in the form of a commentary to the Azharah “Shemor Libbi Ma’aneh of ibn Gabirol so that “people who tremble for the word of the L-rd should study it [on Shavut] once a year.” Rabbi Duran (Tashbaz) criticizes previous commentaries to this Azharah for their having mistakenly interpreted it according to Maimonides TaRYaG list. Since Gabirol followed the BeHaG Duran remains faithful to this fact, while still acknowledging the unquestionable authority of Rambam. Secondly while Duran employs Aramaisms throughout his Responsa, the Hebrew style of the Zohar HaRakia is simple and flows smoothly avoiding difficult forms of expression. Thirdly Duran’s work’s uniqueness is in the actual treatment of the precepts. Maimonides and Nachmanides opinions are treated briefly and the essential proofs and objections to each are given. Throughout clarity prevails, and Duran’s own respectful proofs or objections to Rambam and Ramban abound so that if Rambam is the thesis, Ramban the anti-thesis, Duran’s work is the Aufhebung. In a halakhic sense Duran is the Machria (Decisor) between Rambam and Ramban synthesizing his 2 great predecessors views, but rejecting both their opinions when he feels necessary so that the result is the most penetrating treatment of the TaRYaG. Thus Duran is forced to include 24 positive precepts and 18 prohibitions that appear in neither Rambam nor Ramban’s lists. Among these are the precepts “to accept proselytes”, “to keep far from falsehood”, and to “repay a creditor.” In a number of instances Duran put forth his own views of what should be counted as a commandment and what is not to be counted as a precept with regards to the predecessors Rambam and Ramban
For example the Tashbaz adds precepts to Rambam #32 & #157, & #216, has taharat hamet in place of no. 107 of Rambam, and replaces ten precepts of Rambam #237 with one: to judge righteously etc. Duran also includes #9 of Rambam in #8 of Rambam, has an additional prohibition on Rambam #72, , includes #104 and #105 the prohibitions in #102 and #103, has two prohibitions for Rambam #184, etc. The fourth distinguishing feature of Duran’s work is its hidden mystical esoteric quality although it is fundamentally a halakhic work.
In short no other work has had as much as an impact on the TARYAG tradition as Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot.
by DBL
(see David B Levy on TARYAG Ha-mizvot Tradition)
