Versions and Meaning. Alan Smith. Elibooks

Transcription

1 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS Versions and Meaning Alan Smith Elibooks

2 Alan Smith, 5778 (2018) All rights reserved The contents of this booklet may be downloaded free of charge (in PDF format) and printed for personal use from the internet site given below. Elibooks P.O.Box Lilac 1 Eli Israel Tel. (02) From overseas

3 CONTENTS Preface The texts (Hebrew) The texts (English translation) The Division, and the Problem of the First Pinsker s Babylonian text The Nature and Importance of the Ten The Problem of the Tenth The Second Version

4

5 PREFACE The Ten Commandments need no introduction. One would have expected a single standard version of the text, with a clear division into ten different items, and nothing to discuss beyond the details of each. In fact several versions exist recognised by the most orthodox even today, varying in text, verse division, punctuation, and how the number ten is determined. Then there are differing views on the overall meaning of the set of Ten and on its relative importance. And there are facts about their usage and non-usage in the daily prayers. Here the reader will find a comprehensive presentation, with a history of how some of the variations in version came about. There is discussion and there are problems some with clear solutions, some with probable solutions, some with possible solutions, and some without solutions. A.S. Eli, Mt.Ephraim, Israel. Shevat

6 THE TEXTS [1-<%'] ª-]H>$I:}( <aj F$ ª-XJ(W0E$ ^L-D- -YH/M4L$ $^W0 1-½V'L%F6 >-_IxH2 1H-YK<D:H2 9J<_J$I2 -gk4l²?0k6 1-kV<I+F$ 1-jH(W0E$ oªd0?(j-d(h- (nl4 ^ªD0?(JµF6K> $^W0 9J<jL$Lxo<J F$K)0K6nK F$ Kx<_J F$K)>K+kKºH2 c1i'd%l6l> $^W0D) h1j(l0 (^J)F+KºḐ H>?$W0 'I;pN² $el K; 0^I$iª-jJ(W0E$[L-D--mH/M4L$-^H 1-_ḨI Ḩ?0K6D) 1-]H4Lx?0K6 >}a%l$ 3jM)F6 i'j5jj+ (Jµ[N6D) -XL$D4WµD0 1-YH6IxV<?0K6D) -_I<D2W D0 -YK%F(N$D0 1-eH8L0F$K0 [-½L>M)D:H2] ()>):2) $D)XL¹K0ª-YJ(W0E$_L-D-?1I?>J$$]L H>$_W0 $_L H-?< J F$ >]I$ el-d- i( J K4D- $[W0 -^H $D)½L¹K0}Y2Ḑ?>J$ }ķuzk;d0 >jlxk¹k( o1}-?>j$ <}^2Ļ >J ^I ª-gJ(W0E$ H: <_J F$K cªjºd/$k0d2?0l/ L>-^HµL6D) h'n%f6kº 1-^H2L- ª-gJ(W0E$ -kh6-h%d¹k( 1}j-D)?ªD4H% (^LºK$(nL/$L0D2?0L/(^JµF6K>$^W0 jªu<} D) ªJ>L2F$pK)?ªUzD%K6D) ª^JºH% <^J F$ iªu<i&d) ªgJºD2J(Dx?0L/D) kªu<n2f+k) _ªUzD%K6 K+ ]4L- 3K6gK2D0 ª-eJ<L6ḐHx 'J%_J6?-H mlºu<k/l*d) ª}X2L YªD>L2F$K) jl-d- oªf$h:m K) 1H-gK<D:H2 K6^N<D*H% i(l;l*f+ '[L-Dx i1l¹h2 ª-[J(W0E$ ª- ej(w0 E$ ^L- D- iª D H: 3 gi?0 K6 (el-,d4 >½LxK¹K(1}_-?>J$>}YµF6K0 [>)2=] ª-]H>$I:}( <aj F$ ª-XJ(W0E$ ^L-D- -YH/M4L$ $^W0 1-½V'L%F6 >-_IxH2 1H-YK<D:H2 9J<_J$I2 -gk4l²?0k6 1-kV<I+F$ 1-jH(W0E$ oªd0?(j-d(h- (nl4 ^ªD0?(JµF6K> $^W0 9J<jL$Lx o<j F$K)0K6nK H2@1H-^K2L¹Kx<^J F$ 9J<gL$L0>K+^KºH2@1H-^K Kx<_J F$K)>K+kKºH2 c1i'd%l6l> $^W0D) h1j(l0 (^J)F+KºḐ H>?$W0 'I;pN² $el K;0^I$iª-jJ(W0E$[L-D- -mh/m4l$-^h 1-_ḨI Ḩ?0K6 1-]H4Lx?0K6 >an%l$ 3jM)F6 i'j5jj+ (Jµ[N6D) -XL$D4WµD0 1-YH6IxV<?0K6D) -½L>M)D:H2-_I<D2ŅD0 -YK%F(N$D01-eH8L0F$K0 $D)XL¹K0ª-YJ(W0E$_L-D-?1I?>J$$]L H>$_W0 $_L H-?< J F$ >]I$ el-d- i( J K4D- $[W0 -^H $D)½L¹K0}Y2Ḑ?>J$ >J ^I }ģuzk;d0>klxk¹k(1}j-?>j$o<}/l* cªjºd/$k0d2?0l/ L>-^HµL6D) h'n%f6kº 1-^H2L- ª-gJ(W0E$ -kh6-h%d¹k( 1}j-D) (^LºK$ (nl/$l0d2?0l/ (^JµF6K> $^W0 kªd>l2f$k) jªuzd%k6 ªJºH%p?ªD4H% -^H ª-eJ<L6ḐHx <^J F$ iªu<i&d) ªgJºD2J(D% 1H-^K2L¹K(?>J$ kl-d- (jlµl6 o1-h2l-?>j I?0L?>J$D) i1l K(?>J$ 9J<gL$L(?>J$D) -XH6-H%D¹K( 1}^ Kx +K4YL K) 1eLx?<J F$ >YLxK¹K( 1}_-?>J$ ]L-D- ak<ix 3gI?0K6 (½I UzK;D-K)

