The Dispute Between Ramban and Ibn Ezra in Explaining “Zachor” and “Shamor” in One Utterance and Its Secret | Zohar Pekudei Introduction, Ki Teitzei 5786 (Auto Translated)

Zachor and Shamor: The Secret of Positive and Negative Commandments in the Tablets

Opening of the Shiur: Zachor and Shamor and Two Types of Mitzvot

At the end of the previous shiur we saw that we need to return and open from the beginning the discussion regarding zachor and shamor, and therefore I ask to return and say the beginning of the matter from the start — from the point that explains what is the simple meaning of shamor and zachor and what is their secret. Based on this we will try to continue and understand that there are here two types of mitzvot, positive commandments (mitzvot aseh) and negative commandments (mitzvot lo ta’aseh), and to understand their content, their inner meaning and the meaning of the entire matter. And all this is expressed in the teaching of our Sages ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance.’ We must therefore explain the context and prove and clarify the matter properly.

The First Great Revelation: Matan Torah

Everyone knows that the first great moment of the Torah, the first great vision, the first great revelation in the Torah, is Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). The Holy One, blessed be He, descended upon Mount Sinai and gave Israel Torah and mitzvot, as we say ‘and You redeemed us our King at Mount Sinai to teach Your people Torah and mitzvot.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, made all of Israel hear, through Moshe and directly, the Ten Commandments, ‘which Hashem spoke to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire’ on the day of the assembly.

It is also known to all that the Ten Commandments appear twice in the Torah. Once directly within the event, in Sefer Shemot in Parashat Yitro, and a second time as Moshe told Israel in one of his discourses in Sefer Mishneh Torah (Deuteronomy), within ‘the words that Moshe spoke,’ in which Moshe Rabbeinu repeats and tells Israel. We are accustomed to say simply that he repeats and tells, but one must emphasize this: Moshe Rabbeinu is the one speaking to Israel.

The Torah’s Perspective: An Objective Narrator

An interesting thing is, that we already have the earlier version, the earlier level, the earlier stage of those same things — which is the first four books like Sefer Shemot. There the Torah stands as narrating in an objective manner, as the Ramban explained in his introduction, that the Torah does not write ‘Moshe said: Hashem said to me thus and so,’ but rather narrates the event that occurred as it is, from a super-personal point of view, what is called in literature “the Creator’s perspective.” That is, the event is written not from the perspective of a particular person — not of Moshe, not of Pharaoh, not of Israel, and not even of anyone — but as it is. Moshe himself, even though Moshe Rabbeinu is the author of the Torah, does not write from his own perspective, but writes as the thing is.

Until we reach Sefer Devarim, at least most of Sefer Devarim, which opens with ‘these are the words that Moshe spoke’ (Devarim 1:1). Here stands clearly a title: these are the words that Moshe spoke, and from here onward we hear clearly that Moshe Rabbeinu spoke. And even here stands a framework, for the narrator of all the Torah is the one who says — as the Ramban explains truly in the introduction to Mishneh Torah — that there is no contradiction in saying ‘the words that Moshe spoke,’ for Moshe’s words in Parashat Sefer Devarim also stand within a framework, for they were preceded by the title ‘these are the words that Moshe spoke.’ And who is it that writes ‘these are the words that Moshe spoke’? It is not written ‘Moshe said: I Moshe write the words that I spoke,’ or the like, but rather ‘these are the words that Moshe spoke.’ The simple meaning is that this is a continuation of that same order itself: he speaks as an objective narrator narrating the things, except that within the things he says that Moshe Rabbeinu said, and then we indeed hear how Moshe Rabbeinu said: ‘I said,’ ‘I went,’ ‘I heard.’

And the truth, as the Ramban noted, is that there are such passages already in the earlier Torah. It may say ‘and Moshe said to Hashem’ and the like, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe. There are such things within the events in the earlier Torah. The main innovation of Mishneh Torah is essentially that the discourses heard from Moshe’s mouth are very long and extensive, and in them stands the discourse as Moshe Rabbeinu spoke it to Israel in his time.

The End of the Torah: Return to the Objective Order

And here is the interesting thing: until we reach the end of Mishneh Torah. This week’s parasha is Ki Teitzei, and after it Ki Tavo, Nitzavim, Vayelech. And when we reach Parashat Vayelech, where there are almost no more discourses — for Ki Tavo is truly the end of the discourse, and after it the rebuke, and after that a few more discourses in Nitzavim — but when we reach Vayelech, which is truly the end of the Torah, the parasha of Moshe’s death, there the Torah truly returns to its regular order. Again this is not in the aspect of Mishneh Torah in that sense. The verse already speaks about the Torah, as it says ‘take this book of the Torah’ (Devarim 31:26); a Torah already exists, the main Torah, Mishneh Torah, is what was said before. And then the matter returns to the regular order.

The Question of the Last Eight Verses and Who Wrote Them

And therefore there arises the question of the eight verses at the end of the Torah, which in practice — as the Ibn Ezra already noted — one can expand the question to several sections before that. It even speaks of Moshe’s death, just as it spoke of Moshe’s birth: this is not Moshe speaking from his perspective, but rather the Torah’s perspective, and therefore there arises an inquiry who wrote this. In other words, what is the meaning. The question of who wrote is a historical question, and I do not think this is the true question of the Gemara according to the foundation, for even when we come to speak about Mishneh Torah we will understand the entire matter in this.

But as I have posited, this is more a question of how we understand the sections differently, that the speaker, the owner of the voice, the owner of the Torah’s narrative, is here different from the rest of the Torah. For here we see clearly that one cannot call him Moshe, because Moshe is no longer alive. He clearly says an event in which he is not alive, but essentially the matter returns to the general Torah — just as the Torah can write about Moshe before he was born, from Bereishit until Shemot, and just as Moshe did not even remember how he himself was born and placed in the ark, and all this Moshe writes from the mouth of the Almighty, it is written in a divine way, in an objective way.

The same thing at the end of the Torah: one can say that the Torah returns. It returns to objectivity, to the perspective of the Holy One, blessed be He. ‘Bereishit bara Elokim’ (Bereishit 1:1) is not really the perspective of the Holy One, blessed be He, for it also speaks about the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself. Nor is it written ‘I am Hashem’ — there are passages where it says ‘I am Hashem’ — but the Torah is not written as the Holy One, blessed be He, speaks, as He so to speak expresses His personality.

The Attribute of Malchut and the Level of Torah

In other words, the attribute of Malchut (Kingship) is the important thing. The attribute of Malchut is when a person speaks from within his personality, says ‘I,’ ‘I say.’ Sometimes a person narrates something because he represents, conveys the reality. And so stands the Torah. And the Torah, so to speak, is prior even to reality and to the Holy One, blessed be He, that is, it is outside of this. And the simple meaning is not that the Torah writes, and when we say that the Torah is from the mouth of the Almighty, that the Torah is a divine thing, the intention is not that it was written from the attribute of Malchut of the Holy One, blessed be He. The intention is not that it was written from within the personality of the Holy One, blessed be He, for it speaks in it about the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself. The Holy One, blessed be He, is Himself a character in the Torah; the Torah is so to speak something greater. One cannot say that it is greater than the Holy One, blessed be He, for the Holy One, blessed be He, includes all of reality, but it is greater than what we would call ‘I am Hashem,’ than what we would call the Holy One, blessed be He, as He reveals Himself as ‘I.’ The Torah begins before that. These are already deep secrets, but the matter is simple, and I place it in simple peshat.

