Differences between the First and Second Appearances of the "Ten Commandments"
דיברות ראשונות (שמות כ':ב'-י"ג) דיברות שניות (דברים ה':ו'-י"ז)
- Reason for Shabbos – The reason given for keeping Shabbos is different in each set of commandments. Shmos 20:10 speaks of the creation of the world, while Devarim 5:14 mentions the enslavement and Exodus from Egypt. This is the only distinction which encompasses a full verse.
- Additional phrases – "כַאֲשֶר צִוּ ךָ ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ" (Devarim 5:11, 15), "ו שוֹר ךָ וַחֲמֹר ךָ ו כָּל" (Devarim 5:13), "ל מַעַן יָּנוּחַ עַב ד ךָ וַאֲמָּת ךָ כָּמוֹךָ" (Devarim 5:13), "וּל מַעַן יִיטַב לָּךְ" (Devarim 5:15), and "שָּדֵהוּ" (Devarim 5:17).
- Word substitutions – "שָּמוֹר" / "זָּכוֹר " (Shmos 20:7, Devarim 5:11), "עֵד שָּו א" / "עֵד שָּקֶר" (Shmos 20:12, Devarim 5:16), and "ו לֹא תִת אַוֶּה" / "לֹא תַח מֹד" (Shmos 20:13, Devarim 5:17).
- Ordering – The order of the list of objects not to be coveted varies between the two versions (Shmos 20:13, Devarim 5:17).
- Single letter variations – There are thirteen small discrepancies related to extra / missing וי"ו conjunctions or defective (חסר) / full (מלא) spelling.
- Masoretic divisions – In two places (after "שְׁ מוֹ לַשָּׁוְׁא" and "אֲשֶׁר לְׁרֵעֶׁךָ"), Masoretic manuscripts like Codex Leningrad display an open section in Shmos 20 but a closed section in Devarim 5.
Overview
The commentators' disagreement on how to account for the differences between the two versions of the Ten Commandments result from a merger of two types of factors. On the one hand, it depends on whether a commentator has a general tendency to explain repetitions and variations by attempting to derive halakhic significance from every detail of the text or by positing that they result from literary and reality considerations. On the other hand, it relates to theological controversies over the issues of the immutability of Divine plans/commands and whether Moshe had authority and flexibility to make adjustments to HaShem's dictates.
Ibn Ezra and several other medieval commentators assert that the discrepancies are insignificant and simply a natural outcome of Moshe's paraphrasing of HaShem's words, in which only the general meaning need be preserved. In contrast, many modern commentators suggest that the Devarim rendition of the commandments constituted an intentional updating of the original Shmos version, as it was addressed to a different audience and set of circumstances. Thus, Shadal maintains that Moshe wanted to impart specific messages to the new generation which was about to enter the Land of Israel. Developing this further, the Ho’il Moshe considers the new version to represent the ideal, appropriate only for the second generation and their higher spiritual level. On the other hand, Malbim asserts that the second set were in effect a downgrade, appropriate for the lower level of the nation after they had sinned with the Golden Calf. Finally, many Midrashic sources posit a third approach, that the two Decalogues were both given simultaneously in the first year, and that both have halakhic relevance for all generations.
