Why does the Torah place the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em here (on the first of the two Luchos, together with the Mitzvos Bein Adam La'Makom)?
Ramban: After concluding the Mitzvos she'Bein Adam La'Makom, the Torah moves on to those that are Bein Adam la'Chavero, starting with Kibud Av 1 - since Hashem is one's first Father, and the one who partners with Hashem in bringing him into this world is his second father.
Seforno: Because it belongs to the group of Mitzvos that are connected with honoring Hashem.
Hadar Zekenim: Even though Hashem commanded to honor only Him (and not other gods), He wants us to honor our father and mother who brought us to into this world, and bestowed good upon us. Because if we honor our parents who brought us only into temporary life, all the more so will we honor Hashem, Who did Chesed with us by bringing us both this world and the world- to- come.
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 41, p. 126): Indeed there are three partners in Man('s creation) - Hashem, along with one's parents, are man's "Ilah" (cause). 2 Specifically, Kibud Av va'Em is placed next to Shabbos, to teach us that, just as Shabbos demonstrates that Hashem created the world, and it was not created by chance, so too, did your parents not bring you into the world by chance, but rather Hashem decided that you should be born to them. Consequently, we are obligated to honor them. 3
Kidushin 31a: Because it is the basis of honoring Hashem. 'It was only when the nations of the world heard "Kabed Es Avicha ... " that they believed in the first four Dibros.'
Oznayim la'Torah: Because it is the basis of Shemiras Shabbos, since it is the parents who instill Shabbos into the hearts of their children. 4
Yet in another sense, Ramban classifies Kibud Av va'Em as Bein Adam La'Makom. See 20:13:3:3 and 20:13:4:1 .
And when one honors his parents, Hashem's partners, it is tantamount to honoring Hashem (Kidushin 30b). Also compare to Ramban (20:12:3:2 ). (For definition of Maharal's terminology 'Ilah' and 'Alul', see 20:1:5:1* .)
Hashem is our Prime Cause, and one's parents his specific cause. See above, 20:1:8:1, regarding the order of the Aseres ha'Dibros; and see 20:8:1:3 regarding the placement of Shabbos among the Aseres ha'Dibros. As we explained above (20:11:2.2:1), our attributing Creation in its entirety to Hashem demonstrates that the world was created purposefully. Yet deniers will still say that particular creations came about by chance! One who honors his parents demonstrates that even the details are purposeful. See below, 20:12:159:1* . Also see above, 20:2:8 - Due to this Mitzvah, the nations admitted that even "Anochi Hashem" is genuine; they saw that Hashem was not merely demanding His own honor.
Why does the Torah place "Av" before "Em" here (in connection with Kavod), and "Em" before "Av" in Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:3 - in connection with Mora)?
Rashi (to Vayikra 19:3): Because knowing that a person tends to honor his mother (who spoils him) more than his father, and to respect (fear) his father (who teaches him Torah) more than his mother, Hashem placed the father first here and the mother first there, to counter one's natural inclination - to honor one's father no less than his mother, 1 and to respect one's mother no less than his father.
Moshav Zekenim (to Vayikra 19:3): Kibud Av precedes Kibud Em, because like oneself, one's mother is commanded to honor her husband. 2 And in case one thinks that this applies even if his father tells him to dishonor his mother - the Torah, in Kedoshim, issues the command to fear one's mother and father - placing one's mother before one's father.
What are the words "Es [Avicha] v'Es [Imecha]" coming to include?
Kesuvos 103a: "Es Avicha" comes to include one's father's wife (stepmother); and "Es Imecha," one's mother's husband (stepfather). The 'Vav' in "v'Es Imecha" includes one's older brother. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 86.
What is the significance of the fact that the Torah uses the same expression ("Kabed Es Avicha ... ") as it does in Mishlei with regard to Hashem ("Kabed Es Hashem me'Honecha .. " - Mishlei 3:9)?
Kidushin 30b: It is to place Kibud Av va'Em on a par with Kavod Ha'Makom.
Kidushin 32a: It teaches us that, like Kavod Ha'Makom, 1 Kibud Av va'Em applies even if it entails a loss of pocket. 2
Yerushalmi, Pe'ah (1:5): Kibud Av va'Em is greater than Kavod Ha'Makom, since by Kavod Ha'Makom the Torah writes "me'Honecha" - with what Hashem has graced him (only if he has money), whereas the Torah places no such restriction on Kibud Av, in which case one is even obligated to go begging on behalf of one's parents. 3
What is the difference between the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em, and Mora Av va'Em (Vayikra 19:3)?
