Why did Hashem say "Anochi" and "Lo Yih'yeh Lecha... " in the first person?
Rashi (to Bamidbar 15:22), Ramban #2 (to 20:7, citing Makos 24a): Because Yisrael heard "Anochi" and "Lo Yih'yeh Lecha" (the warning on Avodah Zarah - Rashi) 1 directly from Hashem, but the rest they heard only from Moshe Rabeinu. 2
Ramban #1 3 : The Gemara in Berachos (13b) refers to this (dual) Mitzvah as Kabalas Malchus Shamayim - since it is akin to a king asserting his authority over his subjects. 4
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 21, p. 64): In these two Dibros, we accepted upon ourselves Hashem's Sovereignty. This matter was not addressed to each individual (not even to Moshe - as Hashem does not specify His Name upon an individual), but rather to the entirety of Yisrael. Moshe received these Mitzvos along with Yisrael, together. 5
Rashi: As the Pasuk states, "Achas Diber Elokim, Shtayim Zu Shama'ti" (Tehilim 62:12). Refer also to 20:1:3:1 .
To reconcile this with "va'Yedaber Elokim Es Kol ha'Devarim ha'Eileh"(see Rashi to 20:1), what the Gemara must mean is that, although they heard all ten Dibros from Hashem, they only understood the first two, and that the remaining eight Moshe had to explain to them. (This was discussed above in 20:1:2.1 and 20:1:2.2 .)
Ramban: The Mechilta compares this to a king whose subjects asked him to issue decrees (to form a constitution), and who replied 'First crown me king; then I will issue decrees! - because if you don't accept my sovereignty, you won't accept my decrees either.' Similarly, Hashem said to Yisrael, 'I am Hashem your G-d! Do not accept any other gods!' - before issuing them with other Mitzvos. Refer also to 20:2:2:3 .
See Ramban (to 20:7) - The first two Pesukim (i.e. Dibros) are written directly from first to second person (I to you, Hashem directly addressing Yisrael -- see Makos 24a); whereas the rest of the Dibros are in third person (Moshe relaying to Yisrael Hashem's commands) - also refer to 20:1:2.2:3 . But see 20:12:157:1 (section c), where Maharal differs - Moshe said all of the Dibros in Hashem's Name. The reason these first two Dibros are in second person, is that for these Mitzvos, which are accepting Hashem's Sovereignty, certainly Hashem is there and present with them. (In other words, the nature of these Mitzvos is being before Hashem always, so that is the voice in which they are stated.) (EK)
How is this Dibrah, "Lo Yihyeh Lecha, the immediate extension of "Anochi"?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 38, p. 112 1 ): Emunah in Hashem's existence dictates the belief that Hashem alone of necessity exists, and that without Hashem nothing else exists at all. 2 To take another being as god is acknowledging something independent, other than Hashem. 3
See Rambam Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah, Perek 1.
One may ask, that idolatry need not go so far as to profess that there are beings that are not dependent on Hashem's will! Idolatry began with the error of worshipping Hashem's servants (i.e. angels or heavenly bodies), which then led to attributing to those servants power of bestowing good or evil - that too is idolatry (see Rambam Hilchos Avodah Zarah, Perek 1). We must therefore conclude that "Anochi" - our belief that the existence of everything else comes from the truth of Hashem's existence - is not limited to knowledge of fact. Rather, it mandates the purpose that everything exists - for Hashem's Honor - and that everything is dependent upon Him. Maharal is presenting the idea that giving room to false gods encroaches upon "Anochi" - belief in Hashem's very existence. Hashem's Unity dictates that there is room for everything else, only because they all were created for, and continue to exist for, His Glory (to the exclusion of ascribing glory to anything else). Also see Maharal (beg. Derush l'Shabbos Ha'Gadol). (EK)
What does the Lav of "Lo Yih'yeh Lecha Elohim Acherim ... " entail?
