data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/afc44/afc4444a3a675469f70631f61f63afe4e6d2ac95" alt=""
~ Allengheny Couty Courthouse, PA
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1430f/1430f5ed73cf658e22580ef3aca87d541da23f4d" alt=""
~ Atlanta GA Capitol
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0cb47/0cb4733ceecfc62a7347efce29f7573f31157b2d" alt=""
~ Austin TX Capitol
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3c7e7/3c7e73542cd138f3f57aa3c0064a6f079cf3fbe9" alt=""
~ Bloomfield NM Courthouse
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c119b/c119b8a8ac0811c692438a7dcd190a86bcd92eca" alt=""
~ Starke, FL
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b925d/b925d539df8215e7fa0b9aada16e9ad68ba142fc" alt=""
~ Coal County Courthouse, OK
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/edb1b/edb1b6bd39c2e0d7fb33a01c5774712f7307a62a" alt=""
~ Greene County Courthouse, Xenia, OH
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f13d2/f13d256a405af3bd7200b696b6f3bfd87c99a13f" alt=""
~ Mercer County Courthouse, Harrodsburg, KY
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0d7a/a0d7a5a3e5c2aee76bf501d6ff09175a6c172356" alt=""
~ Otoe Courthouse, Nebraska City, NE,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6ae8a/6ae8aaf32c771c433eeef610e3d04ef8c94b3a67" alt=""
Courthouse in Queens, NY
(ח) זָכ֛וֹר֩ אֶת־י֥֨וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֖֜ת לְקַדְּשֽׁ֗וֹ׃ (ט) שֵׁ֤֣שֶׁת יָמִ֣ים֙ תַּֽעֲבֹ֔ד֮ וְעָשִׂ֖֣יתָ כׇּֿל־מְלַאכְתֶּֽךָ֒׃ (י) וְי֨וֹם֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔֜י שַׁבָּ֖֣ת ׀ לַה' אֱלֹקֶ֑֗יךָ לֹֽ֣א־תַעֲשֶׂ֣֨ה כׇל־מְלָאכָ֜֡ה אַתָּ֣ה ׀ וּבִנְךָ֣͏ֽ־וּ֠בִתֶּ֗ךָ עַבְדְּךָ֤֨ וַאֲמָֽתְךָ֜֙ וּבְהֶמְתֶּ֔֗ךָ וְגֵרְךָ֖֙ אֲשֶׁ֥֣ר בִּשְׁעָרֶֽ֔יךָ׃ (יא) כִּ֣י שֵֽׁשֶׁת־יָמִים֩ עָשָׂ֨ה ה' אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם וְאֶת־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֶת־הַיָּם֙ וְאֶת־כׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֔ם וַיָּ֖נַח בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑י עַל־כֵּ֗ן בֵּרַ֧ךְ ה' אֶת־י֥וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֖ת וַֽיְקַדְּשֵֽׁהוּ׃ {ס} (יב) כַּבֵּ֥ד אֶת־אָבִ֖יךָ וְאֶת־אִמֶּ֑ךָ לְמַ֙עַן֙ יַאֲרִכ֣וּן יָמֶ֔יךָ עַ֚ל הָאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־ה' אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָֽךְ׃ {ס} (יג) לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָ֖͏ֽח׃ {ס} לֹ֣֖א תִּֿנְאָ֑͏ֽף׃ {ס} לֹ֣֖א תִּֿגְנֹֽ֔ב׃ {ס} לֹֽא־תַעֲנֶ֥ה בְרֵעֲךָ֖ עֵ֥ד שָֽׁקֶר׃ {ס} (יד) לֹ֥א תַחְמֹ֖ד בֵּ֣ית רֵעֶ֑ךָ {ס} לֹֽא־תַחְמֹ֞ד אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֶ֗ךָ וְעַבְדּ֤וֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ֙ וְשׁוֹר֣וֹ וַחֲמֹר֔וֹ וְכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר לְרֵעֶֽךָ׃ {פ}
(1) God spoke all these words (2) I ה' am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage: (3) You shall have no other gods besides Me. (4) You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or serve them. For I your God ה' am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me. (6) but showing kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep My commandments. (7) You shall not swear falsely by the name of your God ה'; for ה' will not clear one who swears falsely by God’s name. (8) Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. (9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work, (10) but the seventh day is a sabbath of your God ה': you shall not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who is within your settlements. (11) For in six days ה' made heaven and earth and sea—and all that is in them—and then rested on the seventh day; therefore ה' blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it. (12) Honor your father and your mother, that you may long endure on the land that your God ה' is assigning to you. (13) You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (14) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house: you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox or ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
~ To whom is the text speaking?
