THE TEN

COMMANDMENTS

Versions and Meaning

Alan Smith

Elibooks

© 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.

ElibooksP.O.Box Lilac 1

Eli 4482800Israel

Tel. (02) 994-3836From overseas 972-2-994-3836

www.torahtextmakesenseofit.wordpress.com

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The texts (Hebrew) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The texts (English translation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Division, and the Problem of the First . . . . . . . 10

Pinsker’s Babylonian text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Nature and Importance of the Ten . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Problem of the Tenth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The Second Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

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 5778

5

THE TEXTS

[>)2=]

ª-]H>$ I:}( <aJ F$ ª-XJ(W0E$ L- D- -YH/M4 L$$W0 1-½V' L%F6 >-_Ix H2 1H-YK< D: H2 9J<_J$ I2-gK4 L²?0 K6 1-kV< I+F$ 1-jH(W0E$ oª D0?(J- D(H-(nL4|2 Dº?0L/D) @0 J5 J8 ª D0?( JµF6 K> $W09J<jL$Lx o< J F$K) 0 K6 nK® H2 @1H- K2 L¹Kx < J F$9J< gL$L0 >K+ Kº H2 @1H- K®Kx <_J F$K) > K+kKº H2c1I' D% L6 L> $W0 D) h1 J(L0 ( J) F+ Kº D H>?$W0'I;pN² $eL K; 0 I$ iª-jJ(W0E$ [L- D- -mH/M4 L$ - H¤1-_H I¬ H ?0 K6 1-]H4 Lx?0 K6 >aN% L$ 3jM)F6i' J5jJ+ ( Jµ[N6 D) -XL$ D4Wµ D0 1-YH6IxV<?0 K6D)- ½L>M) D: H2 -_I< D2N D0| -YK%F(N$ D0 1- eH8L0F$K0

$D)XL¹K0 ª-YJ(W0E$ _L- D-?1 I ?> J$ $]L¶ H> $_W0$_L¶H-?< J F$ >]I$ eL- D- i( J K4D- $[W0 - H¤

$D) ½L¹K0 }Y2 D ?> J$

[1-<%']

ª-]H>$ I:}( <aJ F$ ª-XJ(W0E$ L- D- -YH/M4 L$$W0 1-½V'L%F6 >-_Ix H2 1H-YK< D: H2 9J<_J$ I2-gK4 L²?0 K6 1-kV< I+F$ 1-jH(W0E$ oª D0?(J- D(H-(nL4|2 Dº?0 L¤ @0 J5 J8 ª D0?( JµF6 K> $W09J<jL$Lx o< J F$K) 0 K6 nK® H2 @1H- K2 L¹Kx < J F$9J< gL$L0 > K+ Kº H2 @1H- K®Kx <_J F$K) > K+kKº H2c1 I' D% L6 L> $W0 D) h1 J(L0 ( J) F+ Kº D H>?$W0' I;pN² $eL K; 0 I$ iª-jJ(W0E$ [L- D- -mH/M4 L$ - H¤1-_H I¬ H ?0 K6D) 1-]H4 Lx?0 K6 >}a% L$ 3jM) F6i' J5jJ+ ( Jµ[N6 D) -XL$D4Wµ D0 1-YH6IxV<?0 K6D)-_I< D2 W D0 | -YK% F(N$ D0 1- eH8 L0 F$ K0

[- ½L>M) D: H2] () > ) :2 )