Rashi (to Vayikra 19:3): 'Kibud' entails serving them 1 food and drink, dressing them, putting on their shoes, accompanying them out and accompanying them in. 'Mora' entails not sitting or speaking in their place and not contradicting their words.
Ramban: 'Kibud' entails honoring them as one honors Hashem - acknowledging that one's father is indeed his father and serving him, not for the anticipated inheritance or for some other ulterior motive, but because he is one's father. Nor may one mention one's parents' names in vain or swear by them in vain or falsely. Additional aspects are listed in Kidushin 31b; see Answer #1 above.
But not necessarily with one's own money (see Kidushin 32a).
What are the implications of "Lema'an Ya'arichun Yamecha ... "?
Rashi: We infer that someone who does not honor his parents will not live long. 1
Ramban #1: It implies that the reward for Kibud Av va'Em is long life in Eretz Yisrael and in the World to Come. 2
Ramban #2 (based on the text in Va'eschanan (Devarim 5:16)): Long life and having it good on the land are two separate rewards - long life in the World to Come, and having it good in Eretz Yisrael in this world. 3
Seforno: It implies that the reward for all five of the above-mentioned Dibros is long life. 4
Hadar Zekenim: It you honor them, you will live a long life - because they will pray for you.
Ibn Ezra and Ohr ha'Chayim: Since the Torah does not state that Hashem will give this reward, it implies that the Mitzvah itself is a Segulah for long life. 5
Mechilta: It teaches us that Beis-Din are not responsible to enforce its fulfilment 6 - as is the case for every Mitzvah in connection with which the Torah states the reward.
Oznayim la'Torah: It teaches us that someone who honors his parents, thereby lengthening their lives, actually ends-up lengthening his own life, 7 as the Mishnah says in Eduyos 2:9, "ha'Av (v'ha'Em) Zocheh la'Ben ... uv'Shanim" (i.e., in Arichas ha'Yamim - Bartenura).
Rashi: As the Torah's words are subject to inference - negative from the positive and positive from the negative. Gur Aryeh - As Rashi explained above (to 20:1), each of the Aseres ha'Dibros carry punishment for one who fails to observe them. Although Kibud Av va'Em only promises reward to one who does observe it, from the positive we infer the negative.
Because Kibud Av va'Em is one of the Mitzvos which is mainly rewarded in Olam ha'Ba, but the fruit of which is rewarded in Olam ha'Zeh (Kidushin 40a).
However, the Gemara (Kidushin 39b) maintains that long life refers specifically to long life in the World to Come - and that there is no basic reward for Mitzvos in this world (See Torah Temimah to Devarim 5:15, note 5; and Ba'al ha'Turim).
Seforno: Since they are all manifestations of Hashem's Kavod (Bein Adam La'Makom) - in thought, word and deed - which earn a person longevity in Eretz Yisrael; this is why they are all contained on the first of the two Luchos. (Ramban (to 20:13) agrees in principle that Kibud Av va'Em belongs to the Mitzvos Bein Adam La'Makom on the first Lu'ach; refer to 20:13:3:3 and 20:13:4:1 . But also see 20:12:1:1 .
Michtav me'Eliyahu (Vol. 5, p. 424): Every person has his share in revealing Kavod Hashem. Sometimes revelations of relatives must be joined. Kibud Av va'Em mandates extra years to teach us this.
See Torah Temimah citing Tosfos in Bava Basra 8b.
See Oznayim la'Torah citing Midrash Rabah.
In the Aseres ha'Dibros of Parshas Va'eschanan (Devarim 5:16), the reward for Kibud Av va'Em is, "... in order that your days be lengthened, and in order that it be good for you." Why are these the appropriate reward?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 41, p. 127): One's parents are the cause of one's existence; thus one who honors them deserves continued existence, i.e. long life. Because existence is "Tov" - as we learn from Bereishis - he too merits Tov. 1
Maharal (loc. cit.) also discusses Shilu'ach ha'Ken, for which the Torah promises similar reward. He adds - Honoring parents links in to the cause for existence; and refraining from taking the mother bird from upon her young means maintaining existence (because the mother can build a new nest). Thus, both receive this reward.