~ Why do you think the Ten Sayings are called Ten Commandments by Christians?
~ Why do you think the Ten Sayings are displayed in a few courthouses in America?
The Gemara related above that the priests in the Temple read the Ten Commandments, along with the sections of Shema, VeHaya im Shamoa, VaYomer, True and Firm, Avoda, and the priestly benediction. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even in the outlying areas, outside the Temple, they sought to recite the Ten Commandments in this manner, but they had already abolished recitation of the Ten Commandments due to the grievance of the heretics, That was also taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: In the outlying areas, they sought to recite the Ten Commandments in this manner, but they had already abolished their recitation due to the grievance of the heretics. The Gemara relates that several Sages sought to reinstitute recitation of the Ten Commandments, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana thought to institute this in the city of Sura, but Rav Ḥisda said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics. So too, Ameimar thought to institute this in the city of Neharde’a. Rav Ashi, the most prominent of the Sages in that generation, said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics.
~ What was the place of the Ten Commandments, and why was it docked down?
~ Maimonides: this daily recitation was due to the fact that the Ten Sayings are the basis of the Torah.
~ Jerusalem Talmud: the heretics argued that only the Ten Commandments emanate from God, not the rest of the Torah. If the Ten Commandments were recited daily, that would lend credence to their claim, so their recitation was expunged from the daily prayers.
~ What laws do you know that are reinterpreted by the rabbis in a way that goes against the grain of a literal reading of the text?
The Gemara explains the source for each opinion. Beit Shammai is that which we said. Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: General statements were said at Sinai, i.e., Moses received general mitzvot at Sinai, including the Ten Commandments. And the details of the mitzvot, e.g., the particulars of the sacrificial process, were said to Moses at a later time in the Tent of Meeting. And Rabbi Akiva says: Both general statements and the details of mitzvot were said at Sinai and later repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and reiterated a third time by Moses to the Jewish people in the plains of Moab, as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy.
~ What are the ways of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva to understand the process of Torah being given at Mount Sinai?
~ What are the implications of each of those?
~ What is the idea of Divine origin in each of those two positions?
~ What is the position of Rabbi Simlai, compared to Rabbi Yishmael's and Rabbi Akiva's?
~ What does this say about the Divine origin of the Torah?
~ How expansive can we be with the idea of Divinity in Torah?
~ Is "from heaven" a place?
~ How do you understand "Torah from Heaven"?
~ What attitude regarding Torah from Heaven does this midrash seem to have?
~ If God is perfect, God cannot be simple. God therefore could not possibly write a perfect document that has only one simple meaning to it, without any further readings or depth. On the contrary: a perfect God writes a book with multiple layers of truth, that are continuously developing and becoming more complex. It is upon us to embrace that complexity.
רבי יוחנן דידיה אמר אנכי נוטריקון אנא נפשי כתיבת יהבית
Rabbi Yoḥanan himself said that the word anokhi that begins the Ten Commandments is an abbreviation for: I myself wrote and gave [ana nafshi ketivat yehavit].
In other words, the Torah is a revelation of God, Godself. Some mystical thinkers teach that the Torah is really all the name of God. This understanding would thus connect our understanding of the Torah with that of God. If God Godself is revealed in the Torah, then the very study of the Torah serves to reveal more and more of God.
A perfect God Who is beyond our understanding could not possibly reveal Godself in a book that has only one simple and literal meaning. If the Torah is Divine, it must be able to contain many perspectives and layers of truth.
