<![CDATA[Jewish Forums - All Forums]]>

<![CDATA[Jewish Forums - All Forums]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/ Fri, 05 Jun 2026 10:55:46 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[How to deal with antisemitism?]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1794 Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:34:43 -0700 PhotoGuy]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1794 “Hitler was right”
Or
“Jews are out to take over the world.”

How do you deal with people like this?]]> “Hitler was right”
Or
“Jews are out to take over the world.”

How do you deal with people like this?]]> <![CDATA[How do Indeal with antisemites and people who don’t understand Zionism?]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1793 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 19:45:05 -0700 PhotoGuy]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1793 <![CDATA[Comment on Exodus 34:14 Jealous]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1784 Fri, 22 May 2026 11:57:13 -0700 JudaicChristian]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1784 Exodus 34:14 Jealous

The Hebrew word for ( name שְׁמֹו ) can also be translated as (called or called upon.)

Exodus 34:14
You shall not bow yourself down to another god. For Yahwah whose is (called upon) is jealous, and is a jealous God.

A person who is “name-ed” is “called” and is “called upon.”
Yahwah has only one name and many titles.

The Hebrew word for "(name)" is Shem (שֵׁם), which is fundamentally tied to the verb Qara (קָרָא), meaning "to call," "to summon," or "to call out."
Therefore, when a person or thing is "named" in Hebrew, it is essentially being "called" or "called upon" by that designation.

Key Connections:
Shem (שֵׁם): Noun, meaning "Name" or "Reputation."
Qara (קָרָא): Verb, meaning "to call," "to summon," "to proclaim," or "to read."

In the Bible, naming is an action of calling upon someone's identity or purpose, hence a strong conceptual link between the two words.]]> Exodus 34:14 Jealous

The Hebrew word for ( name שְׁמֹו ) can also be translated as (called or called upon.)

Exodus 34:14
You shall not bow yourself down to another god. For Yahwah whose is (called upon) is jealous, and is a jealous God.

A person who is “name-ed” is “called” and is “called upon.”
Yahwah has only one name and many titles.

The Hebrew word for "(name)" is Shem (שֵׁם), which is fundamentally tied to the verb Qara (קָרָא), meaning "to call," "to summon," or "to call out."
Therefore, when a person or thing is "named" in Hebrew, it is essentially being "called" or "called upon" by that designation.

Key Connections:
Shem (שֵׁם): Noun, meaning "Name" or "Reputation."
Qara (קָרָא): Verb, meaning "to call," "to summon," "to proclaim," or "to read."

In the Bible, naming is an action of calling upon someone's identity or purpose, hence a strong conceptual link between the two words.]]> <![CDATA[Israel is GOD's Chosen People !]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1753 Sun, 10 May 2026 02:55:57 -0700 232]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1753 For this i am eternal gretful to Israel as without You i would have not know GOD and Jesus Christ words!
Thank You Israel !]]> For this i am eternal gretful to Israel as without You i would have not know GOD and Jesus Christ words!
Thank You Israel !]]> <![CDATA[Sledgehammered a Statue of Jesus.]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1751 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:13:09 -0700 JudaicChristian]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1751 Israeli Soldier in Lebanon Sledgehammered a Statue of Jesus.

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Leviticus 26:1
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God.

Sounds like he is a commandment keeping Israeli.]]> Israeli Soldier in Lebanon Sledgehammered a Statue of Jesus.

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Leviticus 26:1
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God.

Sounds like he is a commandment keeping Israeli.]]> <![CDATA[Pesach]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1737 Tue, 31 Mar 2026 04:38:37 -0700 RabbiO]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1737 <![CDATA[Haaretz misses spelling errors]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1736 Wed, 25 Mar 2026 05:48:49 -0700 ctjacobs]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1736 https://x.com/GAZAWOOD1/status/2036750022524510415?s=20]]> https://x.com/GAZAWOOD1/status/2036750022524510415?s=20]]> <![CDATA[Your urgent help needed ?]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1731 Sun, 15 Mar 2026 02:11:29 -0700 liorpedaya]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1731
Hello everyone,

I hope it is okay for me to post here. I am reaching out because I am desperately trying to find an ocular oncologist who might be willing to briefly review my case and tell me whether it may involve a delayed diagnosis of uveal melanoma.

In 2018, I visited an ophthalmologist because I was experiencing flashes of light (photopsia). The visit was very short – only a few minutes – and according to my recollection and the medical documentation, my pupils were never dilated and the retina was not examined. The doctor focused on the front part of the eye and recommended a preventive laser iridotomy.

