More Parasha-Pages
Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld's
Weekly
Parasha-Page

Ask a
Question

Parashat Vaetchanan 5755

UNVEILING THE SECRETS OF THE DECALOGUE

Two sets of tablets or one?

The Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments, is recorded twice in the Torah. The first time is during the course of the narrative of the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai (Shmot 20:2-14). The second account appears in the form of a review of those events, in this week's Parasha (Devarim 5:6-18). Surprisingly, the texts of the two accounts are not identical -- all told, there are 22 differences between the two versions. Many of these discrepancies are rather minor, such as the addition of the letter Vav [=and] 7 times, and its omission twice, in the second version. In another instance the order of the words in one commandment is reversed. There are, however, several more significant inconsistencies as well. In 6 places words are *added* in the second version, and in 6 others, completely different words are *substituted* for those used in the first version of the commandments.

Why should there be *any* differences between the two accounts? After all, don't they describe the same set of events? Many commentators have discussed this question. The consensus of opinion is that when Moshe reviewed the Decalogue for the people, he added several explanatory comments of his own to the original wording. The Vaetchanan Decalogue is Moshe's rewording of the Ten Commandments. (Ibn Ezra Shmot 20:1, Ramban Shmot 20:8, etc.). This seems to be the approach of the Talmud as well (Shevuot 20b; see Parasha Page of Yitro 5754, section III, for additional sources).

Elsewhere, however, the Talmud seems to have a completely different understanding of the differences between the presentations of the Decalogue. In Bava Kamma (55a), the Gemara points out that in the Shmot version we are told to honor our parents "in order that you should live long days," while in the Devarim version the incentive given is "in order that you should live long days *and so that you shall have good*." Why is this extra phrase omitted in the first record, yet mentioned in the second? The Gemara explains that Hashem knew that the first Tablets would be shattered, and He did not want the promise of "that it should be good for you" to be "shattered" along with the Tablets. Were that to happen, there would, G-d forbid, be no more goodness for the Jews.

The implication of this Aggadic interpretation is clearly that goodness could only be written on the second set of Tablets, which were given on Yom Kippur (see Shmot 34) and were never broken. If so, the Devarim version of the Decalogue must be the version engraved on the *second* Tablets, while the Shmot version represents the text found on the *first* Tablets -- the original ones, which were later shattered by Moshe when he witnessed the sin of the Golden Calf. This explains very simply why there are so many differences between the two versions. The two accounts of the Decalogue do not represent the oral delivery of the original revelation at Mount Sinai. Instead, they represent the written texts -- and oral deliveries -- of two completely different sets of Tablets!

The same conclusion may be drawn from a statement of the Pesikta Rabbati (beginning of Parasha 23), which addresses the fact that in the first account of the Decalogue it says "*Remember* ("Zachor") the Sabbath Day," while in the second account it says "*Keep* ("Shamor") the Sabbath Day." The Pesikta explains that the word "Keep" was used to intimate that the Bnai Yisroel were being instructed that only through "keeping" the Shabbat would they succeed in "keeping" the second Tablets from being lost as the first one were. Here too the insinuation is that the Devarim account of the Decalogue records the text of the *second* Tablets, while the Shmot account describes the text of the *first* Tablets (-as was discussed in greater detail in the Parasha Page for Yitro 5754, sections III,IV.)

However, the assertion that the Decalogue of Va'etchanan is actually the text of the *second* Tablets, which were given on Yom Kippur seems to be contradicted by the context of the narrative. The Decalogue of Va'etchanan is introduced with the words: "Hashem spoke to you face to face on the mountain, from the midst of the fire. I stood between Hashem and you... to tell you the word of Hashem" (Devarim 5:4-5). This clearly seems to be a description of the oral delivery of the *first* Tablets, amidst the spectacle of thunder and lightning and loud blast of the Shofar, in the presence of the entire congregation of Israel (see Shmot 20:14-17). We do not find such fanfare, nor any public address whatsoever, accompanying the delivery of the second Tablets, which Moshe himself brought down for the Bnai Yisroel upon his return from Mount Sinai (see Shmot 34:28-29 and Devarim 10:4-5). How, then, can these two citations from the sages imply that the Decalogue quoted in Devarim 5 is a description of the address accompanying the second Tablets?