The Gemara adds: And Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya also commenced his lecture and taught: It is written: “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are those that are composed in collections; they are given from one shepherd” (Ecclesiastes 12:11). Why are matters of Torah compared to a goad? To tell you that just as this goad directs the cow to her furrow to bring forth sustenance for life to the world, so too the words of Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same analogy: Just as this goad is movable and not rigid, so too matters of Torah are movable in accordance with circumstance and are not permanent. Therefore, the verse states: “Nails,” which are permanent. The Gemara further asks: If so, one can explain as follows: Just as this nail is diminished in size and does not expand, as it wastes away over time, so too matters of Torah are gradually diminished and do not expand. Therefore, the verse states: “Well fastened [netuim].” Just as this plant [neti’a] flourishes and multiplies, so too matters of Torah flourish and multiply. “Those that are composed in collections [ba’alei asufot]”: These are Torah scholars who sit in many groups [asupot] and engage in Torah study. There are often debates among these groups, as some of these Sages render an object able to receive ritual impurity and these render it unable to do so and therefore pure; these prohibit an action and these permit it; these deem an item invalid and these deem it valid. Lest a person say: Now, how can I study Torah when it contains so many different opinions? The verse states that they are all “given from one shepherd.” One God gave them; one leader, i.e., Moses, said them from the mouth of the Master of all creation, Blessed be, as it is written: “And God spoke all these words” (Exodus 20:1). So too you, the student, make your ears like a funnel and acquire for yourself an understanding heart to hear both the statements of those who render objects ritually impure and the statements of those who render them pure; the statements of those who prohibit actions and the statements of those who permit them; the statements of those who deem items invalid and the statements of those who deem them valid. When Rabbi Yehoshua heard these interpretations, he said to them in these words: No generation is considered orphaned, i.e. without a leader, if Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya dwells among it.
~ What do you think the rabbis are trying to do in this midrash, found in the Talmud?
~ What is the lesson?
The Gemara teaches that even though there are disagreements about every realm of Torah observance, one shouldn't be discouraged. It is not as if one rabbi has the "right" understanding of the Torah while another has the "wrong" one. Rather, the different opinions about what the Torah means contain Divine truth, and there is thus a value in studying all the opinions in any debate.
The prooftext for this argument is also important: "and God spoke all of these words." The simple reading of the verse seems to be that "all these words" means all of the words of the Ten Commandments. But the plural form “words” indicates that God transmitted all the interpretations of the Ten Commandments. The Sages utilize the Torah itself or the statements of the prophets and writings as the sources for their opinions, there is a certain unity to the study of Torah, despite the numerous explanations and applications.
Using this verse is important to expunge biblical literalism surrounding the Ten Commandments and Tanach as a whole: it is the very beginning of the Ten Commandments that is the source for the Torah containing multiple understandings.
דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא (ירמיהו כג, כט) וכפטיש יפוצץ סלע מה פטיש זה מתחלק לכמה ניצוצות אף מקרא אחד יוצא לכמה טעמים
Alternatively, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse states: “Is not My word like as fire? says the Lord; and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces” (Jeremiah 23:29). Just as this hammer breaks a stone into several fragments, so too, one verse is stated by God and from it emerge several explanations.
~ How does this verse prove that the Text has multiple meanings?
(ז) הִנֵּה שֹׁרֶשׁ הַחֲסִידוּת הוּא מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ זַ"ל (ברכות י"ז): אַשְׁרֵי אָדָם שֶׁעֲמָלוֹ בַּתּוֹרָה וְעוֹשֶׂה נַחַת רוּחַ לְיוֹצְרוֹ.
(ח) וְהָעִנְיָן הוּא כִּי הִנֵּה הַמִּצְוֹת הַמּוּטָלוֹת עַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּבָר יְדוּעוֹת הֵן וְחוֹבָתָן יְדוּעָה עַד הֵיכָן הִיא מַגַּעַת.