$D)XL¹K0 ª-YJ(W0E$ _L- D-?1 I ?> J$ $]L¶ H> $_W0$_L¶H-?< J F$ >]I$ eL- D- i( J K4 D- $[W0 - H¤

$D) ½L¹K0 }Y2 D ?> J$

> J I } g Uz K; D0 >kLx K¹K( 1}j-?> J$ o<}/L*cª Jº D/$K0 D2?0L/ L>- Hµ L6D) h'N%F6 Kº 1- H2L-ª- gJ(W0E$ L- - K0 @> Lx K - kH6- H% D¹ K( 1}j- D)( Lº K$ (nL/$L0 D2?0 L/ ( JµF6 K> $W0kª D> L2F$K) jª Uz D% K6 ª Jº H%p| ?ª D4 H%|- H¤ ª- eJ< L6 D Hx < J F$ iªU<I& D) ª gJº D2 J( D%|1H- K2 L¹ K(?> J$ kL- D- ( jLµL6 o1- H2L-?> J I?0 L¤?> J$D) i1L£ K(?> J$ 9J< gL$ L(?> J$ D)-XH6- H% D¹ K( 1} £ Kx +K4YL£ K) 1 eLx?< J F$>YLx K¹K( 1}_- ?> J$ ]L- D- ¦aK< Ix 3 gI¤?0 K6

|( ½I Uz K;D-K)

} k Uz K; D0 >jLx K¹ K( o1}-?> J$ <}2 L> J I ª- gJ(W0E$ L- D- @ª D| H: <_J F$ K¤cª Jº D/$K0 D2?0 L/ L>- Hµ L6 D) h'N%F6 Kº 1- H2L-ª- gJ(W0E$ L- -K0 @> Lx K - kH6- H% D¹ K( 1}j- D)?ª D4H%| ( Lº K$ (nL/$L0 D2?0 L/ ( JµF6 K> $W0jªU<}¸D) ª J> L2F$pK) ?ªUz D% K6 D) ª Jº H%|< J F$ iªU<I& D) ª gJº D2 J( Dx?0L/ D) kªU<N2F+K)_ªUz D% K6 K+|]4 L- 3 K6 gK2 D0 ª- eJ< L6 D Hx'J%_J6?- H¤ mLºU<K/L* D) ª}X2 L¤ Yª D> L2F$K)jL- D- oªF$ H:M£K) 1H- gK< D: H2 9J< J$ Dx @ L>- H- L(K6N< D* H%| i( L;L*F+ '[L- Dx i1 L¹ H2 ª-[J(W0E$ª- eJ(W0E$ L- D- iª D| H: 3 gI¤?0 K6 (eL-|, D4

>½Lx K¹ K( 1}_- ?> J$ >}YµF6K0

[>)2=]

i3 K6 jK2 D0 ªXJ® H$?> J$ D) ª-YH% L$?> J$ '_Ix K¤_L- D-?< J F$ ( eL2 L'F$ L( 0\K6 ª- eJ2L- 3|/V<F$K-

¦½L0 3_I>M4 ª-YJ(W0E$

[1-<%']

<_J F$ K¤ ª eJ® H$?> J$ D) iª-jH% L$?> J$ '[Ix K¤3 O/-V<F$K- @3 K6 K2 D0 ª-XJ(W0E$ L- D- Yª D| H:( eL2 L'F$ L( 0\K6 ¦ eL0 % K,- H- T3 K6 jK2 D0| ª- gJ2L-

¦½L0 3_I>M4 ª-YJ(W0E$ _L- D-?< J F$

+½L:U< Hº $YW0

7½L$ D4 Hº $YW0

%½M4 D& Hº $YW0

< J; ½L '_I6 YªF6I< D% (_J4 F6 K>?$W0

ªXJ6I< >- Ix 'YN2 D+ K> $_W0

}[z D% K6 D) ª gJ6I< > J I$ ' mN2 D+ K>?$W0<_J F$ 0YN/ D) } e<N2F+K) }<}¸D) i}> L2F$K)

Aª½J6I< D0

+½L:U< Hº $YW0

7½L$D4 Hº $YW0 D)

%½M4 D& Hº $YW0 D)

$D) ½L '_I6 YªF6I< D% (_J4 F6 K>?$W0 D)

ªXJ6I< > J I$ 'YN2 D+ K> $_W0 D)

|(kI' Lµ ª gJ6I< >- Ix (kJ| K$ D> H> $jW0 D)0YN/ D) } e<N2F+K) } <}¸ T}> L2F$K) }[z D% K6D)

Aª½J6I< D0 <_J F$

–––––––––––

7

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, fromthe house of slavery. You are not to have any other gods inaddition to me, you are not to make for yourself a model orimage of anything in the sky above, on the earth below, orin the water below the earth [level]. You are not to bowdown to them, nor be persuaded to serve them, for I, GODyour God, am a jealous God, who remembers the sins of thefathers against the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of my enemies, and performs acts of kindnessto thousands [of generations] to my friends and those whoobey 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 SabbathDay to sanctify it.