Rashi #1 and Ramban #1 (citing the Mechilta): It entails not even retaining an image 1 that has already been manufactured. 2
Rashi #2 (to Vayikra 19:4): Neither your own, nor those belonging to others.
Ramban #2, Seforno and Rashbam: It is a prohibition against accepting any 3 deity 4 other than Hashem, even in its capacity as a servant of Hashem 5 (Seforno). 6 One may neither believe in it, accept it as a god, nor declare it as one's god (Ramban). 7
Hadar Zekenim: It is a prohibition against serving Hashem in conjunction with other gods who will assist Him - since we need only Hashem, and the other gods are futile and empty.
Moshav Zekenim and Pane'ach Raza: It is a prohibition against accepting any image of Hashem. 8
Rashi: Since the prohibition against manufacturing them is contained in the next Pasuk. See Torah Temimah, note 19. (Maharal (Gur Aryeh; Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 38, p. 113) - To the approaches of Rambam and Ramban, the Pasuk should have been worded as, 'You shall not have in your heart strange gods'! Rather, Chazal interpret it in reference to retention of a tangible idol.)
Ramban: In which case this is a plain Lav that is not subject to Kareis. According to the Ramban, the prohibition against retaining an image is an individual opinion. (For Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh, see below 20:3:2.2 ).
Ramban: From among the angels and the celestial bodies - which also bear the title 'Elohim' - as in Shemos 22:19 - bearing in mind that Hashem took us out of Egypt single-handedly (refer to 20:2:1:2). Ramban argues that unlike tangible idols which are called "Elohei Masechah" or the like (Vayikra 19:4), "Elohim Acherim" does not refer to fashioning an idol, but rather to accepting angels as gods. [It would be disparaging to Hashem to refer to man-made idols as "Elohim Acherim," as if they had any validity. See discussion in the following question, 20:3:3 .] As for the Mechilta (cited by Rashi), which interprets this Pasuk to refer to retention of an idol, Ramban writes that this follows the opinion of Rebbi Yosi in Toras Kohanim, which the Chachamim dispute (compare Mizrachi in 20:3:2.2:1 ). Maharal disagrees, see Gur Aryeh and Tif'eres Yisrael cited above (20:3:2.2:2 and note) .
Ramban: As the word 'El-him' means in Bereishis 28:21 and in Vayikra 11:45 .
Despite the principle 'Eved Melech k'Melech' (Shevuos 47b). Seforno - The Kutim did this; see Melachim II 17:33 .
Rambam (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Lo Sa'aseh #1): We are warned in this Pasuk not to believe in any power other than Hashem. Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 38, p. 113) - If so, this Mitzvah relates to the thoughts of the heart - and indeed so write the Semag and Ibn Ezra. Maharal - But the Gemara (Chulin 142a) proves that someone who contemplates Avodah Zarah in his heart is held liable from a Pasuk in Navi (Yechezkel 14:5)! According to the Rambam, why doesn't the Gemara cite our Pasuk, in the Aseres ha'Dibros? Perhaps were it not for the Pasuk in Navi, we would limit our Pasuk to verbal acceptance of idols (whereas mere thought would have been held exempt). But in any event, we do not find precedent for a Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh involving thought alone.
Rikanti: This is also how the Ramban (in his Kabalistic interpretation), explains Targum Onkelos (see 20:3:4:4 and note; see Rav Chavel's commentary on the Ramban).
Even though the Torah writes "b'Tzelem Elokim" (Bereishis 1:27 and Bereishis 9:6), there is an 'Esnachta' under "b'Tzelem" (disconnecting it from "Elokim"). Rather, "b'Tzelem" (in an esteemed mold that Hashem possessed), Elokim made man. (But this does not concur with the Trop in our Chumashim! Moreover, according to this explanation, "b'Tzelem" and "Elokim" in the former Pasuk seem superfluous (PF).)
What are the connotations of "Elohim Acherim"?
