Difference between revisions of "Decalogue Differences Between Shemot and Devarim/2/en"
m |
m |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
<point><b>Word substitutions</b> – Ibn Ezra and Radak view all of these as synonymous formulations of the original.<fn>For instance, Ibn Ezra emphasizes that in essence there is no difference between "זָכוֹר" and "שָׁמוֹר" because Hashem commanded the nation to remember only in order to observe. Similarly, Radak points to the phrase "אך לשקר שמרתי" in Shemuel I 21:21 to prove that sometimes "שָׁקֶר" means "for naught" just like "שָׁוְא".</fn> Ramban, though, asserts that these constitute clarifications through which Moshe explains what is included in the original command.<fn>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.</fn></point> | <point><b>Word substitutions</b> – Ibn Ezra and Radak view all of these as synonymous formulations of the original.<fn>For instance, Ibn Ezra emphasizes that in essence there is no difference between "זָכוֹר" and "שָׁמוֹר" because Hashem commanded the nation to remember only in order to observe. Similarly, Radak points to the phrase "אך לשקר שמרתי" in Shemuel I 21:21 to prove that sometimes "שָׁקֶר" means "for naught" just like "שָׁוְא".</fn> Ramban, though, asserts that these constitute clarifications through which Moshe explains what is included in the original command.<fn>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.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Ordering</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> Since the order does not affect the meaning, the change is deemed insignificant.</point> | <point><b>Ordering</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> Since the order does not affect the meaning, the change is deemed insignificant.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Single letter variations</b> – These are not troublesome as | + | <point><b>Single letter variations</b> – 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.</point> |
− | <point><b>Masoretic divisions</b> – According to Ibn Ezra, the Masoretic divisions were not created by Moshe and differences | + | <point><b>Masoretic divisions</b> – According to Ibn Ezra, the Masoretic divisions were not created by Moshe and differences regarding them are therefore not relevant to this discussion.</point> |
− | <point><b>דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point> |
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Fundamentally Updated | <category>Fundamentally Updated | ||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Need for change</b><ul> | <point><b>Need for change</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Imminent inheritance of land of Israel</b> – Most of these commentators<fn>Shadal is the most consistent in explaining the differences in this fashion.</fn> | + | <li><b>Imminent inheritance of land of Israel</b> – Most of these commentators<fn>Shadal is the most consistent in explaining the differences in this fashion.</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Elevated spiritual level</b> – 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.<fn>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 <a href=""עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye/2#EvolvingSociety" data-aht="page">"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye</a> and <a href="Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood/2#ChangeinPlans" data-aht="page">Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood</a> and <a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a>.</fn></li> | <li><b>Elevated spiritual level</b> – 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.<fn>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 <a href=""עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye/2#EvolvingSociety" data-aht="page">"עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye</a> and <a href="Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood/2#ChangeinPlans" data-aht="page">Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood</a> and <a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a>.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
<point><b>How can Moshe change Hashem's words?</b> According to the Hoil Moshe, small differences are to be expected when one is recounting an event,<fn>In fact, were there no variations it would be quite surprising.</fn> but Moshe's larger changes need to be explained more fundamentally: | <point><b>How can Moshe change Hashem's words?</b> According to the Hoil Moshe, small differences are to be expected when one is recounting an event,<fn>In fact, were there no variations it would be quite surprising.</fn> but Moshe's larger changes need to be explained more fundamentally: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Moshe | + | <li><b>Moshe represented Hashem's ideal</b> – 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.</li> |
<li><b>Prophetic status can teach</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | <li><b>Prophetic status can teach</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
<point><b>Additional phrases</b><ul> | <point><b>Additional phrases</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>"כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ"</b> – Shadal<fn>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.</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | <li><b>"כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ"</b> – Shadal<fn>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.</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | ||
− | <li><b>"וְשׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרְךָ"</b> – Shadal, | + | <li><b>"וְשׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרְךָ"</b> – 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.<fn>In the desert where there were no fields to plow, there was no need to single out work animals.</fn></li> |
− | <li><b>"לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ כָּמוֹךָ"</b> – 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.</li> | + | <li><b>"לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ כָּמוֹךָ"</b> – 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.</li> |
<li><b>"וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ"</b> – Shadal views this as an additional motivation to honor parents in conditions that are more difficult than the ideal setting of the desert.<fn>See above point</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | <li><b>"וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ"</b> – Shadal views this as an additional motivation to honor parents in conditions that are more difficult than the ideal setting of the desert.<fn>See above point</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>"שָׂדֵהוּ"</b> – In the wilderness, where there were no fields to be coveted, it was not necessary to single out this possession.</li> | <li><b>"שָׂדֵהוּ"</b> – In the wilderness, where there were no fields to be coveted, it was not necessary to single out this possession.</li> | ||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
<li><b>"זָכוֹר" / "שָׁמוֹר"</b> | <li><b>"זָכוֹר" / "שָׁמוֹר"</b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li>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 | + | <li>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.<fn>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.</fn></li> |
<li>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.</li> | <li>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.</li> | ||
<li><multilink><a href="ChizkuniDevarim5-11" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniDevarim5-11" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:11</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> 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.<fn>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".</fn></li> | <li><multilink><a href="ChizkuniDevarim5-11" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniDevarim5-11" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:11</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink> 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.<fn>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".</fn></li> | ||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
<li><b>"תַחְמֹד" / "תִתְאַוֶּה"</b> – 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.</li> | <li><b>"תַחְמֹד" / "תִתְאַוֶּה"</b> – 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.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Difference in order</b> – Shadal points out that in the desert, where there were only tents, people desired houses more than women | + | <point><b>Difference in order</b> – 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.</point> |
− | <point><b>Single letter variations</b> – Hoil Moshe asserts that the minor variations of one letter are insignificant, | + | <point><b>Single letter variations</b> – Hoil Moshe asserts that the minor variations of one letter are insignificant. In contrast, many of the other commentators attempt to explain even these: |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>"וְכָל תְּמוּנָה" / "כָל תְּמוּנָה"</b> – R. Hirsch maintains that removing the וי"ו in the second set of commandments served to highlight the extent of the prohibition against idolatry.<fn>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.</fn> This was an important reminder before entering Israel, which was full of idolaters.<fn>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.</fn></li> | <li><b>"וְכָל תְּמוּנָה" / "כָל תְּמוּנָה"</b> – R. Hirsch maintains that removing the וי"ו in the second set of commandments served to highlight the extent of the prohibition against idolatry.<fn>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.</fn> This was an important reminder before entering Israel, which was full of idolaters.<fn>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.</fn></li> |
Version as of 22:25, 2 July 2019
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.
- 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.
- 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
- כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ – 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.
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- "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, 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.
- "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.
- Chizkuni 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.
- "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
Changes 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.
- 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
- "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.
- "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
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.