신명기 4:13의 인용 해설

Nachmanides is of the opinion that the entire people heard all the Ten Commandments directly from G’d. According to his view this is the meaning of our verse: “G’d spoke all these words,” as well as Deut. 5,19: “these words G’d spoke to your entire congregation at the mountain out of the fire, etc.” Furthermore, it is written: “He told you of His covenant ....and He inscribed them on the two stone Tablets” (Deut. 4,13). From this we learn that just as G’d had communicated the Ten Commandments to the entire people directly by word of mouth, He subsequently communicated them to the entire people in writing. How does Nachmanides understand the words of the Talmud in Makkot 24 that the Israelites heard the first two commandments from G’d’s own mouth which suggests that they did not hear the other commandments from His mouth? He understands the word שמעום in the Talmud as relating to what the ear heard, similar to the meaning of the words in Proverbs 15,31 אזן שומעת תוכחת חיים, “the ear that listens to life-giving discipline.” This verse implies that the heart also understood the message as is evident from Kings I 3,9 (also Solomon speaking to G’d in his dream) לב שומע, “a heart that hears.” [Seeing that it is not the function of the heart to hear and to listen, clearly Solomon asked for something more, i.e. understanding, when he asked G’d to be granted a “heart which can hear.” Ed.] As far as the Israelites were concerned, they heard and understood only the first two of the Ten Commandments. The other eight commandments they “heard” without understanding what they heard. This is why Moses had to interpret for them what their ears had heard. This is the meaning of Deut. 5,5: “I was standing between G’d and you at that time in order to tell you the word of G’d.” This is also the meaning of 19,19: “Moses would speak and G’d would respond with a voice.” What G’d had said בקול, in an indistinguishable voice,” Moses interpreted to the people. The word עניה, which usually appears in the form of ויען means “beginning.” We find it in this sense in Job 3,2. [In that verse the word ויען could not have meant: “he replied,” as Job’s friends were reported sitting with him for seven days without opening their mouth. Ed.] This is the way Nachmanides understands what happened at Mount Sinai.

The Book of the Covenant (bris). Bereishis is called the Book of the Covenant because it contains all the covenants made with Noach and the Patriarchs. Alternatively, the word bris is a variant of the word bri’ah—“creation,” in which case Bereishis is actually called the Book of Creation.