The Mishnah in Avos (2:1) teaches that "we do not know the reward for Mitzvos." If so, why does the Torah specify the reward for these two Mitzvos - Kibud Av va'Em and Shilu'ach ha'Ken?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 61, p. 184): As for the Mitzvos themselves, we do not know their relative reward, and therefore the Mishnah teaches that "we must be as careful to perform a simple Mitzvah just like a major one." The Mitzvos refine a person towards the Divine Order, and we cannot know what Mitzvah refines a person to a greater degree. But there is an additional aspect of reward for a Mitzvah - for difficulty involved in its fulfillment - and it is regarding this aspect that the Torah reveals the reward for these two Mitzvos. Kibud Av va'Em is necessary, even by our human intellect, and so we might have thought it to be like payment of a debt, and not deserving of reward. Shilu'ach ha'Ken is an easy Mitzvah, and it applies only to a nest that one chances upon, not one that was readily available to him (Mezuman). Thus the Torah must teach that these two Mitzvos do receive reward. 1
And we may infer by Kal va'Chomer the great reward for more difficult Mitzvos. And as above, all this relates to the reward for the difficulty involved in their fulfillment, aside from the reward for the inherent significance of the Mitzvah itself. Also see Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 67, to Avos 2:1) - The reward for a Mitzvah corresponds to the degree of attachment one has with Hashem through its fulfillment - which may indeed be greater for a simple Mitzvah than a strict one. Furthermore, a simple Mitzvah might inherently carry with it greater reward; also see Maharal in Chidushei Agados (Vol. 4, p. 5, Makos 23b).
What is the significance of "Al ha'Adamah ... "?
Seforno: Longevity in Eretz Yisrael is the reward that is due for keeping the five Dibros. 1
Oznayim la'Torah: Living in Eretz Yisrael is dependent upon keeping the Mitzvos, which in turn, is dependent upon learning Torah. And it is incumbent upon the fathers to teach their children Torah. 2
Seforno: On the other hand, keeping the remaining five Dibros - which entail not harming one's fellow-Jew (Adam la'Chavero) -- bodily, in his self-esteem or monetarily, in deed, in speech or in thought -- shield one against punishment in both worlds.
Oznayim la'Torah: As the Torah writes in the second Parshah of the Shema, "v'Limadtem Osam Es Beneichem ... Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem ..." (Devarim 11:21).See Oznayim la'Torah.
Rashi (to Vayikra 19:3) writes that one may not contradict the words of one's parents. But we find that Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon contradicted their fathers?
Moshav Zekenim: They disagreed respectfully - 'So my father said....' 1
Moshav Zekenim: This is difficult, since the Gemara in Kidushin 30b states that a father and son engaging in Torah become enemies - they do not disagree respectfully! This is only when they engage together. At other times, one may not disagree (in such a manner).
In Bava Kama (54b), R. Chanina ben Agil asked why "Tov" is mentioned in the second Luchos (i.e. the Aseres ha'Dibros of Parshas Va'eschanan) but not in the first. R. Chiya bar Aba was unsure whether 'good' was said. Did he not know the Pasuk? Furthermore, the Gemara concludes that it is lest 'good' cease from Yisrael, since the first Luchos would be broken. If so, why is there no concern that "Ya'arichun Yamecha (your days will be lengthened)" cease?
Divrei Eliyahu: He asked why the first Luchos did not allude to this world. "Ya'arichun Yamecha" refers to the World-to-Come, whereas "Yitav Lach," which appears only in the second, refers to this world. R. Chiya was unsure whether there is any promise of this world in the Torah, like R. Yaakov (Kidushin 39b) who maintains that everything is for the world to come. The Gemara replies that "Yitav Lach" refers to this world. Had it appeared in the first Luchos, no good would remain in this world. However, Arichus Yamim in the world to come remains, because the letters flew off the Luchos, but they remained in their place above. 1
Compare to Maharal, 20:12:159:1*** .
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 88b) asks that perhaps one is liable only for cursing both parents together. Why did it not ask if Kibud Av va'Em applies only when they are together?
Perhaps it is because "Es Avicha v'Es Imecha" comes to incorporate the father's wife and the mother's husband (Kesuvos 103a), and it would be unreasonable to suggest that the Mitzvah applies only where both parents remarried (PF). 1
The Moshav Zekenim however, left the question unanswered.
Chazal illustrate the extent to which one must honor parents - from a certain Gentile from Ashkelon, named Dama ben Nesinah (Kidushin 31a). In a similar vein, they teach that Esav excelled at Kibud Av! Why was this so?
