The Coda of the Ten Commandments

Rabbi Yaakov Bieler

Parshat Yitro, 5765

The conclusion of Parshat Yitro is curiously anti-climactic, at least at first glance. After the emotional drama of the reuniting of Moshe with his family (Shemot 18:1-12), the astute recommendations of Yitro regarding the most efficient manner by which to administer the massive encampment (18:13-26), painstaking preparations for the receiving of the Tora (Chapt. 19), and the powerful proclamation of the Ten Commandments (20:1-18), there follow what appear to be a reiteration of the prohibition of idolatry (18:19-20) and details concerning the construction of an alter upon which to offer sacrifices (18:21-23). While idolatry is certainly a central prohibition in Judaism, the Ten Commandments themselves (20:3-5) constitute a decisive statement to that effect, including a specific reference to the creation of idols in 20:4. What is the necessity for mentioning once again in 20:20 that silver and golden gods are not to be fabricated by the Jews? And as far as the verses dealing with altars for sacrifices are concerned (20:21-23), wouldn’t they be more properly situated in Parshiot Teruma (27:1 ff.), VaYakhel (35:15-16; 37:25-38:7), and/or in the book of VaYikra?

Although there does not appear to be a direct connection between the Ten Commandments themselves and these final directives regarding idolatry and sacrificial worship, NeTziV, in his commentary HaEmek Davar, suggests that  verses 20:19-23 are a direct extension of the interchange between Moshe and the people recorded in the verses that follow immediately upon the heels of the Ten Commandments, verses 15-18. At the conclusion of  the intentionally  intimidating Sinaitic Revelation (1) —Moshe tells the people in 20:17 that HaShem has Given the Tora in this manner in order to instill the Fear of Heaven within them (see the essay on Parshat Yitro 5764 at www.kmsynagogue.org/Yitro.html )—the Jews request that Moshe from now on serve as an intermediary between themselves and God. After assuring the people that HaShem will be only indirectly Conveying His Commands in the future rather than replicating what took place on Sinai when each member of the Jewish people was a prophet in his/her own right, (2) Moshe proceeds to enter the thick fog at the top of the mountain to begin his forty days of being Instructed by HaShem regarding the details of the Tora (24:18), which he in turn will teach the people once he descends. However just before he leaves them under the supervision of Aharon and Chur (24:14), Moshe attempts to calm the people’s trepidation by telling them that although they may have feared for their lives during their close encounter with HaShem (20:15), they must keep in mind that they did in the end survive the experience (20:18), demonstrating that God is Capable of fine-tuning His Revelation in such a way that it will not prove fatal for human recipients of Divine Messages. (3) Consequently, images, statues and idols, not necessarily meant to be worshipped in their own rights, but rather that the people may think they need to serve as intermediaries between themselves and the awesome power of the Divine, will never be required for the proper worship of HaShem.

NeTzIV is clearly applying RaMBaN’s interpretation on Shemot 32:1 for why the Golden Calf is constructed with Aharon’s active assistance (32:2, 5).

…They did not want the calf to be for them in place of a god who kills and makes alive, whom they would take upon themselves to serve as a deity; instead they wanted someone IN PLACE OF Moshe to show them the way. And this was the apology of Aharon (to Moshe, 32:23) “They merely told me that I should make them ‘elohim’ that would go before them IN YOUR PLACE, my lord, because they did not know what had happened to you and whether you would return or not”… (4)

The people thought that they needed an intermediary. And if Moshe cannot any longer serve in this capacity, then they would have to construct an entity that could.

            The attraction of creating intermediaries in order to facillitate the worshipping of an abstract God, devoid of all bodily and otherwise tangible physical representations, can be understood as a manner of thinking that ultimately serves as the basis for the origins of idolatry. Adam, his contemporaries  and those who immediately came after him, even the villainous Nachash (serpent) and Kain, were all monotheists, (5) and, according to the Tora accounts, interacted with the classical Jewish pure conception of the Divine. However, the biblical text suggests that a radical change occurs during the times of Enosh, Adam and Eve’s grandson (Beraishit 4:26), indicated by the phrase “…Az Huchal LiKro BeShem HaShem” (then it was begun to call on the Name of God). While the Midrashim quoted by RaShI contend that the phrase marks the beginning of actual polytheism, whereby all sorts of natural objects were deified, i.e., “called by the Name of God”, it is also possible that the verse could be referring to an intermediary stage whereby HaShem was worshipped by means of these various parts of Creation cast in the role of intermediaries. By worshipping aspects of HaShem’s Creation, people might think that HaShem Himself Becomes more accessible, more immediate rather than transcendent, in an individual’s everyday life.