Three years later, in 2021, during what was supposed to be just a routine eye exam with another doctor, my pupils were dilated as part of the examination. The doctor immediately discovered a medium-to-large ocular melanoma in my eye. I was urgently referred to a hospital and underwent brachytherapy within two days.

Sadly, despite treatment, in September 2024 the cancer progressed and my eye had to be surgically removed. Today I live with an ocular prosthesis.

Right now, I am simply trying to find an experienced ocular oncologist who might be willing to review a short summary of my case and let me know whether it may warrant a formal expert opinion.

Without a supporting opinion from a specialist in ocular oncology, I cannot even pursue legal review of the case in my country.

If anyone here knows an ocular oncologist, a specialist in uveal melanoma, or someone connected to major centers such as Wills Eye Hospital, Mount Sinai, Columbia, Bascom Palmer, or other ocular oncology programs, I would be incredibly grateful for any guidance, introductions, or suggestions.

This situation has been extremely difficult, and any help or direction from this community would truly mean the world to me.

Thank you so much for reading and for any help you may be able to offer ❤️?????
Lior pedaya
Israel.
My email is :
pedaya@gmail.com]]>
Hello everyone,

I hope it is okay for me to post here. I am reaching out because I am desperately trying to find an ocular oncologist who might be willing to briefly review my case and tell me whether it may involve a delayed diagnosis of uveal melanoma.

In 2018, I visited an ophthalmologist because I was experiencing flashes of light (photopsia). The visit was very short – only a few minutes – and according to my recollection and the medical documentation, my pupils were never dilated and the retina was not examined. The doctor focused on the front part of the eye and recommended a preventive laser iridotomy.

Three years later, in 2021, during what was supposed to be just a routine eye exam with another doctor, my pupils were dilated as part of the examination. The doctor immediately discovered a medium-to-large ocular melanoma in my eye. I was urgently referred to a hospital and underwent brachytherapy within two days.

Sadly, despite treatment, in September 2024 the cancer progressed and my eye had to be surgically removed. Today I live with an ocular prosthesis.

Right now, I am simply trying to find an experienced ocular oncologist who might be willing to review a short summary of my case and let me know whether it may warrant a formal expert opinion.

Without a supporting opinion from a specialist in ocular oncology, I cannot even pursue legal review of the case in my country.

If anyone here knows an ocular oncologist, a specialist in uveal melanoma, or someone connected to major centers such as Wills Eye Hospital, Mount Sinai, Columbia, Bascom Palmer, or other ocular oncology programs, I would be incredibly grateful for any guidance, introductions, or suggestions.

This situation has been extremely difficult, and any help or direction from this community would truly mean the world to me.

Thank you so much for reading and for any help you may be able to offer ❤️?????
Lior pedaya
Israel.
My email is :
pedaya@gmail.com]]> <![CDATA[Exodus 21]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1730 Sat, 14 Mar 2026 00:08:32 -0700 gib65]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1730
* primary: chabad.org

* secondary: biblegateway.com (NIV version)

* And if all else fails: chatgpt.com

Exodus 21:2 Wrote:Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.

I have to say, this is very unexpected. In my last thread about Exodus 20, it was emphasized that the reason even "the stranger in your city" was not to work on the Sabbath was to enforce a way of life for the Isrealites that worked against slavery and coerced labor. But here, we see God condoning slavery, at least for six years. Perhaps it ought to be read in context. That is to say, if slaves were owned for life before this ordinance, limiting such ownership to six years might have been seen as merciful. Maybe it was seen as a way to limit to evils of slavery such that those who owned slaves wouldn't be too eager to reject this ordinance and rebel against God's commands (reminds me of The Slave Trade Clause in the US constitution--that the slave trade in the US was to end by 1808--seen by some as morally abhorent given that they could have ended it immediately, but in fact was intended to give the slave owning states enough time to adjust to living within a union where the slave trade would be illegal, thereby making them more willing to accept the constitution, join the union, and defeat the British... but I digress). The point is, everything in context. But I wonder what Jewish scholars and other thinkers on the subject think of this source of potential cognitive dissonance.

On another note, it doesn't escape me that the 6 years of slavery followed by freedom in the 7th year maps perfectly onto the 6 days of creation followed by the day of rest, and the 6 days of work followed by the Sabbath, a day of rest and spiritual reflection. And I assume that the slave's freedom in the 7th year lasts for the rest of his life--as opposed to his having freedom only in the 7th year and then back to slavery for the next 6 years, like the repeating work week after each Sabbath.