[Deuteronomy version]Guard the Sabbath

day to sanctify itas GOD your God hasinstructed you.

Six days you may work and do all your production, but theseventh day is a Sabbath to GOD your God, you are not toproduce anything, you, or your son, or your daughter,

your male or female slave, oryour animal

or your male or female slave,or your ox or your ass or anyof your animals,

or your foreign resident living among you,

8

because in six days GODcreated the sky and the earth,the sea and all that theycontain, and rested on theseventh day, on account ofwhich GOD blessed theSabbath day and sanctifiedit.

so that your male and femaleslave(s) may rest likeyourself. You are toremember that you were aslave in Egypt, and GODyour God brought you out ofthere with power and range,on account of which GODyour God instructed you tomake 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 begood 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 againstyour fellow-man.

§ You are not to desire yourfellow-man’s house.

§ You are not to desire yourfellow-man’s wife,

<and> You are not to desireyour fellow-man’s wife.

<and> You are not to desireyour fellow-man’s house,his land,

or his male or female slave, (or) his ox or his ass oranything that belongs to your fellow-man.

[‘fellow-man’ strictly ‘fellow-Israelite’]

9

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 ¼Î HÐÂÕ LÅ and ¼F J×IÝ DÑ. Moses referred to all

this as ¼Ò¼ÎVÝ LÆUV KÉ ¼ß JÝ JKF×, the ten .... All agree on the ‘ten’ but not all

agree on the meaning of ¼Ò¼ÎVÝ LÆUV. 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’ and

10

‘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 ¼Î HÐÂÕ LÅ and finishes with ¼Î LßÂÊ DÛ HÓ. The second

starts with ¼Å LL Hß ¼ÅWÑ , and at the end there are two distinct

paragraphs, each of which starts with ¼ÈÃÓ DÌ Kß ¼ÅWÑ (Exodus), or one

with ¼ÈÃÓ DÌ Kß ¼ÅWÑ DÊ and the other with ¼ÉJX KÅ Dß Hß ¼ÅWÑ DÊ (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

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

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 ¼Ò¼ÎVÈ LÆF×,

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

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. ¼Ò¼ÎVÝ LÆUV 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 ITKVmeans 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 ¼ÝLÆLV then means an order, roughly synonymous

with ¼ÉLÊ DÛ HÓ, or (as here) a group of these. The phrase *É ¼Ý KÆUV thus

means God’s command, the phrase ¼É JIÃÓ ¼Ñ JÅ *É ¼Ý IT KÈ DÎKÊ means that

God told (i.e. commanded) Moses, and consequently the

translation of ¼Ò¼ÎVÝ LÆUV KÉ ¼ß JÝ 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.

Possible, but a bit pushed. It is not expressed as a command but

14

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 ¼Ò¼Î gVÈ LÆF×, 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 zakef) 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

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 ¼Ò¼ÎVÈ LÆF× 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. ¼Ò¼ÎVÈ LÆF× 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 ¼Ò¼ÎVÈ LÆF×. But to everyone’s great

surprise, Breuer discovered from old manuscripts that this too is

a mistake! In the manuscripts ¼Ò¼ÎVÈ LÆF× in the lower set carries an

atnach (or etnachta), a mid-verse break something like a semi-

colon, but the verse itself continues for another seven words to

end with ¼ÎLÕ Lb. 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 ¼ÎLÕ Lb (as Breuer found in the ‘lower set’ that do

not divide into ten verses). Pinsker calls this ‘strange’.