Maharal #1 (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 41, p. 128): Chazal wish to teach that logic and intellect alone would obligate us to honor our parents, who brought us into the world. (Even without a Mitzvah,) Gentiles fulfill it. 1
Maharal #2 (ibid.): Esav's trait is Din, as offspring of Yitzchak whose trait is Din 2 -- and in concept any Toladah becomes actualized through Midas ha'Din. 3 As such, Esav was fully attached to his father, and he honored him - because doing so was dictated by Midas ha'Din. This is a trait among Gentiles - to follow that which intellect dictates. 4
Maharal #3 (Chidushei Agados Vol. 2, p. 137, to Kidushin 31a): One must honor parents for bringing him to Olam ha'Zeh (see Bava Metzia 33a) - and this world is allotted to Gentiles (and to Esav in particular). 5 That is why they are noteworthy in their performance of Kibud Av va'Em. Whereas Yisrael, who are members of Olam ha'Ba, are less alacritous in this Mitzvah. 6
They do not fulfill Mitzvos for having been commanded, rather because logic dictates it. Maharal adds (Chidushei Agados, see below) - Because they lack the ultimate Sechel from On High - the Torah - they stick to their human intellect. Also see Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 5:16) - Kibud Av va'Em is a Mitzvah that a person does naturally, as such it was not one of the "tests" given at Marah; see above 15:25:3.3:2 and 15:25:3.2:1 .
However, Yitzchak was proper Din ("Pachad Yitzchak"), whereas Esav was the Kelipah and distortion of Midas ha'Din. One may add that Din means necessity; in proper Din a person is obligated (Mechuyav) towards his Creator, and fears Him. But when Din is distorted, a person holds of himself as the greatest necessity in Creation! (EK)
See Bereishis 30:22:1.4:1 and notes.
Maharal adds (Chidushei Agados, see below) - This is not a virtue, but rather a lesser level. They know no compromise, only Midas ha'Din. (For example, liability for robbery for Bnei Noach is even for less than a Perutah's worth - Sanhedrin 57a).
Chazal teach that Yaakov and Esav split the two worlds between them - Olam ha'Ba for Yaakov, and Olam ha'Zeh for Esav. See our comments to Bereishis 25:22 .
Maharal (loc. cit. p. 138): The father and mother give a child his material aspect, and Hashem gives the Neshamah. Hence, those whose Guf is primary are more alacritous in honoring parents than those who are primarily Neshamah.
Chazal compare honoring parents to honoring Hashem, and there is a parallel Mitzvah to fear parents as well (Vayikra 19:3). If so, why is there no Mitzvah to love our parents (just like we are commanded to love Hashem)?
Maharal #1 (Chidushei Agados Vol. 2, p. 138, to Kidushin 31a): Offspring is a necessary outgrowth of parents, by Midas ha'Din - such that Yir'ah (associated with Din) is the relevant Mitzvah. 1
There are a number of differences between the text of Aseres ha'Dibros that appear here in Parshas Yisro, and the text in Parshas Va'eschanan (Devarim 5) - as will be outlined below. But why should there be any differences at all?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 43, p. 131): Sefer Devarim (also known as Mishneh Torah) is distinct from the other Chumashim, in that "Moshe stated them of himself" (Megilah 31b). 1 This does not mean that Moshe authored anything of his own volition! Rather, there are two perspectives to Torah - that of Hashem, the Giver of the Torah, and that of Yisrael its recipients. The latter is the perspective of Sefer Devarim. It opens with, "Moshe began to explain (Bei'er) the Torah" (Devarim 1:5) - and the recipient is the one who needs explanation. Elsewhere in the Torah, Hashem placed [exact] words in Moshe's mouth; whereas in Sefer Devarim Moshe spoke as does a messenger in the name of his sender. 2 This is the reason for the discrepancies between the two versions of the Aseres ha'Dibros 3 - because the function of Sefer Devarim is to add [explanation]. Also see the following answer.
The Gemara's context is that the Tochachah of Devarim is considered to be less severe than that of Sefer Vayikra, and therefore the person called to the Torah for that section may stop his reading in the middle.
Maharal adds - Torah is the covenant between Hashem and Yisrael; a covenant serves to connect its initiator and its recipient, who are two distinct parties. This parallels the division of the Aseres ha'Dibros into two Luchos - The first is what we must not do towards Hashem, and the second is what we must not do towards our fellow recipients of the covenant (our fellow man. See below, 20:13:156:1 and notes). These recipients of Torah are material (Chomer) beings who require greater explanation; that is the function of Mishneh Torah. Maharal continues (p. 133) - In Sefer Devarim, Moshe sums up the Aseres ha'Dibros with, "It was these words that Hashem spoke... " (Devarim 5:19). They were not Moshe's words, rather they comprise Hashem's words with added explanation.