RaMBaM, in the beginning of his analysis of idolatry and its manifestations (Mishna Tora, Hilchot Avoda Zora 1:1-2) similarly contends that originally temples dedicated to major components of Creation such as the sun and the moon, were intended to merely provide a focal point for those that wished to worship HaShem, but who found themselves disconcerted by their inability to see or feel any tangible representation of Him. Consequently, they decided that worshipping HaShem by means of His Creation would be a better way to  approach the Divine and develop a relationship with Him. Unfortunately, over time, the “means” turned into “ends” and objects of devotion such as the sun and moon began to be worshipped as gods in their own rights.

Yet even if we accept NeTzIV’s evocative insight that the Sinai experience, in addition to publicly and impressively bestowing the God’s Commandments upon the Jewish people, was also designed to convey the message that intermediaries in the worship of HaShem were not only unnecessary, but even potentially dangerous with respect to the possibility that they become transformed into a type of idolatry, a fear that is dramatically born out only a few chapters later in the incident of the Golden Calf, what role is played by the next three verses dealing with altars (Shemot 20:21-3) which in turn advance the cause of altars associated with dirt, restrict the means by which stones intended for an altar can be shaped, and modest behavior as an ideal when one is making use of such altars.

As can be expected, NeTzIV has an explanation for the Parsha’s discussion of altars at this point as well. The concern with the inappropriateness of employing intermediaries as a means of assisting man in relating to HaShem, nevertheless reflects a perceived human desire to find favor in God’s Eyes. Therefore, the verses following HaShem’s Prohibition against the utilization of silver and gold statues serves as the positive confirmation of what man SHOULD do when striving to relate to the Divine to address the aforementioned admirable human desire, i.e., offer sacrifices in a simple context in order to reach out to and establish a modicum of contact with HaShem. The commentator references what he has written earlier, concerning Beraishit 35:1 :

“And Elokim said to Yaakov: Rise and go up to Beit Eil ‘VeShev Sham’ (and dwell there) and make there an altar to HaShem Who Appeared to you when you were fleeing from before Eisav, your brother.”

NeTZIV: …Since Yaakov as soon as he reached Beit Eil, should have immediately fulfilled the vow (6) that he had earlier made (Beraishit 28:22) to erect a “Matzeiva” (monument consisting of a single stone) which would constitute an act of thanksgiving for all that HaShem had Done for him in the past, as well as to tithe all that he had in order to offer sacrifices.

But God Informs him that before Yaakov goes about fulfilling what he has vowed to do in the past, he must pray concerning the problems confronting him in the immediate present.

For this reason He Said to him, “And dwell there”—don’t hurry to erect the single-stone monument (and then move on with your travels), but rather stay there for an extended period of time…

The commentator proceeds to point out that as opposed to “Matzeivot” (monuments) which served as responses to past favors and positive experiences, “Mizbachot” (altars) are associated with prayer for the resolution of a current situation. Examples of the latter appear in the stories of Avraham and Yaakov in Beraishit 13:4; 21:33 and 35:1.

            While NeTzIV does not himself hypothesize why a certain form of sacrificial platform is linked to a particular emotional spiritual stance—“Hoda’ah” (thanksgiving) vs. “Bakasha” (supplication)—I would suggest that the intrinsic difference between these two states of mind is the quality and quantity of the preparations or lack thereof required in order for a person to properly and appropriately relate to HaShem in each of these modes. The expression of thanksgiving for an event(s) that has already taken place requires nothing more than briefly reflecting on what has transpired and how this outcome has been truly beneficial. Consequently, picking a single stone, erecting it and marking it all require relatively little preparation and industriousness. On the other hand, beseeching HaShem to redeem a person from his/her difficulties appears to require far more introspection—“Am I worthy? What can I do to make myself deserving?”—careful choice of means of expression—“What should/can I say?”—frequent repetition of the request—“How often must I continue to plead my case?—as well as the recognition that HaShem may Choose not to respond in the manner that we desire—“Perhaps what I think is the best solution really isn’t!” Such a complex process is better represented by building an altar composed of many stones that have to be gathered, arranged and stabilized, before one can proceed to actually offer the required sacrifices. By extension, if the altar is to be built of “Adama” (dirt, earth) (20:20), (7) it might require an even more tedious process in order to create such a structure—stones at least have the capability of maintaining their own shape which is not necessarily the case with dirt; a further consideration is the greater susceptibility of a dirt altar to the constant erosion that inevitably results from exposure to the elements, which would not be as much of a factor when dealing with a stone altar. Consequently, such a supplication might not only require challenging preparation, but it is likely that these preparations will have to be undergone again and again, each time from “scratch” when yet another request is to be made of HaShem. A final variable that is suggested by the verses at the end of Parshat Yitro is whether when one is using stone, they are hewn or not. An altar that is built of stones that have been carefully shaped by metal instruments, is likely to be more stable, and more easily constructed, than one that relies upon boulders in their natural state. >