Moshe’s Death and the Secret of ‘And Moshe Died There’

And therefore, from there the Torah begins to transition to the length of Moshe’s personality — this is the meaning of Mishneh Torah — until it returns to ‘and Moshe died there’ (Devarim 34:5) according to all opinions. There are approaches and Tannaim regarding exactly how to interpret this, but according to all opinions the matter already returns to the regular order, so to speak to objectivity. And this is truly itself the secret of Moshe’s death.

There are those who hold that the early ones already said that Yehoshua wrote it, but in my opinion according to all opinions the matter is different, as the Gemara says: even according to the one who says that Moshe himself wrote it — it changed. And one can say the opposite: even the one who says that Yehoshua bin Nun wrote it, his intention is not that this is not part of Moshe’s Torah, for the Chumash is called Torat Moshe. His intention is only that at the moment Moshe disappeared, when it already says ‘and Moshe died there,’ there is already here a place for Yehoshua. One cannot say that Yehoshua bin Nun wrote it in the historical sense; we do not believe that it is truly so. If they say that there is here historical proof that the matter of Shaul was so, one can reject the proof — this is not proof, neither from here nor from there, this is a very weak proof. The main intention is to raise the meaning, what is the meaning of the matter and how it appears from the inner understanding of the Torah.

Why All This Introduction: The Root of the Torah

And now, why all this introduction? Because it is important to return and go back to what we said. We said that the root of the Torah — the first thing we spoke about in the previous shiur — is the thing that Israel celebrates on Shavuot. And the matter is important, for Yom Kippur is also a day on which the second tablets were given, and it too is an aspect of Matan Torah, and all of the month of Elul is preparation, for we revolve around those forty days before Yom Kippur, in which Moshe ascended to the mountain and received the Torah. And the essence of the matter, its shortest formulation, are the Ten Commandments that all Israel heard. These He wrote on the tablets, the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote on the tablets. There is more Torah that was learned in all forty days, and all this is already explanations of the Ten Commandments and expansions, but this is the Torah, the greatest in the order of the Torah that we received.

The Order of the Torah and Its Form: The Ten Commandments

And in the order itself — and this is the important thing — just as they say that 613 mitzvot is a midrash that stands in the Gemara, that Rabbi Simlai said it, and it is not an explicit verse, for the Torah’s way is to call the mitzvot by different names: mitzvah, or chukim and mishpatim, and all these are one name. But if one wants to find a root for a list in the Torah, for a count of one, two, three, certainly the greatest list is the Ten Commandments. In other words, this is the order, the form of the Torah. Everyone understands that understanding means making order, means giving form. A confused person, who has no order, does not understand what stands before him. The order and form of the Torah in the section of the Torah are the Ten Commandments. Ten things, the Ten Commandments — this is the first form that it gives to the Torah, and from them emerge 613 mitzvot and thousands more branches, and also the Rabbinic laws and customs, all as additional decorations upon this.

The Tablets: A Thing That Endures

Now, if we study the Ten Commandments, and if we want to see — the Ten Commandments are a visual thing, these are the Ten Commandments that were written on the tablets. A tablet is something visible to the eye, something written, that remains fixed and enduring, engraved on two stone tablets, ‘engraved on the tablets’ (Shemot 32:16), ‘and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets’ (Shemot 32:16).

And it is also something that endures. For speech is not like something written: speech is something that I speak with you, you can hear it, but you must remember it, and it remains only in memory. But what is written is already something that becomes substance, and you do not even need to remember it. That is, it is remembered, it remains in stone, as they call a memorial stone, ‘and he set up there a monument’ (Shmuel I 15:12). It becomes like a reality, a tangible reality in the world. The Torah descended, the Torah came, the Ten Commandments were written on stone, on two stone tablets. This is not only that one must remember the Torah — that too exists — but it is deeper than this. The Torah truly descended, what is called investiture, investiture in physicality: a stone was made in the world upon which the Torah is engraved.

The Mitzvah of Writing a Sefer Torah

And the truth is that upon this also stands the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah, which we also learn — at the end of Devarim stands the commandment ‘write for yourselves this song’ (Devarim 31:19), the mitzvah of writing the song or writing the Torah. And there is a deep intention in this, and we read every Shabbat in the synagogue from a written Sefer Torah, that a scribe wrote with his hands on parchment, with all its details, all its laws and particulars. And we take out the Torah and kiss it and show it around. This is not only a way to remember the Torah.

And what is the proof? For there is Torah she’be’al peh (Oral Torah). Torah she’be’al peh teaches that one can remember without writing, there is no problem with this. Indeed afterward we wrote it, when it appeared that forgetfulness was being forgotten, but in practice, for thousands of years it survived. And the truth is that even today we see Torah she’be’al peh — and this is not now the subject of our discussion — that they remember it today. The Torah is remembered, the Torah is not something that must be written; we write it even though it is possible to remember it.

Why Do We Write It: The Point of Permanence

Rather why do we write? There is here a point of permanence, that the thing should not be done only in the realm of wisdom. I do not mean simply that it should not be done in the realm of wisdom, for one can remember; but the deeper meaning is that it becomes like a cheftza (object). Now it becomes something that cannot be torn so easily; it is not torn. Moshe broke the tablets. And the meaning of breaking the tablets is that Torah she’be’al peh remained, as it says in the Gemara: ‘a great voice that did not cease.’ Hearing and understanding are always possible; when he broke the tablets the voice was not broken. The great voice was not broken, but the writing was broken. And this is a great difference. But on the other hand, writing has a weakness: it still has not come to substance, it is not an object visible to the eye.

‘There is nothing in the ark except the two tablets’ (Melachim I 8:9) — these are the tablets that they stored, the tablets of testimony, and Israel could always see them. One must know how they could see them: sometimes they opened the ark and showed them, from time to time they saw them. And this is something that came to substance in a body. And this is truly the special work of writing a Sefer Torah.

In truth, the Gemara says that every Jew must write for himself a Sefer Torah. And even though one fulfills the obligation if he bought one — and there are poskim who say that the main intention is in order to learn, and the Rosh says that therefore in our time the main mitzvah is to buy books, but we do not learn so and we do not rule so completely, at the very least — there is a great matter in writing the Torah, and if a person can learn to write himself, certainly in this he continues the matter. And it can be so even in writing chiddushei Torah, or in printing, and in other ways in which one makes substance from the matter. It is a very important matter. Today everything is on computer, and one must examine what kind of substance a computer has (and in this we will return to our shiurim on that subject and this is not its place), and this is not substance like handwriting. Still there is a great matter in writing.

Three Levels of the Tablets

Thus the tablets are also the list, also the thing heard, and also the thing written. One can see them, one can touch them. One can touch the word of Hashem, the tablets. What is placed in these stones? And every Jew must have something from the aspect of the tablets. Everyone puts on tefillin every day, and in the tefillin are written certain principles of the Torah that correspond to the Ten Commandments. We have a mezuzah, and we have such things. One must emphasize this, and we said that the shiur will come to emphasize the daily matters. And every Jew has a Sefer Torah, we go to the synagogue on Shabbat and Monday and Thursday and take out the Sefer Torah.