I also assume the 6 years applies to Isrealites who already owned slaves at the time this ordinance was announced; as in--you have 6 years to make the most of your slave(s)--as opposed to, if you've owned your slave(s) for 6 years or more, you must set them free as of now.

And is there anything to the wording of "Hebrew" slave? For example, if someone owned an Ethiopian slave, would this ordinance not count for them?

Now, if you thought this verse sounded inhumane, check out verses 3 to 6:

Exodus 21:3-6 Wrote:3 If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married man, his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave says, "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free," 6 his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Damn! Talk about a sticky predicament! One might at first think this is a no brainer--just keep your mouth shut and go free--but at the cost of betraying your wife and children? Well, if the consequence is that nobody goes free and has to serve their master forever, maybe it is a no brainer after all. But let's look at this in more detail. First of all, from verse 3, it's pretty clear that the husband and wife come and go together. But it doesn't mention anything about children. If the slave comes with a wife and children, do the children also go out with their parents after 6 years? I would think so, but it's not explicitely stated. Now if the master gives him a wife and they bear children, as verse 4 says, they don't go free together. This could mean something as simple as: the wife and children must stay for their 6 years and then go free. So, for example, if the master gives the slave a wife in the 3rd year, and then they bear a child in the 4th year, then he goes free in the 6th year, she goes free in the 9th year, and the child goes free in the 10th year. The alternative interpretation is that the wife and children remain slaves forever. The latter interpretation seems to be supported by the consequence of the father/husband refusing to leave in his 6th year--he is to remain a slave forever--implying, one could suppose, that if he's choosing to stay with his wife and children, he must stay forever since they stay forever.

Speaking of the choice to remain, I wouldn't immediately interpret the consequence of remaining a slave forever a punishment if it wasn't for that awl thingy being bored into his ear. OUCH!!! I can see no other purpose for that except to punish him for choosing to stay. Why would it have been so imperative for the slave to leave after 6 years? The only answer I can think of is that, like my interpretation above, the 6 year limit was a way of deminishing slavery, so much so that, even if by the slave's own will, refusal to accept freedom was punishable by such a barbaric treatment. Maybe the fact that he has a wife and kid(s) was seen as a potential insentive to stay, and so had to be deterred. But then again, the master has an insentive too--slaves are useful! (It makes one wonder, what was the punishment for the slave owner if he refused to let his slave free in the 6th year?).

Verse 5 gives an example of what a slave might say: "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free,"--and I interpret this to be just an example of what the slave's reasons for staying might be--but what if it's a condition for the punishment for breaking this ordinance? I mean, what if the slave's reason is "I kinda like it here; I always get fed, I always have a place to sleep, my master treats me well"? <-- Note that this doesn't require a wife or children. Does the same punishment apply? And if we get really specific, does it depend on the slave's love for his master? I mean, the quote could have been: "I love my wife and my children". But verse 5 includes love for the master as well. Does the condition for the punishment get that specific? And one might wonder, what slave would ever love their master? But again, one must put themselves in the context of the times. Perhaps love for the master was an expectation of the slave, maybe a sign that he was a "good" slave. After all, to feed, clothe, and shelter a person who would otherwise be out on the street with no way to feed himself or find secure shelter might have been seen, at the time, as an act of benevolence. But anyway you cut it, a slave being punished with an awl in his ear and then eternal slavery thereafter seems especially cruel if it follows an expression of love on the slave's part for his master.

And why bring the slave to the door or doorpost before drilling his ear with the awl? Most likely, to make a public display of it. It means, from what I surmise, to take the slave outside for the general public to witness the punishment, a common practice before modern times so as to maximize the deterring effect of the punishment.

And finally, I assume the gender roles here are intentional. That is, only males can be purchased as slaves, and females given to the slave as a wife for the purpose of producing children (who also become slaves). But if that's the case, where is the wife taken from? Perhaps the slave trade at the time included both men and women, but the laws surrounding ownership of slaves distinguished between men and women. Men could be bought as slaves straight up, whereas women could be bought as slaves only as concubines to male slaves already owned. In other words, there shouldn't have been any female "standalone" slaves. And again, I assume this is still in the context of "Hebrew" slaves.

Perhaps verses 7 to 11 will shed some light on these.

Exodus 21:7-11 Wrote:7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go free as the slaves go free. 8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her. 9 And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]. 10 If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go free without charge, without [payment of] money.