Rashi #1: This means that, although they are not gods, others made them into gods (or call them gods - Mechilta). 1
Rashi #2: They are god who are strangers to their own adherents, since they do not respond when they call them. 2
Ramban (citing Targum Onkelos) and Targum Yonasan: It is a prohibition against accepting angels 3 or celestial bodies as god in place of Hashem. 4
Moshav Zekenim and Hadar Zekenim (citing the Ibn Ezra): People think that they are gods, but they err.
Maharal #1 (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 38, p. 114): they are "Acherim" opposite the True G-d Who controls death and life -- whereas the false gods have no reality. 5
Maharal #2 (ibid.): The Mechilta explains "Acherim" (others) made them to be gods. 6 But we may ask, then, how to explain the Pasuk "Do not bow to an El Acher" (Shemos 34:14)? Rather, "Acherim" refers to the gods 7 (and not to their human creators). What the Mechilta means is that they do not have any intrinsic divinity, only people ascribed this to them. Thus these gods are "Acherim" - 'outside' (Chutz) of any Da'as, and 'other' (Acher) to any Sechel. 8
Maharal #3 (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 165, to Sanhedrin 64a): The 'Elilim' (naught-gods) are called "Acherim" to their own worshippers, they are not part of the order of existence, rather they are 'Zarah' (lit. strange, foreign). The Gemara comments that the Torah terms the Pe'or worshippers "Nitzmadim" (Bamidbar 25:3, 5) - like a Tzamid (bracelet) on the hand that is not really connected. 9
Rashi: It cannot be understood literally, since it would be a slight to Hashem to refer to images as 'other gods' (Mechilta - Moreover, the Navi writes in connection with the gods of the nations, "Ki Lo Elohim Heimah" (Yeshayah 37:19 ).)
Rashi: As if they were somebody else - not the one being called.
Ramban: The Torah never refers to images as 'Elohim Acherim,' as Rashi explains above (20:3:3:1* ). See for example Shemos 34:17 and Yeshayah 37:19 .
Rashi writes - "It would be a disgrace towards on High, to call them gods in the same context as He" (and Rashi therefore explains as does the Mechilta in Answer #6). And Ramban explains that "Elohim Acherim" is when someone accepts one of the angels on High as divinity; it does not refer to a man-made idol (see above, 20:3:2:3 6
). But Maharal in Answer #5 seems not to have this concern. Also take note that Rashi comments to the section "v'Hayah Im Shamo'a (Devarim 11:16), "'Elohim Acherim' - They are as others to their own worshippers, who scream and they do not answer... " (like answer #7 from Maharal, from Gemara Sanhedrin). Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 11:16) - Do not explain "Acherim" relative to Hashem, which would imply Chas v'Shalom that they too are gods, but rather explain "Acherim" in relation to the person (who worships them). (Nevertheless, we do have instances in Maharal which do seem to find meaning in the term "Elohim Acherim" for idolatry. See Gur Aryeh to Shemos 12:12 - "Ani v'Lo Mal'ach... Ani v'Lo Acher" (Hagadah Shel Pesach); Gur Aryeh explains "Acher" to exclude all Avodah Zarah. Also Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, end Ch. 55, p. 246) - "v'Lo Acher" - and not those whom Hashem allowed to perform 'Zar' acts, outside of the order of existence, i.e. the Mazikim and Shedim. (Refer to Shemos 12:12:7.4 and on.))
As cited by Rashi.
Thus "Acherim" is a standard adjective. In this Pasuk in plural, and in 34:14 in singular, to match the noun.
In Maharal's first explanation, "Acherim" is in contrast to the True G-d; whereas in this explanation, it is a description intrinsic to the idols themselves.