What are the textual differences between the first 5 Dibros of Parshas Yisro, and those of Parshas Va'eschanan (Devarim 5:6-16)? In Dibrah #2 in Va'eschanan, we find; a. "Kol Temunah" (with no Vav); b. "... v'Al Shileshim" (with a Vav); c. The concluding phrase is written (Kesiv) as "Shomerei Mitzvaso," whereas here it is both written and read "Mitzvosai." How does Maharal explain these discrepancies?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 43, p. 132): As above, any differences in the Aseres ha'Dibros of Va'eschanan are to provide additional explanation to what is found in Yisro. a. Here, "Pesel v'Chol Temunah" (above v. 4) implies two separate prohibited items, such that perhaps the ensuing prohibition "do not bow..." would apply only to Temunah, which was mentioned last. Va'eschanan makes it clear that "Temunah" modifies "Pesel;" they are one and the same, 1 and the prohibition "Lo Sishtachaveh" covers both. b. In Yisro, "Al Shileshim" 2 (v. 5) implies that if the measure of sin is full, Hashem visits the father's punishment upon the sons, but if it is not full, and therefore the sons were not punished, then it is visited upon the grandsons. But Va'eschanan cannot be explained thus, due to the connecting Vav. Thus, even here we must explain that Hashem visits the father's sins upon the sons regardless of measure; and [only] if the father had sinned greatly and the punishment to the son was not sufficient, will the grandson be punished, and so on. c. As above (see 20:1:2.2 and 20:3:1:3 ), eight of the Aseres ha'Dibros refer to Hashem in third person, whereas in the first two Dibros, Hashem speaks in first-Person ("I" to "you"). These Dibros discuss accepting His Sovereignty; they express Hashem as present and addressing us directly (Nochach). 3 In order to link the last eight Dibros to the first two, in Devarim the final word of Dibrah #2 is written as if in third person ('His Mitzvos').
In Gur Aryeh to Devarim 5:12, Maharal explains slightly differently - I would think that only one who fashions both items, a Pesel and any Temunah, should be liable, etc.
Summary of discussion in 20:5:4 above - a. According to Ibn Ezra, this demonstrates Hashem's Mercy, that Hashem waits to exact payback until the fourth generation. b. To Ramban, Hashem punishes when the measure is filled, sometimes in the first generation, and sometimes later- but not as far removed as the fifth generation. c. To Maharal, this demonstrates His exacting Justice, that in accordance with the severity of the deeds, punishment may extend over multiple generations (yet no more than four).
Although the rest of the Torah is likewise in "Nochach" perspective, Sefer Devarim is presented as Moshe's words. In the Aseres ha'Dibros of Va'eschanan, when Moshe is citing the words of Hashem, only the first two Dibros, discussing acceptance of Hashem's Sovereignty, are in Nochach. But Ramban differs; see above 20:3:1:3* .
Further differences - In Dibrah #4 in Va'eschanan; a. "Shamor" in place of "Zachor;" b. It adds "... as Hashem your G-d commanded you;" c. It specifies "... your ox and your donkey;" d. "... and all of your animals." e. "... In order that your slave and maidservant should rest, just like yourself (Lema'an Yanuach)" (in contrast to Parshas Mishpatim, "... in order that your ox and donkey rest, and the son of your maidservant and the stranger be refreshed (v'Yinafesh)" (Shemos 23:12)); f. The rationale for Shabbos is "... for you were slaves in the land of Egypt" (in place of, "for six days Hashem made the heavens and earth..."). How does Maharal explain these discrepancies?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, end Ch. 43, p. 134): a. See question 20:12:160 below. b. Added explanation - we should keep Shabbos just as we were commanded at Marah. 1 c. As above, (20:12:156:1 ), Sefer Devarim speaks from the perspective of the Torah's recipients. It specifies the ox and donkey, which an owner considers more essential than the slave and maidservant. d. Once in order of subjective importance, it adds "and all of your animals." 2 e. See footnote 3 . f. See above, 20:11:151:4 and on.
Maharal (end Ch. 44, p. 137), as well as in Ch. 43 (loc. cit.) regarding Kibud Av va'Em (see the following question). For further discussion in Maharal on the Mitzvos commanded at Marah, refer to Shemos 15:25:3.3:1, 15:25:3.4 and 15:25:155 .
Maharal writes similarly regarding the added details in "Lo Sachmod" (20:14:1.2:1 (c. and d.).