(ט) אָמְנָם מִי שֶׁאוֹהֵב אֶת הַבּוֹרֵא ית"ש אַהֲבָה אֲמִתִּית לֹא יִשְׁתַּדֵּל וִיכַוֵּן לִפְטוֹר עַצְמוֹ בְּמַה שֶׁכְּבָר מְפֻרְסָם מִן הַחוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר עַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּכְלָל, אֶלָּא יִקְרֶה לוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּקְרֶה אֶל בֵּן אוֹהֵב אָבִיו שֶׁאִלּוּ יְגַלֶּה אָבִיו אֶת דַּעְתּוֹ גִּלּוּי מְעַט שֶׁהוּא חָפֵץ בְּדָבָר מִן הַדְּבָרִים, כְּבָר יַרְבֶּה הַבֵּן בַּדָּבָר הַהוּא וּבַמַּעֲשֶׂה הַהוּא כָּל מַה שֶּׁיּוּכַל. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אֲמָרוֹ אָבִיו אֶלָּא פַּעַם אַחַת וּבַחֲצִי דִּבּוּר, הִנֵּה דַּי לְאוֹתוֹ הַבֵּן לְהָבִין הֵיכָן דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו נוֹטָה לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ גַּם אֶת אֲשֶׁר לֹא אָמַר לוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיּוּכַל לָדוּן בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַדָּבָר הַהוּא נַחַת רוּחַ לְפָנָיו וְלֹא יַמְתִּין שֶׁיְּצַוֵּהוּ יוֹתֵר בְּפֵרוּשׁ אוֹ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת.
(י) וְהִנֵּה דָּבָר זֶה אֲנַחְנוּ רוֹאִים אוֹתוֹ בְּעֵינֵינוּ שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד בְּכָל עֵת וּבְכָל שָׁעָה בֵּין כָּל אוֹהֵב וָרֵעַ, בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, בֵּין אָב וּבְנוֹ,
(יא) כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר בֵּין כָּל מִי שֶׁהָאַהֲבָה בֵּינֵיהֶם עַזָּה בֶּאֱמֶת. שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר לֹא נִצְטַוֵּיתִי יוֹתֵר, דַּי לִי בַּמֶּה שֶׁנִּצְטַוֵּיתִי בְּפֵרוּשׁ, אֶלָּא מִמָּה שֶׁנִּצְטַוָּה יָדוּן עַל דַּעַת הַמְצַוֶּה וְיִשְׁתַּדֵּל לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מַה שֶׁיּוּכַל לָדוּן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ לְנַחַת.
(יב) וְהִנֵּה כַּמִּקְרֶה הַזֶּה יִקְרֶה לְמִי שֶׁאוֹהֵב אֶת בּוֹרְאוֹ גַּם כֵּן אַהֲבָה נֶאֱמֶנֶת, כִּי גַּם הוּא מִסּוּג הָאוֹהֲבִים וְתִהְיֶינָה לוֹ הַמִּצְוֹת אֲשֶׁר צִוּוּיָם גָּלוּי וּמְפֻרְסָם לְגִלּוּי דַּעַת לְבַד לָדַעַת שֶׁאֶל הָעִנְיָן הַהוּא נוֹטֶה רְצוֹנוֹ וְחֶפְצוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ, וְאָז לֹא יֹאמַר דַּי לִי בַּמֶּה שֶׁאָמוּר בְּפֵרוּשׁ, אוֹ אֶפְטוֹר עַצְמִי בַּמֶּה שֶׁמֻּטָּל עָלַי עַל כָּל פָּנִים, אֶלָּא אַדְּרַבָּא יֹאמַר כֵּיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר מָצָאתִי רָאִיתִי שֶׁחֶפְצוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ שְׁמוֹ נוֹטֶה לָזֶה, יִהְיֶה לִי לְעֵינַיִם לְהַרְבּוֹת בְּזֶה הָעִנְיָן וּלְהַרְחִיב אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל הַצְּדָדִין שֶׁאוּכַל לָדוּן שֶׁרְצוֹנוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ חָפֵץ בּוֹ, וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא עוֹשֶׂה נַחַת רוּחַ לְיוֹצְרוֹ.
(7) The root of piety is what our sages, of blessed memory, stated: "Fortunate is the man whose toil is in the Torah and gives gratification to his Maker" (Berachot 17a).
(8) The [explanation of the] matter is as follows. It is known which mitzvot are binding on every Jew and the extent their obligation reaches.
(9) But he who truly loves the Creator, blessed be He, will not strive and intend to discharge himself with the known obligations binding on every Jew. Rather, what will happen to him is the same as that of a son who loves his father. Even if his father reveals a slight indication of something he desires, already the son will strive greatly, to the best of his ability, to fulfill this thing or service. Even though the father merely mentioned it once and only halfway, this will be enough for such a son to understand the direction of his father's intent and to do for him even what he did not say explicitly. For he can deduce on his own that this thing will bring pleasure to his father, and he will not wait until his father commands him more explicitly or tells him another time.