            The NeTzIV’s conception of different prerequisites for Tefillot of different types calls to mind the evocative image in the Mishna on Berachot 30b:

One should not stand to pray unless one has a seriousness of purpose.

The early pietists would wait an hour and only then engage in prayer, in order that they would be able to direct their thoughts to their Father in Heaven...

Are we to assume that an hour is necessary for a “Bakasha” to even be minimally effective? Or is more time needed for “Bakasha” and these individuals were trying to focus their minds so that they can properly give thanks to HaShem for His Goodness and Kindness? (8)

Finally, NeTzIV points out that a phrase in one of these last verses in Yitro provides a principle for prayer that applies even to periods of Jewish history devoid of altars altogether, (20:20) “…In every place that I Menion My Name, I will Come to you and Bless you.” The commentator suggests that even if there is no altar per se in a particular location, nevertheless the qualities of particular places in their own right can make the individuals inhabiting them worthy of having HaShem’s Blessings conferred upon them.  One manner in which a place can be considered one in which God’s Name is mentioned is if Tora is studied there. NeTzIV cites Tamid 32b as a possible proof text:

R. Chiya taught: Whomever engages in Tora study at night, the Divine Presence is there with him, as it is stated (Eicha 2:19) “Rise up, cry out in the night; at the beginning of the night watches pour out your heart like water before the Face of HaShem.”

The commentator admits, however, that the more likely obvious interpretation of the phrase is that it is referring to a place to which HaShem has Given permission that His Name be mentioned, i.e., a place in which a Minyan is found. This time the proof text is Megilla 23b:

Said R. Chiya bar Aba in the name of R. Yochanan: The verse states (VaYikra 22:32) “And I will be Sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel”—all matters of holiness cannot be recited when there are less than ten present…

In both instances, whether the place is associated with Tora or it is the place in which a Minyan gathers, we are being assured by the verses at the end of Yitro that we should be aspiring to engaging with HaShem ourselves, directly. If we prepare properly, if we are careful not to be immodest (Shemot 20:22), if we surround ourselves with means of inspiration, then HaShem Desires that we reach out to Him, He eagerly Awaits our expressions of praise and thanksgiving, as well as our cries for help, lessons originally learned from our seminal encounter with God at Sinai.

May we strive to engage even more extensively than we already do, in “direct” forms of relating to HaShem, striving to personally participate in communal prayer as well as communal learning early and often.

Shabbat Shalom.

(1) Frightening features of the Revelation included: rigorous self-sanctification and purification (19:10-11); the threat of death to anyone who improperly even touches the mountain while HaShem is “upon” it (19:12-13, 21-24); thunder, lightning, thick cloud/fog, and a piercing Shofar blast (19:16, 19); and fire and smoke resembling that rising from a great furnace (19:18).

(2) This essentially is Miriam’s plaint in BaMidbar 12:2, when she accuses her brother of unduly separating himself from the rest of the people. According to Rabbinic tradition, the people had already experienced an intense revelation at the splitting of the Sea of Reeds:

            Yalkut Shimoni, Parshat BeShalach #244.