Maharal: As opposed to those loyal to Hashem, who are "Devekim" (cleaving) (Devarim 4:4, see Sanhedrin loc. cit.) - because their attachment is within existence. Maharal explains - Worship of Pe'or was through defecation, which was the most Zar (strange) service of all - and that is why the Yetzer for that form of Avodah Zarah was the most compelling. To explain, the entire drive towards Avodah Zarah is its being 'far out,' not self-evident, it aims at the very lowest rung of man's stature. Hence, it is "Acher" and "Zar" in its very definition. Also see Maharal (Netzach Yisrael Ch. 12, p. 75). (EK)
What are the implications of "Al Panai"?
Rashi #1: It implies 'as long as I exist' - in other words, forever. 1
Rashi #2 (to Devarim 5:7): It implies 'wherever I am' - in other words, anywhere in the world.
Ramban #1: It implies that Hashem is there watching 2 anyone who transgresses, wherever and whenever it may be.
Ramban #2 (according to Kabalah). Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It implies 'any god besides Hashem.' 3
Seforno: It is a reason for the prohibition 4 - because one does not pay homage to servants in the presence of their master.
Oznayim la'Torah: It implies that Hashem's anger is aroused when one serves Avodah Zarah 5 - to counter those who claim that a Chacham is only jealous of a Chacham .... 6
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 38, p. 114): In general, recognition is through the Panim (lit. face); thus "Do not have other gods, upon My Self." We must not serve any intermediary, but rather Hashem alone. 7
Mechilta: To counter the suggestion that this prohibition is confined to the generation that left Egypt. See Torah Temimah, note 21. For Gur Aryeh see below (20:3:4.1 ).
Ramban: See for example Bamidbar 3:4 .
Ramban: With reference to Micha'el (the Mal'ach ha'Bris) who accompanies Hashem wherever He goes. He is also the Mal'ach who appeared to Moshe at the Burning Bush, and this explains why Moshe bowed down to him there. Refer also to 20:3:2:3 and notes .
Oznayim la'Torah: See Targum Yonasan on the Pasuk "Panai Yelechu... " (Shemos 33:14).
See Rashi to 32:11.
See Rambam Hilchos Avodah Zarah, Perek 2. Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv ha'Avodah Ch. 12, p. 116) writes at length that it is forbidden to turn to the Mal'achim in prayer.
How can we explain the progression of these prohibitions regarding idolatry?
Rambam (Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh #1, #2, #5, #6): a. "Lo Yihyeh" - Do not believe in any god other than Hashem. b. "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha Fesel" (Pasuk 4) - Do not fashion an idol (or even have someone else fashion it at your request 1 ) - even without serving it. 2 c. "Lo Sishtachaveh Lahem" (Pasuk 5) - Do not bow down, sacrifice, burn an offering, or make a libation (even if the idol is not normally served thus). d. "v'Lo Sa'avdem" - Do not serve an idol in any fashion, in its normal method of service (e.g. even disparaging service to Pe'or or Markulis). 3
Ramban: a. Do not accept any gods, other than Hashem. 4 b. Do not fashion an idol for the purpose of prostration or worship. Both of the above lead to the death penalty. c. Fashioning an idol not for the purpose of worship is not a capital offense. It is derived from Pasuk 20:20 below (and other Pesukim). 5
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 38, p. 114): a. "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" prohibits retention of an idol (as above, 20:3:2:1); b. "Lo Sa'aseh" - fashioning an idol; c. "Lo Sishtachaveh, etc..." - prostration or worship. 6
As for fashioning an idol for someone else, the Rambam counts this in Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh #3 - "Vei'lohei Masechah Lo Sa'asu Lachem," of Parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:4). Thus he differs in interpretation of the Midrashim, both from Mizrachi (who derives this from Pasuk 4 here - see 20:3:2.2:1), and from Gur Aryeh (who includes also having others making an idol for him, in the prohibition from Vayikra - 20:3:2.2:2).
The Ramban differs on this point, see Answer #2. (The Rambam then brings an additional prohibition in Lo Sa'aseh #4 - To fashion any prohibited image, even not at all for the purpose of worship.)