Why doesn't Maharal address the phrase "Lema'an Yanu'ach" which is added in Va'eschanan? He must feel that this is self-explanatory in light of what was stated above (that Sefer Devarim adds explanation for the perspective of the Torah's recipients) - the purpose of Shabbos is so that one should rest. To explain further - In Va'eschanan, the rationale given for Shabbos is that we left Egypt and are no longer slaves, see Maharal above (20:11:151:5 and on). But if so, we might have thought that there is no reason for our current slaves and maidservants to rest! The Pasuk must therefore specify, 'in order that they rest... just like yourself.' Although our slave by his own right does not have this reason to cease work on Shabbos, he must nonetheless rest due to the owner's Shabbos. (EK)
Further differences - In Dibrah #5 in Va'eschanan, we find; a. "... as Hashem your G-d commanded you;" b. "Lema'an Ya'arichun" is written Chaser (without a Vav); c. the added phrase, "u'Lema'an Yitav Lach" - and so that it be good for you."
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, end Ch. 43, p. 134): a. Va'eschanan is adding that we should fulfill the Mitzvah as we were commanded [at Marah]. 1 As above, Sefer Devarim relates to Yisrael, the recipients, and so it explicates the severity of the command. Kibud Av va'Em is referred to as "Mishpat" (see Shemos 15:25), it is a Mitzvah 'of necessity.' 2 b. The phrase "Yamim Rabim" usually indicates painful times that seem to extend forever; whereas good times are called "but a few days" (Bereishis 29:20). The Dibros of Va'eschanan write "Ya'arichun" without a Vav, to explain that the increased days that come as reward for Kibud Av va'Em will be in goodness; they are not 'lengthened days' in the usual sense. c. It is impossible that a Divine matter should take place in complete perfection, here in this physical world. In the first Dibros, which Hashem said to Yisrael face-to face, we do not find the term 'Tov,' because 'Tov' means having no deficiency. Whereas the second Dibros, which Moshe explained to Yisrael, were applicable at Man's level. 3 They were given in completion, and as such they contain the term 'Tov.' 4
Maharal (loc. cit. Ch. 45, p. 138): The Mitzvos of Shabbos and Kibud Av va'Em are due to the initial Creation. Shabbos testifies that Hashem created the world; and Kibud Av va'Em reminds us that Hashem created Adam in particular, as the primary aspect of Creation. Thus, these Mitzvos were given precedence. (Sefer Devarim is adding that these two Mitzvos are a prerequisite; they are of the root of the rest of the Mitzvos which followed; and that is why they were commanded at an earlier date.) Maharal seems to be referencing what he wrote above (see 20:1:8:1 letter e., and 20:12:1:4), that honor of parents is due to their being the 'Ilah Pratis' (the specific cause) of one's personal existence. But how does this relate to the above idea, that Hashem is the Ilah Peratis - of Mankind as a whole? It seems that just as parents' intent is to bring a child to the world, he is what they desired, and that is why the child is beholden to them. Man must relate to Hashem in the same way -- Man was created as a lone organism (Sanhedrin 37a) because each individual personally is Hashem's intended goal, he is what Hashem desires! Thus as above, Shabbos demonstrates the general purpose in Creation and that it will certainly reach its goal. So too Kibud Av va'Em is compared to honor of Hashem, to demonstrate His Will for each person as an individual.
See above, Shemos 15:25:3.2:1* , 15:25:3.3:2, and 15:25:155:2 .
Maharal references the Gemara (Bava Kama 54b) - Had the term 'Tov' been used in the first Luchos, then upon their shattering, all goodness would have ceased for Yisrael, G-d forbid (see above, 20:12:152). Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, end Ch. 35, p. 103) explains at length that had the term 'Tov" been used, it would mean that these Luchos were indeed fitting for Bnei Yisrael's level - and their breaking would be the cessation of that good. But because the term 'Tov' was not used, when they were broken only their prior level akin to the Mal'achim ceased, while they retained a suitable existence in this world. Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 10, to Bava Kama 54b) - The 'Tov' is for Olam ha'Ba which is 'Kulo Tov.' Also this did not cease for Yisrael; even the sinners among them are punished when in this world, and "all of Yisrael has a portion in Olam ha'Ba." (Now according to the above Gemara, the Aseres ha'Dibros as recorded in Sefer Devarim is what appeared on the second Luchos. But that is certainly not the simple meaning of the text in Chumash! Sefer Devarim is reviewing the events of Har Sinai, "on the day of the assembled" - as opposed to the second Luchos which when given, "No man shall ascend with you" (Shemos 34:3). Maharal seemingly implies here that although the context in Va'eschanan addresses the initial Matan Torah, the text of the actual Dibros there reflects the second Luchos. That is because Devarim is the words of Moshe explaining the Torah as it applies to Yisrael its recipients - just like the second Luchos themselves were made by Moshe and not by Hashem Himself. See Maharal in Tif'eres Yisrael (end Ch. 44, p. 137). (EK)
Why is the term 'Tov' used specifically in this Dibrah of Kibud Av va'Em? As above (20:12:4.1:1) - One merits 'Tov' through this Mitzvah because one's parents are the cause for his existence. Rav Hartman (notes to Tif'eres Yisrael, Mechon Yerushalayim edition, Ch. 35 #77) - Parents brought a person to Olam ha'Zeh (see above 20:12:154:3); honoring them brings on the 'Tov' that is fitting for Olam ha'Zeh - as Maharal explained here.