7 [1-<%'] <_J F$K ªeJ H$?>J$D) iª-jh%l$?>j$ '[IxK ª-XJ(W0E$ ^L-D- YªD H: (el2l'f$l(0\k6 el0%k,-^h- T3K6jK2D0 ª-gJ2L- ½L03_I>M4ª-YJ(W0E$_L-D-?<J F$ +½L:U<Hº$YW0 7½L$D4Hº$YW0D) %½M4D&Hº$YW0D) $D)½Ļ '_I6YªF6I<D%(_J4F6K>?$W0D) ªXJ6I<>J ^I$'YN2D+K>$_W0D) (ki'lµ ªgJ6I< >-^Ix (kj K$D>H> $jw0d) 0YN/D) }e<n2f+k) }^<} T}>L2F$K) }[zd%k6d) Aª½J6I< D0 <_J F$ [>)2=] i3k6jk2d0 ªXJ H$?>J$D) ª-YH%L$?>J$ '_IxK _L-D-?<J F$(eL2L'F$L(0\K6ª-eJ2L-3 ^/V<F$K- ½L0 3_I>M4 ª-YJ(W0 E$ +½L:U<Hº$YW0 7½L$D4Hº$YW0 %½M4D&Hº$YW0 <J;½Ļ '_I6YªF6I<D%(_J4F6K>?$W0 ªXJ6I<>-^Ix 'YN2D+K>$_W0 }[zd%k6d) ªgJ6I< >J ^I$ 'mn2d+k>?$w0 <_J F$ 0YN/ D) } e<n2f+k) }^<} D) i}> L2F$K) Aª½J6I<D0 7

8 TRANSLATION [It is impossible to give a translation that is precise and correct it is either precise or correct. The following is a compromise, making correct more important than precise.] <and> means there is a vav in the Deuteronomy version only. I am GOD your God who brought you out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You are not to have any other gods in addition to me, you are not to make for yourself a model or image of anything in the sky above, on the earth below, or in the water below the earth [level]. You are not to bow down to them, nor be persuaded to serve them, for I, GOD your God, am a jealous God, who remembers the sins of the fathers against the children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of my enemies, and performs acts of kindness to thousands [of generations] to my friends and those who obey my instructions. You are not to take the name of GOD your God falsely, for GOD will not forgive whoever takes his name falsely. [Exodus version] Remember the Sabbath Day to sanctify it. [Deuteronomy version] Guard the Sabbath day to sanctify it as GOD your God has instructed you. Six days you may work and do all your production, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to GOD your God, you are not to produce anything, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male or female slave, or or your male or female slave, your animal or your ox or your ass or any of your animals, or your foreign resident living among you, 8

9 because in six days GOD created the sky and the earth, the sea and all that they contain, and rested on the seventh day, on account of which GOD blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it. so that your male and female slave(s) may rest like yourself. You are to remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and GOD your God brought you out of there with power and range, on account of which GOD your God instructed you to make the Sabbath day. Respect your father and your mother, as GOD your God has instructed you, so that your days may be lengthened and so that things will be good for you in the country that GOD your God is giving you. You are not to murder. <and> You are not to commit adultery. <and> You are not to steal. <and> You are not to bear false witness against your fellow-man. You are not to desire your fellow-man s house. <and> You are not to desire your fellow-man s wife. You are not to desire your <and> You are not to desire fellow-man s wife, your fellow-man s house, his land, or his male or female slave, (or) his ox or his ass or anything that belongs to your fellow-man. [ fellow-man strictly fellow-israelite ] 9

