It is an accepted axiom that God gave Ten Commandments to Bnei Yisrael, the Aseret ha-Dibrot. Indeed, unlike the ten plagues in Egypt or the ten utterances by which the world was created (Avot 5:1), in this regard the Torah states the number ten explicitly (Devarim 4:13 and 10:4, and Shemot 34:28).
However, while we know the total number, the commentators are divided as to how the Ten Commandments should be counted. Seven of them are fairly easy to identify: (1) "You shall not take the Name of the Lord in vain"; (2) "Observe/Remember the day of Shabbat…"; (3) "Honor your father and your mother"; (4) "You shall not murder"; (5) "You shall not commit adultery"; (6) "You shall not steal"; and (7) "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." But identifying the remaining three is more difficult. We generally divide the opening lines – "I am the Lord your God," "You shall have no other gods," and "You shall not make…" – which relate to idolatry, into two commandments, and combine all the clauses of "You shall not covet" to form the tenth commandment.
In order to address the question of how to count the ten, we should consider the purpose of the Sinaitic revelation at which they were stated. The Torah actually conveys a dual purpose for this unparalleled event: on one hand, God wants to teach Bnei Yisrael the statutes and laws; at the same time, the revelation itself is necessary as a test for Bnei Yisrael, to prove to them that God speaks with man and to validate Moshe's prophecy. The description in Sefer Shemot emphasizes the latter aspect, while the description in Sefer Devarim focuses more on the former.
If the purpose is to prove that God speaks with mortals, then the content is less important than the revelation in and of itself. Perhaps, then, the revelation should be regarded as comprising ten different Divine transmissions, or statements, rather than necessarily ten commandments. And indeed, the Torah uses the phrase aseret ha-devarim, "the ten statements," rather than aseret ha-mitzvot, "the ten commandments."
In terms of textual structure, almost every one of the Aseret ha-Dibrot stands alone as a "closed parasha" – i.e., it is separated from the next by a space the length of several letters, or even words. The opening dibrot are an exception to this rule, with no separation between them. It seems, therefore, that the first two dibrot may be viewed as a single "statement," without getting into the question of how many mitzvot it includes. Conversely, the final mitzva, "You shall not covet," is divided into two parashot, and it therefore makes sense to count it as two separate "statements."
In view of the above, the unit may be divided in two different ways. One way counts twelve commandments – which is the same as the number of the tribes, as well as the number of commandments to be proclaimed before the nation at Mount Gerizim. The other way divides the unit into ten statements.[1]
Parashat Yitro and Parashat Vaetchanan
Another problem in relation to the Aseret ha-Dibrot concerns the discrepancies between their first appearance, in Parashat Yitro, and their second appearance, in Parashat Vaetchanan. The differences are especially prominent in the obligation of Shabbat and the prohibition against coveting. In Parashat Yitro, Shabbat is presented as recalling the creation of the world in seven days, while in Vaetchanan, we are told that it recalls the exodus from Egypt. With regard to coveting, we find a surprising difference in emphasis:
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. Nor shall you covet your neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Parashat Yitro)
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. Nor shall you desire your neighbor's house, his field, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (ParashatVaetchanan)
I have mentioned in the past that the differences between the formulations of the Aseret ha-Dibrot in Sefer Shemot and in Sefer Devarim arise from the fact that Sefer Shemot presents the text of the first set of luchot, while the list in Sefer Devarim represent the second luchot. The first luchot were the creation of God Himself, while the second were hewn by Moshe, so it makes sense that there would have been differences between them. Moreover, while we are told in Sefer Devarim that it was God who inscribed the commandments on the second set of luchot, the text in Sefer Shemot suggests that Moshe wrote them.[2]
Since Moshe is a partner in inscribing the second set of luchot, the formulation of some of them changes accordingly. Just as actions and initiatives on the part of Bnei Yisrael prompt the enactment of certain mitzvot (Pesach Sheni, the laws of inheritance, the mitzvot given after the sin of the spies), so too the Torah after the sin of the golden calf is not the same as the Torah from before the sin, and the Aseret ha-Dibrot are not identical to what they were before.
How can we see this shift in the way the prohibition against coveting is formulated in each place? First, note that this prohibition clearly does not belong to the sphere of forbidden sexual relations, since it includes coveting someone else's manservant, maidservant, or house, not just his wife. Rather, it seems to be a matter of interpersonal relations: one must respect everything connected to another person as being "his," including his manservant, maidservant, house, and wife.
In this framework, the prohibition on coveting may be regarded from two different perspectives. From one perspective, someone who covets his friend's house commits a more severe violation than one who covets his friend's manservant, maidservant, or wife. The Torah emphasizes in several places the importance of a person's ancestral inheritance. A person's name is established over his inheritance, and the family is commanded to redeem that inheritance if, for whatever reason, it had to be sold to someone else.[3] For these reasons, the commandment in Parashat Yitro draws a distinction between the prohibition on coveting someone's house, and the prohibition on coveting anything else that belongs to him.
However, from the human perspective, a man's wife is clearly not mere "property," and one who covets someone else's wife is committing a most severe sin. Hence, the commandment in Parashat Vaetchanan (on the luchot Moshe made) separates "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" from the prohibition against desiring "your neighbor's house," etc.
The gap between these two perspectives seems to reflect a more fundamental difference between the Aseret ha-Dibrot of Parashat Yitro and those of Parashat Vaetchanan. As noted, the latter set is formulated differently because it follows the sin of the golden calf, which led Am Yisrael to become active partners in Divine service.[4] After the nation demonstrates its eagerness to act for the sake of a divine purpose and its unwillingness to remain passive, it becomes a full partner in the creation of the Mishkan,[5] and this partnership is also expressed in the content of the Dibrot. Since Am Yisrael have become active partners, the second set of Dibrot is formulated from the human perspective, rather than the Divine perspective, and therefore, instead of emphasizing one's inheritance and house, the emphasis moves to coveting someone else's wife.