Ramban (comments to Rambam Lo Sa'aseh #5): Whereas the Rambam counts numerous Mitzvos in Dibrah #2, the Gemara (Makos 24a) which is the source for the count of 613 Mitzvos implies that the entire Dibrah is counted as only one!
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 38, p. 114): But if so, why does the Torah start with (idolatry itself -) accepting another god, then (the less severe prohibition of) fashioning an idol, and then return to address prostration and worship? Because had "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha Fesel" been stated first, I might have interpreted it as coming to prohibit fashioning an image even not for the sake of worship; the Torah therefore first states "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" which clearly means making it a deity. (Now, it seems that Maharal understands that even Ramban learns a non-capital prohibition against fashioning an image, from these Pesukim in Aseres ha'Dibros. But Ramban to Sefer ha'Mitzvos (ibid.) writes explicitly not so; he writes that all the commands here are essentially one - negating Avodah Zarah - namely that we not accept it as a god, bow to it, or serve it; it does not focus on the fashioning of the image but rather its service. (As above, Ramban holds that the progression here is, a. not to accept an existing Heavenly being as a god, b. not to construct a man-made idol and bow or serve it.))
Maharal (loc. cit.): The Torah commands that we distance ourselves from Avodah Zarah and eradicate it from the world, irrespective of the fact that we ourselves will not worship it. That is why it opens with "Lo Yihyeh Lecha."
Why does the Torah specify the prohibition of Avodah Zarah in so many ways?
Maharal #1 (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 38, p. 115): The Torah prohibits Avodah Zarah from all perspectives; we must completely eradicate it. a. Lest one think that it is fitting to serve it for it is his god, the Torah commands, "Lo Yihyeh Lecha." b. Lest he serve Avodah Zarah out of love - and a lover often makes an image of his beloved - thus the Mitzvah "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha." c. He must not serve them out of fear, bowing in submission - "Lo Sishtachaveh." d. He must not serve them to gain their favor and reward - "Lo Sa'avdem."
Maharal #2 (ibid.): Hashem is the source from Whom everyone lives and derives sustenance and livelihood. Avodah Zarah is outside of the True Source; just as an entity has four outer sides, there are four types of Avodah Zarah. 1 To explain, under Hashem's Throne of Glory there are four Chayos ha'Kodesh that could potentially be used as objects of Avodah Zarah. 2 a. "Lo Yihyeh... Al Panai" corresponds to the Chitzoniyus of the Demus of Adam on the Merkavah. 3 b. "Lo Sa'aseh... " addresses someone who would serve Avodah Zarah out of love, and corresponds to that of the Aryeh, on the right side (the right is associated with Ahavah and Chesed). c. "Lo Sishtachaveh" - to one who would serve them out of fear, corresponds to that of the Shor on the left side (Yir'ah and fright). d. "v'Lo Sa'avdem" - addresses those who think it is their master, corresponding to that of the Nesher, last of the Merkavah. 4
As explained in the preceding answer.
These represent four aspects in Hashem's Hanhagah of the world - which can be mis-interpreted as independent of Hashem (Chas v'Shalom, and thus become Avodah Zarah). For more about Avodah Zarah termed as Chitzoniyus (lit. external), see below 20:21:1.1:5 .
"Acherim Al Panai" - Aside from the semblance of Adam on the Merkavah, there is a semblance of Adam on the Kisei (itself).