This is a tremendous light. The Arizal has many kavanot (intentions) on holding the Sefer Torah, on kissing it, on placing a crown on the Torah, and on those rimonim (pomegranates) that they used to call the decorations of the Sefer, and on the other customs with which they decorate the Sefer Torah. There is a great light in this, as a mitzvah, like building the Mishkan — like the mitzvah of writing the Torah or building the Mishkan — to make a physical object, to remove from a person the burden that he should always be in his mind, that he should always remember himself. That is, when he remembers, and Torah she’be’al peh that must be remembered — he does not need to review, for it is placed there, ‘and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates’ (Devarim 6:9), it is placed by your entrance and you do not need to remember. This is advice to remember even when you are not remembering. And it seems to me that we have already spoken many times about the virtue of the sanctity of the object (as we have already explained regarding the sanctity of the object and this is not its place), but it is a great virtue and speaks to a person powerfully. And these are the tablets, and in the tablets are found all these levels.

The Question: Why Do the Ten Commandments Stand Twice in a Different Way

And now, when we look at the tablets, for in the Ten Commandments on the tablets, which we want to be absorbed within, that every Jew should remember all the Torah by heart — but in the Ten Commandments with their text, it would be fitting that a person should be able to repeat them and know them by heart. Indeed the Sages did not institute that they should say the Ten Commandments but rather Kriat Shema, and everyone knows Kriat Shema, and perhaps even in saying the Ten Commandments there is a matter. And it would be fitting even to know the differences between the two versions of the Commandments. And this is like a novelty. Let us understand. I say this so, because perhaps in this the novelty or the difficulty is better expressed.

In Both Tablets Stand the Ten Commandments: A Secret

Now in both times — in both tablets that are so important, and in both ways in which the Torah is written — stand the Ten Commandments. Very important, and this itself is a secret. In both they stand. That is, not everything stands repeated twice; one should not call this repetition, but rather this is like another level of Torah. Not everything, not every mitzvah stands both in Sefer Shemot or Vayikra Bamidbar and also in Sefer Devarim. There are many mitzvot that stand only in one of them. The Ramban throughout Sefer Devarim proposes different theories to explain which and why, but not every mitzvah, and certainly not every event, and certainly not in the same language. This is not something said in it ‘and Hashem said’ — for the Holy One, blessed be He, said the mitzvot to Moshe in languages, ‘and Hashem spoke to Moshe saying’ (Vayikra 1:1), ‘a person when he brings from you an offering’ (Vayikra 1:2). Thousands of mitzvot stand in the same language, but very few stand in the same language with repetition. There are a few verses with the same language, or with an added word or a changed word, but very few — and one must examine this — very few sections and mitzvot, and even those that are repeated and stand in Sefer Devarim, very few stand in the same order, and certainly in the same language, almost word for word. One can examine and find one of them. But from the thing that stands again, twice in the Torah, are the Ten Commandments.

From this itself one can see how important they are. And this is what I ask to say: not the idea of the Ten Commandments is the novelty, for one can say that the idea stands in all the Torah. ‘Do not steal,’ ‘do not murder,’ ‘I am Hashem,’ ‘do not take’ — all these stand almost many times in different ways, with additional details, with additional laws. ‘According to all that comes from his mouth he shall do’ (Bamidbar 30:3) is similar to ‘do not take the name of Hashem your God in vain’ (Shemot 20:7) and the like. It stands many times in many ways: ‘what comes from your lips you shall keep and do as you have vowed’ (Devarim 23:24), and all these are languages connected to ‘do not take.’ And so every verse and verse. Shabbat certainly stands dozens of times in the Torah, and so every thing from the Ten Commandments stands many times. This is not the novelty that it stands repeated again.

But that the language should stand ‘I am Hashem your God’ (Shemot 20:2) and all the language entirely until ‘and all that belongs to your neighbor’ (Shemot 20:14) — this is almost the only section that stands repeated at such length. I can remember a few more verses that one can see are the same verse, with an added word or a missing word, but such a long section as the Ten Commandments — more than ten verses according to the lower cantillation, and according to the upper cantillation ten long verses — that stands truly written again word for word, this is the only thing: the Ten Commandments.

Thus one can see — and I am not entering into this discussion — how important the Ten Commandments are. The Sages had an argument about this, that they did not want them to say Kriat Shema lest they think this is the entire Torah. Simply put, they are a very important part of the Torah, and not only an important part — and this is what I ask to raise — they are important as the form of the Torah, as the order of the Torah, for this is the thing that the Torah wrote repeated in the same order and in the same words.

The Language That Is Important: The Verse Repeated to Establish

There are other things that are important. One can see that the Torah speaks very many times about the prohibition of idolatry. The subject, the content of the matter, is very important, but each time it stands in different language. Thus the language itself is not the important thing. It is important, but there is such a law ‘the verse repeated to establish,’ or ‘a prohibition that comes from two prohibitions,’ that the Rambam learns that its meaning is not that the transgressor is lashed twice, but that the matter is more important. Thus we see that what stands many times, simply it is an important thing. And here the language is the important thing. In other words, what stands on the tablets, on the stones — simply it was already established, that it descended with such strength, that it was defined with such strength on the language — this is the Ten Commandments.

The Ten Commandments Are Very General Things

Now it stands itself that there is in this also limitation. For a person will say: the essence is not the language, for according to the place, according to the time, according to the person, it must change a bit in law. And therefore indeed the Ten Commandments are very general things. There does not stand in them even the most detailed thing, the most specific thing, that stands in the Ten Commandments which is the mitzvah of Shabbat. It stands ‘and on the seventh day you shall rest’ (Shemot 23:12), the seventh day; it does not stand when is the seventh day, but the seventh day of every week. This is the most concrete thing. All the rest: ‘honor your father and your mother’ (Shemot 20:12) — what is honor? The Gemara will already say what is the meaning of honor and what is the meaning of fear, but in the Ten Commandments the matter is not explicit. What is ‘do not murder’ (Shemot 20:13)? Whom? And how? And what is intentional and what is unintentional? It stands in other sections, but details do not stand. Only the most general thing stands, that one can, as they say, “engrave in stone.” This one can write on stone: ‘do not murder.’

Laws one cannot already write on stone. Every time the law stands in the Torah, it stands a bit differently, in slightly different details, because there are so many situations, until one must learn a complete Rambam, Hilchot Rotzeach, to know the laws of ‘do not murder.’ ‘Do not steal’ is all Choshen Mishpat; all of it is only laws of ‘do not steal’ or ‘do not covet,’ as the Ramban learns and they discussed it at length. This is not something that can be written — it is not fitting that it should descend to the level of stone, and if it descends there will be damage in this. One cannot establish it so.

Things That Are Oral You Are Not Permitted to Write Them: A Novelty in Halachah

And it seems to me that there is here a novelty, a novelty in halachah. For there is a thing ‘things that are oral you are not permitted to write them’ (Gittin 60b), which means that there is a level of writing, and the writing itself is a certain permanence; one cannot change the writing of a Sefer Torah. For every week arises a matter of one letter, dalet or heh or alef, about which they have already argued for a thousand years whether to write thus or thus. This is not — the Torah must be precise to the last letter. And therefore it is forbidden to add. ‘Things that are oral you are not permitted to write them’ means that it is forbidden to take seriously the text of the Mishnah as we take the text of the Torah. This is the meaning. People think this is a decree of the verse, and why was it necessary to leave specifically this; rather this is the meaning. There is a boundary, there must be a boundary, how many things descend to writing, and descent to writing means descent to such a physical garment, for in this world everything is physical.

