(1.) Forbids us to covet that which does not belong to us; and
(2.) Commands us to suppress any such desire when it rises in our
heart.
Note 1.—There is another way of enumerating the Ten Commandments,
namely, to combine the first and the second into one, and to divide the
tenth into two. The Masoretic text seems to point in this direction;
for there is no pause between the first and the second commandments,
while there is one in the middle of the tenth. The inference from the
Masoretic text, however, is not quite certain. It is possible that the
first two commandments were joined closely together in order to
separate more pointedly those commandments in which God speaks of
Himself in the first person from those in which He speaks of Himself in
the third person; or, to use the words of the Midrash, to separate the
first two, which the Israelites heard directly from God, from the rest,
which they heard through Moses. The last commandment was, on account of
its great importance, given in two different forms. In the first the
general term “house” is employed; in the second the various elements
constituting the “house” are enumerated instead. The two forms of the
commandment are separated by the sign of a pause, because each of them
is complete in itself. Tradition supports our division of the
Decalogue. “I am” (אנכי) and “Thou shalt not have” (לא יהיה לך) are
mentioned in Talmud and Midrash, also in Targum, as two distinct
commandments. According to Philo (On the Ten Comm.) and Josephus
(Antiq. III. v. 5), the verse, “Thou shalt have ... before me” belongs
to the first commandment.
The text of the Decalogue, as repeated by Moses in the plain of Moab
(Deut. v. 6–8), differs from the original (Exod. xx. 2–14). One of the
differences, the first word of the fourth commandment—זכור,
“Remember,” in Exodus, and שמור, “Observe,” in Deuteronomy—is pointed
out in Midrash and Talmud, and also in the hymn for the Eve of Sabbath,
beginning, “Come, my friend” (לכה דודי). Tradition explains the first
expression as referring to affirmative commandments, and the second to
prohibitions; it further teaches that “both expressions were spoken by
God simultaneously;” that is to say, the fourth commandment in
Deuteronomy, though different in form, does not imply anything that has
not been revealed by God on Mount Sinai. The same applies to all points
of difference.
Why did Moses introduce the alterations? Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on
the Decalogue, is of opinion that the question need not be asked, or
answered if asked, because in the repetition of a Divine message the
original words may be changed so long as the sense remains intact. But
the addition of the phrase, “as the Lord thy God commandeth thee” in
two cases, and the reference to the deliverance from Egyptian
servitude, substituted (in Deut.) in the fourth commandment for the
reference to the Creation (in Exod.), lead us to think that the changes
were not introduced unintentionally or without any purpose. The
repeated Decalogue is a portion of an address in which Moses exhorted a
new generation in the plains of Moab to obey the Divine Law. It is,
therefore, not unlikely that he made additions and alterations for the
sake of emphasis, where he noticed a certain laxity among those whom he
addressed. Having come in contact with heathen nations and observed
their rites in connection with their sacred days, the Israelites may
have been inclined to imitate them; they were therefore exhorted to
sanctify the Sabbath in the way God commanded; hence also the more
emphatic “Observe,” שמור.—A similar reason may have caused the
addition of the same phrase, “as the Lord, &c.,” to the fifth
commandment. The participation of a portion of the Israelites in the
licentious feasts of the Moabites and Midianites disturbed the peace of
their homes and loosened the sacred family tie. Moses therefore points
to the Divine origin of the law commanding obedience to parents, and
also emphasises the blessings which it will yield by adding the words,
“and in order that it may be well with thee.”—The change of
circumstances has also caused another alteration in the fourth
commandment. During the forty years which the Israelites were compelled
to spend in the wilderness, they almost forgot the condition of their
former servitude; the new generation did not know it at all, and they
grudged their slaves the one day of rest in the week. They were
therefore reminded of their servitude in Egypt, and were asked to
remember it in order that they might, out of gratitude to the Almighty,
keep the Sabbath as He commanded them.
Another indication that changed circumstances caused the alterations is
noticed in the tenth commandment. Having arrived at the border of
Palestine, the Israelites were about to take possession of houses and
fields, and two and a half tribes were already in possession of landed
property. The term “house” (בית), which at first denoted “the home”
or “the household,” including the wife, was now in the minds of the
people chiefly “a permanent building.” “The wife,” the centre and the
chief element in the home, was therefore substituted for “the house” in
the first part of the commandment, and vice versâ, “the house” for “the
wife” in the second part, where appropriately “nor his field” has been
added.—The substitution of “Thou shalt not desire” (לא תתאוה) for the
original “Thou shalt not covet” (לא תחמוד) may have been intended to
teach the Israelites that all kinds and degrees of desire were
forbidden, and to remind them of the consequences of desire which they
had experienced at “the graves of the desire” (קברות התאוה Num.
xi.).—One more important alteration is to be noticed, the conjunctive
“and” (וְ) before the seventh and the following commandments, which
served to create in the minds of the hearers the idea that the crimes
forbidden in the second part of the Decalogue are to some extent
connected, and that he who broke one of these commandments was likely
to break the others also. We are thus bidden to be on our guard, and to
take good care that none of them be violated by us.
