What is the definition of "Lo Tin'af"?
Rashi: It is the prohibition against committing adultery with a married woman.
Moshav Zekenim: It is the acronym of 'Lo Siten Af' - implying a prohibition against performing witchcraft on a man and woman who are married - in order to create hatred between them.
Shevuos 47b: It implies 'Lo Tan'if,' 1 a prohibition against running a brothel - to provide men with women with whom to commit adultery.
Nidah 13b: It incorporates a prohibition against masturbating, whether with the hands or with the legs. 2
The Gemara (Bava Metzia 58b) teaches that three people descend to Gehinom and do not ascend - one of whom is the adulterer of a married woman. What is the reason?
Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Ahavas Rei'a Ch. 1, p. 53): While any sin brings tendency to He'eder (towards non-existence) - i.e. towards Gehinom, the place of "Tohu va'Vohu" - some sinful acts are not merely veering towards Gehinom, rather they are Gehinom itself - and the punishment is in accordance with the sin. The Torah states, "Male and female, He created them, and He called their name Man" (Bereishis 5:2). 1 Husband and wife together form a complete Man; one who sins with a married woman sins against the totality of Man. 2
Refer to Bereishis 5:2:2.1:2* .
While a murderer negates a man's Guf, an adulterer, by taking away his wife, negates Man's very essence. Compare to Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 22, to Bava Metzia 58b) - One's wife is like oneself (Ishto k'Gufo); rendering her forbidden to him is like taking away his very Guf. (See Maharal further, regarding the other two Aveiros on this list - humiliating one's fellow, and ascribing him a derogatory nickname.) In these three sins, one blemishes lofty Midos. The union of Ish and Ishah is via the name Yud-Kei (Yud of "Ish" and Hei of "Ishah"); it is the union of Chomer and Tzurah - and an adulterer blemishes this Name. (However, whereas Maharal writes here that the adulterer damages Man's Tzurah more so than the murderer, he writes elsewhere (see above 20:1:8:1, regarding the descending sequence of the Aseres ha'Dibros) that the murderer is more damaging? (See Rav Hartman's notes to Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 36, #31 .) It seems to me that here, Maharal emphasizes that the husband is the Tzurah of the wife. it is unique to Man's Tzurah, that he is able to join with another person so completely, that they are "one flesh" - "k'Gufo." Although a murderer negates a man's Tzurah, he can only harm his Guf, he cannot touch the Neshamah. Whereas the adulterer is able to truly harm his Tzurah - as we see that she becomes forbidden to her husband. (EK) (Maharal frequently uses the terminology "Chomer" and "Tzurah;" for explanation refer to 14:15:4:1* and 14:13:4:1* ).
What sort of theft is "Lo Signov" referring to?
Rashi: It refers to kidnapping. 1
Rashi: Which carries the death-penalty - like "Lo Sirtzach" and "Lo Sin'af" that precede it (see also Ba'al ha'Turim). The Lav against stealing objects appears in Parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:11).
What are the connotations of "Lo Sa'aneh ... "?
Having written "Lo Sa'aneh ... ," why does the Torah add "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam la'Asos l'Achiv" (Devarim 19:19)?
Yerushalmi Makos, 1:1: To teach us that witnesses are only eligible to receive Malkos for "Lo Sa'aneh" if their testimony is subject to "Ka'asher Zamam;" otherwise they are not liable. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 94.
How will we reconcile this Pasuk ("Ed Shaker") with the Pasuk in Va'eschanan (in connection with the second Luchos), where the Torah writes ""Ed Shav"?
Yerushalmi Nedarim, 3:2: This teaches us that the two Lavin were said simultaneously 1 (like "Zachor" and "Shamor"). 2
Maharal: See below, 20:13:155:1 .
Why does the Pasuk in Shir ha'Shirim (4:5) refer to the two Luchos as 'twins'?