II

It takes 40 years to fully understand...

Actually, even according to the first approach mentioned above -- that the Decalogue of Devarim reflects the text of the first Tablets with Moshe's explanatory addenda -- some further explanation is in order. Why did Moshe feel the need to add explanatory remarks? If the people understood the Ten Commandments the first time, why should they now, forty years later, require further explanation? And besides, what explanation is actually added by the numerous changes Moshe made?

In this week's Parasha (Devarim 5:26) we are told that Hashem said to Moshe upon witnessing the Bnai Yisroel's awe-filled reaction to His revelation, "Who would make it possible that the Bnai Yisroel would fear Me like this and keep all of my commandments all the days? Then they and their children would have good forever!" The Gemara in Avodah Zara (5a) tells us that the Bnai Yisroel should have immediately responded to Hashem's remark by exclaiming, "*You* make it possible for us!" Hashem had given them a cue to declare their desire for Him to draw them closer, but they did not understand the hint.

Why did Moshe see fit to mention this comment of Hashem's at this point, seeing that it is not recorded in Shmot in the context of the original story of the revelation on Mount Sinai? The Gemara explains that it was only at this time, forty years after the revelation, that Moshe realized that Hashem gave this opportunity to the Bnai Yisroel. As the Gemara puts it, "A student does not fully understand the intent of his master's words until forty years after he has heard them."

Perhaps such an explanation may be extended to our situation as well.

III

Veiled warnings

Let us begin with a Mashal [=allegorical story]. Once there was a father who was sending his son off to school in a distant city. They had a relative in that city who was involved in all sorts of illegal rackets and schemes. The father suspected that the relative would try to lure his son away from learning an honest livelihood by enticing him with offers of "easy money". Naturally, the father wanted his son to avoid this relative at all costs. However, he knew that it would be counterproductive for him to give explicit instructions to his son to refrain from meeting this man, as this would only arouse the boy's curiosity concerning the relative. The young man, suspecting some secret family feud, might even acquaint himself with the villain rather than shun him. Furthermore, the son might feel insulted that his father showed such lack of confidence in his own judgment, making him unreceptive to the father's sound advice.

Instead, the father offered his son several general, indirect suggestions: Do not keep company with a person whose integrity is in doubt; do not be eager to accept monetary offers from strangers; do not become taken in with seemingly easy schemes for making large amounts of money, for they usually backfire; etc. Hopefully, through this kind of indirect counsel, the son would realize when the time of temptation would arrive that he should keep his distance from the offensive relative.

Now let us apply this parable to the circumstances of the Bnai Yisroel at the time of the giving of the Torah. Hashem knew that His children would soon be facing challenging situations, and that their loyalty to Him would be put to the test. In fact, only 40 days after the Torah was given, the incident of the Golden Calf took place right at Mount Sinai. It was this incident that caused the loss of the first Tablets of the Law, and was destined to cause the Jews so much future suffering and misfortune (see Rashi to Shmot 35:34; Parasha Page, Balak and Tisha Be'av 5755). And, as the Mishnah says, "Everything is foreseen [by Hashem]" (Avot 3:15) -- the past present and future are one to the Creator.

With this in mind, perhaps we may suggest that Hashem wanted to at least give His people veiled warnings of the trial that awaited them. This way, when the pitfall of the Golden Calf presented itself, perhaps the Jews would reconsider before sinning, realizing that Hashem had cautioned them to beware of falling into just such a trap. The Giver of the Law therefore implanted several tacit hints into the wording and nuances of the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately for the people, the intent of these hidden messages was lost on them. Even Moshe himself did not grasp these subtle allusions until forty years later -- in hindsight, after the people's infamous sin at Sinai was already history.

