Why did Hashem give the Aseres ha'Dibros with the Name 'Elokim', and not with the Name 'Hashem'?
Rashi: Because it is Midas ha'Din, and therefore implies that the Aseres ha'Dibros are obligatory, and that not keeping them is subject to punishment. 1
Rashi: As opposed to certain other Mitzvos, which are voluntary, and which are therefore not punishable.
What are the connotations of "Kol ha'Devarim"?
Rashi: It implies that Hashem said all the Aseres ha'Dibros simultaneously. 1
Chagigah 3b: To teach us that, when Chachamim sit and study Torah together, even though some say 'Tamei' and some, 'Tahor;' some declare Pasul and some, 'Kasher;' some rule 'Asur' and some, 'Mutar' - they are all given by One and the same G-d! 2
If, as the Sifrei explains, Hashem said all the Aseres ha'Dibros simultaneously, why does the Torah write "Anochi" and "Lo Yihyeh Lecha" in the first person, and the remaining eight in the third person - implying that only the first two Dibros were said simultaneously, but not the rest?
Rashi: Because when they were repeated (in order to explain them), Hashem repeated the first two, 1 and Moshe, the rest. 2
Chizkuni: Hashem began to explain each Dibur, but after He had explained the first two, the people could not bear to hear any more, so Moshe explained the last eight.
What are the connotations of "[ha'Devarim] ha'Eleh"?
Oznayim la'Torah: It has connotations of 'strength' (tough, basic issues). 1
Oznayim la'Torah: As in "v'Es Eilei ha'Aretz Lakach" (Yechezkel 17:13) - based on the Gemara in Bava Basra 88b, in connection with the Isur of [unjust] weights and measures.
Why did the Torah add the word "Leimor"?
Rashi: To teach us that they acknowledged the positive commands with a 'Yes!', and the negative ones with a 'No!'
Why was the Torah given in two ways - the Aseres Dibros were stated by Hashem directly, whereas the rest of Torah we learned from Moshe? Furthermore, on the day of Matan Torah, only the few Mitzvos included in the Aseres ha'Dibros were stated explicitly. Doesn't that make our acceptance of Torah deficient?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 35, p. 101): There are two rationales for the Divinely-Given Torah. a. Man, as the Alul of Creation, must be under the command of the Ilah; 1 he must not be left as his own boss. 2 b. Man is incomplete; his completion comes through Torah. 3 These two reasons correspond to two aspects of Torah. The Dibros encapsulate the essence of the command - and hence, the connection - of Ilah to Alul. That is why there were two Luchos, representing the connection of two parties, and also explains why we heard the Dibros directly from Hashem. All the rest of Torah is for perfecting Man, and we would learn it through Moshe. 4
In Maharal's terminology, "Ilah" (the Prime Cause) refers to Hashem, and "Alul" is the effect generated by that cause - Mankind, and here specifically Yisrael. We learn that our title is not automatic by virtue of initial creation; rather it is a role that must continue to define us - and that can happen only via Torah.
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 16, p. 52): Man is select among the creations; only Man has the power of choice. That very power is what must fall under Hashem's domain - not only Man's life and death, but even his intellect and choices. These are governed by the Torah.
Maharal (ibid. p. 51): Everything else in Creation came to be as finished products - except for Man, who was created deficient. Man's completion is his Sechel (intellect), which is never fully complete. The complete Torah was granted to Man, to bring him to his completion.
Maharal (Ch. 35 loc. cit.) continues by explaining the views in Chazal as to how the 10 Dibros were arranged on the 2 Luchos (also see ibid. Ch. 56, p. 167).
Why were the 10 Dibros divided among 2 Luchos?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 43, p. 132): A covenant by definition involves two parties -- the initiator and the recipient. One of the two Luchos dictates what we must not do towards Hashem, 1 and the second teaches what we must not do towards the recipients of the covenant - our fellow man.
What was the role of Matan Torah in the process of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim?
Refer to Shemos 12:41:1.3:1 and its note .