The Beit HaMikdash: One Place of Sanctity

Just as there is a law that the Beit HaMikdash is only in one place — and it too stands in Sefer Devarim — coming from the appreciation of what is the meaning of a physical place that Hashem chose, that was established for the sanctity of the Name, ‘to cause His name to dwell there’ (Devarim 14:23). That is, certainly if we speak in spirituality, if we speak in an abstract way, then the thing is more blurred. And this is not that spirituality and the high levels are blurred; they spread in this world in a blurred way, but they are more abstract, less limited by certain physical boundaries of the level of this world. And everything, as it stands in the verse, ‘in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned’ (Shemot 20:20). Everyone, certainly, has a small sanctuary, everyone in his intention makes a sanctuary in the heart. But if we want and there is a great need and great benefit to take a specific thing and make that there should be here a holy place, a place for Hashem — it must be only one. And the words are very limited, only specifically in this way. And limitation means that the thing will be in a very general way.

The Beit HaMikdash is a general thing. In the Beit HaMikdash, as the Arizal says, thirteen gates, and there they pray in all the nusachot (prayer versions). And the Beit Midrash is the aspect of Torah she’be’al peh, it is not a holy place; this is not the place to which all Israel come to ascend and see the face of Hashem. Certainly whoever comes sees the face of the Shechinah in the Beit Midrash, for the Beit Midrash is a Beit Knesset, and this is done for the sake of the Shechinah, Knesset Yisrael. But if every Beit Knesset makes a different nusach, the matter does not disturb, because the permanence is not placed on the level of the nusach. This is a more blurred thing. But if you make a Beit HaMikdash, you cannot say there that the Beit HaMikdash prays in a certain nusach. In what nusach did they pray in the Beit HaMikdash? In all of them, in whatever they wished. The Beit HaMikdash establishes only the very limited amount of things that can be established in writing. And this is the secret of ‘things that are oral you are not permitted to write them.’

Levels of Permanence: Torah She’be’al Peh, Writing, and the Tablets

And even though they wrote the Torah she’be’al peh, still the Torah she’be’al peh changes much more. Indeed one must be more careful about one who takes every text that stands in some Acharon seriously like a verse in the Chumash; this itself is the prohibition, truly the prohibition of ‘things that are oral you are not permitted to write them.’ And just as there is the matter regarding Torah she’be’al peh within Torah she’bichtav, so there is the matter regarding the tablets in relation to the entire Torah. That is, the words of the general Torah you are not permitted to write them on stone. Indeed they wrote on two stone monuments the entire Torah — but this is an additional level.

There is in this a great dispute among the commentators, whether they wrote the entire Torah from Bereishit until ‘before the eyes of all Israel,’ or perhaps only the list of mitzvot, or perhaps only Mishneh Torah. Something less than the entire Torah they wrote there apparently certainly, for it is very difficult that they should write the entire Torah on stones. But such stones as tablets — only the Ten Commandments are permitted to be written on the tablets, because this is already a greater level of permanence, a greater level of the descent of the thing truly to a physical limb, to a physical boundary, and at such a level there can only be the Ten Commandments.

Return to the Question: Why Does Not the Same Thing Stand in Both Times

Now, after all the introduction to understand what is Torah, and what are the two types of Torah, and what are the tablets, and what are the Ten Commandments, the question becomes very interesting that in the Ten Commandments the same thing does not stand in both times. For it is simple that if it stands twice, its meaning is that in the meantime they repeated it. Perhaps Moshe Rabbeinu himself? One can say that he remembered this again and wrote in prophecy. I do not know, but presumably certainly there was memory. They repeated — Israel repeated throughout all forty years of the wilderness the Ten Commandments, and more, they repeated all the Torah, but the Ten Commandments even more, for this is the thing that was heard from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself at Mount Sinai. And every Jew knew by heart the Ten Commandments. And if a person will say: ah, they wrote them the second time at a later stage, and they

forgot a few words — for an upright Jew does not forget even one word, and certainly such a supreme thing he does not forget.

The Differences Between the Two Versions of the Ten Commandments

A person will say: but the Ibn Ezra claims that there is no difference which word we write, for the essence is the intention. But we just said that the Ten Commandments are not something that is only a matter of intention. The Ten Commandments are something that if it were only a matter of intention, the subject would stand again, and the Ten Commandments would not stand again. It is indeed important that there be the words, and perhaps a certain amount of words, and a certain amount of commandments must be specifically ten — for what would be bad if there were nine, or twelve, or eleven, or thirty? It is not that there must be ten, but that there must be these words. And if so, if a few words stand in a different way, this is truly a wonder. What is the simple meaning that different words stand in a different way?

And I think this is a very good question. Let us explain thus.

The Different Types of Differences

There are several types of differences between the first commandments, standing in Parashat Yitro, and the commandments standing in Va’etchanan. And whoever examines for himself will see different differences, and although they are countless, they can be divided into different categories.

There are differences of one letter. Here it stands ‘lemitzvato’ and here ‘mitzvotav,’ we read “mitzvato” but a vav stands in place of a yud. And another great difference: in the last five commandments it stands here ‘lo tirtzach, lo tin’af, lo tignov’ (Shemot 20), and in Parashat Va’etchanan ‘velo tin’af, velo tignov, velo ta’aneh’ (Devarim 5), with a vav. This is one type of difference, that the letters are different; I remember that there are such small differences.

After that there are things in which an entire word was exchanged. For example, here it stands ‘ed sheker’ (Shemot 20) and here ‘ed shav’ (Devarim 5). Or that an entire word was added, as here it stands ‘lo tachmod beit re’echa’ (Shemot 20) and here ‘lo titaveh’ (Devarim 5). A word was exchanged: the second ‘lo tachmod’ was exchanged for ‘lo titaveh,’ and ‘sadehu’ (Devarim 5) was added, and in the first ‘sadehu’ does not stand. And I saw a nice peshat: because in the second he speaks to the generation entering the Land, who would always have fields, and in the wilderness there were no fields, and therefore it was not necessary to write ‘sadehu.’ A nice understanding. These are small differences, let us say.

Another small difference: here it stands ‘zachor et yom haShabbat’ (Shemot 20), and here ‘shamor et yom haShabbat’ (Devarim 5).

Another type of change is that entire sections are added. This is perhaps the greatest difference: there are entire sections that are added, and sometimes entire sections that are exchanged. For example, it stands ‘shamor et yom haShabbat lekadsho’ (Devarim 5), and besides that ‘zachor’ does not stand, it also stands in Parashat Va’etchanan ‘ka’asher tzivcha Hashem Elokecha’ (Devarim 5). That is, he adds a section to the sentence, that he should do as the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded. And furthermore, the same thing at the end: he adds a bit even in the next verse of Shabbat, and at its end also stands ‘lema’an yanuach avdecha va’amatcha kamocha’ (Devarim 5). That is, after it stands that the servant and maidservant must rest, it stands ‘lema’an,’ and adds like a section of explanation.