Note 2.—Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Exodus xx. 9, says: “Rabbi
Jehudah ha-levi asked me why it is said in the Decalogue, ‘who brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,’ and not
‘who created heaven and earth.’ My answer was as follows: Know that
those who believe in God have not all the same kind of faith. Some
believe because they were told of His existence by others; those who
believe in God because the holy Torah teaches this belief possess a
higher degree of faith. If an unbeliever argues with either of these,
they are not able to refute his argument. Those, however, who study
sciences—Astronomy, Botany, Zoology, and Anthropology—learn to
understand the works and the ways of God, and from these the Creator
Himself. The words ‘I am the Lord thy God’ can only be understood by
the wise and intelligent of all nations. For they all see that God has
made heaven and earth. But there is this difference: the Israelites
believe that the Creation has taken place five thousand years ago:
non-Israelites assume that God has been continually creating from
eternity. Now, God wrought signs and wonders in Egypt by which He
delivered the Israelites out of Egypt, and thus showed them His Divine
justice and goodness. In reference to these miracles it is said, ‘Thou
hast been shown to know that the Lord is God;’ all Israelites, wise and
simple, equally witnessed His miracles. The beginning of the Decalogue,
therefore, ‘I am the Lord thy God,’ is well understood by the wise; but
for the rest of the nation the words ‘who brought thee out,’ &c., have
been added, in order that all without exception should understand it.”
Note 3.—Don Isaac Abarbanel, in his Commentary on Exodus xx., says:
“The Ten Commandments are distinguished from the other Divine precepts
in three things: they were directly communicated by God to the
Israelites, not through a prophet; they were revealed to a whole nation
at once; and they were written on the two tables of stone by the finger
of God. Such distinction necessarily indicates a greater intrinsic
value of the Ten Commandments. My opinion is therefore that they are
laws of a general character, and principles including all the 613
precepts which the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to His people. E.g.,
love and worship of God. sanctification of His Name, submission to His
judgment, fear of God, reverence of His sanctuary, and other duties
towards God; Passover, Tabernacles, Tefillin, Mezuzah, and such other
precepts as are ‘a memorial of the departure from Egypt;’ the
separation of the first-born, tithes, &c.—all these duties are implied
in the first commandment. Also Rabbi Levi ben Gershon and the Gaon
Saadiah assume that all the 613 precepts are implicitly contained in
the Decalogue. Although all precepts involving practice (מצוות
מעשיות) are implied in the Decalogue, and even allusions to each one
of the thirteen principles of faith may be discovered in it, there is
no precept concerning our faith. It has already been proved by Rabbi
Chisdai that by the Divine commands we are either told to do a certain
thing, or told not to do a certain thing; but what we have to believe
or not to believe the Almighty taught us through signs, wonders, and
revelation. The words ‘I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,’ teach a certain truth,
a principle from which many of the 613 precepts may be derived, but
which is in itself no commandment.—The Decalogue (עשרת הדברים) must
therefore not be understood as designating ten commandments, but ‘ten
words’ or ‘ten paragraphs’ indicated in the Hebrew text by the pauses,
or spaces left between two paragraphs.
“The ‘ten words’ were written on two tables, five on each. The first
five, containing positive and negative precepts, with the announcement
of reward and punishment, were exclusively addressed to the Israelites.
The latter five are simple prohibitions without any mention of
punishment; because they were addressed to man as man, and include only
such laws as are also suggested to him by human reason, without direct
revelation.”
Rabbi R. S. Hirsch, in his Commentary on Exodus xx., says in reference
to the first commandment: “As this verse is not understood as a mere
declaration, but as a commandment (מצוה), it does not say ‘I am thy
God,’ but ‘I, the Lord, shall be thy God,’ and thus contains as the
foundation of all our duties towards God an exhortation to acknowledge
the sovereignty of God, קבלת עול מלכות שמים.
“The so-called ‘belief in the existence of God,’ as ancient and modern
theologians generally express this idea, differs widely from that which
underlies this fundamental doctrine of Judaism. The truth which affords
me the foundation of a Jewish life is not the belief that there is a
God, or that there is only one God, but the conviction that this One,
Only, and true God is my God; that He has created and formed me, has
placed me here, and given me certain duties; that He constantly makes
and forms me, preserves, protects, directs, and guides me; not the
belief that I, an accidental product of the Universe whose First Cause
He was millions of years ago, am through a chain of thousands of
intervening beings related to Him, but the belief that every moment of
my existence is a direct personal gift from the Almighty and All-good,
and that every moment of my life ought to be spent in His service; not
the knowledge that there is a God, but the recognition of God as my
God, as the sole Cause of my fate, and my sole Guide in all that I do,
gives me the foundation for my religious life. The response to the
exhortation, ‘I shall be thy God,’ is ‘Thou art my God.’”
Note 4.—The importance attached to the Decalogue may be gathered from
the various attempts made, on the one hand, to classify the Divine laws
according to the Ten Commandments, showing that the latter contain all
the 613 precepts; and, on the other hand, to find in such important
passages as the Shema and Leviticus xix. a parallel for each of the Ten
Commandments. (Jerus. Talm. Ber., chap. i.; Rabboth, Vayyikra ad
locum.)