(10) With our own eyes we can observe this matter occurring at all times and in all places between all friends and lovers, between man and wife, between father and son.
(11) The general principle: wherever the love between two is true and strong, one will not say to the other: "No more was requested of me. It's enough for me to do what I was told explicitly". Rather through what one requested, the other will infer the requester's intent and will strive to do what he deems will be pleasing to the other.
(12) Similar to this will occur to he who loves his Creator with a faithful love. For G-d is also a class of those who are loved. Thus, the mitzvot which are clear and familiar will be to him only as a revelation of intent, to indicate to him that the will and desire of G-d inclines in the direction of that principle. Then, he will not say to himself "it is enough for me what was stated explicitly", or "I will discharge my duty with what is nonetheless incumbent upon me". Rather, on the contrary, he will say "since I discovered and saw that G-d's desire inclines to this, this will be a guide for me to increase in this matter and to expand it in all directions which I can infer that His will desires. Such a person is called: "one who gives gratification to his Maker".
ואמר ר"א (אבן עזרא על שמות כ׳:א׳) (בהקדמה לעשרת הדברות) כי אחז הכתוב דרך ארץ לאמר תחלה בית רעך, כי המשכיל יקדים להיות לו בית ואחרי כן יקח אשה להביאה אל ביתו, ואחרי כן יקנה עבד ואמה ובמשנה תורה הזכיר האשה תחלה, כי הבחורים יתאוו לשאת אשה תחלה. או שחמדת האשה האיסור הגדול שבהם. והנה עשרת הדברות חמשה בכבוד הבורא וחמשה לטובת האדם, כי כבד את אביך כבוד האל, כי לכבוד הבורא צוה לכבד האב המשתתף ביצירה, ונשארו חמשה לאדם בצרכו וטובתו:
והנה הזכיר בקצת הדברות גמולם, ובקצתם לא הזכיר, כי בדבור השני אל קנא, בשלישי כי לא ינקה, בחמישי למען יאריכון, ולא הזכיר באחרים עונש או שכר והיה זה, כי החמשה דברים האחרונים טובת האדם הם, והנה שכרו אתו ופעולתו לפניו. אבל בע"ז צריך אזהרת עונש לחומר הגדול שבה, והוא לכבוד הבורא: והנראה אלי כי אמר אל קנא, על לא יהיה לך, ואמר ועושה חסד, על אנכי, כי העונש יבא על מצות לא תעשה, והשכר על מצות עשה וקבלת מלכות האל ואזהרת עבודת זולתו ענין אחד, והשלים הדבר ואחר כך הזהיר על העובר, והבטיח בשכר על העושה. והזהיר בשבועת שוא בעונש לא ינקה, ולא הזכיר בשבת גמול כלל, ולא אמר על המחלל השבת עונש הכרת או עונש אחר זולתו, ולא הזכיר שכר על השומר שבת מחללו, מפני שהשבת נכלל בשתי מצות הראשונות, כי השומר שבת מעיד על מעשה בראשית ומודה במצות אנכי, והמחללו מכחיש במעשה בראשית ומודה בקדמות העולם להכחיש במצות אנכי, והנה הוא בכלל אל קנא פוקד, ובכלל ועושה חסד לאלפים ובדבור החמשי בכבוד האבות הזכיר שכר כי היא מצות עשה:
והנראה במכתב הלוחות שהיו החמש ראשונות בלוח אחד שהם כבוד הבורא כמו שהזכרתי, והחמש השניות בלוח אחד, שיהיו חמש כנגד חמש, כענין שהזכירו בספר יצירה (א ג) בעשר ספירות בלי מה כמספר עשר אצבעות, חמש כנגד חמש, וברית יחיד מכוונת באמצע ומזה יתברר לך למה היו שתים, כי עד כבד את אביך הוא כנגד תורה שבכתב, ומכאן ואילך כנגד תורה שבעל פה ונראה שלזה רמזו רבותינו ז"ל שאמרו (תנחומא עקב י) שתי לוחות כנגד שמים וארץ וכנגד חתן וכלה וכנגד שני שושבינין וכנגד שני עולמים. וכל זה רמז אחד, והמשכיל יבין הסוד:
THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. God is stating: “Now I have commanded you to acknowledge in thought and in deed that I am the Creator of all, and to honor parents because they joined [Me] in your formation. If so, guard against destroying the work of My hands and spilling the blood of man, whom I have created to honor Me and acknowledge Me in all these matters. And do not commit adultery with your fellow-man’s wife, because you will thereby destroy the principle of honoring parents, [causing the children] to deny the truth and acknowledge falsehood. They will not know their fathers and will thus give their honor to another, just as the idol-worshippers do, who say to a block of wood, ‘thou art my father,’ and they do not know their Father who created them out of nothing.” After that, He warned against stealing a human being, for that too brings about a similar [disintegration of values].