And similarly it stands ‘kabed et avicha ve’et imecha’ (Devarim 5), and here too ‘ka’asher tzivcha Hashem Elokecha’ (Devarim 5) — twice that same section was added. And after that it stands ‘lema’an ya’arichun yamecha ulema’an yitav lach’ (Devarim 5), a kind of blessing was added, an additional addition.

One more: like an entire verse that is different. In Parashat Yitro it stands ‘ki sheshet yamim asah Hashem et hashamayim’ (Shemot 20) etc., that therefore there is Shabbat. And in Sefer Devarim stands an entirely different reason for Shabbat, ‘vezacharta ki eved hayita’ (Devarim 5) etc., ‘al ken tzivcha Hashem Elokecha la’asot et yom haShabbat’ (Devarim 5). An entirely different reason. The reason of the six days of creation does not stand at all, but rather the entire new reason of the Exodus from Egypt for Shabbat.

These are the different differences. There are perhaps more differences, small and large, that I did not notice.

How to Weigh the Differences

In any case, small differences like a vav that is not a vav, one can say that perhaps they are not critical, this is not such a great difference. Certainly, in depth one must find an explanation even for this, but it is difficult to begin from there.

Other small differences, that a word is exchanged — ‘shav’ or ‘sheker.’ It is true that there is a law that there is a false oath (shevuat shav) that is different from a lying oath (shevuat sheker). And the same thing, ‘lo tachmod’ and ‘lo titaveh,’ the Rambam rules that they are two different prohibitions, that ‘lo tachmod’ means something else. But according to the peshat one can say that synonyms are not so critical, and still the thing is the same thing. And even if I say that the text must be the same text, nevertheless if a synonym stands, in place of ‘lo tachmod’ stands ‘lo titaveh,’ perhaps one can accept this.

The most difficult thing to accept is when the entire thing is exchanged. In the mitzvah of Shabbat, in the commandment of Shabbat, there stands an entirely different thing, an entirely different reason for Shabbat. For the entire commandment of Shabbat, besides other small differences that exist even in the commandment itself.

These are the observations that we must have when we want to place these two versions of the Ten Commandments opposite each other. And in the words of the Sages we find thus.

The Rambam on the Two Reasons for Shabbat

Thus at least says the Rambam — and one should examine better in the midrashim, perhaps there is a midrash — the Rambam spoke at length about the two reasons for Shabbat that stand, and tried to reconcile them, but not the text but rather the matter: what is truly the peshat, whether Shabbat is a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt or a remembrance of the work of creation?

In language, if we speak about the language standing in a different way — if there is a contradiction in the matter, this is a greater difficulty. One must understand that this is already a greater difficulty than the difficulty we are speaking about regarding the Ten Commandments, which is the concept of the Ten Commandments that such language stands. It stands differently — I do not know.

The Ramban and the Ibn Ezra: They Guard the Matter and Not the Words

But if I speak about the language, the Ramban says thus in Parashat Yitro, and repeats the same thing, or something like it, in Parashat Va’etchanan, and perhaps a bit differently. For there is one difference that is a difference of a word in total, and about it there is a Gemara — I think the Mechilta and Yerushalmi — that several things, as is the way of our Sages, everything apparently comes from one statement, standing in the Mechilta, and afterward brought in the Gemara and several times in other ways and in midrashim. The Gemara speaks about the fact that it stands ‘zachor’ and ‘shamor’ — once it stands ‘zachor’ and once it stands ‘shamor.’ This is something that the Gemara speaks about.

The Approach of the Ibn Ezra

The Ramban in Parashat Yitro gets angry and argues with Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, because Rabbi Avraham said that he thinks that the Torah is not particular to say the same thing with the same word, as long as the content agrees. And he brings proof and speaks a bit at length about the Ten Commandments. I do not see that the Ramban quotes here the Ibn Ezra, but I remember that this is his intention, and he speaks about this. The Ibn Ezra said at length that we see from this that there are different differences — here ‘shamor,’ here ‘zachor’ — and both mean the same thing, and there is no difference which word we say. The sanctity of the Torah, which he calls lashon hakodesh (the holy tongue), the “Hebrews,” as he says, ‘guard the matter and not the words’ (Ibn Ezra Shemot 20). One must be sensible: the essence is not which word we say, but the content.

The Ramban’s Agreement on the Way of Peshat

The Ramban relates to this — as I thought that he writes explicitly, but I see that he does not write explicitly, but I remember that the commentators explain that his intention is to attack the Ibn Ezra — and the Ramban says that this is very nice, that everything can be good peshat, and he does not disagree that according to the peshat one can say that it is the same thing.

And so indeed in Parashat Va’etchanan he says clearly that according to the way of peshat Moshe Rabbeinu explained. It is difficult for him: what did the Holy One, blessed be He, say? The Ramban says that the Holy One, blessed be He, said, let us say, ‘zachor,’ and Moshe Rabbeinu explained that its meaning is ‘shamor.’ It seems to him that ‘zachor’ is difficult to understand what its meaning is, and this is like an explanation of ‘zachor.’ This is the Ramban’s first peshat in Parashat Va’etchanan. ‘Zachor’ means remember, but remember — what is the meaning that I will remember? Moshe Rabbeinu explains that its meaning is to guard the Shabbat; this is an explanation.

And how does Moshe Rabbeinu change what the Holy One, blessed be He, said? There is no problem with this. And it seems to me that this is simple, that when it stands ‘ka’asher tzivcha Hashem Elokecha,’ the Holy One, blessed be He, did not say this, for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not say ‘ka’asher tzivcha Hashem Elokecha.’ In general, in all the commandments, besides the first two, such languages stand, because this is what Moshe Rabbeinu says in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. And even here, what he added in Mishneh Torah, is understood, for he says ‘ka’asher tzivcha’ the Holy One, blessed be He; there is no need for additional explanation. He can add such a word, and he does not say ‘the Holy One, blessed be He, says and this is His language,’ but he says clearly ‘ka’asher tzivcha Hashem Elokecha.’ And you understand that this is not the language of the Name but the language of Moshe, who says about what the Holy One, blessed be He, now said, even within the sentence itself. This is one peshat.

The Ramban’s Claim: The Ibn Ezra Did Not Understand the Gemara

And now the Ramban says, that what the Ibn Ezra claims that the Sages said their words casually — that they said ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance’ (Mechilta Yitro), and the Ibn Ezra says that this is not correct, because the Torah is not particular about the words — about this the Ramban says: it can be that this is truly the simple meaning of the verse, and he agrees with the Ibn Ezra that one can understand thus. But two things: at the very least the Gemara, and how the Gemara understood the verse, about this the Ramban says that these are empty words.

The language of the Ramban here: ‘And this reasoning will only be heard by one who is not accustomed to the Talmud’ (Ramban Shemot 20). The Ramban says: one who does not know Gemara thinks that the Gemara simply did not know this. The Gemara thought that the verses are precise in every word, and Moshe said this, and there was a difficulty, and the Gemara says an answer that the Holy One, blessed be He, said both. Thus the Ramban learns, and thus the Ramban understood the approach of the Ibn Ezra.