LO THISA’ (THOU SHALT NOT TAKE) THE NAME OF THE ETERNAL THY G-D IN VAIN. This verse has already been explained in the words of our Rabbis.³⁷⁷Shebuoth 21a. Maimonides’ “The Commandments,” Vol. II, commandment 62, pp. 60-61. He prohibits [here] swearing by the Glorious Name in vain, such as swearing that which is contrary to facts known to man, or swearing to [the truth of] a self-evident fact. For example: if one swears that a pillar of marble is of gold, or that it is of marble, and the pillar is right before them and they recognize it as such [that it is of marble].
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse also prohibits the taking of the Glorious Name in vain upon one’s lips [even without an oath], the usage of the term [lo thisa] being similar to these expressions: ‘Lo thisa’ (Thou shalt not utter) a false report;³⁷⁸Further, 23:1. Nor ‘esa’ (do I take) their names upon my lips.³⁷⁹Psalms 16:4. Speaking is called thisa, [which literally means “lifting”], because the speaker thereby lifts up his voice. Similarly: ‘masa’ (The burden) of the word of the Eternal;³⁸⁰Zechariah 9:1. also, In that day ‘yisa’ (shall he swear), saying: I will not be a healer,³⁸¹Isaiah 3:7. which means that he will lift up his voice to say so. And in truth, this — [i.e., just taking G-d’s Name in vain even without an oath] — is also forbidden, and in the language of the Sages,³⁸²Temurah 3b. it is called “pronouncing the Name of Heaven to no purpose.” Thus our Rabbis have already said:³⁸³Sifra, Vayikra 2. “Whence do we know that [in dedicating a beast for a sacrifice] a man should not say, ‘Unto the Eternal this is a whole-offering,’ or ‘Unto the Eternal this is a sin-offering,’ but instead he should say, ‘This is a whole-offering unto the Eternal,’ ‘This is a sin-offering unto the Eternal’?³⁸⁴The reason for the prohibition is that if he mentions the Name of G-d first and he immediately changes his mind about bringing the beast as an offering, he will have taken the Name of Heaven for no purpose (Nedarim 10 b, Rashi). Scripture therefore says, an offering unto the Eternal.³⁸⁵Leviticus 1:2. Here the word “offering” is mentioned first and then the Name of G-d follows. And must we not reason by using the method of kal vachomer?³⁸⁶See Seder Bo, Note 208. If the Torah said of him who is about to dedicate [something to Heaven], ‘Let My Name not rest on it until [he has first said] korban (sacrifice)’, is it not logical [that we must not pronounce the Name of Heaven to no purpose]!”
He has placed this commandment after the prohibition of idolatry, because just as it is proper to fear the Great and Fearful Name by not giving His Glory to another,³⁸⁷See Isaiah 42:8. so it is fitting to give glory to His Name. He who takes it in vain profanes it, similar to that which is written, And ye shall not swear by My Name falsely, so that thou profane not the Name of thy G-d.³⁸⁸Leviticus 19:12. Just as He was stringent in the case of idolatry and wrote the punishment [for transgression], i.e., that He is a jealous G-d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,³⁸⁹Verse 5. so did He record here the punishment that He will not hold him guiltless. He used this expression instead of saying that He will visit his sin upon him, [as He did in the case of idolatry], because people who swear [in vain] do not consider it a real sin, and they think it is proper that He forgive them. Therefore He said that whosoever toucheth that shall not go unpunished.³⁹⁰Proverbs 6:29. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has written appropriately on this verse.³⁹¹The purport of Ibn Ezra’s explanation is as follows: When one swears by the Name of G-d, his intent is to imply that just as G-d is true, so is his word true. When he fails to fulfill it, it is thus tantamount to denying Him. The same reasoning applies to an oath taken in vain.
Now the language of this verse, the Name of the Eternal thy G-d, implies that it is as if Moses was speaking, and so also in the case of all the following commandments, whereas in the first two verses³⁹²“First two verses.” When the Ten Commandments are read in public, all the five verses contained in the first and second commandments are read as if they were one verse. Ramban’s language must then be understood as: “the first two commandments.” G-d is speaking: I; Who brought thee out; before Me; For I; Of them that love Me and keep My commandments. It is for this reason that our Rabbis of blessed memory have said:³⁹³Makkoth 24a. “We heard the two commandments — I am the Eternal thy G-d and Thou shalt have no other gods — from the Almighty Himself,” for they are the root of everything. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra asked [concerning this tradition of the Rabbis] that Scripture says, And G-d spoke all these words,³⁹⁴Above, Verse 1. and still more clearly it is written [following the Ten Commandments], These words the Eternal spoke unto all your assembly,³⁹⁵Deuteronomy 5:19. and again it is written there, And He wrote them down upon two Tablets of stone,³⁹⁶Ibid., 4:13. meaning that as He said the Ten Commandments to all your assembly, so He wrote them down upon the Tablets!³⁹⁷According to Ibn Ezra, all these verses apparently stand in contradiction to that which the Rabbis have said, i.e., that we heard only the first two commandments from the Almighty Himself. Ramban proceeds to remove the difficulty.
I will explain to you the tradition of our Rabbis [that we heard the first two commandments from the Almighty Himself]. Surely all Israel heard the entire Ten Commandments from the mouth of G-d, as the literal meaning of Scripture indicates. But in the first two commandments, they heard the utterance of speech and understood their words even as Moses understood them. Therefore He spoke to them directly [in the first person], just as a master speaks to his servant, as I have mentioned. From then on, in the rest of the commandments, they heard a voice of speech but they did not understand it, and it became necessary for Moses to explain to them each and every commandment until they understood it from Moses. And so [the Rabbis] explained:³⁹⁸Guide of the Perplexed, II, 33: “Moses spoke, and G-d answered by a voice. In explanation thereof, the Sages said in the Mechilta that Moses brought to them every commandment as he heard it.” I have not been able to identify the exact quotation in the Mechilta. Moses spoke, and G-d answered him by a voice.³⁹⁹Above, 19:19. Therefore [the rest of the Ten Commandments] were addressed by G-d to Moses so that he should tell them thus. The reason [that the first two commandments were spoken to the people directly by G-d] was so that they should all be prophets in the belief of G-d, [His existence, and His Unity], and in the prohibition of idolatry, as I have explained.⁴⁰⁰Ibid., 19:9. Those are the root of the whole Torah and the commandments, just as He said, Assemble Me the people, and I will make them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days.⁴⁰¹Deuteronomy 4:10. But in the rest of the Ten Commandments, they received their explanation from the mouth of Moses after having heard a voice of words,⁴⁰²Ibid., Verse 12. while in all other commandments [of the whole Torah], they believed in Moses completely.