INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

PARASHAT YITRO

Two Shabbats

By Rabbi Yaakov Beasley

In our parasha, we read of the Divine Revelation at Har Sinai.  As described, this giving of the Torah is in many ways the climax of Sefer Shemot.  At the beginning of his mission, Hashem told Moshe that the purpose of the Exodus from Egyptian bondage was so that Benei Yisrael would serve Him at this mountain, and receive the commandments that would form the currency of their new covenant with Hashem.  While Hashem gave Moshe all the mitzvot at Sinai, the Torah emphasizes the central role played by the Aseret Ha-dibrot (popularly known as the Ten Commandments), that would be inscribed upon the tablets of the law.   This revelation was so important that we find that the Aseret Ha-dibrot repeated in the context of Moshe's farewell speech to the Jewish people in Sefer Devarim.

When we look at the two versions, we note that there are subtle differences between them.  Almost all of the commentators attempt to reconcile these variations.  According to the Netziv (Ha-Emek Davar Shemot 34:1), the second version was written upon the second set of tablets, the first having been shattered in response to the sin of the golden calf.  The Ibn Ezra suggests a different approach.  In a lengthy commentary on the fourth of the Dibrot, the mitzva of the Shabbat, the Ibn Ezra proposes reconciling the discrepancies by formulating a principle of his own – “ha’ivri shomer ha-te’amim velo ha’milot” (the style of the Tanakh is to preserve the internal meaning of the words, and not their external forms).  However, to suggest that the Torah was not careful with its exact wording, would call into question much of what we traditionally understand as the inviolability of the transmission of the Torah.  Instead, rabbinic thought preferred a principle of simultaneity – that both versions were stated at the same time.  This principle is found regarding the most well-known and blatant discrepancy between the Aseret Ha-dibrot as recorded in Shemot and as recorded in Devarim is the initiation of the passage on Shabbat with the term Zakhor in the former and Shamor in the latter. Clearly, the two texts contain different meanings (as opposed to the understanding of the Ibn Ezra).  Therefore, rabbinic thought, echoed by Rashi in his commentary, suggested that God, an act incomprehensible to the human ear, uttered these two words simultaneously. Like light traveling through a prism, Hashem’s statement, refracted into two elements, Shamor and Zakhor, when it struck the human mind.

Having stated this, however, we must ask a simple question.  What purpose did speaking in this manner serve – especially if it was beyond the ability of the listeners to understand in this manner?  Why couldn’t both messages have been given one after another, like regular human speech.  To fully appreciate why this style of speech was necessary, we shall compare the commandment of Shabbat as it appears in our parasha with its appearance in Sefer Devarim.  In each instance there is an introductory command:

In Shemot 20:8:

Remember the Shabbat day, to sanctify it.

In Devarim 5:11:

Guard the Shabbat day to sanctify it, as the Hashem your God has commanded you.

The word 'remember,' zakhor, is replaced with 'guard' (or 'keep'), shamor, and the problematic phrase "as the Hashem your God has commanded you" is tacked on (implying, like the Ibn Ezra, that these words are being uttered after the Revelation). Next comes the body of the law:

In Shemot 20:8-9:

Six days shall you labor, and do all your work; But the seventh day is Shabbat of the Hashem your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates.

In Devarim 5:12-13:

Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; But the seventh day is Shabbat of the Hashem your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is inside your gates; that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you.

The additional words in Devarim do not contradict the earlier version in any way; they provide more explanation: "that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you."

The final section of the Commandment is the reason for Shabbat, and it is here that we find two divergent rationales for Sabbath observance:

In Shemot 20:10:

For in six days God made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore God blessed the Shabbat day, and sanctified it.

In Devarim 5:14:

And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Hashem your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm; therefore the Hashem your God commanded you to keep the Shabbat day.

In Shemot, the rationale for Shabbat is Creation: Shabbat is a testament to our belief in the Creation and the Creator. On the other hand, in Devarim the Shabbat is commanded as a reminder of our enslavement in Egypt, and of our liberation by God's Hand.  This is no mere explanatory comment; here are two vastly different, potentially contradictory reasons for observance of Shabbat.

Let summarize the discrepancies before us: The introductory statements for each of the versions of this commandment use unique language to describe the active commemoration of Shabbat -"zakhor," "to remember," on the one hand, and "to guard," on the other.  In both versions, the main body of the commandment consists of a similar list of laws, albeit more fully developed by presumably explanatory material in Devarim.  However, the reason for Shabbat in Shemot is to remember creation; the reason in Devarim is to remember the Exodus from Egypt.  The conclusions drawn by each of the two versions seem to offer mutually exclusive philosophical underpinnings for the Shabbat.  Finally, in Devarim we find the phrase "ka'asher tzivkha," (as the Lord thy God has commanded thee), which has no parallel in Shemot.