How can we explain the sequence of the Aseres ha'Dibros?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, 1 beg. Ch. 36, p. 104): The Dibros follow the following sequence, in decreasing order of severity. 2 a. It is a Mitzvah that we believe that there is a Prime Cause and Initiator. One who does not, is a Kofer b'Ikar (denier of the essence of Hashem's Divinity). b. We must not equate Hashem with any other power. One who does, although perhaps not a Kofer b'Ikar, downplays Hashem's existence by worshipping something else. 3 c. Swearing falsely, while not denying Hashem's Divinity, desecrates and lessens His honor. 4 d. Shabbos testifies that there is a Creator and Maker of all. To violate the Shabbos is to profess that it was not He who Made everything (yet, this is not a direct desecration of His Name like swearing falsely thereby). 5 e. Parents bring about individuals, not the world collectively (as does Hashem),and yet their honor is [compared to] that of Hashem because they are all partners in forming man. 6 f. The second of the Luchos is also in descending order of severity. A murderer negates the very essence of the effect, of Hashem as prime Cause (i.e., Man), who is created in the image of G-d. g. The adulterer contravenes that which comes to complete man - his wife, who is akin to himself. 7 h. The thief sins not upon man himself, but his property. i. False testimony does not usurp others' property directly, rather it serves to divert someone else's property, verbally. j. Desire lays in the heart, without expression in deed or even verbalization. 8
Maharal bases this on his comments above (see 20:1:5:1 and 20:1:6:1)- The Aseres ha'Dibros are a complete whole. More than just a sample set of Mitzvos; they form the covenant between the Creator and His creations. Here, Maharal demonstrates that the Dibros have a sequence and objective, though which this covenant takes shape. Compare to Rashi in Shir Ha'Shirim (see 20:1:11:1 ).
Compare to Chizkuni to 20:14. Also see Maharal (Be'er Ha'Golah, Be'er #4 p. 66) regarding the parallel between these five Dibros and the levels of man's stature (Shi'ur Komah); see (ibid.) Rav Hartman's edition note 698.
See below, 20:3:1.1:1 .
See 20:7:0.1:1 .
See below, 20:12:1:4 , and note 20:12:159:1* about the connection of Shabbos to honoring parents.
See 20:13:1.1:1 and note - In some ways, the adulterer harms the Tzurah of Man more so than the murderer.
Although one does not transgress "Lo Sachmod" until he gives money to his fellow to grab hold of his property, yet the sin of Lo Sachmod begins in the heart. (We derive this from the Aseres Ha'Dibros in Va'eschanan, which adds "v'Lo Sis'aveh" (Devarim 5:18). See Rambam Hilchos Gezeilah va'Avedah, 1:9-11 .)
There are two different systems of Ta'amei ha'Mikra (Trup) for the Aseres ha'Dibros - Ta'am Tachton, which presents them as Pesukim (like the rest of the Torah), and Ta'am Elyon, which divides them into Dibros, whether lengthy or brief - except for the first two Dibros, which are combined into one. Why are they divided in this way?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, end Ch. 45, p. 139): Categorize the Dibros as follows; a. The first two Dibros are one matter; they speak of Hashem Himself, that one must neither deny nor downplay Hashem's existence. 1 b. "Lo Sisa" follows separately; it forbids speaking against Hashem's Name (albeit not against Hashem Himself). c. Shabbos - Desecration of the Shabbos is a sin, not against Hashem's Name, but rather His deeds. d. "Kabed" - [After discussing Hashem, the Prime Cause,] one's parents are his individual cause. e. "Lo Sirtzach; Lo Sin'af; Lo Signov; Lo Sa'aneh" are all together in one Pasuk. These commands govern our interactions with the product of Creation -- Man. 2 f. "Lo Sachmod" - Unlike the prior four, which are deeds, coveting relates to the heart. 3
Chizkuni (to 20:14), Bi'ur Halacha (OC Siman 494): Ta'am Elyon follows the division into Parshiyos (paragraphs) as they are written in the Torah, i.e. the Kesiv; 4 whereas Ta'am Tachton is how the Pesukim are read, the Kri. 5 In Ta'am Tachton, we cannot read each Dibrah as a separate Pasuk, because Dibros 6-8 have only two words each, and a Pasuk must have no less than three words. 6 Ta'am Elyon is used for the public Keri'as Ha'Torah on Shavuos, which is a re-enactment of Matan Torah, whereas the Ta'am Tachton is used in the weekly Torah reading of Parshas Yisro (or by an individual when learning). 7
In Maharal's terminology, 'Ilah' refers to Hashem, the Prime Cause; the corresponding term is 'Alul' - the primary objective and outcome, which is Man.
