Decalogue Differences Between Shemot and Devarim/2/en

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Decalogue Differences Between Shemot and Devarim

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

The commentators' disagreement on how to account for the differences between the two versions of the Decalogue results from a confluence of two types of factors. On the one hand, it depends on differing exegetical methods in explaining repetitions and variations.  Does one view the text as omnisignificant and attempt to derive laws or new ideas from every detail of the text or does one posit that variations result from literary and realia considerations? On the other hand, it relates to theological controversies over the issues of the immutability of Divine plans/commands and whether Moshe had authority and flexibility to make adjustments to Hashem's dictates.

Ibn Ezra and several other 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. Thus, Shadal maintains that Moshe wanted to impart specific messages to the new generation which was about to enter the Land of Israel. Developing this further, the Hoil Moshe considers the new version to represent the ideal, appropriate only for the second generation and their higher spiritual level. On the other hand, Malbim asserts that the second set were in effect a downgrade, appropriate for the lower level of the nation after they had sinned with the Golden Calf. Finally, many 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.

Only Minor Variations

When Moshe repeated the Decalogue in Devarim, he preserved its original meaning and made only insignificant changes in its wording.

The primary Decalogue – According to Ibn Ezra and Ramban,2 the commandments as written in Shemot were the primary ones communicated by Hashem at Mt. Sinai, and it is these which were written on both the first and second tablets.3
Words of Hashem or Moshe? These commentators assert that the Decalogue in Devarim is Moshe's paraphrase of Hashem's words. It, thus, includes some explanatory material and other minor inconsequential changes.4 Ibn Ezra, Ramban and Cassuto support this assertion from Moshe's statement, "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ"‎.5
How can Moshe change Hashem's words? According to these exegetes, when repeating the words of another person, it is human nature not to repeat them verbatim but to introduce minor variations.6 Therefore one should not expect the Decalogue in Devarim to be precisely the same as that in Shemot. As long as Moshe did not change the meaning of the original, there is no theological issue.
Reason for Shabbat – These commentators disagree regarding how to explain the conflicting reasons given for observing Shabbat (remembering Creation vs. commemorating the Exodus):
  • Explanatory note – According to Ibn Ezra, the primary reason for the commandment is to commemorate Hashem's creation of the world (as stated in Shemot). In Devarim, Moshe refers to this reason when he says "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ". The statement regarding the Exodus, on the other hand, is not a reason for the command to observe Shabbat as a whole, but merely an explanation of why one is obligated to let one's slaves rest as well.
  • Two reasons are identical – Ramban, in contrast, attempts to equate the two reasons, suggesting that both relate to Hashem's creative abilities.7 The command to rest on Shabbat commemorates Hashem's resting after Creation and thus serves to proclaim Him as Creator. The miracles of the Exodus similarly testify to Hashem's creative abilities, as only one who made nature can override it.8
Additional phrases – These are understood to be explanatory notes of Moshe.
  • כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ – According to Ibn Ezra, in these words Moshe refers the nation back to the original Decalogue in Shemot, reminding them that all he is saying stems from Hashem.9
  • "וְשׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרְךָ" – Ramban asserts that Moshe adds that an ox and donkey should also not work on Shabbat to emphasize to the nation that even working the land, which is critical for sustenance, is prohibited on Shabbat.
  • "וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ" – According to Ibn Ezra, the reward of long life for the command to honor one's parents is simply a natural consequence of observing the commandment.10 Thus Moshe adds a second reward / motivation, that comes from obeying the words of Hashem.
  • "שָׂדֵהוּ" – Ramban maintains that by adding a field to the list of items one is not allowed to covet, Moshe clarifies that non-moveable possessions are also included in the prohibition.
Word substitutions – Ibn Ezra and Radak view all of these as synonymous formulations of the original.11 Ramban, though, asserts that these constitute clarifications through which Moshe explains what is included in the original command.12
Ordering – Ramban suggests that Moshe changed the order, mentioning coveting a woman first, since this was the area in which the people were most likely to err.13 Since the order does not affect the meaning, the change is deemed insignificant.
Single letter variations – These are not troublesome as it is natural to omit or add letters when recounting a story, and they have no effect on the meaning.
Masoretic divisions – According to Ibn Ezra, the Masoretic divisions were not created by Moshe and differences regarding them are therefore not relevant to this discussion.
דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם – Ibn Ezra and Radak are consistent with their general approach that the Torah speaks in the language of men. Often, they dismiss repetitions and small differences as being insignificant, explaining them as either literary or human variation, a shortened form, or explanatory comment.14

Fundamentally Updated

Each version of the Decalogue was intended for a different time and/or audience. This approach subdivides regarding what caused the changes between the two versions:

Changes in the Fortieth Year

The specific circumstances of the Children of Israel in the fortieth year in the Wilderness necessitated certain adjustments to the Decalogue.