We shall begin with the third point, which will help to clarify the first two issues.  What does the phase "ka'asher tzivkha" refer to? Rashi (based upon the TB Sanhedrin 56b) states that the mitzva of Shabbat was given to Am Yisrael at Marah, after the crossing of Yam Suf, before reaching Sinai.  How does this answer help us with our query why Hashem felt the need to state both versions simultaneously?  We will present one approach, the ideas of R. Yehuda Ha-Loewy of Prague, popularly known as the Maharal, as found in the writings of Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner.  In his work Pachad Yitzchak (Shavuot 12), Rav Hutner explains that Devarim is also called "Mishnah Torah" (usually translated as the "Repetition of the Torah") since this book, Moshe's farewell speech, reviews many of the mitzvot previously stated in the earlier books.  Though Sefer Devarim is the verbatim word of Hashem, it is stylistically different from the first four books of the Chumash.  Moshe speaks in it in first person – Hashem’s words are spoken as though his own.  According to the Maharal, Moshe is restating the Torah in more human, earthly terms. Accordingly, in Sefer Shemot, the Torah gives the "Divine" reason of the creation of the world, whereas in Sefer Devarim it is the more "human" reason of the Exodus.  Only by leaving the bondage of Egypt did Benei Yisrael become capable of observing the Shabbat.

Regarding the change in verbs from "zakhor" (remember) to "shamor" (keep) the Maharal explains that from "zakhor" the Rabbis learned the positive commandments of kiddush and havdala, the requirement to verbally proclaim the holiness of Shabbat, while from "shamor" they learned the prohibition of 39 categories of melakha - creative labor.  As stated previously, both zakhor and shamor, the mitzva of kiddush and the prohibition of labor, were stated simultaneously.  The rationale for this is that they reflect two aspects of the same commandment.  According to the Maharal’s explanation, the function of negative commandments is to keep us from falling to a lower spiritual level, while actively performing positive commandments elevates us to a higher spiritual level.  This is similar to the Ramban’s famous dictum that negative commandments are an expression of yir'at Hashem, fear of God, while positive commandments are an expression of ahavat Hashem, the love of God.  Therefore, in Shemot we are given the positive mitzva of zakhor, elevating us closer to the Divine, and in Devarim, written in more human terms, the emphasis is on shamor, the negative, to help us maintain our basic human level.

According to Rav Hutner, the phrase "ka'asher tzivcha" ("as the Lord thy God has commanded thee") does not appear in Shemot, even though the Shabbat had already been commanded at Marah, for a similar reason.  Since the mitzva was given before the Torah was revealed, it is in a sense similar to the Oral Law.  Therefore it is referred to only in Devarim, which is written in a human style and is somewhat reminiscent of the Oral Law.

A similar idea is mentioned in the name of the Rav, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik.  Discussing the discrepancies, he suggested, like the Maharal above, the two different rationales for Shabbat do not contradict one another. Instead, they teach the same law from two different vantage points.  The formulation in Shemot states: "For in six days God made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore God blessed the Shabbat day, and sanctified it."  There is one thing missing here - namely, man.  What does man have to do with this?  Why should humankind keep Shabbat?  Moreover, if Shabbat exists simply because God created, this law should be universal, and not apply only to members of the Covenant, the Jewish people only (and in fact, the Talmud in Shabbat 58b states that a non-Jew who keeps the Shabbat is worthy of receiving the death penalty).  Rav Soloveitchik points out that this statement, in Sefer Shemot, is theocentric, reflecting God's perspective.  The seventh day is holy because God created for six days and then desisted from creating.  This is echoed in the verse in Bereishit, uttered at the very dawn of creation:  "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because on it He rested from all His work which God created to make." (Bereishit 2:3)

The Rav argues that the fact that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it does not necessarily affect man; only when man is commanded to keep that day in a similar or imitative fashion is he brought into the frame, into God's frame of reference, as it were.

On the other hand, the rationale for Shabbat as stated in Devarim is drawn from a totally different sphere:  We were enslaved, and God rescued us.  "And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Almighty your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm; therefore the Almighty your God commanded you to keep the Shabbat day."  This formulation is homocentric.  The former slaves are addressed in a particularly compelling way:  As slaves, they had no freedom.  Now, as free men and women, they are free every day.  They have been given all seven days of the week to pursue their individuality, and with this Commandment, God asks that they put aside one-seventh of their gift in return.  Seen from this perspective, Shabbat becomes a moral imperative for those whose shackles were broken, homage to their liberator.

Accordingly, the two rationales are not contradictory; one speaks from God's perspective, teaching us that the seventh day is holy and unique.  The other speaks from the human perspective, requiring man to rest as well.  Had it not been for the first rationale, man would be able to choose his own day of rest; each and every day would be an equally valid candidate, and no one day would have religious superiority over the others.  On the other hand, with only the first formulation, man would remain outside the picture; man would have no part in the sanctity of the seventh day, just as he was not a party to Creation.

Having concluded that both of these perspectives were taught by God, simultaneously, at Har Sinai, the Rav anticipates one final question – why was “zakhor” taught in Sefer Shemot, and “shamor” in Sefer Devarim.  Could the two have been reversed?  Rav Soloveitchik suggests that each was given at a different and specific juncture in the history of the spiritual development of the Jewish People.  The generation that left Egypt would certainly have no trouble embracing the idea that one day each week should be a day of rest.  These former slaves would have perceived this Commandment primarily as a social law instituted to protect workers' rights and prevent future enslavement.  Therefore, the generation that left Egypt, the generation of liberated slaves that stood at Sinai, was taught about the other reason for Shabbat:  This day is hallowed because of Creation, and by emulating God and keeping the Shabbat we forge a powerful, holy relationship with Him.

The generation that stood poised to enter Eretz Yisrael, however, knew neither work nor slavery.  They had lived under the Divine protection for almost forty years.  It was this generation that needed to hear about the human side of Shabbat.  They had to be taught that the seventh day is not exclusively Divine in nature.  The human and social implications of Shabbat would not have been intuitively understood by those who were sustained by miracles for forty years.