Biblical Parallels Index – Devarim 5/0

Biblical Parallels Index – Devarim 5

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event or law, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depth.

Revelation

Hashem's revelation at Sinai is described at length in Shemot 19-20 and then recounted by Moshe to the nation in Devarim 4-5.

Tools

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two sets of chapters from a linguistic perspective. Some of the differences between the accounts relate to the stated goal of the experience, the role of Moshe as intermediary and as lawgiver, and the emphasis (or lack thereof) on hearing but not seeing God.

Articles.

• See Ma'amad Har Sinai in Shemot and Devarim for a table comparing the two accounts and analysis of the differences.  The articles suggests that on the eve of the people's entry into the land, Moshe had two fundamental concerns regarding the nation. He feared that with foreign influences, they would stop believing in Hashem and turn to other gods, and additionally, that even if they retained belief, they would question the authority of the laws transmitted via Moshe and be lax in their observance.  This agenda might account for the unique features of Moshe's retelling of the episode in Devarim 4-5

A Face to Face Encounter?

Several verses in Devarim 4 indicate that Hashem spoke directly to the nation at Revelation  (for example, Devarim 4:12, 15, 33, and 36).  However, other verses in the Torah imply that Hashem spoke through Moshe as an intermediary (Devarim 5:5), to Moshe with the nation listening (Shemot 19:9), or that the nation heard the commandments from both Hashem and Moshe (Shemot 19:19).  

Articles

• See The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe? for an overview of commentators’ approaches to this issue, ranging from those who believe that all of the Aseret Hadibrot were given through Moshe as an intermediary to those who believe that all of them were revealed directly to the nation.
• See The Four Stages of Ma’amad Har Sinai, by R. Menachem Leibtag, for analysis of the approaches of Rashi, Ramban, and Ibn Ezra to reconciling the various verses and a theory about how the ambiguity of this narrative reflects the fundamental tension within man’s encounter with Hashem. On one hand, man strives for a direct "face to face encounter", yet in reality fear often dominates and he cannot handle it.
• See זכרון מעמד הר סיני בנאותו של משה רבנו, by R. Tamir Granot, which compares and contrasts the ways that the Torah describes the experience of revelation in Shemot and Devarim, noting that in the former there is an emphasis on Moshe's mediating role and in Devarim revelation is framed as a "face to face" encounter. He explains that in Shemot, right after witnessing the miracles of the Exodus, the people did not need further proof of Hashem's existence, but rather proof of Moshe's status as prophet. In the fortieth year, in contrast, Moshe's role was obvious, but on the eve of entry into Israel, they needed to boost their belief in Hashem for the future. The differences further reflect two paths toward the development of faith. In Shemot, belief is presented as stemming from an objective, external experience of Hashem's revelation, while in Devarim it comes from an internal experience, a memory of the event as transmitted by the prophet and felt by each individual..

Decalogue Differences

The Decalogue appears in both the Torah's original account of the Revelation at Sinai in Shemot 20 and in Moshe's later retelling of the event in Devarim 5. The two versions contain many differences, including additions, omissions, and substitutions.

Tools

• Tanakh Lab – Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two versions.

Articles

• Several articles attempt to explain all the differences between the two versions of the Decalogue:
• See Decalogue Differences Between Shemot and Devarim for several approaches to the differences as discussed by commentators throughout the ages. Several medieval commentators assert that the discrepancies are insignificant and simply a natural outcome of Moshe's paraphrasing of Hashem's words, in which only the general meaning need be preserved. In contrast, many modern exegetes suggest that the Devarim rendition of the commandments constituted an intentional updating of the original Shemot version, as it was addressed to a different audience and set of circumstances. Midrashic sources posit a third approach, that the two Decalogues were both given simultaneously in the first year, and that both have legal relevance for all generations.
• See Differences Between the First and Second Appearances of the Ten Commandments, by R. Mordechai Sabato, for analysis of many of the differences in the two accounts and exploration of the significance of each. He suggests that in many cases, the focus of Sefer Devarim moves from the object under discussion to man's obligation in relation to that object. For example, in Shemot the commandment regarding Shabbat focuses on the actual sanctity of Shabbat (resulting from Hashem's ceasing from creation), while in Devarim it focuses on why the people of Israel specifically must sanctify Shabbat.
• Other articles focus on just one set of commands, such as the differences between the books in the way they present Shabbat or the command of "Do not covet":
• See טעמי השבת בעשרת הדברות בשמות ובדברים, by R. Yoel Bin-Nun, and עשרת הדברים, by Prof. Yonatan Grossman, which both analyze the different themes of Shabbat in the two versions of the Decalogue. Shemot emphasizes the cosmic religious significance of Shabbat, whereas Devarim focuses on its social message.¹ R. Bin-Nun suggests that the Sages teach that these distinct values are in fact two sides of one coin.² 
• See The Difference Between Lo Tahmod and Lo Titavveh: An Insight Based on the Hitpa’el, by Mitchell First, for an interpretation of this difference in language that suggests that “לֹא תִתְאַוֶּה” refers to actively nourishing an imaginary desire whereas “לֹא תַחְמֹד” describes coveting an object based on observation of it.

¹ R. Grossman notes that Moshe emphasizes this point because the people are on the verge of entering the land and building their own society.

² See also R. Bin-Nun’s “זכור ושמור בדיבור אחד נאמרו”, which analyzes the messages of Shabbat imparted by the various sections of Shemot that discuss this mitzvah, and how the perspective emphasized by Parashat Va'etchanan has roots in Sefer Shemot but also includes new ideas.