Need for change
  • Imminent inheritance of land of Israel – Most of these commentators16 connect the differences to the nation's imminent arrival in the Land of Israel and the new lifestyle (so vastly different from the desert experience) which the nation would be encountering there.17
  • Elevated spiritual level – The Hoil Moshe, in contrast, understands the new formulations to stem from the higher spiritual level of the nation in the fortieth year. When Hashem initially conveyed the Decalogue, there were several points which the nation would not have been able to comprehend or appreciate, and thus these were originally omitted or presented in a less than ideal formulation.18
The primary Decalogue – According to this approach, the version of the Decalogue recorded in Shemot is the one which was said by Hashem at Sinai and written on both sets of tablets. The Hoil Moshe, though, suggests that the version in Devarim represents the more ideal form, and it would have been transmitted already at Sinai had the nation been ready to receive it.
Words of Hashem or Moshe? R. D"Z Hoffmann and the Hoil Moshe assert that the version in Devarim represents Moshe's own words and his personal changes. Shadal is ambiguous but may imply that Moshe spoke these words via prophecy.19
How can Moshe change Hashem's words? According to the Hoil Moshe, small differences are to be expected when one is recounting an event,20 but Moshe's larger changes need to be explained more fundamentally:
  • Moshe represented Hashem's ideal – The Hoil Moshe explains that Moshe's formulation actually reflected Hashem's ideal version which the nation was only ready to understand and accept in the fortieth year.
  • Prophetic status can teach – Alternatively, one might explain that Moshe as a prophetic leader had the right (and perhaps obligation) to clarify and apply the commandments to the newer generation.21
Reason for Shabbat
  • Choice of day vs. essence of day – Shadal explains that in Devarim, Moshe gives the reason why there should be a day of rest at all (to commemorate the Exodus), while in Shemot, Hashem simply explains the choice of day (related to Creation). The generation that had just recently left Egypt did not need to be told to remember the Exodus,22 only which day to keep, while the generation that entered the land required the opposite.
  • Reason vs. motivation – According to R. D"Z Hoffman, the primary reason for Shabbat is the one found in Shemot. The allusion to the Exodus in Devarim is simply a motivating factor why the nation should not view the commandment as a burden, but should rather appreciate its purpose. R. D"Z Hoffmann points out that throughout Sefer Devarim, Moshe refers to the enslavement and Exodus to motivate the nation to keep certain commandments.
  • Real vs. contrived explanation – The Hoil Moshe, in contrast, asserts that the main reason for keeping Shabbat is that given in Devarim, so that slaves could rest. Hashem could not have said this in the first year, as the nation would have scoffed at the notion, given their own lack of rest as slaves in Egypt. Therefore, Hashem gave them a different explanation which they could understand.
Additional phrases
  • "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ" – Shadal23 suggests that this phrase was added to emphasize to the nation that they should observe Shabbat because of Hashem's command, and not for personal reasons. In the land, after a long week's work, the nation might have desired to rest regardless of the obligation.24 The phrase was added to the command regarding respecting parents, on the other hand, to teach the nation that even under the difficult conditions in the Land of Israel, when it might be more difficult to honor parents, they should remember that it is a Divine obligation.25
  • "וְשׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרְךָ" – Shadal, Hoil Moshe, and R. D"Z Hoffmann assert that Moshe emphasizes that even animals which are vital to working the land must rest on Shabbat. This point was more essential to state in the fortieth year as the nation prepared to enter and work the land.26
  • "לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ כָּמוֹךָ" – Shadal and Hoil Moshe relate the addition of "לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ כָּמוֹךָ" to Devarim's distinct reasoning for observing Shabbat, i.e. remembering the slavery in Egypt and thereby recognizing that one must allow one's own slaves to rest.
  • "וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ" – Shadal views this as an additional motivation to honor parents in conditions that are more difficult than the ideal setting of the desert.27 Hoil Moshe, in contrast, asserts that this reward relates to national (rather than individual) good in the people's homeland, a reward that the fledgling nation would not have appreciated in the first year.28
  • "שָׂדֵהוּ" – In the wilderness, where there were no fields to be coveted, it was not necessary to single out this possession.
Word substitutions
  • "זָכוֹר" / "שָׁמוֹר"
    • Shadal explains that "שָׁמוֹר" refers to looking forward in time, while "זָכוֹר" means thinking back. In the wilderness, with the manna serving as a weekly sign of the coming of Shabbat, there was no need for a commandment of "שָׁמוֹר"; only in the land would they have to actively think ahead to Shabbat.29
    • Alternatively, R. D"Z Hoffmann and Meshekh Chokhmah suggest that the term "שָׁמוֹר" is related to the negative commandments of Shabbat and the prohibition against work, which are emphasized in Devarim due to the nation's greater work load in Israel.
    • ChizkuniDevarim 5:11About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach asserts that the verb "זָכוֹר" is more applicable to the first generation who were recently given the commandment (at Marah) and are told to remember it, while "שָׁמוֹר" is more applicable to the nation in the fortieth year who were already used to observing Shabbat, and are merely being told to continue to do so.30
  • "שָׁקֶר" / "שָׁוְא" – Shadal, R. D"Z Hoffmann, and R. Hirsch all relate the change to the fact that by the fortieth year the laws of "עדים זוממים" had already been given.31
  • "תַחְמֹד" / "תִתְאַוֶּה" – R. S"R Hirsch asserts that "לֹא תַחְמֹד" refers to acting on one's jealousy, while "לֹא תִתְאַוֶּה" refers to jealousy that one simply feels. In the fortieth year, when the nation was to disperse to their individual homes with no one to watch over their actions, Hashem reminded them that they should guard even their thoughts because Hashem can discern and judge their feelings as well.
Difference in order – Shadal points out that in the desert, where there were only tents, people desired houses more than women. However, in Israel, where houses were plentiful, women were more desired and are thus mentioned first.
Single letter variations – Hoil Moshe asserts that the minor variations of one letter are insignificant. In contrast, many of the other commentators attempt to explain even these:
  • "וְכָל תְּמוּנָה" / "כָל תְּמוּנָה" – R. Hirsch maintains that removing the וי"ו in the second set of commandments served to highlight the extent of the prohibition against idolatry.32 This was an important reminder before entering Israel, which was full of idolaters.33
  • "עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים" / "וְעַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים" – R. Hirsch asserts that the conjunction connects the second and third generations. By the time Moshe was speaking in the fortieth year, both generations already existed (and suffered for their parent's sins) so Moshe did not pause to distinguish between them.
  • "עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ" / "וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ" – R. Hirsch and R. D"Z Hoffmann maintain that the added conjunction serves to equate the master and slave who are all equally required to rest. This is related to Devarim's greater emphasis on "לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ", which is in turn connected to the greater agricultural work that would be done by the nation after settling in the Israel.
  • "וְשׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ" / "שׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ" – Shadal suggests that when words in a list are combined with a וי"ו the word following the וי"ו tends to get de-emphasized. Thus, by removing the conjunction before "שׁוֹרוֹ", Moshe brought the ox back into focus. This was important upon entry into the land where animals that worked the land were likely to be coveted.34
Masoretic divisions – These commentators do not address these.
Changes in plans – The Hoil Moshe assumes that at times Hashem is willing to formulate a less than ideal law or explanation in accord with the lower level of the nation at a given time.35

Changes Already in the First Year

Hashem made changes to the commandments following the Sin of the Golden Calf and already prior to His giving of the second set of tablets.

The primary Decalogue – According to this approach, the Decalogue conveyed in Shemot 20 was the one written on the first tablets, while the version found in Devarim was written on the second tablets.38 Malbim emphasizes that the first was the ideal, written for a nation which was deserving of a miraculous existence, filled with only good. The second was an amended version written for a sinful nation governed by the laws of nature.
Words of Hashem or Moshe? According to this approach, both versions of the Decalogue represent the words of Hashem, and Moshe played no role in the changes.
How can Moshe change Hashem's words? This is a non-issue for this approach, as it posits that Moshe simply faithfully recounted the words of Hashem as given in the second tablets.
Reason for Shabbat
  • Change from supernatural to natural – Malbim maintains that before the idolatrous Golden Calf the nation was supposed to be led supernaturally and thus the miracles of the Exodus would have been similar to their every day existence and not worthy of special commemoration. Only after the sin, when the people were led naturally, did it become crucial to remember the Exodus.39
  • Need for better proof – One might suggest that in the aftermath of the sin, Hashem decided to have the nation focus on the miracles of the Exodus which they saw with their own eyes rather than Creation which the nation had not witnessed.40 This would better strengthen their belief in Hashem.41
Additional phrases
  • "וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ" – Malbim suggests that the term "good" is meaningless if there is no "bad" to compare it to. Thus, before the Sin of the Golden Calf, when there was to be no death and life was miraculous, such a promise was unnecessary.42
  • "שָׂדֵהוּ" – This approach can explain like Meshekh Chokhmah, above, that after the Sin of the Golden Calf, there were to be periods of oppression when the Jubilee laws would no longer take effect and fields would no longer return to their rightful owners.43 As such, it could no longer be included under the phrase "וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ" (which assumes that a field always belonged to its original owner), and a distinct mention was necessary.
Single letter variations
  • "וְכָל תְּמוּנָה" / "כָל תְּמוּנָה" – This approach can explain like Shadal and R. D"Z Hoffmann, above, that the וי"ו was removed in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf, to emphasize the extent of the prohibition against idolatry, that all idols, even of other creatures and natural entities were not permitted.44
Other differences – These commentators do not address the other more minor changes.
Biblical parallels – It is possible that other commandments also changed as a result of the sin of the Golden Calf. For more, see Purpose of the Mishkan for those who maintain that the entire command to build the Mishkan was a response to the sin. See also About R. Ovadyah Sforno for his expansion of this theory, and see Altars of Earth, Stone and Wood regarding the Hoil Moshe's position on the change from private to centralized worship.

Dual Divine Communication

Hashem originally transmitted both versions of the Decalogue simultaneously at Mt. Sinai, but they are written separately since it was impossible to record them together.

"בדיבור אחד נאמרו" – Most of these sources relate only to the switch between "שָׁמוֹר" and "זָכוֹר"‎,45 and might not have even been attempting to use the concept of "בדיבור אחד נאמרו" as a comprehensive solution to all the variations. In fact, it seems that the original question addressed by the midrashic material relates to resolving seeming contradictions in Hashem's commandments throughout Torah,46 rather than explaining differences within the Decalogue specifically, and "בדיבור אחד" might have been meant metaphorically47 to express that both laws nonetheless came from Hashem.  The Bavli, though, appears to understand the phrase literally,48 and others too have viewed it as a way of explaining the variations between the Decalogue as a whole.49
The primary Decalogue – According to this approach, both versions are equally original and important, as both were said by Hashem at Mount Sinai. The approach might suggest that in each set of tablets, each slab contained all ten commandments, one as formulated in Shemot and one as formulated in Devarim.50
Words of Hashem or Moshe? This position asserts that both versions of the Decalogue were said by Hashem, and Moshe played no role in the variations.
How can Moshe change Hashem's words? It is possible that this question, in part, motivates this approach. Ramban suggests that Chazal relate specifically to the difference between "זָכוֹר" and "שָׁמוֹר" since they were troubled by the notion that Moshe might switch Hashem's words from a positive to a negative command.51 To circumvent this issue, Chazal posit that it was Hashem, not Moshe, who said both.
Word substitutions and reason for Shabbat – These changes are the ones best explained by this approach, which would suggest that Hashem wanted to get across a dual message (one from each formulation) and thus said both simultaneously.52 Nonetheless, as these formulations complement rather than contradict each other it is not clear why Hashem could not have simply said both consecutively.53
Minor differences – This approach has much difficulty explaining what Hashem would want to convey by saying one version with a וי"ו and simultaneously another without the same וי"ו, or what significance there is in the two distinct orderings for the list of items not to be coveted.54 Ibn Ezra further argues that, from a practical perspective, adding or omitting phrases in one version would not be discerned by the nation as a distinction, for it would mean that Hashem said nothing while simultaneously saying a different phrase.55
Miraculous speech and hearing – Ibn Ezra argues that it is impossible for people to hear two voices at the same time, and if there was such a big miracle it should have been stated in the Torah.
Why one in Shemot and one in Devarim? Ibn Ezra questions why both versions weren't recorded together if they were said at the same time.
דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם / omnisignificance – This approach views the Torah as omnisignificant and would find it difficult to suggest that the variations in the second version of the Decalogue were for no purpose.