Chazal teach (Shevuos 20b) that "Zachor" and "Shamor" were stated simultaneously, in one utterance. Why do Chazal pinpoint that difference, more so than the other differences listed above?
Ibn Ezra 1 (Perush Aroch to 20:1):The words of the Torah are akin to its Guf, and their reasoning to its Neshamah. We should not be concerned about different wording, when the reason is one and the same. The reason that we must remember Shabbos (Zachor), is in order to observe it (Shamor).
Ramban (to 20:8): "Zachor" is a positive Mitzvah, we remember to sanctify the Shabbos; whereas "Shamor" is a negative Mitzvah - we abstain from profaning it. It would not be appropriate that Moshe substitute a negative Mitzvah for a positive one (but rather, both were stated together at Sinai). This is reflected in the Halachah (Berachos 20b) that "women are obligated in Kiddush (despite it being a time-bound positive Mitzvah), because whoever is included in 'Shamor' is likewise included in 'Zachor'" (and Shamor is a negative Mitzvah, in which women are obligated). 2
Gur Aryeh (to 20:8): Any different reason, or added wording, that is found in the Aseres ha'Dibros of Va'eschanan, can be explained by the fact that the entire purpose of Devarim as "Mishneh Torah" is to add explanation. 3 But "Zachor" and "Shamor" is not an addition, rather a discrepancy in the content itself. "Shamor" means not doing Melachah, whereas "Zachor" means to remember the Shabbos. 4
Ibn Ezra lines up questions against Chazal's approach that both were stated simultaneously. He introduces his remarks, "Heaven forfend that I would say that they spoke incorrectly, for my own opinion is but dust against theirs. Yet people of current times might think that their words are in the literal sense- and that is not so, as I shall explain in conclusion." Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 43, p. 131), however, argues forcefully. Also see Maharal in Derech Chayim (p. 117, to Avos 3:2) - It is impossible that there should be a single matter, even one detail of the Torah, that might have been taken place in a different manner - rather only thus [as stated]; one may not say about the Torah that it could have been thus but not necessarily so..." (compare to 20:1:2.2:4 above). As for Ibn Ezra's question that simultaneous utterance, and simultaneous comprehension by Bnei Yisrael, would have been impossible, Maharal responds in astonishment that Chazal state explicitly that it was so - "Something that a mouth cannot speak, nor the ear hear!' Rather, this was above normal physical speaking or hearing. [Perhaps their disagreement hinges upon Maharal's approach to the supernatural (Maharal, second intro. to Gevuros Hashem, p. 15) - Ralbag wrote that it is impossible for a miracle to transpire that causes two opposing states in the same matter. Maharal forcefully argues - The ninth plague in Egypt brought darkness to the Egyptians and light for the Bnei Yisrael, simultaneously! And here too, two different statements were uttered, and then heard by Bnei Yisrael.] Maharal also asks that it was not only the two words "Zachor" and "Shamor" that changed, but also the given reason for Shabbos - to remember Creation, or to remember the Exodus. Thus we find not only different wording, but a fundamental difference.
Whereas the other differences between the Dibros are not fundamental. Ramban adds - Perhaps both sets of Luchos had the word "Zachor," and Moshe explained to Yisrael that "Shamor" was stated along with Zachor. See Mizrachi (to 20:8) who questions Ramban, and Gur Aryeh's resolution. But Gur Aryeh himself asks that this approach would not answer why "Ed Sheker" and "Ed Shav" were stated as one.
As above, 20:12:156:1 .
Gur Aryeh: Similarly, Chazal explain the discrepancy in Dibrah #9 between "Ed Sheker" and "Ed Shav," by stating that these too were together in one utterance. See 20:13:2.3:1 and 20:13:155:1; also see Gur Aryeh to Devarim 5:12 .