Rashi (to Shir ha'Shirim 4:5): Because the five Dibros on the first of the Luchos correspond to the five Dibros on the second, as follows --"Anochi" - "Lo Sirtzach." 1 "Lo Yih'yeh L'cha" - "Lo Sin'af." 2 "Lo Sisa" - "Lo Signov." 3 "Zachor" - "Lo Sa'aneh." 4 "Kabed Es" - "Lo Sachmod." 5
Ramban #1 (citing Sefer ha'Yetzirah): The two Luchos correspond to the ten fingers and the ten toes - five against five, with the Bris of the mouth in between the two sets of fingers and the Bris Milah in between the two sets of toes. The first Lu'ach corresponds to the Written Torah; the second Lu'ach, to the Oral Torah. This is what the Midrash means when it says that the two Luchos correspond to Heaven and earth, 6 Chasan and Kalah, the two Shushbinim (best friends) and Olam ha'Ba and Olam ha'Zeh. 7
Ramban #2: The first five Dibros incorporate acknowledging in thought and in deed, that Hashem created existence, and to honor one's parents who are partners in one's formation. The second five constitute a warning not to destroy the work of Hashem's Hands - not to spill the blood of man whom He created in His honor, not to commit adultery with his wife or to kidnap, thereby disrupting the concept of honoring one's parents; 8 concluding with swearing falsely and theft (coveting what belongs to somebody else). 9
Rashi (loc. cit.): Because someone who murders diminishes the 'Image of Hashem.'
Idolatry on the part of Yisrael is akin to a woman committing adultery with another man.
Theft leads to a false oath.
Because someone who breaks the Shabbos is testifying that Hashem did not rest on the Shabbos of the creation.
Because someone who covets (another man's wife) will ultimately bear a son who curses him and respects a man who is not his father.
Ramban: The first of each pair corresponds to the Written Torah, the second to the Oral Torah.
Ramban: 'Only one who is steeped in wisdom will understand the significance of this Midrash.'
As above, note #5. Ramban - Like Nochrim, "who say to a piece of wood, 'You are my father!'" (Yirmeyah 2:27).
As opposed to the first five Dibros, which provide reasons (e.g., in #5, "... in order that your days be lengthened..."), why are the last five Dibros terse commands without reasons? (For example, let the Torah explain, 'Do not kill, because Man was made in the image of G-d!' (as in Bereishis 9:6) ?)
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, end Ch. 42, p. 130): The given reason would have interrupted between one Dibrah and the next; and the last five Dibros are meant to be joined as one unit. 1
See 20:13:156:1 . Perhaps, a given reason would have rendered each of these Dibros an independent command; whereas when together they form a full picture of Man's Tzurah.
Why does the Torah present the due punishments and rewards for the first five Dibros, but not for the last five?
Ramban: The Torah presents the punishment for the first, second, third and fifth Dibros, due to the honor of Hashem which is at stake. 1 Whereas for Shabbos will receive the same recompense as the first and second Dibros. 2 On the other hand, the last five Dibros are for the good of one's fellow-man, and the benefits and losses involved in observing or not observing them are self-evident.
Ramban: The punishment for the second and third Dibros (which are Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh), and the reward for the first ("v'Oseh Chesed la'Alafim") and fifth - which are Mitzvos Aseh.
Ramban: Because someone who keeps Shabbos attests to the Creation, while someone who breaks it is akin to declaring his belief that the world always existed.
What are the Divine punishments for the five Mitzvos on the second of the two Luchos?
Targum Yonasan: "Lo Sirtzach" - Cherev (the sword). "Lo Sin'af" - Dever (pestilence). "Lo Signov" - Ra'av (famine). "Lo Sa'aneh - Batzores (drought). "Lo Sachmod" - Aniyus v'Galus (poverty and exile). 1
On account of the severity of these sins, Targum Yonasan adds by each one of them, a prohibition against joining those who transgress them and against entering into a partnership with them, and issues a ban on accepting them into the community, so that one's children should not learn from them and follow in their footsteps.
Why are the last five Dibros in this order, according to Maharal?
Why did the Torah juxtapose murder [and the subsequent Mitzvos] to Kibud Av va'Em?
Moshav Zekenim #1: To teach us that one may not commit murder or any of the other Lavin for the sake of Kibud Av va'Em. 1
Moshav Zekenim #2: To inform us that, although Esav kept Kibud Av, and the reward for Kibud Av va'Em is Arichus Yamim, he did not merit Arichus Yamim 2 because he transgressed murder.
Hadar Zekenim (to 20:12) #1: If you honor them, they will not expel you, and will supply your needs - and you will not need to murder; They will find you a wife - and you will not need to commit adultery; They will provide you with a dowry - and you will not need to steal; They will provide you with money and property - and not will not need to testify falsely, or to covet, because you will buy your own Avadim and Shefachos and houses.
