0

B"H

The Rambam in the beginning of the laws of kings chapter 11 brings the proofs from the Torah for how we know Moshiach.

The first proof is a verse from the Torah saying Hashem will "return us" to the land.

The second, in that same halacha (#1) is the passage of the prophet Bilaam, and the Rambam explains which verses in that passage refer to Moshiach.

Then the Rambam finishes the first halacha, starts the second, and brings a third proof from the cities of refuge.

The question is, if the first halacha is, seemingly, to bring the different proofs from the Torah regarding Moshiach, then why does he mention the cities of refuge in it's own halacha, and not together with the other two?

Or if he wants to list each proof in a separate halacha, then why not list the proof from the passage of Bilaam in the second halacha, and the cities of refuge in the third?

Source

Improve this question
12
  • 5
    It's not Rambam that mentions the first two proofs in the first halacha, and the third proof in third halacha. It's the editors of the common editions of the Mishneh Torah who do that. In Mechon Mamre's edition (based on Yemenite manuscripts), the proofs are split over several halachot. In some old printed editions, all three proofs are grouped together.
    – Tamir Evan
    Nov 15, 2022 at 4:17
  • Related: "What is the intention of the Moshiach proofs from the Torah, brought by Rambam?" (This question is basically point/difficulty No. 2 in that question.)
    – Tamir Evan
    Nov 15, 2022 at 4:20
  • @TamirEvan hi. Even in machon mamre they list the original halacha number, look at halacha 5 there. That other link has everything grouped as one halacha, so maybe the editors there edited them all out. The linked question doesn't have that point answered
    – B''H Bi'ezras -- Boruch Hashem
    Nov 15, 2022 at 4:56
  • 2
    @YakkOv Mechon Mamre looks like it is using Rav Kapach's edition of Rambam. He left the common (what you call original) numbers in his edition because they are universal, even though in his opinion they were mistaken.
    – N.T.
    Nov 15, 2022 at 9:44
  • 2
    Who follows the view that the numbers were not mistaken? I don't think anyone specifically holds that way
    – robev
    Nov 15, 2022 at 16:32

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .