Decalogue Differences Between Shemot and Devarim/2/he

הבדלים בעשרת הדברים בין שמות ודברים

גישות פרשניות

סקירה

המחלוקת בין הפרשנים בנוגע לשתי הגרסאות השונות לעשרת הדברות נובע ממפגש בין שני גורמים. מחד גיסא, הדבר תלוי בשיטות פרשניות שונות להסבר חזרות ושינויים. האם יש לראות כל פיסת מילה בתורה כבעלת משמעות מהותית לצורך לימוד חוקים ורעיונות חדשים, או שמא הווריאציות השונות הן תוצאה של חישובים מציאותיים וספרותיים? מאידך גיסא, הנושא משיק למחלוקות תיאולוגיות העוסקות בהשתנות של מצוות/תכנון של ה' ובשאלה אם למשה הייתה הסמכות והגמישות לשנות את מצוות ה'.

אבן עזרא ופרשנים נוספים מיימי הביניים טוענים כי הפערים בין הגרסאות הינם חסרי משמעות ממשית ופשוט תוצאה טבעית של ניסוח מחדש של דברי ה' ע"י משה, מכיוון שרק המשמעות הכללית של דברי ה' המקוריים נדרשה להישמר. לעומתם, פרשנים מודרנים רבים מציעים כי גרסת עשרת הדברות בספר דברים מהווה עדכון מכוון של עשרת הדברות המקוריים מספר שמות כדי להתאים לקהל אחר ונסיבות שונות. תוך אימוץ מגמה זו שד"ל טוען כי משה רצה להנחיל מסרים ספציפיים לדור החדש שעמד להיכנס לארץ ישראל. הואיל משה מפתח את דברי שד"ל ומחשיב את הגרסה החדשה כמייצגת את האידיאל המתאים רק לדור השני במדבר אשר היה במעלה רוחנית גבוהה יותר מהדור הראשון. מנגד, מלבי"ם מחזיק כי הסדרה השנייה של הדברות היוו ירידה בדרגה בהתאם לעם בדרגה רוחנית נמוכה יותר משהיו לאחר שחטאו בחטא העגל. לבסוף, מקורות מדרשיים רבים לוקחים עמדה שלישי כי שתי הגרסאות ניתנו בעת ובעונה אחת בשנה הראשונה לצאת בני ישראל ממצרים וכי שתיהן רלוונטיות ובעלות תוקף חוקי שווה לכל הדורות.

פתחו טבלה אינטראקטיבית      פתחו / הדפיסו טבלת PDF

רק שינויים מינורים

כאשר משה חזר על עשרת הדברות בדברים, הוא שינה  מילים רק באופן חסר משמעות אמיתית ושמר על המשמעות המקורית.
When Moshe repeated the Decalogue in Devarim, he preserved its
original meaning and made only insignificant changes in its wording.

מקורות: אבן עזראאבן עזרא שמות פירוש שני כ׳:א׳אבן עזרא שמות פירוש ראשון ל״ד:כ״חדברים ה׳:ה׳דברים ה׳:י״זאודות ר' אברהם אבן עזרא, רד"קבראשית כ"ד:ל"טספר השורשים לרד"ק שורש "שוה"אודות רד"ק, רמב"ןשמות כ׳:ז׳דברים ה׳:י״א-י״זאודות ר' משה בן נחמן, ר' יוסף אבן כספישמות כ׳:א׳דברים ה׳:ו׳אודות ר' יוסף אבן כספי, מ"ד קאסוטושמות כ׳:י״זאודות פרופ' משה דוד קאסוטו¹

עשרת הדיברות העיקריים – על פי אבן עזרא ורמב"ן,² עשרת הדיברות שניתנו על ידי ה' במעמד הר סיני הם עשרת הדיברות העיקריים והם אלו אשר הופיעו על הלוחות הראשונים והשניים.³ 
According to Ibn Ezra and Ramban, 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.

דברי ה' או דברי משה? פרשנים אלו טוענים כי עשרת הדיברות בדברים הם ניסוח מחדש של דברי ה' על ידי משה. לכן גרסה זו מכילה הסברים וכמה שינויים לא מכוונים.⁴ אבן עזרא, רמב"ן וקאסוטו תומכים בקביעה זו על ידי דברי משה "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ".⁵
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 unintentional changes. Ibn Ezra, Ramban and Cassuto support this assertion from Moshe's statement, "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ".

כיצד משה יכול לשנות את דברי ה'? על פי הפרשנים הללו, כאשר אדם חוזר על דברי רעהו זהו טבע האדם לשנות במעט מן המילים המקוריות.⁶ משום כך, אין לצפות כי עשרת הדיברות בדברים יאמרו בצורה זהה לאלו שבשמות. כל עוד משה לא שינה מן המשמעות של המקור, אין שום בעיה תיאולוגית.
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. 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.

טעם השבת – פרשנים אלו חולקים בנוגע להסבר הטעמים השונים הניתנים לשמירת השבת (זכר לבריאה למול זכר ליציאת מצרים):
These commentators disagree regarding how to explain the conflicting reasons given for observing Shabbat (remembering Creation vs. commemorating the Exodus):

• הערת הסברה - על פי אבן עזרא הטעם העיקרי לציווי זה הוא להנציח את בריאת העולם על ידי ה' (כפי שנאמר בשמות). בדברים, משה הפנה לטעם זה באומרו "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ". מנגד, ההצהרה בנוגע ליציאת מצרים איננה טעם לציווי אלא הסבר מדוע על אדם לאפשר לעבדיו לנוח גם כן בשבת. 
• 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' אֱלֹהֶיךָ". 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.
• שני הטעמים זהים - לעומתו, הרמב"ן מנסה להשוות בין שני הטעמים ומציע כי שניהם נוגעים לכוחות היצירה של ה'.⁷ הציווי לנוח בשבת מנציח את המנוחה שלו לאחר שברא את העולם וכך מצהיר עליו בתור בורא העולם. הניסים שארעו ביציאת מצרים גם כן מעידים על כוחות היצירה של ה' מכיוון שרק מי שברא את העולם יכול לעקוף את חוקי הטבע כפי שעשה.⁸ 
• Two reasons are identical – Ramban, in contrast, attempts to equate the two reasons, suggesting that both relate to Hashem's creative abilities. 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.

ביטויים נוספים – הפרשנים מבינים את הביטויים הנוספים בתור הסברים של משה

• כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ - על פי אבן עזרא, במילים אלו משה הפנה את העם בחזרה לעשרת הדיברות המקוריים בשמות, והזכיר להם שדברים באים מאת ה'.⁹
• "וְשׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרְךָ" – רמב"ן טוען כי משה הוסיף שיש לאפשר לשור ולחמור לנוח בשבת בכדי להדגיש לעם כי אפילו עבודת אדמה, אשר חיונית להישרדות, אסורה בשבת. 
• "וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ" – על פי אבן עזרא, השכר לאריכות ימים על מצוות כיבוד אב ואם היא תוצאה טבעית של קיום המצווה.¹⁰ משום כך, משה הוסיף שכר/מניע נוסף אשר מגיע רק מהקשבה לה'.  
• "שָׂדֵהוּ" – רמב"ן טוען כי על ידי הוספת שדות לרשימת העצמים שאסור לחמוד, משה הבהיר שגם נכסי דלא ניידי כלולים באיסור. 

חילופי מילים – אבן עזרא ורד"ק מחשיבים את המילים המוחלפות למילים נרדפות לאלו המקוריות.¹¹ אולם, רמב"ן טוען כי אלו בדברים מכילים הסברים דרכם משה מסביר מה נכלל בציווי המקורי. 
Ibn Ezra and Radak view all of these as synonymous formulations of the original. 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 they are naturally omitted or added when one is recounting the words of another and have no affect on the meaning.

Masoretic divisions – According to Ibn Ezra, the Masoretic divisions were not created by Moshe and differences amongst them are therefore not relevant.

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:

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.

מקורות: ShadalShemot 20:1Shemot 20:7Shemot 20:10Devarim 5:11Bikkurei HaIttim 1828About R. S.D. Luzzatto,¹⁵ R. S"R HirschShemot 20:7Shemot 20:10Shemot 20:11Shemot 20:13Devarim 5:6-17About R. S"R Hirsch, Hoil MosheDevarim 5:3About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 20:1Shemot 20:3Shemot 20:7-10Shemot 20:11Shemot 20:12Shemot 20:13Devarim 5:7Devarim 5:11-14Devarim 5:15Devarim 5:16Devarim 5:17About R. D"Z Hoffmann, Meshekh ChokhmahShemot 20:2Devarim 5:11Devarim 5:12Devarim 5:15Devarim 5:17About R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk

Need for change

• Imminent inheritance of land of Israel – Most of these commentators¹⁶ relate the differences to the nation's imminent arrival in the Land of Israel and the new lifestyle, so vastly different from the desert experience, that the nation would encounter 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 would have been said 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 representing 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' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" – 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, the 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, 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 forward 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 but 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, but 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

Already in the First Year

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

מקורות: Resh Lakish in Pesikta Rabbati23About Pesikta Rabbati,³⁶ perhaps R. Yehuda ibn BalaamDevarim 5:6About R. Yehuda ibn Balaam,³⁷ MalbimShemot 20:7-10Shemot 20:11About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

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 could not be given.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 Seforno 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.

מקורות: Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelYitro BaChodesh 7About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Sifre DevarimDevarim 233About Sifre Devarim, Midrash TannaimDevarim 5:12About Midrash Tannaim, Talmud YerushalmiNedarim 3:2Shevuot 3:8About the Yerushalmi, Talmud BavliRosh HaShanah 27aShevuot 20bAbout the Bavli, RashiShemot 20:7Devarim 5:11Devarim 5:14About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki

"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 metaphorically to say that both laws nonetheless came from Hashem. The Bavli, though, appears to understand the phrase literally⁴⁷ and others too have viewed it as a way of explaining the variations between the Decalogue as a whole.⁴⁸

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.⁴⁹

Words of Hashem or Moshe? This position asserts that everything was 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.⁵⁰ To circumvent this issue, they 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.⁵¹ Nonetheless, as these formulations complement rather than contradict each other it is not clear why Hashem could not have simply said both consecutively.⁵²

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.⁵³ Ibn Ezra further argues that, from a practical perspective, adding/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.⁵⁴

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.

¹ קאסוטו מציין כי השינויים בדיבר המצווה על שבת הם מעט יותר משמעותיים מהשאר, אך מציע כי מכיון שמשה מפנה את העם לדברי ה' המקוריים(ראו לעיל), השינויים לא מהווים בעיה. 
Cassuto does point out that the differences relating to the command of Shabbat are somewhat more substantial, but suggests that as Moshe refers the people to Hashem's original wording (see below) the change is not an issue.

² רד"ק, אבן כספי וקאסוטו לא מתייחסים לשאלה אך סביר להניח שהם היו מסכימים. 

³ רמב"ן לא מתייחס באופן נרחב לתוכן שהיה על כל סט לוחות אבל כאשר הוא מתייחס לגישת חז"ל בנושא הוא טוען כי המילה "זָכוֹר" (ולא "שָׁמוֹר") הופיעה בלוחות הראשונים והשניים.
Ramban does not fully address what was on each set of tablets, but when discussing Chazal's approach he asserts that the word "זָכוֹר" (rather than "שָׁמוֹר") was on both sets of tablets.

⁴ אבן עזרא מציים כי במסקנת הדיברות בדברים משה אומר "‏אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה דִּבֶּר ה'‏" בשונה מבשמות שם נאמר "וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים" מכיוון שלא כל המילים בדברים הן דברי ה', בנוסף אליהן מופיעים גם ההסברים של משה.
Ibn Ezra points out that at the conclusion of the Decalogue in Devarim Moshe says, "‏אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה דִּבֶּר ה'‏" unlike Shemot's "וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים" because not all the words are Hashem's; Moshe's explanations are included as well.

⁵ רמב"ן מציין כי השימוש בגוף שלישי מוכיח שי משה דובר בשם ה', בעוד אבן עזרא טוען כי משה מפנה את השומעים לעשרת הדיברות המקוריים בכווה תחילה בכדי להזכיר לשומעים שהוא רק מספר מחדש את הציוויים המקורים של ה'. קאסוטו מוסיף כי משה עושה זאת באופן נקודתי במרומות בהם יש שינויים בתוכן ולא רק בצורה.
Ramban points out that the third person formulation proves that Moshe is speaking in the name of Hashem, while Ibn Ezra asserts that Moshe intentionally refers the listener back to the original Decalogue to remind them that he is simply recounting Hashem's original commands. Cassuto adds that Moshe does this specifically where there are changes in content and not merely form.

⁶ אבן עזרא מביא דוגמאות רבות מהתורה לתופעה זו, לרבות דברי קין שניסח מחדש את דברי ה' אליו, השינויים בדברי משרת אברהם כאשר סיפר על שיחתו עם רבקה, וסיפורו של משה על תפילתו לאחר חטא העגל. אבן כספי גם מבטל את השינויים כחסרי חשיבות ומציין שישנם מקרים רבים של שינויים מסוג זה, "כי יש מזה המין בתורה ובמקרא לאלפים ולמאות".
Ibn Ezra brings many examples of this phenomenon throughout Torah, including Kayin's paraphrase of Hashem's rebuke to him, Avraham's servant's changes when recounting his conversation with Rivka, and Moshe's recounting of his prayer after the Sin of the Golden Calf. Ibn Kaspi similarly discounts variations as insignificant, pointing to the many instances of such changes, "כי יש מזה המין בתורה ובמקרא לאלפים ולמאות".

⁷ במילים שלו: "הנה השבת זכר ליציאת מצרים, ויציאת מצרים זכר לשבת". 

⁸ מכיוון שהעם היה עד לניסים אלו (בשונה מבריאת העולם), זכירתם מהווה הנצחה מצוינת לבריאה המקורית על יד ה'. רמב"ן טוען כי בדברים, משה לא מזכיר באופן מפורש את ששת ימי הבריאה ומעדיף רק לרמוז לגביהם במילים "וְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ".

⁹ רד"ץ הופמן שואל, אם כך, מדוע ביטוי זה מופיע רק בהקשר הציווים לשבת וכיבוד אב ואם? יתכן ואבן עזרא היה עונה, כפי שרשב"םשמות כ׳:ז׳דברים ה׳:י״אאודות ר' שמואל בן מאיר עונה, שאלו היו שתי הדיברות היחידות אשר הינן מצוות עשה. לחילופין, קאסוטו טוען כי משה הפנה את העם חזרה לדברי ה' המקוריים רק בציווים הללו מכיוון שבציווים הללו משה שינה באופן מופגן מהניסוח המקורי. 
R. D"Z Hoffmann questions, if so, why is the phrase only found by the commandments regarding Shabbat and respecting parents? Ibn Ezra might answer, as does RashbamDevarim 5:11About R. Shemuel b. Meir, that these were the only two positively formulated commands. Cassuto instead asserts that Moshe referred the nation back to Hashem's words only in these commands, because specifically here Moshe was veering more significantly from the original formulation.

¹⁰ מכיוון שהורים הם אלו אשר נותנים לילדם חיים, סביר להניח כי על הילד לכבד אותם. בדומה לכך, אם אדם מכבד אותם כראוי, השכר לאריכות ימים מגיע בהתאם. 
Since parents give one life is it logical to expect that a child should honor them. Similarly, if one does properly honor them, the reward of extended life follows logically.

¹¹ לדוגמא, אבן עזרא מדגיש כי אין הבדל מהותי בין "שָׁמוֹר" ו"זָכוֹר" מכיוון שה' ציווה לזכור רק על מנת לשמור. בדומה לכך, רד"ק מציין כי הביטוי "אך לשקר שמרתי" בשמואל א' כ"א:כ"א על מנת להוכיח שלפעמים משמעות המילה "שָׁקֶר" היא "שָׁוְא".

¹² For example, Moshe explains to the nation that saying an oath which is for naught, even if not false, is also prohibited.  Similarly, he explains that not only is acting on one's jealousy (לֹא תַחְמֹד) prohibited, but even simply coveting inside (לֹא תִתְאַוֶּה) is wrong.

¹³ Ibn Ezra similarly explains that while Hashem ordered the items based on the way a person logically acquires possessions (house then wife), Moshe ordered them according to what a youth is more likely to desire.

¹⁴ See, for example, Radak's usage of the concept of "הכתוב שומר הטעמים אבל לא המלות" in Bereshit 18:13 and the similar concept of "כפל הענין במילים שונות" in Bereshit 4:12, 21:1 and 22:12.

¹⁵ Shadal in Bikkurei HaIttim tries to explain almost every difference in light of the new circumstances of the fortieth year. In his commentary on the Torah, however, he retracts many of his original explanations, coming much closer to the above approach, that many of the differences are insignificant.

¹⁶ Shadal is the most consistent in explaining the differences in this fashion.

¹⁷ Shadal raises the problem that at the time that the first Decalogue was given, the Children of Israel were also about to enter the land (as they had not yet sinned), so there really should not have been a difference in formulation. One might answer that Hashem, being omniscient, knew that the nation would first wander for forty years in the desert. Shadal himself suggests that Moshe's wording was meant to encourage the people that there would be no more delays and that, this time, they really were about to enter.

¹⁸ The Hoil Moshe claims, for instance, that the real reason for Shabbat would have been scoffed at by the nation in the first year and thus could only be given after the nation had grown spiritually (see below). For other places where the Hoil Moshe similarly explains that commandments might evolve based on the nation's spiritual level, see "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye and Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood and About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi.

¹⁹ He does not address the question explicitly, but in explaining the missing וי"ו in the phrase כָל תְּמוּנָה, he writes, "כי הוצרך משה ברוח נבואתו להשמיט הוי"ו". On the other hand, at the end of his comments he writes, "אין ספק כי היה מכוונת משה בדבריו האחרונים לחזק לב בני ישראל, ולהסיר מלבם יראת עכוב חדש" which sounds as if Moshe, on his own, was trying to encourage the nation.

²⁰ In fact, were there no variations it would be quite surprising.

²¹ One might question if one has the right to do so if one does not clarify what represents Hashem's words and what are only Moshe's additions.

²² It was so recent that it would be impossible to forget.

²³ R. D"Z Hoffmann, on the other hand, suggests that Moshe is referring the listener to previous places where these laws were taught and elaborated upon because the formulations here are not sufficient to give one a full understanding of the commandment. Hoil Moshe says that Moshe is simply reminding the people that they have already learned these laws several times.

²⁴ In the wilderness, on the other hand, where miraculous manna provided sustenance, people had no intrinsic need to rest on Shabbat, so the only reason to do so was because of the command.

²⁵ Shadal views life in the wilderness not as a trial with difficult conditions but as a miraculous existence, in which people would naturally bless their parents for bringing them into such a life.

²⁶ In the desert where there were no fields to plow, there was no need to single out work animals.

²⁷ See above point

²⁸ R. D"Z Hoffmann further points out that this phrase is one that is found throughout Sefer Devarim, and thus not surprisingly, here as well.

²⁹ Hoil Moshe explains the terms similarly but suggests that the first generation, not yet trained in keeping Hashem's Torah, was not ready for an obligation to look forward to and anticipate observing a commandment; such an obligation could only be given after forty years of learning from Moshe.

³⁰ Benno Jacob, in his commentary to Shemot, points to the similar distinction in usage between the verbs relating to observance of the holiday of Pesach. In Shemot 13.3, the nation is told, "Remember this day", while in Devarim 16.1 they are commanded, "Observe the month of Aviv".

³¹ Shadal explains that once these laws were taught, there was less of a need to worry about full lying ("שָׁקֶר") when testifying, but totally baseless testimony ("שָׁוְא"), which would be difficult to disprove, needed to be warned against. R. S"R Hirsch, in contrast, asserts that "עדות שוא" is worse than "עדות שקר" and that with the imminent arrival in Israel there was more of a concern regarding social crimes and thus a need for harsher formulation.

³² Without the וי"ו, the second phrase of the verse ("...כָל תְּמוּנָה אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת") is more concretely joined to the first phrase ("לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל"), becoming a clarification thereof, teaching that the prohibition against graven images, like that regarding two dimensional pictures, also included all existing creatures and natural phenomenon.