With respect to their stringency and penalties, the order of the commandments is as follows: after idolatry comes bloodshed, and after that adultery, and then stealing of a human being and false testimony and robbery; and he who does not covet, will never harm his neighbor. Thus, He completed all obligations that a person owes towards his neighbor. After that, [in the Seder of Mishpatim which follows], He will explain the ordinances in detail, for he who has been found guilty in any suit to pay his neighbor will pay the amount he is so obligated if he does not covet or desire that which is not his.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [of the commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house… thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, etc.], that Scripture adopted a normal course of life. First, it mentioned the neighbor’s house, for an enlightened person will first acquire a house, and then marry a woman to bring her to his house, and only afterwards will he acquire a manservant or a maidservant. But in the Book of Deuteronomy, it mentions the wife first, because young men desire to marry first [before they acquire a house]. It may be that because the coveting of a neighbor’s wife is the greatest sin of all things mentioned in that verse, [it is listed first].
Thus, of the Ten Commandments, there are five which refer to the glory of the Creator and five are for the welfare of man, for [the fifth commandment], Honor thy father, is for the glory of G-d, since it is for the glory of the Creator that He commanded that one honor one’s father who is a partner in the formation of the child. Five commandments thus remain for the needs and welfare of man.
In some commandments, He mentioned their recompense, and in others He did not. Thus, in the second commandment, He mentioned a jealous G-d; in the third, for the Eternal will not hold him guiltless; in the fifth, that thy days may be long. But in the others, He mentioned neither punishment [for transgression], nor reward [for fulfillment]. The reason for this is that the last five commandments deal with the welfare of man, and behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him. But in the case of idolatry, a warning of punishment is needed because of its great stringency, involving as it does the glory of the Creator.
It appears to me that His saying a jealous G-d refers to the commandment, Thou shalt have no other gods, and that His saying, And He showeth mercy refers to I am the Eternal, for punishment comes for [transgressing] the negative commandments, and reward for [fulfillment of] the positive commandments. [He did not mention the reward immediately in the first commandment because] the acceptance of the Kingdom of G-d, [as mentioned in the first commandment], and the admonition against the worship of anything besides Him, constitute one subject. Therefore, He first finished that entire matter and then warned the idol-worshipper of punishment, and then He assured reward for he who fulfills the commandments.
He warned of punishment in case of a vain oath, the Eternal will not hold him guiltless, but He mentioned no reward [for observing it]. For profaning the Sabbath, He mentioned neither excision nor any other punishment, neither did He mention a reward for him that keepeth the Sabbath from profaning it. This is because it is included in the first two commandments. He who observes the Sabbath testifies to the Creation and acknowledges his belief in the commandment, I am the Eternal, while he who profanes the Sabbath denies the Creation and admits the eternity of the universe, thereby denying the commandment, I am the Eternal. Thus, [the punishment for profaning the Sabbath] is included in: a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity, while [the reward for he who keeps the Sabbath] is included in the verse, And He showeth mercy unto the thousandth generation. In the fifth commandment, which concerns the honor due to parents, He mentioned the reward because it is a positive commandment, [and as mentioned above, reward is for fulfillment of the positive commandments].