It took the great Moshe forty years to understand that the people had forever lost their opportunity to declare "*You* make it possible for us not to ever sin!" At the same time, Moshe realized that Hashem had been trying to give them the advice they would need to avoid the notorious pitfall of the Golden Calf. Now, while he was delivering his farewell address of admonishment and warning to the Bnai Yisroel, he pointed out to them the several gentle warnings that Hashem Himself had provided in the Ten Commandments.

IV

A side by side comparison

Let us now examine the differences in the wording of the two versions of the Decalogue and see how they can be explained according to this theory:

1. THREE WARNINGS NOT TO SERVE A CALF'S FORM:

A) In the second commandment we read, according to the Shmot version, that Hashem does kindness to those who keep "MITZVOTAI [=My *commandments*]." In the Devarim version (8:10), the word is "MITZVATO [=His *commandment*] -- singular. ("Mitzvato" is the way the word is written [Ke'tiv]. The word is in fact pronounced [Ke'ri] "Mitzvotai," in consonance with the Shmot version. Nevertheless, the change in spelling ought to be addressed.)

In Chullin 5a we are taught that there is one sin that is equal in gravity to all the other sins of the Torah combined -- that of idol-worship. "If someone worships idols, it is as if he has transgressed the entire Torah; and when someone renounces idol-worship it is as if he has fulfilled the entire Torah." Moshe saw that at the end of the second commandment -- the commandment against idol-worship -- Hashem promised to bestow kindness to "those who keep My commandments." He understood that Hashem was hinting that the observance of this one precept was tantamount to "keeping My commandments" -- *all* the commandments of Hashem. Thus, when he reviewed the contents of the Decalogue in Devarim, he underscored the fact that in reality *one* particular commandment was being discussed here by using the singular word "commandment." He was pointing out to the people that they had been warned with this subtle cue to be immeasurably cautious when it comes to idol-worship, and thus to avoid falling into the trap of sinning with the Golden Calf.

B) In the Shmot version of the second commandment it says, "Do not make for yourself a sculpted image *NOR* any likeness of anything in the heavens above and on the earth below...," while in Devarim (8:8) it says, "DO NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A SCULPTED IMAGE, A LIKENESS OF ANYTHING IN THE HEAVENS ABOVE AND ON THE EARTH BELOW...," with the word "nor" omitted. In Shmot the prohibition seems to be divided into two separate components, while in Devarim it is worded as one long prohibition. How can this discrepancy be explained?

The Ramban (Shmot 32:1) explains that the reason the people chose the form of a calf as their object of worship is because, as described in Yechezkel 1, the form of an ox's head formed part of the image of Hashem's Divine chariot -- the "Throne of Hashem's Glory." The four heads of creatures that appear on the Divine chariot represent four ways in which Hashem exerts his control over what happens in this world. The Bnai Yisroel wanted an object that would evoke the powers and protection of Hashem, and they found this in the image of the calf.

When Hashem warned against making "a sculpted image, nor any likeness of anything in the heavens above and on the earth below," Moshe now realized that the reference was not just to a general sculpted image of an imaginary creature. It was a warning not to create a sculpted image that is a specific *likeness*, that of a creature which was to be found *both* in the heavens above and the earth below -- i.e., one of the figures of the Divine chariot, such as an ox! He now knew that Hashem meant this sentence to be understood as one long subtle warning against making a sculpture *of* any likeness of what is in the heavens above and the earth below. Therefore he omitted the "nor," to accentuate this point.

C) Another reference to the Golden Calf can be found in the fourth commandment. In the Shmot version, the fourth commandment enjoins us to refrain from all labor ("Melacha" - better translated as "constructive act") on the Sabbath day -- "you, your servant, your maidservant and your animals." In Devarim this is rephrased as "you, your servant, your maidservant, YOUR OX, YOUR DONKEY AND ALL your animals" (Devarim 5:14). Why the addition of several examples of particular animals?