16

Is it really strange? It implies that the seven words ending with

¼ÎLÕ Lb 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 ¼Ò IÈ DÆ L× Lß ¼ÅWÑ not ¼Ò IÈ DÆ K× 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 ¼Ò¼ÎVÈ LÆF×)? 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

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

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 ( ¼ß¼ÎVÝ DT KÉ ¼Ý JÙ IÖ). 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

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

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

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 fellow-

member: 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

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

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

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

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.

[>)2=]

} g Uz K; D0 >kLx K¹ K( 1}j-?> J$ o<}/L*

L>- Hµ L6 D) h'N% F6 Kº 1- H2L- > J I@> Lx K -kH6-H% D¹ K( 1}j- D) cª Jº D/$K0 D2?0 L/(nL/$L0 D2?0 L/ ( JµF6 K> $W0 ª- gJ(W0E$ L- - K0kª D> L2F$K) jªUz D% K6 ª JºH%p| ?ª D4 H%| ( Lº K$

ª gJº D2 J( D%|ª- eJ< L6 D Hx < J F$ iªU<I& D)

1H- K2 L¹K(?> J$ kL- D- ( jLµ L6 o1- H2L-?> J I - H¤1eLx?< J F$?0 L¤?> J$D) i1L£ K(?> J$ 9J< gL$ L(?> J$D)

-XH6- H% D¹K( 1} £ Kx +K4YL£ K)

>YLx K¹K( 1}_- ?>J$ ]L- D- ¦aK< Ix 3 gI¤?0 K6|( ½I Uz K;D-K)

[1-<%']

} k Uz K; D0 >jLx K¹ K( o1}-?> J$ <}2 Lª- gJ(W0E$ L- D- @ª D| H: <_J F$ K¤

L>- Hµ L6 D) h'N% F6 Kº 1- H2L- > J I@> Lx K - kH6-H% D¹ K( 1}j- D) cª Jº D/$K0 D2?0L/(nL/$L0 D2?0L/ ( JµF6 K> $W0 ª- gJ(W0E$ L- - K0ª J> L2F$pK) ?ªUz D% K6D) ª Jº H%| ?ªD4 H%| ( Lº K$

ª gJº D2 J( Dx?0 L/ D) kªU<N2F+K) jªU<}¸D)ª- eJ< L6 D Hx < J F$ iªU<I&D)

ª}X2 L¤ Yª D> L2F$K) _ªUz D% K6 K+|]4 L- 3 K6 gK2 D01H-gK< D: H2 9J< J$ Dx @ L>- H- L( 'J%_J6?- H¤ mLºU< K/L* D)i( L;L*F+ '[L- Dx i1 L¹ H2 ª-[J(W0E$ jL- D- oªF$ H:M£K)

(eL-|,D4 K6N< D* H%|>}YµF6K0 ª- eJ(W0E$ L- D- iª D| H: 3 gI¤?0 K6

>½Lx K¹ K( 1}_- ?> J$

26

The differeces in the second (Deuteronomy) version are:

1. The word ¼Ý¼D¼Ó LI (keep, guard) instead of ¼Ý¼D 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

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 ¼Å DÊ LI for ¼Ý JÜ JI, implying that they

are synonymous, has a bearing on the use of the former in the

third command. While sure that ¼Ý JÜ JI 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

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

[>)2=]

ªXJ6I< >- Ix 'YN2 D+ K> $_W0

ª gJ6 I< > J I$ ' mN2 D+ K>?$W0} e<N2F+K) }<}¸D) i}> L2F$K) }[z D% K6 D)

Aª ½J6 I< D0 <_J F$ 0YN/ D)

[1-<%']

ªXJ6 I< > J I$ 'YN2 D+ K> $_W0 D)

|(kI' Lµ ªgJ6I< >- Ix (kJ| K$ D> H> $jW0 D)} e<N2F+K) }<}¸ T}> L2F$K) }[z D% K6 D)

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»Ó DÌ Kß to ¼ÉJX KÅ Dß Hß.

3. The word ¼X¼É IÈ LK 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

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