10 THE DIVISION and THE PROBLEM OF THE FIRST God spoke to the people at Sinai. What he said is included, all agree, between the words ¼ÎHкÕLÅ and ¼FJ IÝDÑ. Moses referred to all this as ¼Ò¼ÎVÝLÆUVKɼßJÝJKF, the ten... All agree on the ten but not all agree on the meaning of ¼Ò¼Î VÝLÆUV. For convenience only, we will use the customary word commandments which English speakers are used to, but will discuss the meaning fully in due course. We have two versions of the actual text one in Exodus and the other in Deuteronomy, and in a later chapter we will consider the differences between them and why there are differences. However there are various versions of how the whole is divided into ten. Some sort of decision exists, but the decision is not decisive, that is to say there is a mixture of different opinions within our officially decided system or should one say systems? This is in addition to mistakes not in the text itself but in the punctuation made by printers and perpetuated by them, copying one from another. First let us consider the Torah in general. Our traditions (Masoret) regarding how the text is divided includes, but is not limited to, the Massorah, the decisions of the Masoretes who lived in the time of the Geonim, somewhere between a thousand and fifteen hundred years ago. They divided the Torah into verses. (They were already divided, but the Masoretes decided on the correct, or at least the most likely, division, and recorded that.) Their division appeared in books, but was not marked in the Torah scrolls. However, an earlier system divided the Torah into five books, each in turn divided into paragraphs, so-called open 10

11 and closed, and these divisions do appear in the Torah scrolls. Normally the verses could be considered as sub-divisions of the paragraphs, but sometimes the two systems did not agree, and we have a paragraph division in the middle of a verse, or better a verse split between two adjacent paragraphs. This conflict affects in particular the matters we are considering. Returning to the Ten Commandments, before proceeding with discussing the two versions, we will mention the Christian traditions of division and also explain why we mention them. To the Christians the Ten Commandments are extremely important. They do not, in general, observe them, but they do consider them to be of great importance in their religion. They have, in different sects, two different traditions of how the set is divided into ten. Our reason for mentioning this is that these are not their innovations. Each is taken from a different Jewish tradition, and the Protestant version that we normally meet is not the same as the one we ourselves normally accept. Yet it is not pure Christian, it is an old Jewish one that we eventually rejected. Having said all that, we may leave them alone. According to the paragraphers, there are ten paragraphs which presumably represent the ten commandments, one each. The first of the ten starts with ¼ÎHкÕLÅ and finishes with¼îlߺêdûhó. The second starts with ¼ÅL Hß ¼Å WÑ, and at the end there are two distinct paragraphs, each of which starts with ¼È»ÓDÌKß¼ÅWÑ (Exodus), or one with ¼È»ÓDÌKß ¼ÅWÑDÊ and the other with JXKÅDßHß ¼ÅWÑDÊ (Deuteronomy) which means more or less the same. Note that we still retain this division in our written text, even in the scrolls! We have not rejected it outright! 11

12 It suffers from a great objection. Each of the ten must be distinct and to some extent independent of the others in what it tells us, yet here we look at the two versions, Exodus and Deuteronomy. We have two instructions not to desire what belongs to someone else (meaning presumably to desire and do something about obtaining, even without breaking the law). In Exodus the house is mentioned in the first command and the wife with everything else in the second, while in Deuteronomy the wife is mentioned in the first command and the house with all else in the second. Clearly the two belong together and cannot be regarded as separate. Why is the word repeated and why did the paragraphers make a split? Alas, we do not know why, but the tenth instruction necessarily comprises both of the last two paragraphs. To get the number ten we are then compelled to divide something else, to divide another paragraph into two separate commands. Clearly none of the intermediate paragraphs can be divided, so we must somehow divide the first. But how? Earlier we mentioned the tqhe Masoretes. There were two groups of Masoretes (with sometimes sub-groups), those in Babylonia, and those in the Land of Israel, the latter specifically in Tiberias. The oral traditions that each held did not always coincide. For punctuation they used different symbols (which we call te amim ¼ÅLÝ DÜ H_ KÉ ¼Î IÓF KÍ) and sometimes different systems. The Babylonian symbols, for both vowels and te amim, always appeared above the word, whereas the Tiberian vowels were mostly below and the te amim sometimes above and sometimes below. Today we use the Tiberian for both vowels and te amim. 12

13 With the Ten Commandments, each of the two groups of Masoretes used not only different symbols but also a different method of division throughout. The Babylonians divided the whole set into ten verses, according to each command. The last two paragraphs were, as explained, combined into one verse, and the first paragraph was split into two verses after the word ¼Ò¼Î VÈLÆF, showing which was the first command on their tradition and which was the second. The Tiberian Masoretes did not do this. They split the whole into verses of reasonable length, so that there were more than ten verses. Sometimes one command (e.g. the Sabbath) was split into a few verses, while elsewhere four different commands came into one verse. Exactly where they split the first paragraph into two commands (assuming that they did) cannot be seen from this. Later the Tiberians decided to adopt the Babylonian system as well, as an alternative, using it for public reading while keeping their own system for private reading. Since the te amim (like the vowels) of the Babylonians were always placed above the words, the Tiberians called the system te amim elyonim (upper ones) and by contrast their own, which appeared sometimes below, as te amim tahtonim (lower ones). They then transcribed the upper system into their own symbols, but still retained (until this day) the names elyonim and tahtonim, no longer for the symbols themselves but for the two systems of punctuation, both systems using the Tiberian symbols. With this, they automatically accepted the division of the first paragraph into two commands at ÒÎÈÆ (the end of the verse), whether or not this had been their idea earlier. 13

