Difference between revisions of "Decalogue Differences Between Shemot and Devarim/2/en"
m |
m |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Additional phrases</b><ul> | <point><b>Additional phrases</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>"וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ"</b> – 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 | + | <li><b>"וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ"</b> – 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.<fn>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?</fn></li> |
<li><b>"שָׂדֵהוּ"</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.</li> | <li><b>"שָׂדֵהוּ"</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | <multilink><a href="MekhiltaBaChodesh7" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaBaChodesh7" data-aht="source">Yitro BaChodesh 7</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>, | + | <multilink><a href="MekhiltaBaChodesh7" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaBaChodesh7" data-aht="source">Yitro BaChodesh 7</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SifreDevarim233" data-aht="source">Sifre Devarim</a><a href="SifreDevarim233" data-aht="source">Devarim 233</a><a href="Sifre Devarim" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Devarim</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MidrashTannaim5-12" data-aht="source">Midrash Tannaim</a><a href="MidrashTannaim5-12" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:12</a><a href="Midrash Tannaim" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Tannaim</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="YerushalmiNedarim3-2" data-aht="source">Talmud Yerushalmi</a><a href="YerushalmiNedarim3-2" data-aht="source">Nedarim 3:2</a><a href="YerushalmiShevuot3-8" data-aht="source">Shevuot 3:8</a><a href="Yerushalmi" data-aht="parshan">About the Yerushalmi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="BavliRoshHaShanah27a" data-aht="source">Talmud Bavli</a><a href="BavliRoshHaShanah27a" data-aht="source">Rosh HaShanah 27a</a><a href="BavliShevuot20b" data-aht="source">Shevuot 20b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot20-7" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot20-7" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:7</a><a href="RashiDevarim5-11" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:11</a><a href="RashiDevarim5-14" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:14</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> |
− | <multilink><a href="SifreDevarim233" data-aht="source">Sifre Devarim</a><a href="SifreDevarim233" data-aht="source">Devarim 233</a><a href="Sifre Devarim" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Devarim</a></multilink>, | ||
− | <multilink><a href="MidrashTannaim5-12" data-aht="source">Midrash Tannaim</a><a href="MidrashTannaim5-12" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:12</a><a href="Midrash Tannaim" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Tannaim</a></multilink>, | ||
− | <multilink><a href="YerushalmiNedarim3-2" data-aht="source">Talmud Yerushalmi</a><a href="YerushalmiNedarim3-2" data-aht="source">Nedarim 3:2</a><a href="YerushalmiShevuot3-8" data-aht="source">Shevuot 3:8</a><a href="Yerushalmi" data-aht="parshan">About the Yerushalmi</a></multilink>, | ||
− | <multilink><a href="BavliRoshHaShanah27a" data-aht="source">Talmud Bavli</a><a href="BavliRoshHaShanah27a" data-aht="source">Rosh HaShanah 27a</a><a href="BavliShevuot20b" data-aht="source">Shevuot 20b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, | ||
− | <multilink><a href="RashiShemot20-7" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot20-7" data-aht="source">Shemot 20:7</a><a href="RashiDevarim5-11" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:11</a><a href="RashiDevarim5-14" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:14</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>"בדיבור אחד נאמרו"</b> – Most of these sources relate only to the switch between "שָׁמוֹר" and "זָכוֹר"‎,<fn>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).</fn> 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,<fn>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.</fn> 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 literally<fn>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.</fn> and others too have viewed it as a way of explaining the variations between the Decalogue as a whole.<fn>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.</fn></point> | <point><b>"בדיבור אחד נאמרו"</b> – Most of these sources relate only to the switch between "שָׁמוֹר" and "זָכוֹר"‎,<fn>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).</fn> 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,<fn>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.</fn> 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 literally<fn>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.</fn> and others too have viewed it as a way of explaining the variations between the Decalogue as a whole.<fn>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.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>The primary Decalogue</b> – 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.<fn>These sources do not address the issue but cf. the opinion of R. Saadia Gaon as quoted by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong20-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong20-1" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 20:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>.</fn></point> | <point><b>The primary Decalogue</b> – 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.<fn>These sources do not address the issue but cf. the opinion of R. Saadia Gaon as quoted by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong20-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong20-1" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 20:1</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Words of Hashem or Moshe?</b> This position asserts that | + | <point><b>Words of Hashem or Moshe?</b> This position asserts that both versions of the Decalogue were said by Hashem, and Moshe played no role in the variations.</point> |
<point><b>How can Moshe change Hashem's words?</b> 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.<fn>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.</fn> To circumvent this issue, they posit that it was Hashem, not Moshe, who said both.</point> | <point><b>How can Moshe change Hashem's words?</b> 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.<fn>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.</fn> To circumvent this issue, they posit that it was Hashem, not Moshe, who said both.</point> | ||
<point><b>Word substitutions and reason for Shabbat</b> – 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.<fn>For example, this approach would maintain that that both reasons for Shabbat are essential. It would also distinguish between the actions of "לֹא תַחְמֹד" and "לֹא תִתְאַוֶּה", between what constitutes "עדות שקר" and "עדות שוא", and between the meanings of "זָכוֹר" and "שָׁמוֹר", and claim that these are all distinct prohibitions.</fn> Nonetheless, as these formulations complement rather than contradict each other it is not clear why Hashem could not have simply said both consecutively.<fn>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?</fn></point> | <point><b>Word substitutions and reason for Shabbat</b> – 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.<fn>For example, this approach would maintain that that both reasons for Shabbat are essential. It would also distinguish between the actions of "לֹא תַחְמֹד" and "לֹא תִתְאַוֶּה", between what constitutes "עדות שקר" and "עדות שוא", and between the meanings of "זָכוֹר" and "שָׁמוֹר", and claim that these are all distinct prohibitions.</fn> Nonetheless, as these formulations complement rather than contradict each other it is not clear why Hashem could not have simply said both consecutively.<fn>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?</fn></point> |
Version as of 09:22, 3 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 already 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 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.
- "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.