The reason that Hashem told the people to extend the Shabbat rest to their animals, Moshe now realized, was that there might have been an inclination among the people to accord a revered status -- or perhaps some element of divinity, as in India to this very day -- to some animals, thus exempting them from participating in Hashem's ordained day of rest. For this reason Hashem stressed that animals, too, must rest. In order to bring out this point, Moshe now rephrased this sentence to explicitly equate the *ox* with all other animals, as far as the day of rest was concerned. As Moshe explained, Hashem was hinting to us that we should not bestow any form of veneration on any animal, particularly the ox which he knew would shortly become a snare for the people.

2. THE CONCLUDING COMMADMENT:

There are a number of noteworthy changes in the last commandment of the Decalogue alone. In the Shmot version of the Decalogue, the last commandment says, "Do not covet your friend's *house*; do not covet your friend's *wife*, nor his servant nor his maidservant, *nor* his ox nor his donkey nor anything that belongs to your friend."

In Devarim (8:18) it says, "DO NOT COVET YOUR FRIEND'S *WIFE*; DO NOT *DESIRE* (-instead of covet -MK) YOUR FRIEND'S *HOUSE* (-it reverses the order of house and wife -MK), *HIS FIELD* (-added word -MK) NOR HIS SERVANT NOR HIS MAIDSERVANT, HIS OX (-leaves out "nor" -MK) NOR HIS DONKEY NOR ANYTHING THAT BELONGS TO YOUR FRIEND."

We have pointed out 4 discrepancies:

A. The order of "friend's house" and "friend's wife" are interchanged in the two versions. B. In Shmot the same verb (Tachmod - covet) is used both times, while in Devarim the commandment begins with Tachmod ("covet") but then switches to Titavveh ("desire"). C. The Devarim version adds "his field," which is not found at all in the original version.

D. The word "nor" before the words "his ox" is omitted in Devarim.

We may suggest that all of these changes can be explained in light of the theme developed above.

A. "Your friend's wife" may be understood to have an allegorical meaning in addition to its simple connotation. The Hebrew word "Re'a," which literally means "friend," is sometimes used as a reference to the Creator. This is how the word is to be understood in Mishlei 27:10 (according to Rashi Shabbat 31a): "Do not forsake your `friend' and the `friend' of your father." Perhaps we can understand the word "Re'a" in this light in our verse too. What would be the meaning of "your friend's [=Hashem's] *wife*" (or "woman")?

As previously mentioned (#1B), images of the heads of four creatures appear in the Divine Chariot of Hashem (See Yechezkel 1), each one representing another of four attributes that Hashem uses in His administration of the world. The figures ("Chayot") that make up the Chariot, or Throne, of Hashem which bear these images, are referred to as "women" (Yechezkel 1:9, 23). Thus the "woman" of Hashem that we are told not to covet may be one of the figures of the Divine Chariot -- a figure bearing the head of an ox! We were being warned not to try to "use" such a figure for our own benefit.

As we shall see, the entire commandment against coveting may have been directed towards warning the Jews against sinning with the Golden Calf. However, the mention of the "woman of Re'acha" may be the most explicit hint to that incident. Moshe, realizing the implication of this expression, moved it to be first on the list of things not to covet, to make his point that the tenth commandment was a caution against the sin of the Calf.

B. As noted above, in the second Decalogue we are told not to *desire* our friend's house, while in the original version we are told not to *covet* our friend's house. The root "Ivva," for *desire* is used in connection with the Jew's eagerness to worship idols by the incident of the Golden Calf -- "They *desired* (Ivvu) for themselves many gods" (Rashi Shmot 32:1, Sanhedrin 63a). This is why Moshe, when he reviewed the Decalogue to the Bnai Yisroel, changed this word from the original word that was used in Shmot. He wanted to bring out the fact that the prohibition was directed towards Golden-Calf-like sins.