14 This division led to a bit of a puzzle as to what the first command actually is. A mere statement that I am your God is hardly a command to obey. Many therefore claimed that there are not ten commands, but ten statements, nine of which are commands. ¼Ò¼Î VÝLÆUV means literally words and here statements. How then did the translation commandments, which came through the Greek and Latin, arise in the first place? No, an article I once read (I have forgotten where) convincingly showed that in most (not all) cases the verb ¼Ý ITKV means not just to speak or to talk, but to order, to command, to tell someone to do something, more or less synonymous with the verb ¼ÉIX KÛ; the noun ¼Ý LÆLV then means an order, roughly synonymous with ¼ÉLÊDÛHÓ, or (as here) a group of these. The phrase *ɼÝKÆUV thus means God s command, the phrase ¼ÉJI»Ó¼ÑJÅ*ɼÝITKÈDÎKÊ means that God told (i.e. commanded) Moses, and consequently the translation of ¼Ò¼Î VÝLÆUV KÉ ¼ßJÝ JKF as The Ten Commandments is, if somewhat archaic, nonetheless correct. So we are left with the problem What is the first command?" Maimonides explains that it is a command to believe in God. This begs the question. One who already believes does not need to be told to do so, while one who does not can hardly be expected to accept a command from one who he does not yet believe in. He has to believe before he can accept the command, by which time he no longer needs it. An alternative is that the accent is on the last part, who brought you out of Egypt. The first part, I am your God, is merely an opening announcement, a self-introduction so that you know who is talking; the second part is something you are told to believe in, or at least to remember, because it is easy to forget it. 14

15 Possible, but a bit pushed. It is not expressed as a command but as an explanation of the first part, and does not fit neatly into the whole text. Further, as we will see, in the Deuteronomy version this instruction is given clearly in the fourth command, and the repetition would be superfluous. We will return to the problem. Now let us look at the first of the two serious mistakes introduced to us by the printers. Dividing into ten verses requires a verse ending (sof pasuk) after each, corresponding, except for the first, to a paragraph ending. Yet in nearly all our chumashim we find that the first ends on a revia ¼Ò¼ÎgVÈLÆF, and not on a sof pasuk. Why? In typical fashion, a printers mistake may never be admitted as an error but must be justified as correct, so a reason has been squeezed out to justify this. Never mind what it was, there is no justification, it is simply a mistake. Who says so? First, about two hundred years ago, Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim, who as a scholar had done much research and written a book on the (Tiberian) system of te amim, and who was by trade a printer and publisher, noticed that not only did it make no sense not to indicate the end of a command with a verse end, but that what is printed in our books goes against all the rules of te amim (for instance a segol after a zarka) and cannot possibly be correct. It can be read, or sung, in a way that sounds as if it makes sense, but to anyone who understands the punctuation system of the te amim it does not. Undoubtedly there is a mistake, which he corrected according to logic and the rules of te amim in his own very nicely presented edition of the chumash (which I used to use but is sadly not available today). But through obstinacy nobody else copied him, and the printers perpetuated their mistake. 15

16 Second, about a hundred and fifty years ago, Solomon Pinsker discovered and published parts of a manuscript which used the Babylonian symbols for vowels and te amim, at that time unknown in the West. Here the te amim indicated a clear sof pasuk (verse ending) after ¼Ò¼Î VÈLÆF as expected, and not as printed in our editions. But nobody took any notice of Pinsker. Third, in our own time, Rabbi Mordecai Breuer also spotted the mistake, and found that it did not exist in early manuscripts! He corrected the text in his chumashim, with the te amim as in the manuscripts.¼ò¼îvèlæf ends a verse and is marked with a sof pasuk; Breuer even explained how the error arose, and how it developed. Breuer s version, closer to Pinsker s than to Heidenheim s, makes sense of the te amim, but still does not answer our question. We now turn to the lower te amim. Here, the first verse does in fact, in our books, end with ¼Ò¼Î VÈLÆF. But to everyone s great surprise, Breuer discovered from old manuscripts that this too is a mistake! In the manuscripts ¼Ò¼Î VÈLÆF in the lower set carries an atnach (or etnachta), a mid-verse break something like a semicolon, but the verse itself continues for another seven words to end with ¼Î LÕLb. This connects these seven words with what precedes, rather than with what follows. The amended version, according to the old manuscrlpts and not according to the printers, has been used in all of Breuer s editions. Pinsker in his book (page 47) mentions incidentally that he once found a very old manuscript Chumash which divided the Ten into ten verses according to the commands, except that the first verse ended with ¼ÎLÕLb (as Breuer found in the lower set that do not divide into ten verses). Pinsker calls this strange. 16