Well, lo and behold, it does explain how the law works for female slaves. Now, it calls her a "maidservant" which in modern parlance means she gets paid for her work, which certainly bears no relation to marriage or child bearing. But a quick google search tells me that in the biblical context, this is typically the intent. It says exactly:

Google Gemini Wrote:Based on an analysis of Exodus 21:7–11, a daughter "sold" by her father as a amah (maidservant/handmaid) was not a chattel slave in the modern sense, but rather a form of indentured servant or concubine (a wife of lower status). She was not "paid" a salary, but the transaction was a form of protection against extreme poverty, aiming for her to become a wife or daughter-in-law in the household.

A lot of context there--enough to say the roles of male slaves and female maidservants was definitely different--but without getting too tangled in exact definitions, let's pick apart verses 7 to 11.

According to verse 7, these ordinances only apply if the maidservant is a daughter of a man who sold her to a master. Or was this the only way a female could become a maidservant anyway?

Now it's verse 8 that really throws me for a loop. What does "did not designate her for himself" mean? Meaning that the master didn't take her as wife/concubine? Verse 9 seems to imply this as a possibility (he can designate her to his son), but I'm wondering if the insertion of "for himself" in the translation over at chabad.org is misplaced, and the verse really means to say: if the master didn't designate her to anyone at all--as in, she is just a servant--cleaning, cooking, taking care of his children--but not being wedded to nor having children with anyone. After all, I have to imagine that some slave owners were already married to ordinary Isrealite citizens, and therefore it would be inappropriate to take a maidservant as a wife or concubine--in which case, she'd just do work as an ordinary slave--but then again, the google definition above suggests that maidservants can be "a wife of lower status"--so already having a wife doesn't seem to be a show stopper. Was marriage in Israel at the time considered exclusive? Will have to consult biblegateway.com and ChatGPT later.

In any case, the real loop here (that I'm thrown through) is "then he shall enable her to be redeemed"--redeemed how?--this seems to stand in stark contrast to the slave who refuses to go free in the 6th year--severe punishment vs chance to be redeemed--and this: "he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person"--this is what it means to be redeemed? Is this another way of saying he shall set her free? As in, if she displeases you, you can just let her go. And particularly: you can't just get rid of her by selling her to another person. Maybe this is where the term "enable" plays a role. It doesn't say that he shall redeem her; it says that he shall enable her to be redeemed--meaning, perhaps, he shall give her the choice of whether to go free or remain a maidservant (again, quite the contrast with the male slave who rejects his freedom). If she goes free, this makes sense out of not ruling over her to sell to another person. And if she stays, well, then he continues to rule over her until he sells her to someone else. All this would make perfect sense, wrapped up in a nice little bow, if it wasn't for the last part of this verse: "when he betrays her". Betrays her how? If anything, I would think her displeasing him would count as a betrayal against him. The only thing I can think of is that "betrayal" might mean sleeping with another women. So effectively, this passage is saying if she displeases him, and she is not redeemed (whatever that means), he may choose someone else to marry and/or be concubine, but at the cost of ruling over her (i.e. he marries/sleeps with another women, he relinquishes ownership of her). But again, this doesn't quite work because this whole verse is couched in the assumption that the master "did not designate her" (for himself or anyone). Maybe the rule is: even if you don't intend to marry or sleep with your maidservant, you may not marry or sleep with another (unless she displeases you, of course). Sooo confused.

Anyway, verse 9 talks about what happens if the master designates his maidservant to his son. So his son marries/sleeps with the maidservant (makes one wonder if a male slave can be designated to a daughter, but I don't think that's the way things were done in these times). All it says on this score is that she shall be dealt with (if she displeases his son, or perhaps himself, I'm assuming) according to the laws of the daughters. What are the laws of the daughters? I thought these were the laws the Isrealites are to follow. Are these laws of the daughters laid out elsewhere in the Torah? Perhaps in Genesis? In any case, it doesn't leave much to think about (which might be a good thing).

And verses 10 and 11? These are more or less straight forward--if the master takes another wife/concubine for himself, it doesn't nullify his responsibilities as master to his maidservant--he must still take care of her basic needs--which totally blows my interpretation of "betrayal" out of the water (unless it's like modern day alimony Smile

). Then again, there's a bit of ambiguity over "he". These verses follow immediately after the verse about designating the maidservant to his son--so by "he", are verses 10 and 11 referring to the master or his son? In either case, if the master doesn't provide these 3 things (sustenance, clothing, and marital status), then she goes free. My only question here is: by these 3 things, is it any one of these three things, or all 3 things. So if he fails to provide clothing for his maidservant, but continues to feed her and keeps her marital status (whatever that means), is she free, or does he have to fail on all 3 fronts?