C. The Gemara (Gittin 52a) tells us that the word "field" may be used to mean "ox," for it is an ox that performs most of the labors in the field. Here too, when Moshe added the word "field" (without any conjunction to separate it from the preceding word, "house") he was intimating that when Hashem spoke of "your friend's house" he meant not only the house in its most limited sense, but also to the area around the house - its *field*. This, in light of the Gemara in Gittin, was a veiled reference to the ox -- "Do not covet the ox of the Divine Chariot!"

D. By omitting the conjunction ("nor") before the word "ox" he also helped to stress the connection between the "field" and the "ox" which appears two words later. That word, "ox," is, after all, only a *clarification* of the less explicit word "field," and not an *additional* piece of property.

3. FOUR EXTRA "AND"S:

"DO NOT (a) MURDER *AND* DO NOT (b) COMMIT ADULTERY *AND* DO NOT (c) STEAL *AND* DO NOT (d) GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY REGARDING YOUR FRIEND *AND* DO NOT (e) COVET..." (Devarim 5:17,18). In the Devarim version, the last five commandments are joined together with the constant repetition of the word "and." In Shmot this conjunction is omitted, giving more of an impression of five distinct, disjoint commands. How can this difference be accounted for?

Moshe realized that the last five commandments were intended to represent one long progression of sins (which would lead up to the sin of the Golden Calf), and not five unrelated transgressions. Hashem was warning them not to become ensnared in one sin, which would bring them to another, and another, and eventually to the infamous sin of idolatry. How so?

(a) Before Moshe ascended Mount Sinai he left Aaron and Hur (Aaron's nephew) in charge of the people (Shmot 24:14). Hur, however, is never heard from again, despite the budding leadership role he seems to have played in the past (see Shmot 17). What ever became of Hur? The Gemara (quoted by Rashi to Shmot 32:5) tells us that he was murdered by the rabble when he refused to cooperate in the construction of the Golden Calf. Thus, the first sin to be transgressed in the progression of events that formed the sin of the Golden Calf was the sin of murder.

(b) The Gemara (Sanhedrin 63b) explains that the Bnai Yisroel were not stupid -- they had already experienced G-d's worship, and knew that molten gods could not possibly have any divine powers. The only reason they ever indulged in idol worship, the Gemara asserts, was as an excuse to engage in licentious behavior. If Hashem could be renounced and a new form of deity instituted, the people would be free to follow the basest of their instincts with impunity. In fact, we find that after they built the Golden Calf "they arose to amuse themselves" (Shmot 32:6). Rashi explains that this means they engaged in immoral behavior -- as the word "amuse himself" clearly means in Bereishit 39:14.

(c) When Aaron was confronted with the people's demand to make a god for them, he told them to bring him all their wives' golden ornaments. It is these ornaments that he intended to melt down to mold into an image. As Rashi explains, Aaron knew that the women would not easily part with their jewelry, and he hoped that the delay thus caused would give Moshe enough time to return from the summit of the mountain.

In fact, as Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer (Chap. 45) points out, Aaron was right, and the women refused to surrender their ornaments (see Parasha Page, Parashat HaChodesh, 5755). But that did not stop the men from executing their wicked plan -- they took the jewelry by force! Thus, the sin of the Golden Calf was made possible only through the prior sin of theft.

(d) As explained above (#2A), the Hebrew word "Re'a" [=friend] is sometimes taken as a reference to Hashem. Thus the ninth commandment -- not to give false testimony about one's "friend" (Re'a) -- may also be taken as a prohibition to utter falsehoods about *Hashem*. This was a veiled warning to the Bnai Yisroel not to fall into the trap that would lead them to declare "This (the Golden Calf) is your god, O Israel!" (Shmot 32:4).

(e) The last commandment is "Do not covet." Rashi (to Shmot 32:1), quoting the Gemara (Sanhedrin 63a), points out that when the Bnai Yisroel accepted the Golden Calf upon themselves they had a strong *desire* to make themselves molten gods, like the other nations (see above, #2B). It was this "coveting" that brought them to sin.