Hadar Zekenim (20:12-13) #2: Do not say that since Hashem commanded to honor only Him, father and mother, anyone who does not do like My will, I will kill him! Rather, do not murder. Do not say that murder is forbidden because it diminishes the population but adultery is permitted, since it increases the population! Do not say that adultery is forbidden since it produces a Mamzer, and you cause [the woman's husband] to give his hard-earned money to someone who is not his son, but you may steal in order to profit. 3 Therefore the Torah writes "Lo Signov," and it adds "Lo Sa'aneh" to forbid even causing a loss through false testimony; and Lo Sachmod" to prohibit even to covet what belongs to him.
Like we find by Esav, who commanded his son Elifaz to kill Yaakov (PF).
Even though he lived a hundred and forty-seven years, like Yaakov, he did not merit Olam ha'Ba, which is described as 'a world without limit.' (PF)
This Havah Amina is utterly astounding, unless it means that you will steal in order to profit, and then return the principal to the one from whom you stole. Hadar Zekenim cites the Bechor Shor, who concludes [like Rashi] that "Lo Signov" refers to kidnapping. Perhaps one might have thought that Ni'uf - kidnapping a wife for intimacy is forbidden, but other kidnapping - for labor, is permitted (PF).
Why is there a 'Kamatz' under "Lo Tirtzach" in the 'Ta'am Elyon' (used for public reading of the Aseres ha'Dibros, found at the end of most Chumashim), and a 'Patach' in the Ta'am Tachton?
Kol Eliyahu and Divrei Eliyahu: The Gemara in Avodah Zarah 19b states that "Ki Rabim Chalalim Hipilah" refers to a Talmid who is not yet qualified to give rulings (like a Nefel that did not develop enough), and yet rules on Halachah; "va'Atzumim Kol Harugeha" (like Otzem Einav) is a Talmid who is qualified to rule, but does not. Both are called murderers, one through his Petichas Peh (opening the mouth), and one through Kemitzas Peh (constricting, i.e. closing it).
1 Bi'ur Halacha (to OC Siman 494): In Ta'am Elyon, 2 each of the Dibros is a separate Pasuk; and by the rules of Dikduk, a "Sof Pasuk" (or "Esnachta") changes a Patach to a Kamatz. Whereas in Ta'am Tachton, we are still towards the beginning of this Pasuk, so the note on "Sirtzach" is merely a Tipecha, and it retains its Patach. The reverse is true of the word "Panai," which appears at the end of Pasuk 3 above, but in the middle of Dibrah #2; in Ta'am Tachton it has a Kamatz due to the Sof Pasuk, whereas in Ta'am Elyon it is read with a Patach. 3
Bi'ur Halacha: Similarly, the Tav in "Tirtzach" has a Dagesh in Ta'am Elyon (as do "Tin'af" and "Tignov"), due to the way the Trup punctuates the phrases; whereas the Chaf of "[v'Asisa] Chol [Melachtecha]" (Pasuk 9) loses its Dagesh.
Why is Hashem's Name not written in the last five Dibros?
Hadar Zekenim (and Riva to 20:20, both citing R. Yehoshua in a Midrash): Just as one does not erect statues of the king in stinking alleys (Riva - in a bathroom), so does the Name of Hashem not appear where there is murder, adultery, theft, false testimony and coveting.
Because they all discuss 'Bein Adam la'Chavero.'
Textual differences between the last five Dibros in Parshas Yisro, and those of Parshas Va'eschanan (Devarim 5) - Why, in Va'eschanan, are Dibros #7 thru 10 introduced with a Vav -"... v'Lo Sin'af, etc."?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 45, p. 137): The Dibros of Va'eschanan (and Sefer Devarim in general, are from the perspective of the recipient, and they add explanation (see above 20:12:156:1 ). Although each of these Dibros is an independent Mitzvah, one single person receives them, therefore they are connected by a Vav. 1 We learn that for these Mitzvos in particular, one sin leads to another; one who violates one of them will very likely violate the next. 2
The first five Dibros are not as "close" to Man, they deal with Mitzvos Bein Adam La'Makom, and so they are not viewed as one due to the person receiving them. (Compare to 20:13:156 below). Maharal adds that these last five Dibros are all Mitzvos Lo Sa'aseh, which are closer to the recipient.
Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 165, to Avos 4:2): One sin brings along another, specifically in sins that are of a similar vein (also see above 19:5:2.2:1** ).
Further differences - Why does Dibrah #9 of Va'eschanan forbid testimony of "Shav," whereas Yisro forbids testimony of "Sheker"?
