Torah Talk Torah study for women

The Ten Commandments - set in Stone?

We speak of the ‘seventy faces of the Torah’ to indicate its multi-faceted character. We study the explanations and interpretations of the Oral Law, encapsulated in the Talmud and in the many commentaries. However, the question arises, how can we ‘discuss’ the direct communication of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. When G-d speaks, what is there to discuss?

Bible commentators do not take that view, even though they are, of course, aware of the special place that this Revelation holds. It is interesting to see to what extent they agree in their understanding of the text, stressing what they see as ‘set in stone’, as immutable and unappealable. Let us look at a few examples from the Decalogue and from the commentaries.

“I am the Lord your G-d, of who took you out of the land Egypt, out of the house of bondage”

• Rashi (11th century France) explains that, since G-d was the One who took us out of Egypt and He was also the one at [the crossing of] the sea, we should not be tempted to see two manifestations as denoting more than One power.
• Ramban (13th century Catalonia) explains that the Exodus, referred to in the first commandment, is evidence of G-d’s EXISTENCE and of His CREATION of the world, since the fact that He intervened in nature showed that He controlled it. Had He not created it, He could not have altered nature in accordance with His will. And all of this was witnessed by the Israelites.
• Sforno (16th century Italy) makes the same point, adding that G-d’s omnipotence shows His SOVEREIGNTY Hirsch (19th century Germany) also speaks of G-d as ‘disrupting the forces of nature’, to bring us out of Egypt, which is why He is the One whom we are to acknowledge as the sole Guide of our fate for all time’.

Creation, existence, sovereignty are eternal verities and that is why the commentators concentrate on these. There is no mention of the fact that G-d is here speaking to the assembled Israelites, to whom, alone, He was then giving the Torah.

“Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain, for He will not hold guiltless him that taketh His Name in vain”.

This is the third of the Commandments. The second had spoken of idol worship which would be punished to the third and fourth generation, while loyalty to G-d would be rewarded to the thousandth generation. Both Sforno and Hirsch explain that taking the Name of G-d in vain, which means taking an oath, constitutes a DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE of G-d.If you swear that something that cannot otherwise be proved, is true, just as G-d is true, and you are actually lying, what you are saying is that both halves of the statement are not true. Which is why taking the Name in vain ‘cannot be forgiven’. It is more serious that idol worship, terrible as that is; the punishment there is continued for three, even four generations. Ramban points out that, if the sinner has a righteous son, who does not commit this sin, the punishment does not continue What the commentators do not mention is that, since G-d is speaking to the Israelites, these two commandments apply only to them, not to the idol worshiping nations, that do not know G-d.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy ... for [in] six days the Lord made the heavens and the earthand ... rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it” (Text in Exodus, 20,1 ff)

• Rashi comments that If G-d rested, man should certainly rest, implying a self evident relationship between man and G-d.
• Ramban again refers to the CREATION. There is no be in the the text, which reads ki sheshet yamim, not be sheshet yamim. Rather, he explains, ‘ the sense of the verse is: G-d made six days and on the seventh day He ceased (creating, and rested)’
• Sforno writes ‘ and the purpose of these (six days of CREATION) was for man to be similar to his CREATOR as much as possible’
• Hirsch of course, agrees.’Thus, for six days you shall exercise, in the service of G-d, your dominion over the things in your world, which He conferred upon you. You shall utilise them for your own purposes and , like a CREATOR, modify them for these purposes. You are to shape them all into servants of your might. But the seventh day is to put a stop to all these activities of yours; on it you are to desist from your CREATING in order to render homage to the Lord your G-d’.

As this commandment gives Creation as the basis of the Shabbat, that is what the commentators stress here. Only Sforno points out the new relationship; the Sabbath elevates man and allows him to act like the Creator. Again, none of them speak of the fact that the Sabbath was given to the Israelites alone - a non-Jew should not observe the Sabbath, our sages teach.