We have thus shown that the episode of the Golden Calf involved much more than the "mere" sin of idolatry, but also the sins of murder, immoral behavior, theft, false testimony and covetousness. By juxtaposing these sins in the Decalogue, Hashem was conveying a veiled description of what would happen if the people were not careful. Now Moshe understood this implied hint and pointed it out to the people by adding the conjunction "and" between the last five commandments. This made it clear that the last five commandments were intended to be warnings about the Golden Calf disaster.

4. AS HASHEM COMMANDED YOU...:

The phrase "AS HASHEM HAD COMMANDED YOU" is found twice in the second Decalogue -- in the fourth and fifth commandment, concerning the Shabbat (verse 12), and honoring one's parents (verse 16) -- and not at all in the first version. Since Moshe was paraphrasing the words of Hashem that were said at the time of the giving of the Torah, the words "as Hashem had commanded you" must mean that Hashem had commanded these two laws some time prior to the Revelation at Mount Sinai. As related in Shmot 16:25, the Bnai Yisroel were indeed given a series of laws at Marah several weeks before they arrived at Sinai, and the Sages tell us that the Sabbath and honoring one's parents were among these laws (Rashi ad loc.). But why did Moshe see fit to remind the people of the episode at Marah?

Moshe realized now that the reason Hashem chose to prelude the Torah with these two Mitzvot, out of all the hundreds of choices, was because He wanted the people to become accustomed to them even before they arrived at Mount Sinai. These two precepts would, more than any others, enable them to better withstand the test that would face them there. How so?

The Mitzvah of keeping the Sabbath, we are told, is considered as important as the keeping of all the other Mitzvot combined. The same is said for the Mitzvah of refraining from idolatry (Eruvin 69b). The reason for this important emphasis on the Sabbath is that the observance of the Shabbat constitutes a declaration that one believes in Hashem as the creator of the universe.

Similarly, the Gemara (Yevamot 5a) tells us that honoring one's parents is tantamount to honoring Hashem Himself. (Recognizing one's indebtedness to his parents for having brought him into the world will undoubtedly bring a person to a recognition of the other Factor involved in his creation - Hashem.) In fact, the Gemara (Berachot 35b) tells us that "father" and "mother" may sometimes be taken to mean "Hashem" and "the Congregation of Israel," respectively. Thus the commandment to honor one's father, if expanded to its broadest scope, will bring one to show honor to Hashem as well.

At any rate, the two Mitzvot of Shabbat and honoring one's parents had it in their power to strengthen the Jews' trust in Hashem. According to Rashbam (France, ~1150), this is why these are the only two positive Mitzvot that were included in the Ten Commandments. The only positive Mitzvot included in the Commandments were those that involved accepting upon ourselves the yoke of the service of Hashem. That must have been the purpose of the Mitzvot of observing the Shabbat and honoring one's parents also (Rashbam Shmot 20:7).

Moshe now realized that these two Mitzvot were given to the people "ahead of schedule" because of the important lesson they were supposed to impart concerning the honor we must give to Hashem. In fact, our Sages tell us that were the Jews to have kept their first Shabbat properly, they would never have been exiled from their land (i.e., they wouldn't have sinned with the Calf, causing their eventual exile -- see Parasha-Page Ki-Tisa 5755). The Gemara adds that even the worst idol-worshippers are absolved, if they but keep the Sabbath day (Shabbat 118b). Moshe now understood that the early start the Jews were given in these two Mitzvot was for the same reason that specifically these two positive commandments were chosen to be included in the Big Ten. This is why he mentioned the fact that the people had been forewarned of these Mitzvot in the second version of the Decalogue.

5. THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING T HE SHABBAT:

Perhaps the most glaring of the discrepancies between the two presentations of the Decalogue is the description of the Mitzvah of Shabbat. In Shmot we are told to remember the Shabbat to commemorate the fact that Hashem created the universe in six days and ceased His creation on the seventh. In Devarim, however, we are bidden to keep the Shabbat in order to remember the fact that WE WERE SLAVES TO THE EGYPTIANS AND THAT HASHEM TOOK US OUT OF THEIR BONDAGE. How could Moshe completely change the entire basis upon which the Mitzvah of Shabbat is founded from what Hashem Himself said?

The commentaries explain that the Mitzvah of Shabbat actually contains within it two distinct precepts -- refraining from doing labor and experiencing a day of rest. Cessation from work commemorates the fact that we once were forced to labor for the Egyptians and were subsequently freed; observing a day of rest is to recall the fact that the Universe was created in six days. But why did Moshe stress one of these aspects, while Hashem Himself stressed the other?

Many commentators ask why it is that the Ten Commandments begin with the declaration that "I am Hashem... Who took you out of Egypt." Would it not have been a greater statement of awe-inspiring power to have said "I am Hashem Who created heaven and earth?" The answer is, they say, that Hashem chose this as His introductory declaration because the people had just recently experienced the Exodus from Egypt. It would be much easier for them to relate to Hashem's having performed all the miracles that they themselves had witnessed than to relate to His having created the Universe, as august as that concept is.

Here too, although the primary purpose of Shabbat observance is to commemorate the Creation, and that is why Hashem mentioned the Creation in the Decalogue, Moshe brought in the other aspect of Shabbat because it was more relevant to the people at the time of the giving of the Torah. Through the appreciation of Hashem the Liberator, they could come to realize the greatness of Hashem the Creator. Moshe was in effect reprimanding the people for not using this tool (recalling the miracles of the Exodus) to help themselves substantiate in their minds the belief in Hashem as the Creator -- which would have, of course, prevented them from sinning with the Golden Calf.

V

A re-examination of the "Two Decalogue" Midrashim

Now that we have explained the differences between the two versions of the Decalogue, we must return to the question with which we started with (section I). How can the Gemara and the Pesikta Rabbati maintain that the Ten Commandments found in Devarim represented the text engraved on the second tablets (which were received on Yom Kippur), if the context of the story in Vaetchanan which surrounds that text clearly speaks of the revelation at Mount Sinai?

Let us examine the statements in question more carefully. The Gemara said that the reason the words "so that it will be good for you" (in the fifth commandment - honoring one's parents) did not appear on the first tablets was so that this promise for goodness to be bestowed by Hashem would not be broken along with the tablets. The implication is that these words *did* appear on the second tablets. But perhaps this is not what the Gemara meant to say. Perhaps the Gemara meant that although the lessons of "so that it will be good for you" were implicit in the text of the Ten Commandments (i.e. meriting the eternal good), as Moshe himself pointed out in his "revised version" of the Decalogue, they were not stated *explicitly* in the Tablets, for if they had been -- and the people would have sinned in spite of the explicit warning -- they would never again have any "goodness." Their sin would then have been so grave that they would have lost any chance of ever attaining the ultimate good.

The Pesikta said that the word used for Shabbat observance in Devarim is "*Keep* (or 'be careful of') the Shabbat day," to imply that the Bnai Yisroel should *keep* these Tablets and not lose them as they did the first ones. Perhaps this may be explained in a similar fashion. It is not that the second Tablets actually said the words "*Keep* the Shabbat day." Rather Moshe, when he recounted what was written on the *first* Tablets, pointed out to the people why the commandment of observing the Shabbat day was included in the Tablets. "Keeping" [=observing] the Shabbat was the key to "keeping" the Torah permanently. Moshe used the word "Keep" when he retold the story of the first Tablets in order to drive this message home to the Bnai Yisroel. Observe the Shabbat properly, he said, and you will never again come into a situation where the Torah will become lost to you!


Visit the
Dafyomi Advancement Forum

1