If "Zachor" and "Shamor" were stated as one, why does the Torah record "Zachor" here in Yisro, and "Shamor "in Va'eschanan?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 44, p. 136): Sefer Devarim is closer to [the perspective of] Yisrael, the Torah's recipients, whereas the rest of Torah is closer to that the perspective of Hashem, its Giver. 1 Zachor is written here, because as a Mitzvas Aseh, it is closer to Hashem; whereas "Shamor" in Devarim is a Lo Sa'aseh which is closer to Yisrael. 2
As above, 20:12:156:1 .
Maharal: That is why women are obligated in Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh. Ramban - Mitzvos Aseh correspond to Ahavas Hashem, and Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh to Yir'as Hashem. That is why "Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh" - because Ahavah is greater than Yir'ah. Maharal in Tif'eres Yisrael (Ch. 4, p. 15) writes at length that Man was commanded Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh so as not to pervert his existence; and Mitzvos Aseh to attain great levels and perfection. Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh correspond to our Chomer (material); and Mitzvos Aseh to our Divine Image. Also see Maharal in Chidushei Agados (Vol. 4, p. 7, to Makos 23b ).
Why weren't both "Zachor" and "Shamor" inscribed together on the Luchos?
Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 5:12): Zachor and Shamor comprise one unit, through which the Shabbos is sanctified. 1 "Shamor" forbids Melachah on Shabbos, allowing for its sanctity -- yet this alone does not make Shabbos evident! (A person might abstain from work for any number of reasons. 2 ) "Zachor' means that we must actively sanctify Shabbos. Zachor alone is also insufficient; as what good is it to verbally acknowledge Shabbos if one then acts as he does on a weekday! 3 Zachor is used first, because that is how Shabbos is made evident in practice. 4
Maharal #1 (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 44, p. 136): The first Luchos had only "Zachor" inscribed, as written here in Yisro - but there can be no "Zachor" without "Shamor"! 5 However, the second Luchos were inscribed "Shamor," as we find in Sefer Devarim. Those Luchos were made by Moshe, unlike the first Luchos which were made by Hashem Himself. 6
Maharal #2 (ibid. p. 137): Shabbos has two levels, Shamor and then above it Zachor. Had both been inscribed together , they would have comprised one idea, rather than two. 7
Had both been written together, I would have learned that they are two independent commands. Rather, they were stated as one to teach that one stands upon the other, and neither can exist independently.
This seems to imply that were the mere cessation of work to be sufficient evidence of the Shabbos, we would not need "Zachor" - mentioning the Shabbos verbally - despite that it is non-action. It seems we can infer, that it is not we who cause the sanctity of Shabbos to take hold through our actions, but rather that we must prepare ourselves to receive the sanctity of Shabbos, which then takes hold by itself. (Shabbos is pre-established since Bereishis, as opposed to Yom Tov whose sanctity must be enacted by Yisrael.) Notwithstanding the above, Gur Aryeh continues that "Zachor" (verbal mention) is primary, because not working in and of itself does not carry meaning, seeing as some people are idle even on weekdays. (EK)
Earlier, we cited Maharal to the effect that "Shamor" is not due to Hashem's cessation of the act of Creation -- which is not a logical reason that we should rest as well (see above 20:11:151:4). Yet here in Gur Aryeh, Maharal implies the opposite - that one cannot have Zachor (Kidush) without resting as well! Perhaps what Maharal means there is that there would be no logic in rest alone, without making mention of Hashem's having rested. "Shamor" must follow on the heels of "Zachor."
Gur Aryeh (loc. cit.) adds that all aspects of Shabbos are doubled - see answer #3 from Maharal in Tif'eres Yisrael.
As explained above, (20:12:159:1***), the text of the Aseres ha'Dibros here in Yisro is what was inscribed on the first Luchos, whereas the text in Va'eschanan is what was inscribed on the second Luchos. But see Gur Aryeh above (20:1:2.2:5* ) - At Matan Torah, Yisrael comprehended "Zachor," and Moshe explained to them that "Shamor" was said along with it (compare to Ramban to 20:8) .
As above (20:12:159, letter c. ) - The first Dibros were above this world, they do not contain the term "Tov," and the first Luchos were the handiwork of Hashem, and the second that of Moshe. Also see Ramban to 20:8 .
Maharal: It is to this that Chazal allude when they write that all aspects of Shabbos are double - its Korban is double... and its command is double, Zachor v'Shamor. Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 5:12) adds - Shabbos in this world and the next world. Also see above, 20:8:4.01 .