17 Is it really strange? It implies that the seven words ending with ¼ÎLÕLb are connected to what precedes and not to what follows. We then have the first command starting I am your God who brought you out of Egypt etc., an opening statement, followed by You are not to have any other gods as well, the command. (It does not say instead, that is too obvious, but as well or in addition.) Then follows the second command, not to make, worship or let yourself be persuaded to serve (note ¼ÒIÈDÆL Lß ¼ÅWÑ not ¼ÒIÈDÆK Kß ¼ÅWÑ) any images. This is different to the first, which says I am your God and you are not to have any others as well, as you might be willing to accept no others while bowing down to an image that symbolically represents the invisible God. The second command says that that too is forbidden. Pinsker s remark shows that a version with that division did actually exist, whatever the basis. Could it have been the Tiberian division before it was influenced by the Babylonian (which certainly ended the first with ¼Ò¼Î VÈLÆF )? It solves our problem and makes much more sense, but will never be accepted against a weight of tradition that fixes for us everything in the Ten precisely. However, we do have all the different traditions and mistakes which have had to be amended and corrected, so one more, that makes better sense of the text, might not necessarily be unacceptable. This is worth considering. [The information in the above is based on Breuer s writings in his book Taamey Hamikra and the second (i.e. Horeb) edition of his chumash, together with the te amim in Heidenheim s chumash published in Rödelheim, and Pinsker s ÎÝÊÞÅÉ ÊÅ ÎÑÆÆÉ ÈÊÜÕÑ ÅÊÆÓ (Introduction to the Assyrian or Babylonian Diacriticals).] 17

18 PINSKER S BABYLONIAN TEXT The manuscript text as Pinsker copied it into his book is not pure Babylonian, but has had Tiberian te amim added, including a silluk and a colon indicating a sof pasuk at the Babylonian end of each verse. Here is part of it. 18

19 THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE of the TEN COMMANDMENTS What exactly are the Ten Commands? The external differences between them and the rest of the instructions or commands in the Torah are made clear. They and they alone were spoken by God at the Revelation at Sinai, and they alone were written, by God himself in fact, on the two stone tablets placed in the Ark in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle, after Moses had gone up the Moutain and fasted forty days to receive them twice in fact. The tablets are called the evidence of the Contract, the contract between God and the people, and when the people rebelled against God and worshipped a golden calf Moses was so shocked that they had already broken the contract that he shattered the tablets! So the Ten are the evidence of the contract. But then when Moses first went up the mountain after the Revelation (without fasting), before he went up for forty days to get the tablets, he received all the laws of justice, together with the summary of the rest of the laws, and wrote them down in what he called the Document of the Contract (¼ß¼ÎVÝDTKɼÝJÙIÖ). After the incident of the calf he received a revised version of that contract, and there was a further contract forty years later at the Aravot of Moab. So which contract is the collection of this mere ten evidence of? In some way that is not too obvious they represent the basis of the whole contract between God and Israel. In return for Israel observing all of God s instructions God will look after the people, give them the Land and protect them. If they represent the basis of the contract, then it follows that they must represent the basis of all the laws and instructions. But this was later misunderstood. 19

20 Because of the above, the rabbis first instituted that they should be recited by every Jew every day, together with the reading of the Shema and the basic Prayer known as the Amidah or Shemoneh Esrey. (All the rest of the prayers came much later.) The Ten were recited once a day, the Shema twice, and the Amidah three (and sometimes four) times. This indicated the importance of the Ten as the basis of all the laws. However, somewhat later Paul started a new religion based on Judaism, known as Christianity, which had begun as a Jewish sect before spreading to the rest of the world (or most of it). He declared that the Ten were the only really important laws, they must be obeyed, the rest need not. In other words, the laws mentioned in the Ten were more important as laws than all the rest (that are otpional), which is not the same as saying that they are more important in that they are the basis of the laws. The rabbis reacted by falling over backwards, saying that they are no more important than the rest of the Torah, they are Torah and the rest are Torah and no laws are more important than any other. Then they removed the daily recitation of the Ten. (Very, very much later a new custom arose, found in our prayer books, of reciting the Ten daily after the morning service; those who started this and those who continue forget the rabbinical ban.) Latterly many have gone extreme. When the Ten are read in the synagogue, it has always been the custom to stand, because this part of the Torah is the most important, the declaration by God himself, directly and not merely via Moses, of the contract, heard by the people when God appeared to them, the only time anything like that has ever happened in history. Of course they are the most important, for that reason, but that does not mean that the laws contained are more important than any others, which 20

