וּסְפַרְתֶּ֤ם לָכֶם֙ מִמָּחֳרַ֣ת הַשַּׁבָּ֔ת מִיּוֹם֙ הֲבִ֣יאֲכֶ֔ם אֶת־עֹ֖מֶר הַתְּנוּפָ֑ה שֶׁ֥בַע שַׁבָּת֖וֹת תְּמִימֹ֥ת תִּהְיֶֽינָה׃
<span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>161er Precepto Positivo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">Y os habéis de contar desde el siguiente día del sábado</span>, desde el día en que ofrecisteis el omer de la ofrenda mecida; siete semanas cumplidas serán:
On the Special Laws
§ 176. (Text of ἀπὸ … μονάδος.) M has ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐκείνης ἡμέρα πεντηκοστὴ καταριθμεῖται ἑβδόμη ἑβδομάς, ἐφʼ αἷς ἱερὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐπισφραγιζομένης μονάδος. Nicetas ἀπὸ γὰρ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας πεντηκοστὴ ἀριθμεῖται ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδες ἱερὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐπισφραγιζομένης μονάδος. Nicetas’s text is followed by Mangey with the correction of ἑβδομάδες to -δων. Nicetas’s ἀπὸ is clearly right (see Lev. 23:15, for reckoning Pentecost from the Sheaf) and the question between his τῆς ἡμέρας … ἀριθμεῖται … and M’s ἡμέρα … καταριθμεῖται is unimportant, but his ἑβδομάδες is impossible; Cohn’s correction to ἑβδομάσι agrees, as he says, with the parallel in De Dec. 160, whereas Mangey’s ἑβδομάδων will make the sacred number 49 instead of 50. Cohn’s correction of ἐφʼ αἷς to ἀφέσεως seems to me much more doubtful. In De Cong. 109 which he cites, and a similar passage in De Mut. 228, an allegory is founded on the connexion of “release” with the Jubile of the fiftieth year. Here we are talking of a different feast which, except for the number 50, has no connexion with the Jubile, and there is no further allusion to the idea of release. The corruption of ἑβδόμη ἑβδομὰς ἐφʼ αἷς in M may have arisen (1) by an assimilation of ἑβδομάδες to the singular verb καταριθμεῖται, (2) by a variation of construction between a relative clause and a genitive absolute.