The Two Reasons in Which the Ramban Disagrees

The Ramban says that this is not correct, for two main reasons in which he disagrees with the Ibn Ezra. One: the Ramban says, for we see that the Sages did not ask why here it stands ‘kol temunah’ (Shemot 20) and here ‘vechol temunah’ (Devarim 5), a difference of a vav. We do not see different midrashim about this question. Why? Because we will assume, that about such small differences there is indeed no insistence, and a difference is possible, and it does not disturb that there is one small thing that is different.

And the same thing even in additional things, one can say, that the Sages did not ask even why here it stands ‘ka’asher tzivcha’ and there ‘ka’asher tzivcha’ does not stand, and there it stands ‘lema’an yanuach’ and there ‘lema’an yanuach’ does not stand. And interesting, one should check this better. But thus the Ramban claims: the Sages did not ask about the small differences that mean the same thing. And for our matter as well, that it stands twice in what means the same thing, it does not disturb. Perhaps there is to learn from the addition, if it stands twice, I do not know. Thus says the Ramban.

Thus the Ibn Ezra thought that the Sages who said ‘zachor and shamor’ intended to ask, essentially — and thus I think, that in general the Ibn Ezra learns — they intended to ask in general, not that they spoke specifically about ‘zachor and shamor,’ but they intended to ask in general about what stands in the two commandments in general in an entirely different way, and they answered with the answer ‘one utterance,’ that is, that the Holy One, blessed be He, said both — not only ‘zachor and shamor,’ but all the other changes standing in the two places, even those the Holy One, blessed be He, said in both. Thus Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra learns, and about this he disagrees, and says that there is no need to come to this, because according to the peshat it is possible that it is the same content.

The Subject of Zachor and Shamor According to the Ramban: Positive and Negative Commandments

The Ramban says: no. When it stands ‘zachor and shamor,’ they mean ‘zachor and shamor,’ and they do not mean to ask about the entire thing. And what do we do with all the other differences? It appears that in this the Ramban agrees and agrees here, that indeed it is the same thing, and there is no problem with this. But what truly stands here? The Ramban says, first of all, about this he mainly claims that the Ibn Ezra did not understand the words of the Gemara. The claim, the Ramban claims, that ‘zachor and shamor’ mean an entirely different thing.

That is, one cannot say — when it stands ‘shav’ and ‘sheker,’ you can say that perhaps there is a derasha that makes a difference, but according to peshat ‘shav’ means false and ‘sheker’ means false, both the same thing. And when it stands ‘vechol temunah’ and ‘kol temunah,’ ‘velo ta’aneh’ and ‘lo ta’aneh,’ certainly everyone understands that the meaning does not change with a vav, and therefore there is no need to ask the difficulty.

But ‘zachor and shamor,’ the Ramban says, it is true that according to peshat — thus apparently his intention — it is true that according to peshat both can mean the same thing, both mean to guard the Shabbat, and it seems to me that this is indeed the simplest peshat. But according to midrash — not according to halachah, according to Talmud, according to the ways of the Gemara — they are never the same thing. For there is a rule ‘every language of pen and al is only a negative commandment’ (Eruvin 96), and when language of guarding stands — guarding means according to the Sages a negative commandment. That is, a positive commandment means that they should remember the Shabbat, that they should do, that they should not forget the Shabbat, and in a positive way that they should rest on Shabbat. But guarding means a negative commandment, that they should not desecrate the Shabbat.

An entirely new peshat. There stands as it were an obligation — it does not stand ‘do not desecrate the Shabbat’ — but a negative commandment is made not only from the language of ‘do not,’ but also from the language of ‘guard.’ ‘Guard the Shabbat day’ means: beware of desecrating the Shabbat, ‘to sanctify it,’ that you should sanctify it. And its negative side: beware of desecrating the Shabbat, and this is what the word ‘shamor’ seeks to say.

And if so, that we do not ask about the other difficulty — when the Sages say ‘zachor and shamor,’ they ask as it were a difficulty, why here it stands ‘zachor and shamor.’ They do not mean to ask why there stands a difference of a word, for a difference of a word does not disturb; why did they not ask about all the other words? Rather they mean to ask that one cannot exchange a positive commandment with a negative commandment — this is an entirely different thing.

One cannot that Moshe Rabbeinu should explain. Let us say, as the Ibn Ezra says, that the second time Moshe Rabbeinu explained — he explained, it was easier for him to explain, ‘ka’asher tzivcha’ he explained, you did not understand, or perhaps even the reason for Shabbat, that Moshe Rabbeinu explained somehow that the same thing standing ‘ki sheshet yamim’ can be explained also ‘ki eved hayita beMitzrayim’ — good, an explanation. Moshe Rabbeinu is permitted to say explanations and not to say only the language. But to exchange the halachah? Moshe Rabbeinu cannot exchange the halachah, he cannot exchange a mitzvah from a positive commandment to a negative commandment, these are two different things. This was the difficulty.

The Answer: They Were Said in One Utterance

And about this indeed the Sages answered the answer — as the Ibn Ezra understands — that the Holy One, blessed be He, can say both. This is the Sages’ answer, as brought in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah. The Gemara discusses whether a person can hear two voices at once. The Gemara says: no, it stands ‘zachor and shamor,’ ‘what the mouth cannot speak and what the ear cannot hear’ (Rosh Hashanah 27). That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, can say two things at once. The Holy One, blessed be He, indeed said at the same moment truly ‘zachor and shamor in one utterance’ (Mechilta Yitro). And if people could not hear this — indeed so, and therefore in the Torah, when we hear, the thing stands separately, once ‘zachor’ and once ‘shamor,’ because we cannot do both at once. It is impossible that there should stand in the Torah the word ‘zachor shamor’ at once truly. And even a person cannot hear. Two people, one says ‘zachor’ and one says ‘shamor,’ we do not hear either of them; unless it is beloved, perhaps one can hear one of them, but both certainly one cannot hear. And thus it comes out apparently in the peshat in Megillah, that therefore ‘two voices are not heard’ (Megillah 21), as the Gemara learns: two voices we do not hear, for we hear only one of them.

The Holy One, blessed be He, can both hear and speak. For the Holy One, blessed be He, there is not this problem; for people there is the problem. This is the answer to the difficulty, the difficulty of the contradiction: which did the Holy One, blessed be He, say, a positive commandment or a negative commandment? He said both. And therefore Moshe Rabbeinu always said this, and always said this.

What Stood on the Tablets?

The Ramban asks: and what stood on the tablets? Did there stand on the tablets a positive commandment or a negative commandment? The Ramban says, according to what I learn in the Ramban, it is possible that both stood. Indeed so, both stood on the tablets.

Thus the Ramban says here in Parashat Yitro, and asks a difficulty: if the Holy One, blessed be He, also said ‘shamor’ — and all the other changes the Holy One, blessed be He, said, those that stand in Yitro — if the Holy One, blessed be He, also said ‘shamor,’ why did it not stand on the tablets? And he says, and at first he thought perhaps that in Va’etchanan stands the text that was on the second tablets, and there indeed ‘shamor’ stood; he sees that this is one side. But afterward he says, that his intention is that perhaps on one tablet ‘zachor’ stood, and ‘shamor’ was Torah she’be’al peh; ‘shamor’ did not stand on the tablets. ‘Shamor’ Moshe Rabbeinu said orally to Israel, that the Holy One, blessed be He, also said ‘shamor.’ He knew. How did he know? I do not know. Perhaps a prophet can also somehow hear both at once? I do not know how he could hear, but people could not hear. He told us that the Holy One, blessed be He, also says ‘shamor,’ and this he said, and perhaps even wrote the second time, but essentially on the tablets only ‘zachor’ stood.