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 45, p. 139): "Sheker" means testifying to something that never happened; whereas "Shav" means 'vain, pointless' - something that could not have happened. If someone testifies falsely that an outstanding loan was paid, the content is "Sheker" - in truth it was not paid, although such an event was possible. But it is an incidence of "Shav" - as the witness knows that there was in fact no repayment. 1 Thus, Yisro states "Ed Sheker," whereas Va'eschanan states "Ed Shav" (in line with the purpose of Mishneh Torah according to Maharal - to add explanation, and from the perspective of Man, as explained above). 2
Ramban (to 20:8) writes that Chazal focused on the change from Zachor to Shamor, teaching that both were stated simultaneously, as otherwise it would be a change from Aseh to Lo Sa'aseh. Gur Aryeh (ibid.) asked, that the Gemara (Shevuos 20b) says the same of Sheker and Shav in Dibrah #9? He answered that in both Zachor / Shamor and Edus Sheker / Shav, the discrepancy is in the nature of the Mitzvah itself, not merely in the details or reasons. Maharal in Tif'eres Yisrael (beg. Ch. 44, p. 135) even writes that this exchange in terms is actually an omission (i.e., that "Zachor" and "Ed Sheker" are simply not present in Devarim). But this contradicts what Maharal writes here in Ch. 45 - that "Ed Shav" is an addition upon "Ed Sheker"? And in truth, Maharal's initial presentation is difficult. That Gemara (Shevuos 20b) is not discussing this Dibrah (#9), and the distinction between testimony of Shav and Sheker - but rather Dibrah #3 and the difference between an oath of Shav and Sheker! (In both Yisro and Va'eschanan, we find only a Shevu'ah of "Shav." The prohibition of Shevu'as Sheker is stated elsewhere in the Torah (although Targum does mention both "Magana" and "Shikra").) If so, where did Gur Aryeh find that Shav and Sheker "mentioned in the Aseres ha'Dibros" were stated in one utterance? Tosfos (to Shevuos 21a) touches on this matter. Ritva (ibid. 20b) writes that if the Derashah is not applicable (Im Eino Inyan) to Edus (in which Sheker and Shav are equivalent), the Gemara applies it to Shevu'ah (Ri Migash explains otherwise). Perhaps Maharal in Tif'eres Yisrael is addressing the simple meaning of the text, in which this discrepancy in the Dibros appears regarding Edus; whereas in Gur Aryeh he interprets Chazal's Derashah which applies it to Shevu'ah (as per the Ritva). Also see Ramban to Devarim 5:17 - "Ed Shav" forbids false testimony against one's fellow even when it is ineffective or pointless - for example, testifying that Reuven said he would give x amount to Shimon, but did not make a Kinyan to that effect - because even had the testimony been true, it would not cause any liability in Beis Din (so writes Ramban). But Maharal does not concur, he applies both "Ed Shav" and "Ed Sheker" to the same case. Also see Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael, beg. Ch. 44) - Chazal do not ask regarding the change from "Lo Sachmod" to "v'Lo Sis'aveh" within Dibrah #10, because even in Va'eschanan it first opens with "v'Lo Sachmod" - such that "v'Lo Sis'aveh" is an addition. (EK) (Torah Temimah cites Yerushalmi Nedarim (3:2) as the source from Chazal that applies "Dibur Echad" to this Dibrah. (CS))
In Dibrah #3 however, regarding a false Shevu'ah, both Parshiyos use the word "Shav." It refers to a vain oath - e.g. that a pillar of marble is of silver, which is evident to all. See above, 20:7:1.01:1 .
Why are the last five Dibros connected to each other (by the prefix Vav - in Parshas Va'eschanan)?
Maharal (Derush Al ha'Torah p. 14): The first five Dibros are what Man requires in order to perfect himself towards His Creator. The last five are for perfecting oneself towards one's fellow man. Thus the last five are associated and connected; 1 and in Va'eschanan they are even connect by the letter Vav. 2
When one sins towards Hashem, of course this causes no effect upon Hashem! But a sin against Man does affect the victim, and thus one sin connects with the next. (This is why atonement for Bein Adam la'Chaveiro hinges upon appeasing his fellow, to mitigate the ill-effects he caused.) See above, 20:13:.2 , and 20:12:.8:1 .
But in Yisro they are not connected with a Vav. this indicates that these are sins not just to man, but to Heaven as well, and from that perspective they are not connected.