Maharal adds that the tenth element is always distinct from the other nine (also see the following question, 20:1:10:1** ). Also refer to 20:14:153:1 - "Lo Sachmod" is the root of all sins, just like the sin of the Etz ha'Da'as was rooted in coveting, "Nechmad ha'Etz" (Bereishis 3:6).
Yet "Lo Sachmod" is not read broken into two, despite that it is written as two paragraphs.
This shift results in some changes in the proper pronunciation; refer to 20:13:152:2 .
Which implies that in Ta'am Elyon, in contrast, Dibros 6-8 are indeed separated and read as separate Pesukim. It is therefore unclear if Maharal (see answer #1) is discussing Ta'am Elyon (in which the first two Dibros are one, and Dibrah #4 (Shabbos) is one whole), or Ta'am Tachton (in which Dibros 6-9 are joined together). (EK)
Bi'ur Halacha (loc. cit.): Some have the custom that the public Torah reading always uses Ta'am Elyon. Rav Serayah Divlitzky - According to the first Minhag (that for Parshas ha'Shavu'a we use Ta'am Tachton), why do the Aseres ha'Dibros of Parshas Va'eschanan have a Ta'am Elyon at all? That version will be used by the Melech for the reading of Sefer Devarim at Hakhel, which, like Shavuos, is a re-acceptance of the Torah.
What is the significance of the number 10 in the Aseres ha'Dibros?
Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 82, to Avos 2:7): Man is comprised of both earthly Guf, and Heavenly Neshamah. Therefore, he has ten primary limbs. 1 Five of the spirit, positioned closer to the Neshamah (on the face - two eyes, two ears, mouth); and five earthly extremities (two hands, two feet, reproductive organ). Correspondingly, we were given Ten Dibros - five vis-a-vis Hashem, and five for the earth between man and man. 2
Maharal (ibid.): cf. Nedarim 32b.
Maharal (ibid.): Additionally, the distance from Heaven to earth is considered to be 10 Tefachim, as Chazal state, "The Shechinah has never descended lower than ten" (Sukah 5a). Maharal (ibid. p. 84) - The number 10 is what incorporates the previous 9. Thus, "Anochi Hashem" is the Ikar (essence), and the other 10 Dibros are Mikreh (applications, not self-evident). Also see the parallel regarding the 10 Plagues, Shemos 7:14:5 .
What is the correlation between the first five Dibros and the last five?
Mechilta (section "Ba'Chodesh" 8), cited in Rashi to Shir Ha'Shirim (4:5) : The Pasuk alludes to the Luchos as "twin fawns of the doe" that are equivalent in measure - i.e. five Dibros on the first and five on the second. Furthermore, the Dibros line up in one-to-one correlation; a. 'Anochi' corresponds to 'Lo Sirtzach' - To murder diminishes the Demus (semblance) of Hashem. 1 b. 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha' to 'Lo Sin'af' - Straying after Avodah Zarah is acting like an adulterous woman, who takes strangers in place of her husband. 2 c. 'Lo Sisa' to 'Lo Signov' - The thief will ultimately swear falsely (in denial). 3 d. 'Zachor' to 'Lo Sa'aneh' - One who desecrates the Shabbos bears false witness against his Creator, that He did not rest at Creation. e. 'Kabed Es Avicha' to 'Lo Sachmod' - One who covets will ultimately bear a son who despises him, and honors someone other than his father.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "The Name Elokim connotes [the meaning] Dayan (Judge)." But there are many instances of this Name, when Chazal do not interpret like this?