In any case, this is what the Ramban understands, and all the other things indeed not. This is the difference: here there is a difference of positive and negative commandments. This is the subject of zachor and shamor, not as the Ibn Ezra thinks. That is, not that they asked a difficulty about the change — change does not disturb, as the Ibn Ezra himself says — but a change of meaning disturbs. When a second meaning stands, when there stands here a mitzvah that is a negative commandment, one must reconcile. This is the Ramban’s dispute with the Ibn Ezra regarding the subject of zachor and shamor.

The Source of the Midrash and the List of One Utterance

Now, as I already mentioned in the previous shiur (as we explained in the previous shiur and this is not its place), and with this we will arrive at the Ramban’s secret — the Gemara quotes here essentially the Mechilta. The Mechilta is from the Tannaim, always earlier than the Gemara. The Gemara quotes here the Mechilta. The same thing also stands in the Sifrei, in the midrash of the Tannaim, and even there such a version of the Sifrei or the like, the same thing stands, and also in Va’etchanan, and so here in Parashat Ki Teitzei, in this week’s parasha, in the Sifrei that same derasha is brought, and always similar derashot, and it stands thus: ‘both were said in one utterance’ (Mechilta).

In the Sifrei or in the Mechilta there is a list of things that the Holy One, blessed be He, said in one utterance. One is ‘zachor and shamor,’ which we already learned. Two stands in Shabbat: ‘its desecrator shall surely be put to death’ (Shemot 31), and it also stands ‘and on the Shabbat day two lambs’ (Bamidbar 28), which means that one must offer on Shabbat. Three: ‘the nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover’ (Vayikra 18), and it stands ‘her brother-in-law shall come upon her’ (Devarim 25). Four: ‘every daughter who inherits an inheritance’ (Bamidbar 36), and afterward it stands ‘and no inheritance shall transfer from tribe to tribe’ (Bamidbar 36), that is, for a daughter there is a different law.

The Contradiction Is the Original Subject of the Midrash

It comes out that the midrash, the original midrash that the Gemara learns from it simply — for one of the things standing here is ‘zachor and shamor’ — but the original midrash intended here to say that there are many things that contradict each other. We see clearly at least from the Ramban, that apparently the main matter of zachor and shamor is indeed that there is a certain contradiction between them, and not simply that different language stands. This is the subject of the midrash.

And also the Gemara’s subject, when the Gemara speaks in ‘two voices are not heard,’ its subject is simply whether it is possible to hear two things, and there is no difference whether it is a contradiction or not. But the subject of the original midrash was that there is a contradiction between ‘zachor’ and ‘shamor.’ Or, and perhaps the midrash also intended to say, that the contradiction of zachor and shamor is the contradiction of ‘and from the positive you hear the negative,’ that ‘and on the Shabbat day two lambs.’ That is, because the midrash understood that ‘shamor’ means not to do work, and ‘zachor’ means to remember — perhaps like to sanctify the Shabbat in a positive way in certain things, for example that they should offer musaf for Shabbat — this is a contradiction: how is it possible to offer musaf Shabbat if this is desecration of Shabbat? And about this the answer that ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance,’ that a person cannot say, but the Holy One, blessed be He, can say, ‘God spoke one thing, two things I heard’ (Tehillim 62), that the Holy One, blessed be He, can say two things at once.

The Innovation: Contradiction in One Utterance

In other words, we understand that there stands here in the midrash a thing of glory: not only that the Holy One, blessed be He, can say — this is not such a great innovation, for even two people can say two things at once. One person cannot, but two people can; one person cannot hear, but two people can hear. No, this is a new thing: the Holy One, blessed be He, can say two things that are a contradiction at once. This is already an entirely different understanding.

Understood, a contradiction — and we will come to the entire question whether the Holy One, blessed be He, can make logical contradictions, a contradiction in the matter. If we take it absolutely, this is not truly a contradiction. There is here an exception, not absolute, which is in the category of an exception in the service. The same thing Shabbat in the Mikdash, there is in it an exception or overriding. In a general way a person would not hear thus, a person would think absolutely: either thus or thus. With the Holy One, blessed be He, it can be that both are at once.

The Ramban’s Secret: Zachor and Shamor, Tiferet and Malchut

This is the midrash according to derash, and I am certain that upon this midrash is built the next passage of the Ramban. For the Ramban says that Rabbi Nechunya ben HaKanah in his midrash explained a great secret regarding the subject of zachor and shamor.

The Attribute of Day and the Attribute of Night

And the Ramban does not truly quote the text, but explains that zachor and shamor are connected to the attribute of day and the attribute of night: remembering is by day, guarding at night. And therefore we say ‘Bo’i Kallah’ (Come, bride) on the night of Shabbat, for the bride — the night of Shabbat is called bride, the aspect of night, the aspect of shamor. That is, Knesset Yisrael called bride, like ‘bride’ in Shir HaShirim and in other places, or queen.

And the sanctification of the day is called Kiddush Rabbah according to peshat. Thus the Ramban learns about zachor and shamor in brief. Why Kiddush Rabbah? According to peshat, because this is the language of sagi nahor (euphemism), that it is a smaller kiddush, for at night is the main mitzvah of ‘remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it,’ for the day is only rabbinic. The Ramban says: no, for in truth it is greater. According to Kabbalah — and so also halachah — the sanctity of day is superior, it is the great sanctity. That is, the ‘zachor,’ the attribute of Tiferet, is the great one.

The Connection Between the Contradiction and the Two Attributes

And he explains, now the Ramban comes and says: and truth, do not think that what I said before, that the contradiction that the Sages speak about is not according to the opinion of the Ibn Ezra in language but in content, in positive commandments and negative commandments — that it has only a small connection with the midrash that Rabbi Nechunya ben HaKanah arranged, which says that these are the two attributes called Tiferet and Malchut. Rather in truth they are connected, because the midrash indeed intends the contradiction of positive and negative commandments.

Why? Because the attribute of ‘zachor,’ the attribute of Tiferet, is connected to positive commandments, and comes from the attribute of love, and it is the attribute of mercy, and Tiferet comes from Chesed, and it is the measure of the attribute of mercy. And why does it have a connection to positive commandments? The attribute of Tiferet makes a person who loves his master, who loves the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, has mercy on him, for there is here love and mercy.

And ‘shamor’ — there is in it negative commandments, and it is from the attribute of judgment, comes from the attribute of fear, that is, because the attribute of judgment, Malchut, draws from Gevurah. Why? Because one who guards from bad things with his master — its meaning is that he fears him.

Why Love Is Greater Than Fear

And the Ramban says, that therefore positive commandments are greater than negative commandments, just as love is greater than fear. Why? Because one who does and fulfills with his body, does things that his master loves, he is greater than one who only guards from doing evil to him, which is neutral.