With reference to the writing on the Tablets of law, it would appear that the first five commandments were on one Tablet, for they are for the glory of the Creator, as I have mentioned, and the second five commandments were on another Tablet. Thus there were five opposite five, something like the Rabbis mentioned in the Book of Creation: “With ten emanations, intangible, as is the number of ten fingers, five opposite five, and the Covenant of the Unity placed directly in the middle.” From this it will be made clear to you why there were two Tablets, for up to Honor thy father, it corresponds to the Written Torah, and from there on it corresponds to the Oral Torah. It would appear that it is this that our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have alluded to in saying that the two Tablets correspond to heaven and earth, to a groom and bride, to the two friends [of the groom and bride], and to the two worlds [this world and the World to Come]. All these constitute one allusion, and the person learned in the mystic lore of the Cabala will understand the secret.
~ How does the Ramban (Spain, 1194 – Akko, 1270), at the end of commentary, expand what the Ten commandments actually are?
I am aware that it is possible to find some individual opinions of our sages in the Talmud, the Mishnah and Midrashim supporting astrological assumptions about the potency of the stars… This should not be disturbing to you inasmuch as we must never abandon practical Halakhah for the sake of upholding dialectical arguments. Moreover, it is not feasible to surrender demonstrative rational knowledge and embrace the opinion of one individual sage who might have missed a crucial point at that time or he may have proffered an allegorical remark not to be taken literally or that his statement was meant as a temporary measure referring to a specific incident. For is it not apparent that many statements of the Torah cannot be taken literally but, as is clear from scientific evidence, require interpretation that will make them acceptable to rational thought. Our eyes are set in the front and not in the back. One should therefore look ahead of him and not behind him. I have thus revealed to you with these words my whole heart.
~ What does Maimonides say, pretty explicitly, about literal understandings of the Text? How does he contrast this tendency with science?
This is Maimonides' letter to the Jews of Marseilles. English translation: Stitskin, Letters of Maimonides, p. 127.
What is literalism?
Conservative and “literalist” readers of the scriptures, whether of the Bible or the Quran, overwhelmingly tend to take one of two approaches to interpretation. One is to presuppose the ahistorical function of scripture and read them as if they were a contemporary composition directed specifically at them, in which case their lenses have them light years from the authors’ intended meanings. The other is to impose an historical set of lenses that serves the religious ideologies of the reader. In other words, they attempt to approximate the lenses used by the authors, but they do so in ways that attempt to protect (or legitimize) their presuppositions about the text’s meanings.
...
This brings us to the next consideration: univocality.
Univocality means a single voice. It is the dogma that holds that the scriptures (Bible or Quran), as the inerrant and/or inspired word of God, represent God’s consistent and unified position and message. It does not contradict itself. This is a dogma. Both the Bible and the Quran, however, are thoroughly inconsistent. They are collections of texts composed by numerous different authors with numerous different viewpoints over long periods of time that have been edited and redacted by numerous others. They are empirically and objectively not univocal. In order to maintain the concept of univocality, however, “literalists” must massage their interpretation of certain texts to serve that concept and the overriding ideologies of their groups. If a seeming contradiction is identified, the passage that supports an existing ideology will be used as a lens through which to reinterpret the passage that conflict in a way that makes it agreeable. This absolutely precludes literalism, and it brings us to the final consideration:
Literalists are not literal about scripture, they’re literal about their ideology. Scripture is secondary. Religious groups don’t derive doctrine from the literal interpretation of scripture, they derive doctrine from negotiating between their group’s past, the needs of the present within a cultural context, and their interpretation of scripture. It’s very important to keep in mind that that last item serves the other two. Scripture is the authority to which religionists appeal for their beliefs. It is not the source of their beliefs. It is flexible and ambiguous and malleable enough to say what religious groups need it to say. There are ideological literalists, and scripture is their paint and palette. There are no scriptural literalists.
... It’s a lot easier to criticize religious traditions if you adopt the fragile and brittle worldviews of the most fundamentalist and uncritical groups within that tradition. Then the more reasonable and informed and complex perspectives can be dismissed before they complicate your arguments and make you think too hard. This is a tactic employed frequently by apologists of all kinds, including, evidently, the dogmatic and belligerent apologists from the New Atheist movement. Dogmas, whether religious or anti-religious, are a lot easier to proliferate when they’re black and white and reducible to small conceptual chunks that are easily digestible for young white males in trilbies who are infatuated with the transcendence of their own genius.
Daniel O. McClellan, On the Myth of Scriptural Literalism (https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/on-the-myth-of-scriptural-literalism/)