Gur Aryeh (to Shemos 6:2) 1 : The term 'Dibur' can indicate, a. harsh speech, i.e. using one's voice forcefully 2 and clearly expressing one's intent by using carefully selected words; 3 b. words spoken face-to face (which are heard clearly). When the term 'Dibur' is followed by the term 'Amirah' (as in our Pasuk), it usually has meaning (b), speaking face-to face. The use of the term Amirah indicates that the listener received it gently; so it could not have been said harshly. 4 The term Dibur used alone, is what generally implies harshness (meaning (a)). Yet, our Pasuk should not be interpreted as meaning (b), due to the Name Elokim that is used here. The Pasuk means, 'He spoke with Midas ha'Din, with clear expression.' 5
Gur Aryeh (loc. cit.) is commenting on the opening Pasuk of Parshas Va'era, which has a parallel structure to our Pasuk.
Enunciation of letters (Dibur) involves force, whereas the conveying of an idea (Amirah) is abstract.
Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv ha'Din, beg. Ch. 2, p. 190): Judgement, by definition, must be both clear and obvious.
Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 2:16): The term Dibur implies the act of enunciation, whereas Amirah relates to the content that is being conveyed (compare Maharal, Derech Chayim to Avos 5:1). Dibur is attributed to the speaker [alone], speech that is 'straight from his mouth;' whereas Amirah also involves the listener - who must put together the verbal input in order to receive the message. (EK)
To summarize the approach of Gur Aryeh - The term Dibur can indicate harsh speech; and the Name Elokim means Midas ha'Din. Had the Pasuk used only one of these terms, e.g. 'va'Yomer Elokim,' or even 'va'Yedaber Hashem... Leimor,' we would make no inference. It is due to "va'Yedaber Elokim" that Chazal interpret it as Din. Also see question 20:1:4.1:1 below.
Rashi writes: "There are [other] sections in the Torah, in which ... if one does not perform them, he does not receive retribution over them." Is there no punishment for failure to perform a Mitzvah!?
Gur Aryeh: For example, the offering of Korbanos - If one offers a [voluntary] Korban, he receives reward, and yet if he does not there is no penalty. The same is true of many Mitzvos. Rashi is telling us that this is not true of the Aseres ha'Dibros. Even regarding Kibud Av va'Em, one who fails to honor his parents indeed receives punishment. 1
Gur Aryeh cites Rashi to 20:12 - "If you honor, 'your days will be lengthened,' thus we derive that if you do not honor, your days will be shortened." (The other Mitzvos Aseh included in the Aseres ha'Dibros are already 'strengthened' by a Lo Sa'aseh - "Anochi" by "Lo Yihyeh Lecha," and "Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos" by "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah" - both of which are Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh liable to Kareis and Misas Beis Din. As such, Rashi's Chidush applies especially to Kibud Av va'Em.) (CS)
Rashi writes: "[Hashem spoke] all of these words - This teaches that Hashem stated the Aseres ha'Dibros in one utterance, which would be impossible for a person to speak in such a way...." What was the significance of this, if the Bnei Yisrael would not comprehend anything yet?
Gur Aryeh #1: This demonstrated that the whole of Torah is one topic, one utterance of Hashem (because the entire Torah emerges from the Aseres ha'Dibros). 1 That is why someone who accepts the Divine origin of the Torah, except for but one Pasuk that he denies -- is a denier of the entire Torah (Sanhedrin 99a). 2
Gur Aryeh #2: The upper realms are the place of unity, 3 whereas the lower realm is of disparity and division. Stating the Aseres ha'Dibros as one utterance shows the greatness of Torah, which was given from the Mouth of Hashem in unity.
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, end Ch. 34, p. 100): Hashem is One; and nothing precedes the Torah, which is closer to Hashem than anything else. Therefore it is fitting that Torah should be one. This also explains the number of 10 Dibros - the digits of which add up to 1 (Mispar Katan). 4
See Rashi to 24:12 .
Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 226, to Sanhedrin 99a): Just like a Sefer Torah that lacks even one letter is deemed invalid for use. Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 34) - Torah is the Seder (order) for the world, and an order must connect one element to the next until it becomes one whole. Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Ha'Torah beg. Ch. 1, p. 3) - In the revealed sense, Torah is the order for Man, instructing him how to act. But in addition, Torah is the world order by which it was created. The world has a unified order, just like the Torah is one. (Tif'eres Yisrael (ibid.) - That is why Hashem opened with the letter Alef (one); see below, 20:2:2.3:1 ).