Footnotes of Rav Hartman on Maharal (Mechon Yerushalayim edition, note #88 and on): These correspond to the four Midos with which Hashem guides the world - a. Chesed (at right, represented by the Aryeh), b. Gevurah (at left, by the Shor. An ox represents strength for working, to support and strengthen Man - see Gevuros Hashem on Shiras Ha'Yam, refer to Shemos 15:1:4:6*). c. Tif'eres (at center, represented by Man, whose trait is Chochmah). d. Malchus (represented by the Nesher, who rises above, see Gevuros Hashem ibid.). (But in this context, the Nesher is called "last"; see Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 2, p. 12, to Nedarim 38a) - A Nesher is a bird, the smallest (of these four), and because of that humility Hashem uplifts it up to the sky. The Nimshal for this is Malchus Beis David. Also see Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, end Ch. 36, p. 137).)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Lo Yihyeh Lecha' (You shall not have [strange gods]) - ... I would only know that one may not make [an idol - Pasuk 4]; how do we know that he may not retain one that was already made? Thus it teaches, 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha.'" How is this derived from the wording?
Gur Aryeh: "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" means that we must not allow 'Havayah v'Kiyum' (existence or lasting duration) to idolatry.
Rashi writes: "... How do we know that he may not retain an idol that was already made?" What are the parameters of this prohibition?
Mizrachi: The following Pasuk, "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha Fesel" (20:4), prohibits both making an idol for others, and others making an idol for him - compare to Rashi to Vayikra 19:4 (see footnote 1 ). This prohibition of "Lo Yihyeh Lecha," retaining an idol, is reserved for a case when one found or bought an idol that had already been made (i.e., not expressly made for him). Furthermore, this constitutes a separate prohibition only according to Rebbi Yosi (in Toras Kohanim loc. cit.), whereas the Chachamim differ. 2 And do not say that "Lo Sa'asu Lachem" (Vayikra ibid.) should apply only when one makes an idol and it is for his own use (i.e. both factors together), because our Pasuk tells us that indeed there is a prohibition in an idol made for him by others. (This approach will explain Rashi to Vayikra ibid.) 3
Gur Aryeh: Retention of an idol is prohibited due to our Pasuk, even according to the Chachamim (of Toras Kohanim). The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Yosi only regarding one who makes an idol for oneself, as to whether he is liable for this third prohibition as well (or whether retention is included in the prohibition of having made the idol 4 ) . They agree however that retention of an idol originally made for others is in violation of our Pasuk, "Lo Yihyeh Lecha." Making an idol is counted as a separate prohibition, because one is in violation the moment he begins to fashion it, whereas retaining an idol made for others' use applies only to an idol that has been completed. Rebbi Yosi counts making the idol and retention of the idol as separate prohibitions in any event. 5
Background to sources - Our section (Dibrah #2) contains two prohibitions, "Lo Yihyeh Lecha Elohim Acherim," and "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha Fesel" (Pasuk 4). In Parshas Kedoshim we learn, "Vei'lohei Masechah Lo Sa'asu Lachem" (Vayikra 19:4). Rashi on our Pasuk cites the Midrash Halacha here (Mechilta d'Rebbi Yishmael, "ba'Chodesh" 6) - "Not only is making an idol prohibited, but even retaining an idol that was already made." The Midrash Halacha to Vayikra (Toras Kohanim) derives two prohibitions from that Pasuk, "Lo Sa'asu" (do not make for others) and "Lo... Lachem" (do not have others make for you). Making an idol for oneself violates both prohibitions, according to the Chachamim; and according to Rebbi Yosi he violates "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" of our Pasuk as well. Rashi to Vayikra loosely cites the Toras Kohanim; he cites "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" as precedent that idols made by others are prohibited.
Summary of Mizrachi's view - a. "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha" (Pasuk 4) parallels "Lo Sa'asu Lachem" (Vayikra 19:4). Both Pesukim prohibit both fashioning an idol for others, and having others fashion one for him. b. The result is three levels of prohibition - i. Making an idol for one's own use (two strikes); ii. Making an idol for another, or having another make an idol for him (one strike); iii. One who did not arrange that an idol be made for him, rather he found or bought it ready-made. Level #3 is not in violation of "Lo Sa'aseh," but he is in violation of "Lo Yihyeh Lecha," retaining an idol - but only according to Rebbi Yosi, whereas Chachamim do not accept this.