We can use a similar approach[6] to explain the discrepancies regarding Shabbat as it appears in the two iterations of the Aseret ha-Dibrot. Here too, there is a fundamental difference, which we can see in the reason given for the command in each place.
In Parashat Yitro, the Torah treats Shabbat as an existing reality, from the time of creation, requiring that man function accordingly:
And the seventh day is a Shabbat unto the Lord your God: you shall perform no labor… for six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that they contain, and He rested on the seventh day; therefore, the Lord blessed the day of Shabbat and sanctified it. (Shemot 20:9-10)
In Parashat Vaetchanan, the exodus from Egypt is given as the reason Am Yisrael must themselves create Shabbat:
Observe the day of Shabbat to sanctify it, as the Lord your God commanded you… and you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt… therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to make (or "perform" – la'asot) the day of Shabbat. (Devarim 5:11-14)
We can thus also explain the difference between the words zakhor ("remember") in Parashat Yitro and shamor ("guard/observe") in Parashat Vaetchanan. In Parashat Yitro, we are told to "remember" Shabbat – since the commandment concerns remembering an existing day in order to sanctify it. In Parashat Vaetchanan, we are told to "observe" the day – since Am Yisrael must create the day of Shabbat by sanctifying it. In Sefer Shemot, man has no role in creating Shabbat; in Sefer Devarim, he creates Shabbat. Once again, we see that in the second iteration of the Aseret ha-Dibrot, the nation becomes an active partner.
The Reason for Observing Shabbat
It must be emphasized that the reason for observing Shabbat is not only a moral, or instructive one.[7] The Torah doesn't tell us that we must allow our servants to rest because when we were in Egypt, we, too, wanted to rest. Rather, it stipulates that our servants and even our animals must rest on Shabbat because we – Bnei Yisrael – are obligated to rest on Shabbat. The exodus from Egypt "justifies" God's authority to command us to observe Shabbat.[8]
This understanding relates to the division of the Aseret ha-Dibrot into two groups – from the beginning until Shabbat, and from honoring parents to the end (unlike the conventional division, which includes honoring parents in the first group).[9]
The first group starts and ends with the exodus from Egypt. In this group, the reason we are obligated to observe God's commandments is because God brought us out of Egyptian slavery. The second group refers not to the Exodus from Egypt but rather to the entry into Eretz Yisrael: one must honor parents in order to live a good life upon the land, and most of the commands that follow are related to the land: murder and adultery lead to banishment from the land (as the Torah emphasizes in many places), and the prohibition on giving false testimony relates to the judicial system, which is a precondition for inheriting the land (an issue treated at length in last week's shiur). It seems, then, that the Aseret ha-Dibrot are divided into two parts: those that are rooted in the past – the fact that God brought us out of Egypt and made us His nation – and those that are based on the future – the mitzvot that make it possible for us to inherit the land.[10]
(Translated by Kaeren Fish; edited by Sarah Rudolph.)
[1] In last week's shiur, we noted a similar conceptual transition: from twelve tribes to ten. A similar phenomenon characterizes the ten plagues in Egypt, and possibly also the number of commandments to be proclaimed at Mount Gerizim.
[2] This is hinted to in the midrashic opinion (Shemot Rabba 47:6) that says the ink left over from writing the Torah was smeared on Moshe's forehead, which is what caused his face to shine. The ink of the letters of the Torah was absorbed, as it were, into Moshe's face, and Bnei Yisrael were afraid to approach him just as they had previously been afraid of God's Presence during the revelation.
[3] The treasured significance of a person's inheritance, beyond its monetary value, is emphasized in the story of Navot's vineyard (I Melakhim 21).
[4] We may regard this as a positive outcome of the sin of the golden calf.
[5] As I have noted in the past, even those who maintain that the command to build the Mishkan was given prior to the sin of the golden calf can accept that the command concerning the universal half-shekel donation was given only afterwards. It seems likely that this was indeed the case, since the "atonement" mentioned in the context of the half-shekel seems appropriate to the context of participation in the creation of the golden calf.
[6] The explanation here generally follows the direction taken by Ramban, with some changes. (The midrashic teaching that the commands to "Observe" and "Remember" the day of Shabbat were uttered simultaneously relates to the Oral Law, which is not the focus in this shiur.)
[7] Cf. Devarim 24:18-19, where only the moral reason is mentioned.
[8] For this reason, the Torah emphasizes that God brought us out of Egypt "with a strong hand." If the reason for observing Shabbat had been the moral basis for the concept, this emphasis would be unnecessary.
[9] The division is not merely a matter of those between man and God (which are set forth at length) and those between man and his fellow man (which are formulated concisely), but also a more fundamental one. In fact, a certain parallel exists between the two groups. Reference to a manservant, maidservant, ox, and donkey appear in the final commandment in each group; "false witness" corresponds to "false oath"; honoring parents is formulated as a positive command rather than as a prohibition (like "I am the Lord your God"); and more. It should be noted that these parallels do not exist in the Aseret ha-Dibrot as formulated in Sefer Shemot; the division there is altogether different.
[10] In this vein, we might explain that the Torah divides the prohibition against coveting into two parts so that the second group will contain seven commands. The number seven is of special importance, and is connected in many different places to inheritance of the land.
No comments:
Post a Comment