Within this world, Hashem's direction is concealed, making it appear that various forces are acting upon creation. Whereas in truth, "Hashem is One and His Name is One," and all of the forces that appear to be disparate are really from One Source, and are aimed towards one objective. Thus, the upper realm (where there is no such concealment) is termed the world of unity. (EK)
Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 140, to Avos 3:13) explains the number 10 slightly differently - Numbers 1 thru 9 are units of one, and then the tenth element completes and unifies them. Also see below, 20:1:10:1* .
Rashi writes: "... Hashem said the Aseres ha'Dibros in one utterance... If so, what is [the restatement of] 'Anochi' and 'Lo Yihyeh Lecha'?" But even if originally stated all at once, the Torah must list each of the Dibros separately, so that we, who are learning the Torah, should know what they are!
Da'as Zekenim and Hadar Zekenim: The question is why Moshe wrote them in separate Pesukim, and not all in one Pasuk. 1
Da'as Zekenim and Hadar Zekenim, (both citing R. Baruch), Riva and Rosh: He asks why these two are written in the first person, 2 as opposed to the other eight, which are written in the third person. (Moreover, the Trop 3 indicates that they are in one Pasuk and in the same Parshah, and each other Dibur has its own Pasuk [except for from "Lo Sirtzach" until "Lo Sa'aneh," which are short] and its own Parshah - R. Baruch).
Mizrachi: Rashi's question is not why the Aseres ha'Dibros are written out in full, but rather why each one was re-stated separately at the time, at Matan Torah. Rashi answers that they needed independent comprehension of each Dibur. How do we know that each was re-stated separately? The first two Dibros are in first-Person, "Anochi Hashem," whereas the last eight are in third person, e.g. "Do not raise the Name of Hashem ... in vain" (rather than, 'My Name'). When Hashem spoke all the Dibros simultaneously, they surely were all in the same perspective, in first-Person. 4 Do not say that all ten Dibros were re-stated by Moshe, since we find that the first two Dibros remain in first-Person; these were re-stated by Hashem. Rashi cites these two; and just as these were repeated so were all ten. And do not say that when all the Dibros were stated at once, that they understood the first two 5 and they needed repetition only of the last eight. [In that initial utterance,] all ten were as one item, without distinctions, so it is untenable that they understood only a portion thereof. 6
Gur Aryeh #1: Rashi's question is, if all ten Dibros were initially stated simultaneously, what determined the specific order in which they are written in the Sefer Torah? 7 (Rather, the Dibros were then re-stated independently, in this sequence.)
Gur Aryeh #2: When the Dibros were stated all at once, Bnei Yisrael understood none of them; and if so, why were they stated in that way? 8 (Rather, they were subsequently repeated.)
Gur Aryeh #3: In the simple sense, because the Pesukim will now list the Dibros in sequence, "Anochi" then "Lo Yihyeh," etc. - implying that each was stated separately, which stands at odds with the Derashah just stated (that "Kol ha'Devarim" means that Hashem stated all ten simultaneously), Rashi explains that they were re-stated.
And he answers, because Hashem repeated each one independently.
Rosh, citing the Ramban: They are in the first person because they are primary - Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim, and the abomination of idolatry. It is as if Hashem spoke face to face to us to teach them to us. The others are not so primary. They were not like one who hears from Hashem (Tosfos ha'Shalem 9).
The 'Ta'am Elyon,' found at the end of most Chumashim. In some communities, the Aseres ha'Dibros are read according to the Ta'am Elyon. From Lo Sirtzach until Lo Sa'aneh are all one Pasuk according to the Ta'am Tachton, but not according to the Ta'am Elyon. (PF) For more on this topic, see question 20:1:9 .
I.e., unlike the last eight Dibros are presently written. This proves that they were then re-stated, and it was then that a distinction developed - the first two Dibros were stated directly by Hashem, and the last eight by Moshe. (Regarding the wording of the Dibros, see below, 20:3:1:3 ).
