The Rambam firmly construes Sefirat Ha'Omer as 1 Mitzvah. Sefer HaHinuch concurs with the Rambam's read. Abbaye affirms in the Talmud: Just as it is a Mitzva to count days – so it is a Mitzva to count weeks… This Passages strongly suggests TWO separate Mitzvot
Furthermore, the Mitzva to count days in Parshat Emor states:
Tisp'ru Chamishim YOM
While the Mitzva in Parshat R'eih states:
Sheva Shavuot Tispar Lach!
Isn't it obvious that the 2 verse in the Torah describe two separate but equal actions!?
Problem: How can an individual nowadays simply argue with the Rambam - especially any further support? Furthermore, must I not I construe the silence of so many peer reviews that as implicit acquiescence? AHA! In a recent shiur in Teaneck, a rabbinic intern provided an informative Rabbeinu Yerucham: he indeed considers Sefirah as 2 separate Mitzvot!
He also posits that it is indeed TWO mitzvoth. I have my suspicions confirmed by research; it now has supporting evidence!
I queried the speaker how did he find this relatively obscure source?
He noted that the new edition of the Minhat Hinuch has this source cited in the footnotes. This indicates that the matter assumed to be a slam dunk by the Hinuch is in reality a matter of dispute. And I need no no longer be concerned about the silence of the peer review in that this voice of opposition has been already articulated by Rabbeinu Yerucham early on.
Comment On Original Post
Aside from a bit of Talmud Torah - why did I post this comment?
In attempting to master rational thinking, I came across the concept of "not jumping to conclusions". I.E. sometimes we see somrthing and we assume it to be axiomatic, mutually agreed upon. After All if Jews are always questioning, so why was the Rambam's ruling of only 1 mitzva never questioned? It seemed likely that seeing it as 2 Mitzvoth was an equally good read.
Failing to research this myself, I Humbly concluded that Rambam wins by acclamation & Case Closed, QED.. However, after attending a Shiur in which the rabbi found a source that DID cahllenge this Rambam, I had to recant my conclusion. Now I realized that my question - my observation - had some validity in classic sources. And since Rabbeinu Yerucham had already made this observation, it was no longer necessary for other sources to pose the same challenge to the Rambam. I could NO LONGER construe their silence as acquiescence to the Rambam's decision.
In fact I now could conclude nothing from this silence. Although, I now suspect that the silence is possible confirmation that both reads are about 50-50 and therefore no one needs to enter the fray to reject either side as off-target.
This is an important principle to realize; that just because we have not seen a competing source does not mean it is not there!
And I must also confess to not researching the matter in depth. It therefore has taught me a bit of humility, too