According to Chachamim, the prohibition of making the idol, when applicable, includes the retention that will follow. Also see Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 38, p. 113, cited above 20:3:2:1* ) - According to Chachamim he transgresses retention of an idol (based on our Pasuk) only after having worshipped that idol; whereas according to Rebbi Yosi he transgresses it from the moment it is made, even prior to worshipping it.
In summary - Whereas according to Mizrachi, retention of on idol is a separate prohibition only according to Rebbi Yosi, according to Gur Aryeh this is true even according to Chachamim. According to Mizrachi, Shemos 20:4 lines up with Vayikra 19:4, whereas Gur Aryeh draws a distinction, see the following question.
Rashi writes: "... How do we know that he may not retain an idol that was already made? Thus the verse teaches, 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha.'" But let us interpret the next Pasuk, "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha Fesel" as also prohibiting having others make an idol for him (just as Rashi to Vayikra 19:4 interprets "Elohei Masechah Lo Sa'asu Lachem" (ibid.) to prohibit both him making an idol for others, and others making one for him). If so, why is our Pasuk necessary to prohibit an idol made by others?
Gur Aryeh: The wording of Vayikra 19:4 puts "Lachem" at the end, allowing for a double interpretation (Lo Sa'asu la'Acherim ... v'Lo Acherim Lachem.). Whereas Shemos 20:4 states "Lecha Fesel" (implying only when one makes and idol for one's own use. Therefore we need our Pasuk, "Lo Yihyeh Lecha," to include an idol made by others). 1
Whereas according to Mizrachi (see above 20:3:2.2:1), the two Pesukim are indeed parallel, and "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" includes retention an idol that was not made expressly for his sake. For Gur Aryeh's response, see the following question.
Rashi writes: "... How do we know that he may not retain an idol that was already made? Thus the verse teaches, 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha.'" But once the Pasuk "Elohei Masechah Lo Sa'asu Lachem" (Vayikra 19:4, see Toras Kohanim and Rashi) prohibits both him making an idol for others, and others making one for him, why is our Pasuk necessary? Why is even the following Pasuk, "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha Fesel" necessary?
Gur Aryeh: Our Pasuk of "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" includes the prohibition of retaining an idol made for him by others, without his prior knowledge. Furthermore, the Pasuk in Vayikra "Elohei Masechah" implies only idols made of metal, whereas "Fesel v'Chol Temunah" (Pasuk 4) clearly includes idols of any form or material. Vayikra 19:4 adds the prohibition to make an idol for someone else's use. 1
Gur Aryeh: As both of the Pesukim here, "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" and "Lo Sa'aseh Lecha" address one's own use.
Rashi writes: "'Al Panai' - For all time that I am in existence - lest you say that it was only that generation who were prohibited regarding idolatry." Why might we have thought such a thing? Furthermore, Rashi on the Aseres Ha'Dibros of Parshas Va'eschanan first adds "'Al Panai' - Any place where I am - i.e. the entire world." Why does our Rashi omit this?
Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 5:7): Because the Aseres ha'Dibros open with, "I am Hashem... Who took you out of the land of Egypt," it would be possible to rationalize that only that first generation - those who left Egypt - were prohibited in idolatry. "Al Panai" therefore clarifies that the command is eternal. For the same reason, Rashi here does not cite the other interpretation; it is obvious that the prohibition applies in all locations. 1
Gur Aryeh (ibid.): Whereas Rashi in Devarim does include it, because "all locations" is the simple meaning of "Al Panai" (in Peshuto Shel Mikra). Rashi here in Shemos has already entered the realm of Derash, explaining what each phrase is adding (e.g., the discussion above regarding "Lo Yihyeh Lecha"). Why the phrase "Al Panai" must appear, cannot be explained via Rashi's first explanation in Devarim (regarding location - but only by his second explanation regarding time).