The version of the Ten Commandments that Moses tells the Israelites in Deuteronomy 5,6 ff gives a different reason for the Sabbath; not Creation, but so that you manservant and your maidservant may rest like you and you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt....; therefore the Lord your G-d commanded you to keep the Sabbath.

• Rashi paraphrases this, so ‘that on account of being redeemed, you would serve Him and keep His commandments’.
• RambaN writes: ’the commandment contains a reminder of the CREATION because of the fact that we rest on the day that G-d ceased from work thereon and rested …; the Lord therefore commanded you ... so that the congregation of Israel be the partner to the Sabbath ... as is hinted at in the words of our Rabbis (in Bereshit Rabba).
• Sforno explains ‘behold, the commandment that the animal should also rest was given so that the servant should also rest; and this commandment (that the servant should rest) was given in order to remember the Exodus from Egypt, whereby the Lord caused the slaves to cease from their labours’.
• Hirsch has no comment here.

Only RambaN speaks of the partnership between G-d and the congregation of Israel.

The fifth commandment is ‘Honour your father and your mother so that your days may be long on the land which the Lord your God gives to you’.

We naturally assume that ‘the land’ that G-d gives us is the land of the destination of the Exodus, the land of Canaan/Israel. That is how Sforno understands it: ‘by observing the first five commandments you shall merit the length of days' i.e. you shall not be exiled from it. RambaN ‘Since the commandment is to creatures on the earth, He has designated its reward to be the prolongation of life on earth which He will give us ... But [according to] our Sages (Kiddushin 31b), if we observe this commandment, G-d will fulfill our days in this world and prolong them in the world to come’.

RambaN here deliberately takes away the connection of the commandments to the Israelites, giving it a universal interpretation. It would, indeed, seem from their comments that all four commentators looked at do present a universal, ’set in stone’ understanding of the Ten commandments, very largely ignoring the Israelite context.

The Omer

A shiur I gave recently at one of the Etta Study groups, based on articles by Rav Riskin, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein and Rav Etshalom.

The mitzva of counting the Omer (sefira) is stated twice in the Torah, once in Vayikra ( Emor) and one in Devarim (Re'eh). There are significant differences in the two texts and one might say that answers to the questions raised by these differences teach us both about the mitzva of counting the Omer and about the development of Judaism.

The differences primarily relate to the ways of counting and affect our understanding of the mitzva.

1. Should we count weeks AND days, ONLY weeks or ONLY days?
2. Does the counting of both constittute one mitzva or two?
3. Does either weeks or days refer to separate aspects of the mitzva? -agriculture? Korbanot? Matan Torah? Kedushat Chag haShavuot?
4. Is the counting seen as time -bound and thus apply only to men?

We all know about two aspects of the 'sefira', even before we enter into the different interpretations - the agricultural and the spiritual and Rav Shlomo Riskin writes about this difference. He shows that this is a difference of stress given by the Sadducees (largely Cohanim) and the Pharisees (the general population). The Sadducees see the sefira as agricultural, from the barley to the wheat harvest, comparable to the time between the harvest in Nissan and the harvest in Tishri and to the the agricultural mitzva of Shemitta, 7x7 =49, followed by the important event of Yovel. It makes sense that the stress of Cohanim is on the Temple offerings related to the harvests, omer, shtei ha lechem, bikurim.

Rav Lichtenstein enters into the textual differences in the two passages in the Torah and refers to the discussion in the Gemara on the subject (Menachot 65b-66a). Commentators here raise the question whether the mitzva of counting the Omer is wholly Biblical or also Rabbinical, because Ameimar counts the days only; it is the counting (weeks?/days?) from one Korban to the next, commentators explain,that is only 'zecher le Beit haMikdash' - 'zecher' is mostly taken to refer to a Rabbinical enactment - since we do not have a Beit haMikdash. R.Yerucham of Provence will support this view, saying that originally there must have been two mitzvot - and two berachot; now that bringing sacrifices is not applicable, only the blessing over the days is appropriate because counting days leads up to the sanctification of the festival of Shavuot.