21 derive from them. A few rabbis, misunderstanding the Talmud, assume that this means that the Ten are in no way more important than anything else and tell people not to stand! But what is the nature of the Ten? The Christians, who preach observance of them but do not practice it, maintain that the laws represent the basis of morality. Sadly many Jewish teachers have picked this up and repeated it. This is very hard to accept many laws in the Torah are more basic in respect of morality than those in the Ten. Even the Christians themselves claim, like Rabbi Akiva, that the basis of morality is Love thy neighbour as thyself which does not appear in the Ten. To answer the question we must first look at the Torah as a whole. What is its purpose? It is meant as the constitution of a society, the rules of a society (with God at its head) which every member of that society is obliged to obey. Take for example the law not to steal. It is obviously immoral to steal, it is a sin against the one stolen from and a sin against God, but we do not need the Torah for that. Members of other nations who do not have the Torah should know that anyway. The Torah tells us that it is a rule of the society, and apart from all else anyone who breaks that rule commits an offence against that society such an offence is known not as a sin but as a crime. In other words, the Ten constitute the basis, not of the Moral Law but of the Criminal Law. These are all matters which, when breached, society is obliged to deal with in order to protect itself against being slowly corrupted. Exactly how is explained in the Torah elsewhere, here they are merely mentioned as a warning, with the implication that God will deal personally with breaches of the contract that society is unable to deal with. We see how this is the basis of laws given elsewhere. 21

22 In effect we are ordered to have respect respect for whom? The first three refer to respect for God, the fourth to respect for the Sabbath which is God s holy day, the fifth to respect for parents (which otherwise might be thought pushed out of the way by respect for God). The rest demand respect for one s fellowmember: the sixth for his life, the seventh for his wife as his wife (or to a woman loyalty to her husband), the eighth for his property, the ninth for his right to justice, and the tenth a summary which we will discuss in a later chapter. As referring to serious crimes there are some instances of capital punishment (mentioned elsewhere) for certain breaches for idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, striking or merely cursing parents, murder, adultery, kidnapping, giving false witness that might cause someone to be executed, and so on. In summary, a society must have rules of behaviour, and a means of enforcing them a constitution including a set of criminal offences. The Torah is the constitution, and the Ten are the basis of the Criminal Law. [Footnote: The fact that certain laws in the Torah demand special behaviour towards one s fellow Israelite, such as not bearing false witness against him, does not imply full permission to bear false witness against a non-israelite. The Torah is meant as the constitution of a specific society and gives rules of behaviour of a member within that society. Disobedience in relations with another member is a crime. With certain exceptions the Torah does not deal with relations with people outside that society. Bearing false witness against a non-israelite is morally wrong, it is a sin, but it is not a crime within the scope of the Torah which does not deal with such matters. It may even be a crime in the system of the victim if such a system exists.] 22

23 THE PROBLEM OF THE TENTH The first nine are instructions telling you to do or not to do something or other. This is normal for a law. They are needed in case you wish to act the other way, such as not wishing to respect the Sabbath or your parents, wishing to kill someone or use his wife or steal or whatever, and you decide to act on the wish. Only because you may wish to do something wrong are you told not to do it, or conversely to do what you may not wish to do. But the tenth appears to say that you are not to even wish to do or feel the desire to do certain things. If you feel such a desire you have immediately done something wrong. But this is natural, it happens. Controlling the implementation of a desire is one thing, preventing the desire itself is another. One thing is certain, the mere desire itself cannot be classified as a crime, as discussed in the last chapter. Your inner wish cannot be dealt with by society, who normally do not even know of it, it does not express itself unless you fulfil the wish, which is forbidden in the previous (seventh and eighth) laws. The rabbis explain this law as referring to when a person wishes to do some injury to his fellow-man by wanting to take something from him, and takes steps to satisfy his wish by circumventing the strict law, by finding a way round it to achieve legally what is basically wrong. Of course there is no harm in noticing someone s cow, wanting it, asking him if he is willing to sell, and if he says he is then buying it. But there is harm if he refuses and you find ways of forcing him to sell; or if you do not actually steal, but take something without permission and leave the money to pay for it, so that the owner has no financial loss but loses something that was his and that he wanted to keep. 23