(Shemot 15:2) “This is my God and I will glorify Him”—R. Eliezer says:…A handmaiden saw at the Sea what Yechezkel and Yeshayahu never saw…

(3) RaMBaM, Mishna Tora, Hilchot Yesodei HaTora 7:6 describes how, with the exception of Moshe, even those who qualify as legitimate prophets, such as Avraham (Beraishit 15:12) and Yaakov (28:17), as opposed to tyros who only by happenstance are present at a Revelatory Event such as the splitting of the Sea or Sinai, experience a sense of being overwhelmed and loss of personal control during each of their encounters with the Divine:

…And what is the difference between the prophecy of Moshe and other prophets? (a) All other prophets experience prophecy as part of a dream or in a vision, and Moshe when he prophesies is awake and standing…

(b) All other prophets have interchanges with an Angel, and for this reason they experience parables and riddles, whereas Moshe does not encounter an angel…but rather he sees the matter with clarity without parables and riddles…

(c) All other prophets are fearful, confused and disconcerted, while Moshe Rabbeinu experiences none of this...but rather it is comparable to one who converses with his/her friend, just as a person talking to his/her friend does not experience confusion listening to the words of his friend, so Moshe possessed the strength of mind to understand the words of the prophecy and he remained whole in his existential verity.

(d) All of the prophets did not prophecy at any time that they wished, but Moshe was not this way, but rather any time that he wished, the Divine Spirit would envelop him and prophecy would dwell upon him, and he would have no need to specially concentrate his mind and to prepared for the experience, since he was always focused and prepared and ready like the Serving Angels. For this reason he prophesied whenever he wished...

(e) All of the other prophets, when the spirit of prophecy would be removed from them, they would return to their tents and engage in the physical needs of the body similar to the rest of the people, and for this reason they did not separate from their wives, whereas Moshe never returned to that first tent...and he connected his mind to the Rock of Ages, and the Glory never departed from him forever, and his face emitted rays of light, and he was sanctified like the angels.

If this is what happens to those who train to be prophets—see RaMBaM, Hilchot Yesodei HaTora 7:4—then those who have no prior experience stand to be that much more terrified, even when the Revelation is not accompanied by all of the meteorological and pyrotechnical features that were part of the Sinai event.

(4) While creating a replacement for Moshe may have been the original intent of those constructing the Calf, including Aharon, it is clear from Moshe’s reaction involving the destruction of the Tablets upon which were inscribed the Ten Commandments (32:19) as well as the great numbers of people that were killed in various ways (32:27-28, 35) that the people had transformed the intermediary into an actual object of worship. 32:6 suggests that sacrifices were offered before it and other types of orgiastic activity designed to worship the Calf were carried out just prior to Moshe’s return. RaMBaN acknowledges the fundamental change in intent regarding the role that the Calf was intended to play in his comments to 32:5 :

…There were some people amongst them who intended them (the sacrifices) to be for the Name of the Holy One, blessed Be He, as Aharon had said, but some of them became corrupted and sacrificed them to the calf…

(5) Adam—Beraishit 2:16-17; 3:9-13, 17-19

      Chava—Beraishit 3:13, 16

      Nachash—Beraishit 3:14-15

      Kayin—Beraishit 4:6-7, 9-12, 15

      Chanoch—Beraishit 5:22, 24

      It goes without saying that Noach and Avraham were monotheists, but they were surrounded by idolaters, as probably was Chanoch.

(6) Moshe’s very life is threatened by HaShem in Shemot 4:24 and Rabbinic sources (see e.g., RaShI on 4:24) attribute the danger to Moshe not having immediately seen to the circumcision of his newborn son once he had the opportunity to do so. Consequently, Yaakov would be expected to not delay in fulfilling the vow that he undertook so many years earlier, had HaShem not specifically Instructed him to first turn his attention to another matter.

(7) RaShI mentions that according to some Rabbinic authorities, the intent of the verse is that the hollow copper altar upon which animals would be offered in the Tabernacle, had to be filled with dirt. Since the verses dealing with altars at the end of Yitro do not deal with altars constructed of metal, it would appear that such an approach, even if correct Halachically, is less appropriate contextually. Ibn Ezra comments that while the copper altar may have been weighted down, attached to the ground by filling its empty space with dirt, it still was known as “Mizbaiach HaNechoshet” (the copper altar) rather than “Mizbaiach Adama” (the dirt altar).

(8) Note that in our “Amida”(Silent Devotion), there is both giving thanks as well as supplication. Should we assume that since these early pietists were preparing for the Amida, then their preparation time has to include even those mental exercises needed for the most demanding aspects of prayer, i.e., “Bakasha”?