That is, and it seems to me that this is the simple peshat: one only does not do evil — good, but even the good you are not doing. One does not truly love his fellow, but only does not do evil to him. Even a hater does specifically the evil; one who simply does not want to quarrel with you does not do what is hateful to you. One who truly loves you — perhaps there is in him a bit of fear, or a bit of fear that belongs to everyone, not to quarrel simply with someone, that he fears to quarrel with me — but one who truly does what you love, this is already love. He does, troubles himself, says with his body, troubles himself to do something that I love. This means that he loves me.

Positive Overrides Negative and the Punishment of Negative

And therefore the Ramban explains that positive overrides negative. This is the reason that positive overrides negative. Why? Because love is greater than fear.

The Ramban says, that therefore there is a greater punishment in negative commandments. Why? Because one who transgresses a negative commandment — and I will explain it — he is truly like a hater, goes against what the Holy One, blessed be He, wants. One who does not do a positive commandment, good, he did not do the extra thing of love, and one cannot come to him with great claims. But one who did not fulfill a negative commandment, he indeed did something, in a positive way he did directly something that is hateful to the Holy One, blessed be He, and for this he receives a greater punishment. Thus far the words of the Ramban in Parashat Yitro.

What Do We Learn from the Ram

What Do We Learn from the Ramban

What do we understand? I see that there is more to expand on this, but we have now learned only the foundations of the subject, and we still need to return and expand and connect all the matters (and we will yet explain with God’s help and this is not its place). But what do we learn now from this passage of the Ramban?

What we learn — and it is very important to grasp this — returning to what we learn in the Torah: the Torah that we fulfill is positive commandments and negative commandments. Let us speak about Shabbat: we do not do work, but Shabbat is also made.

Shabbat: A Unity of Positive and Negative

Shabbat is an interesting thing, for the Gemara says: what is the practical difference that ‘zachor and shamor were said in one utterance’? That even a woman — very interesting, this is that same attribute of shamor, and we see clearly that it is connected in the hint of Kabbalah — even a woman is obligated in kiddush Shabbat. Why? Because ‘whoever is in remembering is in guarding’ (Berachot 20). Because in Shabbat there is like a unity of positive and negative.

Shabbat — how do we make it? Through non-doing. It is true that one can do, there are certain things that we indeed do, in a positive way, a positive commandment to make kiddush. But even the kiddush — we sanctify and speak in it that on Shabbat we rest. This is not something we do, but like a doing of non-doing. But here positive and negative are joined together. One can speak about this in depth, how in Shabbat the resting itself is also something we do, but this is sufficient.

Why Women Are Obligated in Shamor

And therefore, women, who belong essentially to negative commandments — therefore a positive commandment only applies to a man, a male, a free person, who is obligated to fulfill the obligation, because he is a special level. But when this is a negative commandment, it is forbidden for everyone to do, except when the matter does not apply, like one who has authority and the like. The things that are hateful to the Holy One, blessed be He — it is forbidden even for a woman to do, and even for a servant, even for a Canaanite servant it is forbidden to do, because this is against Him. From this one receives a greater punishment, this is more severe. A positive commandment is a different thing.

In Practice: We Do Not Raise This Sufficiently

But what comes out — returning to what I ask to say — the first thing, in practice, in practice we do not raise this sufficiently. And it seems to me that we indeed live thus, but we do not recognize sufficiently in reality, in the light, and all the secrets are built upon the reality that the Ramban explains.

When we go in a regular way to cheder, we say: what is a Jew? A Jew must do 613 mitzvot. 613 mitzvot clearly: positive and negative, both the same thing, one must do 613 mitzvot, and there is no problem. But one must understand that this is not correct. The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded do not do — this is not the same as do. What is the difference? He commanded do, He commanded do not do, He commanded both? No, there is a great difference.

When we do — there are things that the Holy One, blessed be He, says: please, I love this, do this. And there are things that the Holy One, blessed be He, says: this I hate, this is dangerous, do not do this.

One Who Does Only from Fear

And in the most general way, one who does only from fear, in other words, one who is only in the aspect of negative commandments, who only fears that the Holy One, blessed be He, will not be angry with him — for him indeed there is no difference between positive commandments and negative commandments, both he feels the same thing, and he does not understand.

There is a rule, positive overrides negative. He will say: good, thus is the halachah, a decree of the verse. But one who understands the meaning — and it seems to me that already the very understanding of what we learned, understanding the difference, the first difference that one must understand among the mitzvot is the difference between positive commandments and negative commandments, a great difference — understands that he feels entirely differently, that this is an entirely different level, that it connects with the Holy One, blessed be He, in a different way. Not all mitzvot connect with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the same form.

In the most general way, a woman, shamor, they think that everything is the same thing. But a male knows that this is not so. Positive commandments are an entirely different type of thing.

To Do a Positive Commandment One Must Be Worthy

To do a positive commandment one must be worthy. As it stands in the Mishnah in Sukkah, that there are mitzvot that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not want. It says: ‘as if this son of ours came and wrote to his master and poured a pitcher on his face’ (Sukkah 29a). What is the meaning? For I am doing a mitzvah! The Holy One, blessed be He, does not want your mitzvot.

There is no such thing that the Holy One, blessed be He, does evil to someone with a mitzvah — with a transgression, yes, because He does not want his negative commandment. For a negative commandment means that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not want the thing to happen. But a positive commandment is a certain service. Every positive commandment is a certain connection, and as we see there in Sukkah, it is a certain service. We give something to the Holy One, blessed be He, we do something that the Holy One, blessed be He, loves.

Positive Commandments Come from Love

This is an entirely different thing. One can say that there is in this a certain concretization, we look as he says ‘one who loves his master,’ all these differences, but one must begin to feel the difference. Positive commandments are very different from negative commandments.

And in this, I say, therefore most of Kabbalah speaks from positive commandments. There are places, when Shabbat or Pesach arrives, ‘He made equal man and woman,’ where there is in them a unity between positive and negative, and then one can speak from negative commandments. But the main mitzvot that are spoken about according to Kabbalah are positive commandments. Why? Because this is truly a higher level, that comes from love. Negative commandments come from fear — an entirely different type of thing, two different types of things.

Summary: Zachor and Shamor in One Utterance

Until here we learned the introduction what is Torah, and what are the two Torahs and Mishneh Torah, and what are the two tablets, and what is the difference between positive and negative, that this is truly the meaning of ‘zachor and shamor in one utterance.’

This is what the midrash seeks to say: that even though these are two different things, nevertheless both first of all connect in Shabbat. Very important. Not simply that all positive commandments and negative commandments are the same thing, but they connect; in Shabbat they connect together.

In Shabbat We Arrive at the Holy One, Blessed Be He

But from here we also learn that with the Holy One, blessed be He, they connect together. In Shabbat we arrive at the Holy One, blessed be He. In Shabbat the Jew feels more with the Holy One, blessed be He.

That is, as we said, from the side of a person’s relationship to the Holy One, blessed be He, there is a difference — you do Him a favor, and you do not do something He does not love. But with the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, that is, the good that the Holy One, blessed be He, is, the truth that the Holy One, blessed be He, is, there is no true difference between the two things. This one must understand much better, and we have not understood it now.

And in Shabbat we arrive at this perspective. This is the secret of ‘zachor and shamor in one utterance.’