³³ Shadal and R. D"Z Hoffmann explain similarly but connect the change to the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf. Beforehand, the people could argue that the prohibition against idols related only to those of human or abstract form, but not images of animals or the sun and stars. Thus, they erred and made a calf through which to serve Hashem. To prevent future errors, Moshe reformulated the commandment.

³⁴ This would not have been such an issue in the wilderness where there were no fields to plow.

³⁵ See examples in the note above note and compare to Rambam's similar understanding of sacrifices.

³⁶ He does not mention the Sin of the Golden Calf explicitly, but claims that the second version was written to replace the first set of tablets which the nation "lost", an allusion to the breaking of the tablets after the sin.

³⁷ He also does not state explicitly that the change was due to the sin, but does assert that the changes were reflected in the second tablets. As such, it is likely that he thinks that the intervening sin was the cause for the differences.

³⁸ In Devarim Moshe chose to recount the second, updated version since the original was no longer relevant.

³⁹ Conversely, commemorating creation was more relevant before the sin, when people were supposed to be immortal, and as such could question the primacy of the Creator. This assumption regarding immortality before the sin, though, is not rooted in the simple sense of the Biblical text which no where suggests that the generation that left of Egypt was never supposed to die.

⁴⁰ Cf. Ramban above.

⁴¹ Alternatively, one might suggest that after the sin, when the nation had pointed to the calf and proclaimed it as the one who took them from Egypt, Hashem decided that Shabbat should serve as a weekly reminder that Hashem was the One who led them out.

⁴² Malbim does not explain, though, how a nation which had endured hundreds of years of slavery would have no notion of "suffering" to contrast with the present good. In addition, if at the time of the giving of the first Decalogue, people were meant to be immortal, what would be the meaning of a reward of long life?

⁴³ Meshekh Chokhmah assumes, based on Bavli Eiruvin 54a, that were it not for the sin and the breaking of the first tablets, the nation would never be subservient to other kingdoms.

⁴⁴ See the discussion above that, by connecting the phrases, Moshe clarified that idols were no different than pictures of "all that is in the heavens above or on the earth below..."

⁴⁵ Yerushalmi Nedarim and Shevuot also mention "שָׁקֶר" and "שָׁוְא", but it is not clear if they are even referring to the false testimony mentioned in the Decalogue, or to other verses which speak of not accepting falsehoods (Shemot 23:1) and not swearing falsely in His name (Vayikra 19:12).

⁴⁶ The sources bring an entire list of verses which were said "בדיבור אחד", most of which clearly set up two commands that seem to contradict each other like the prohibition against sleeping with your brother's wife and the obligation of levirate marriage.

⁴⁷ It alludes to the phrase in a discussion regarding whether two things can be heard at once, clearly understanding that the two words "שָׁמוֹר" and "זָכוֹר" were said simultaneously.

⁴⁸ See Ibn Ezra who points out that "אנשי דורינו יחשבו כי דבריהם כמשמעם", and see his list of questions aimed at this prevalent understanding of Chazal.

⁴⁹ These sources do not address the issue but cf. the opinion of R. Saadia Gaon as quoted by Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 20:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra.

⁵⁰ In their understanding, "זָכוֹר" represents the positive commands of Shabbat, and "שָׁמוֹר" refers to the prohibitions. This change of Moshe, then, was not semantic, but far reaching, and thus more troublesome.

⁵¹ This approach, for example, would maintain that that both reasons for Shabbat are essential. It would distinguish between the actions of "לֹא תַחְמֹד" and "לֹא תִתְאַוֶּה", and between what constitutes "עדות שקר" and "עדות שוא", or what is meant by "זָכוֹר" and "שָׁמוֹר" and claim that all are prohibited.

⁵² It would have been feasible to say, "Remember and guard Shabbat" or "Do not actively covet nor be jealous in your heart" and the like. What, then, is there to be gained by instead saying the commandments simultaneously?

⁵³ See Ibn Ezra who brings these questions.

⁵⁴ He also questions how Hashem could say "‏כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה'‏", and if He did, when was the command of honoring parents previously mentioned? These problems (and those listed in the bullets below) lead Ibn Ezra to the conclusion that these sources never intended to be taken literally, and were simply metaphorically saying that the variations hold no significance (Ibn Ezra's own position).