The discussion reflects the development from pre to post Temple times. The question arises, which of the two Biblical text is counting from one Korban to the next. The Rambam picks up on this, saying that if there had been two mitzvot, we would have said 'al sefirat haOmer' and 'al sefirat shevuei haOmer; he rejects that possibility, 'the mitzva is to count the Omer, days and weeks in accordance with the (Torah) enactment, and it is ONE mitzva.

Next difference: Emor(Vayikra) is in the plural and Re'eh (Devarim) is in the singular.

The plural (lachem) indicates that the count is both national and individual. The national count is the weeks counted by the Bet Din - without a blessing, just as it counts the years to Yovel; the individual counts the days for himself with a blessing - his counting is to reach the festival. Counting up to the festival is particularly important for Shavuot -the 49 days of counting determine its date - not the declaration of the new month like other festivals, or like Shabbat, which is fixed, says Rav Soloveichik. The individual's counting has two aspects: the mitzva of counting and the sanctification of Shavuot.

In Emor, the counting is from one korban to the next. In Re'eh, there is no mention of korbanot; we count from the time of standing corn - we count standing; we are to be happy, as is every member of our household.

The mitzva can be seen as time bound and, as such, would exempt women (RambaM). However, if the sanctification of the festival is a separate aspect of the mitzva, then it is incumbent upon everybody (RambaN, who holds that women are obligated).

The essay by Rav Yitzchak Etshalom focuses on the Rambam's view and shares many of the points made by Rav Lichtenstein. First, he agrees with the interpretation of the Rambam, that the mitzva of counting the Omer is 'mi deoraita', Biblical - in spite of Ameimar? He notes that only Vayikra (Emor) speaks of 'mi mochrat haShabbat' and specifies that he weeks are 'temimot', whole, complete - this affects the time when we begin the Synagogue service on Shavuot - you cannot have an early minyan on Shavuot since the seven weeks must be completed.

The Rambam also considers the possibility of two separate mitzvot and rejects this since we would have had two blessings, 'al sefirat haOmer' and 'al sefirat shevuei haOmer', which we don't. Moreover he uses the term 'days' and 'weeks' interchangeably when he writes about the Sefira in Sefer haMitzvot and in the source quoted above, Hilchot temidim ve Musafim. On the question of 'mi de oraita', Biblical or not, the Rambam suggests that the words 'zecher la Mikdash' may not be part of Ameimar's statement, but rather the Gamara's comment on the previous words (and might apply to the counting, to weeks or to days.) Rav Etshalom then looks at the support apparently given to Ameimar's statement by Rabbi Yerucham of Provence - there were, he suggests, originally two separate mitzvot because the counting up to Shavuot may be one mitzva and counting from one korban to the next another, with two blessings, But, this is rejected, because the counting begins on the second night of Pesach and the Omer was brought on the next day (be yom ha viachem). That is why, suggests Rav Etshalom, the Rambam saw the Sefira as ONE and as 'mi de oraita'. Lastly, the question of standing when counting.

In the Bet haMikdash, any 'avoda' performed while seated is invalid. The source is Devarim,19,7. The Levi shall come to the Mikdash ve sharet be shem H'elokav ki chol achiv ha leviim ha omedim sham lifnei H'. The Rambam said that the mitzva is to stand, but if one sits, it is valid. Why? Because it says 'sham', there, and when we count we are not 'there', in the Mikdash. The question arises, is the Sefira an 'avodat haMikdash? Rav Etshalom suggests that it is. Having counted, we say ha rachaman you yachzir lanu et avodat Bet haMikdash bi mekomah.

Interestingly, we say, after the Tefila, the Amida: yehi ratzon ... she yibanei Bet haMikdash which reminds us that Tefila, prayer, has, for the time being, replaced the service of the Bet haMikdash - it should be rebuilt bi meheira, be yameinu.