24 A story in the Talmud tells of a man who took a fancy to another man s wife. He told the husband that there were a lot of rumours about her behaviour, so that the husband divorced her, and he then married her. (The actual story included other things but this part is sufficient to illustrate our point.) He did not commit adultery, but disobeyed the tenth commandment. In other words it refers to wanting something that is not yours and not for sale, and taking steps to obtain it without actually breaking an existing law. Whether or not society can do anything about it, you commit a crime against society as well as a sin against God. [It is sometimes possible to fight the desire by finding a way to talk yourself out of it. You have taken a fancy to a married woman, look for her faults, tiny things that may not worry other people but do worry you, consequences, things you do not like, and magnify them in your mind. Or you might try turning jealousy, a vice, into mere envy which is not. Your neighbour s house appeals to you, you want it, to replace him as the owner jealousy, a vice. But if you are merely envious, you want to have one like it, perhaps you can, and if so why not? If you can t, you hope and pray that one day you will be able to have one like it. You are not asking for his. However, an instruction to fight, rather than control, your desire might be in place elsewhere in the Torah, such as next to loving and not hating your Israelite brother, but has no place in the Ten, and this cannot be the explanation.] The main purpose of the tenth seems to be that while there are fixed specified crimes, it is not sufficient to keep technically within the law. As a member of the society you must behave decently and show full respect for what belongs to someone else even beyond the law, whether or not society can do anything about it if you disobey. 24

25 A postscript A tour of the Old City of Jerusalem in which I once participated took us to the house of a Karaite, one of the very few Karaites remaining, and we were met by the owner who explained a few things. There appeared to be a mezuzzah on the outer gate, but he said that it was not really, they do not observe the mezuzzah law. I asked him why, since the instruction is clearly written in the Torah and not a rabbinic tradition or interpretation. He replied that they understand it as meaning that you write it on your heart, not literally on the doorpost. I queried this, saying that this is a typical interpretation contrary to the text, exactly opposite to the ideas of the Karaites, the last from whom I would expect it. He simply smiled and shrugged his shoulders. The apparent mezuzzah, he told us, actually contained a copy of the Ten Commandments this was not one of their laws, but simply an idea that he thought worthwhile. 25

26 THE SECOND VERSION There are two different versions of the Ten Commanments, not just in different sources but in the Torah itself! One is in Exodus, where the story is told of what happened, the Revelation itself, and the text. The other is where Moses recapitulates nearly forty years later (in Deuteronomy), and the text differs in a few places. Minor differences, such as the addition or omission of a vav may be significant but are of minor importance. The differences are in the fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth, concerning the Sabbath, respect for parents, false witness and desire respectively. The Sabbath. Here are the two versions in a form for easy comparison. [1-<%'] }ķuzk;d0>jlxk¹k( o1}-?>j$<}^2ļ ª-gJ(W0E$^L-D-@^ªD H:<_J F$K L>-^HµL6D) h'n%f6kº 1-^H2L- >J -kh6-h%d¹k( 1}j-D) cªjºd/$k0d2?0l/ (nl/$l0d2?0l/ (^JµF6K> $^W0 ª-gJ(W0E$ ^L--K0 ªJ>L2F$pK)?ªUzD%K6D) ª^JºH%?ªD4H% (^LºK$ ªgJºD2J(Dx?0L/D) kªu<n2f+k) jªu<} D) ª-eJ<L6ḐHx<^J F$iªU<I&D) ª}X2L YªD>L2F$K) _ªUzD%K6 K+ ]4L- 3K6gK2D0 1H-gK<D:H2 9J<^J$Dx@L>-^H-L( 'J%_J6?-H mlºu<k/l*d) i(l;l*f+ '[L-Dx i1l¹h2 ª-[J(W0E$ jl-d- oªf$h:m K) (el-,d4 K6^N< D* H% >}YµF6K0 ª-eJ(W0E$ ^L-D- iªd H: 3gI?0K6 >½LxK¹K(1}_-?>J$ [>)2=] }ģuzk;d0>klxk¹k(1}j-?>j$ o<}/l* L>-^HµL6D) h'n%f6kº 1-^H2L- >J -kh6-h%d¹k( 1}j-D) cªjºd/$k0d2?0l/ (nl/$l0d2?0l/ (^JµF6K> $^W0 ª-gJ(W0E$ ^L--K0 kªd>l2f$k) jªuzd%k6 ªJºH%p?ªD4H% (^LºK$ ªgJºD2J(D% ª-eJ<L6ḐHx<^J F$iªU<I&D) 1H-^K2L¹K(?>J$ kl-d- (jlµl6 o1-h2l-?>j I -^H 1eLx?<J F$?0L?>J$D)i1L K(?>J$9J<gL$L(?>J$D) -XH6-H%D¹K(1}^ Kx+K4YL K) >YLxK¹K( 1}_-?>J$ ]L-D- ak<ix 3gI?0K6 (½I UzK;D-K) 26