Explaining why they remain in first-Person.
To summarize Mizrachi's approach - The distinction among the Aseres ha'Dibros (i.e. that only the first two are stated in first-Person) cannot have originated in their initial utterance of all the Dibros at once, which was like one unified idea. Rather, each of the Dibros was repeated a second time, at which time they heard only the first two Dibros directly from Hashem. Gur Aryeh asks - Examining the Mechilta, this does not appear to be the question that bothered Chazal! And furthermore, even in their initial statement, the 10 Dibros were not entirely the same, as each one had different content!
Gur Aryeh: The order is not random; if a Sofer were to change their sequence, the Sefer is Pasul!
Gur Aryeh mentions the first two Dibros (which are written together) as an example, but the same is true of all ten. Rashi answers that all ten Dibros were restated and understood, allowing us to search for a reason why they were initially stated simultaneously. Gur Aryeh - Do not compare this to "Zachor" and "Shamor" of Shabbos, which Hashem likewise stated simultaneously (Shevuos 20b). In that instance, Bnei Yisrael heard "Zachor" clearly, and Moshe then explained to them that along with it comes "Shamor."
Rashi writes: "Leimor - This teaches that they responded regarding yes, 'Yes!', and regarding no, 'No!'" Why interpret this instance of "Leimor," any further than we do for the standard "va'Yedaber Hashem El Moshe Leimor"?
Gur Aryeh: The term 'Dibur' means enunciation by the speaker; whereas 'Amirah' relates to the content being said. 1 Thus, the common Pasuk "Va'Yedaber Hashem... Leimor" means, "Hashem spoke to Moshe, to tell him the following content." But our Pasuk already has "Es Kol ha'Devarim 2 ha'Eleh" - making "Leimor" superfluous.
Rashi writes: "Leimor - This teaches that they responded regarding yes, 'Yes!', and regarding no, 'No!'" What form did this response take?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, end Ch. 34, p. 100): R' Yishmael (in Mechilta 1 ) says that their acceptance matched the Dibur being stated (i.e., to a Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh, they responded "No!"). But R' Akiva says that even to a Lo Sa'aseh, they responded "Yes!" The recipient of a command must respond that he is prepared to do all that his Commander states.
Mechilta d'Rebbi Yishmael, Yisro, section "Ba'Chodesh" (4).
Rashi writes that Hashem said all the Aseres ha'Dibros to Yisrael. But in his comments to Vayikra 19:19, Rashi writes that Yisrael heard from Him only "Anochi" and "Lo Yih'yeh Lecha"!
Moshav Zekenim: "Anochi" and "Lo Yihyeh Lecha," Yisrael heard only from Hashem. The others they heard from Moshe, and Hashem amplified his voice.
Refer to 20:1:3 .
Rashi writes that Hashem said all the Aseres ha'Dibros at once. Then why does the Gemara say in Makos 24a that [only] "Anochi" and "Lo Yih'yeh Lecha" were said at once?
Moshav Zekenim: These two Yisrael understood (Da'as Zekenim and Hadar Zekenim - Yisrael heard) directly from Hashem; as the Pasuk states, "Achas Diber Elokim, Shtayim Zu Shama'ti" (Tehilim 62:12). 1 The other 611 (Mitzvos) they needed to hear from Moshe, as the Torah writes in V'Zos Ha'Berachah, "Torah 2 Tzivah Lanu Moshe" (Devarim 33:4).
The Zohar (Vol. 2, Yisro 81b) implies this, and some commentaries attribute it to the Mechilta, though it does not appear in our text (PF). (Mizrachi differs; see above 20:1:2.2:3 ).
The Gematriya of "Torah" is 611 (Makos 24a). See Torah Temimah, note 8, who elaborates.
Rashi writes that Hashem said all the Aseres ha'Dibros at once. How could Yisrael hear them - bearing in mind that they could not bear to hear even one at a time?
Moshav Zekenim: Initially, Hashem said all ten Dibros at once to Moshe. Then, when He wanted to say them to Yisrael, they were able to hear only the first two.