27 The differeces in the second (Deuteronomy) version are: 1. The word ¼Ý ¼D ¼Ó LI (keep, guard) instead of ¼Ý ¼D ¼ÆLË (remember). 2. The addition of as God has commanded you. 3. Instead of just your animals details: your ox, your ass and all your animals. 4. Addition of so that your slaves may rest like yourself. 5. The major change. Substitution of the reference to God taking us out of slavery in Egypt as a reason, in place of the reference to the six days of Creation as the reason. Why the changes? An overall point that emerges is that the important thing is not so much the exact wording as the meaning of what was said. Precise wording is sometimes vital where a change affects the meaning, but where it does not such change is not serious and may even be necessary. Which version was written on the Tablets? We will return to this. Moses was not repeating to them the words that they heard but was reminding them of the message they were to convey in some cases giving the exact words and in other cases modifying the words to make the intentions clearer to the new generation. Now let us look at the details. 1. At Sinai the idea of the Sabbath was new. It was necessary to remember it, as something new is not always remembered. After they had observed it for forty-odd years the important thing was not to let it lapse and forget it. Keep it going was the message. 2. As God has commanded you at Sinai he had not yet commanded them, except in respect of the manna. They were told in the Revelation to observe the Sabbath, and the details and explanation were given later. Here when Moses reminded them, they already knew what it was all about, and this goes together with the first change, to guard it. 27

28 3. The details about the animals is a minor point, possibly to clear up some misunderstanding that had arisen since Sinai. 4. So that your slaves may rest is rubbing in an additional point arising from the Sabbath that was not necessary in the original. 5. Here is the great problem. One can understand that in the same way Moses felt it necessary to add an additional point. At Sinai they remembered the Exodus, but later they were reminded not to forget it. But why give it as the reason? And at the same time why (and on what authority) delete the reason given concerning the days of the Creation? No simple answer can be given for this. Any answer that satisfies one person is unlikely to satisfy another. Respect for parents. The additions in Deuteronomy of as God has commanded you and so that it should be good for you are basically for the same reason as the previous. At Sinai God had not yet commanded them, this was the command. Moses reminds them, and stresses that this was God s command, not his own nor a mere custom. So that it should be good for you is apparently an addition by Moses, as there seems to be no source for keeping this command bringing about any benefit more than keeping any other. False witness. The substitution of the word ¼ÅDÊLI for ¼ÝJÜJI, implying that they are synonymous, has a bearing on the use of the former in the third command. While sure that ¼ÝJÜJI means false, we tend to translate ¼Å DÊ LI as in vain, unnecessary or pointless. Perhaps it has both meanings, depending where it is used, or both together in the same place? There can hardly be an offence in giving useless and irrelevant witness against someone else, but does the third apply 28

29 also to using God s name in an irrelevant manner, or merely to swearing falsely in his name? It is not too clear, and the problem here is simply pointed out, without giving an answer. The tenth command [1-<%'] ªXJ6I<>J ^I$'YN2D+K>$_W0D) [>)2=] ªXJ6I<>-^Ix 'YN2D+K>$_W0 (ki'lµ ªgJ6I<>-^Ix (kj K$D>H>$jW0D) }e<n2f+k)}^<} T}>L2F$K)}[zD%K6D) Aª½J6I< D0 <_J F$ 0YN/ D) ªgJ6I< >J ^I$'mN2D+K>?$W0 }e<n2f+k) }^<} D)i}>L2F$K)}[zD%K6D) Aª½J6I<D0<_J F$0YN/D) For some unkown reason this command is given in two parts, as discussed earlier, with a paragraph separation between them. There are three changes: 1. The first paragraph and the first part of the second are reversed. 2. In one case a word is changed from ¼È»ÓDÌKß to ¼ÉJXKÅDßHß. 3. The word ¼X¼ÉIÈLK is added. The last is presumably an addition by Moses to stress that this is meant to be included, though not specifically mentioned the first time, since some people might think that it is not, as unlike the rest it is not mobile. But the first two are probably connected. The change of word probably implies some subtle difference needed to clarify, and the reversal is so that the house is included under this minutely different heading while the wife is not. What the difference is between the two words we will not attempt to suggest, but there almost certainly is one, or Moses would not have changed it, and it can only be a very subtle one as he would not change the meaning of the original. 29

30 By rabbinic tradition, the people only heard the first two directly spoken by God, the rest were said to Moses who relayed them. Note how in the first two God speaks in the first person, but is referred to subsequently only in the third person. If so, possibly only possibly Moses was simply given the commands to express in his own way. Forty-odd years later he felt entitled to re-express them in accordance with changed circumstances; note that there was no change in the first two. But that would not explain his giving a different reason for the Sabbath. Further, what was written on the Tablets? Someone suggested that even the first version contains explanations by Moses, and a shorter version without these was written there. No comment! Finally, why were two tablets needed? Were the commands split between them? Or was one a duplicate of the other, as it is customary to make two copies of a contract, one for each side? [In passing we should mention that there is a slightly different version of the Ten (especially regarding order) in an ancient manuscript found, known as the Nash Papyrus. However this is accepted as certainly a bad document full of mistakes, written carelessly probably from memory, and should not be taken seriously. It is famous only on account of its antiquity.] Summary The Ten Commandments are not the be-all and end-all of the laws of the Torah, but they are the foundation stone and must be recognised as such. Moses impressed on us that we must not allow petty details of the wording to push aside the overall meaning. * 30