Well, that seems to be it for the ordinance on slaves and maidservants. The next handful of verses appears to be about assault and battery.

Exodus 21:12-14 Wrote:12 One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. 14 But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die.

Verses 12 and 14 are clear. It's the one in the middle (13) which is obscure. The word "stalk" is ambiguous. If it bears any relation to how we use that term today, it sounds something like to persue. In other words, if one does not intentionally persue (go after, hunt down) the man one strikes (because God brought it about that they simply cross paths such that (I guess) some altercation takes place), then God will see to it that the man flees to a place where he doesn't bother one anymore (and this would be for the sake of the man who strikes, thus "for you"). But if the man strikes, there's no less possibility in this case that he would kill the other man... unless this is what God is saying--that He will ensure the struck man will flee instead of die (and thus no punishment is exacted?).

Verse 14 seems to reiterate the stalking scenario, describing it as "plotting" instead of "stalking", which gives richer context to the meaning of these words. It adds that even deliberation is punishable by death, clearly making no distinction between intent and deed. It adds further that he is to be taken even from God's altar (because he's praying or sacrificing, I assume), emphasizing the seriousness of such deliberations. Also note a few differences between verses 12 and 14. Verse 12 describes a man who dies from being struck, implying the death doesn't have to be intentional, whereas verse 14 explicitely mentions plotting "deliberately against his friend to slay him..." meaning there is definitely the intent to kill. And unlike verse 12, verse 14 refers to the man's "friend", perhaps serving as the reason why such a crime is severe enough to warrant being taken even from God's altar.

BibleGateway.com renders this passage as follows:

biblegateway.com Wrote:12 Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

According to this, the unintentional nature of killing a man by striking him only applies to verse 13. It doesn't shed any light on the meaning of "stalk", but seems to have in its place "intentionally". So "one who did not stalk [him]" apparently means "if he did not do it intentionally". Also apparently, "God brought [it] about into his hand" means "God let it happen". And finally, "I will make a place for you to which he shall flee" means "they are to flee to a place I will designate." (I was thrown off by the inconsistent pronouns "you" and "he".) Note that this translation makes no mention of "friend", so I guess whether the victim is a friend, a foe, or a stranger is inconsequential, meaning the severity of the crime (enough to arrest him even at God's altar) comes purely from the scheming and planning.

Makes one wonder how God will inform the man who strikes of the place He designates? A sign? Will He literally come down and speak to the man? Must he consult a member of the clergy? Must he figure it out himself? Or is this part of the justice system? More like an exile than a fleeing from the law, the exact place being determined by the judge?

Exodus 21:18-19 Wrote:18 And if men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or with a fist, and he does not die but is confined to [his] bed, 19 if he gets up and walks about outside on his support, the assailant shall be cleared; he shall give only [payment] for his [enforced] idleness, and he shall provide for his cure.

This passage leaves out what the punishment is if the man doesn't get up (or gets up but doesn't walk outside). If a fatal blow is met with death, I would think a non-fatal blow would be met with something less severe than death. If the victim gets up and walks outside without supports, I assume it's fair to say he has recovered, and that's the end of the whole affair. In that case, the assailant receives the full punishment for the time the victim took to recover. But what about cases where the victim is disabled in a way that doesn't require supports, like a broken hand or a blind eye? I suppose the idea is that if he's bed ridden, the damage must be to his legs and therefore he requires supports in order to get up and walk. But that doesn't mean a broken hand or a blind eye makes him any less debilitated and stuck to his home. The debilitation seems to pivot specifically on being confined to bed and thereby not being able to work or go about town doing his business. In that case, it sounds like the punishment is not just for the "enforced idleness" and the cure, but for wages lost due to inability to work.

Exodus 21:20-21 Wrote:And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. 21 But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.

Well, this seems like strange reasoning. I'm not sure why the time it takes for the manservant or maidservant to die makes a difference. Either way, the master killed him/her. And either way, they are his property. Perhaps it made more sense in the context of the times. And the meaning of "avenged" seems deliberately vague. Obviously, death is not the only option (if an option at all). But what constitutes avengence is not clear. I suppose a judge decides. The meaning of "rod" is also unclear, but I assume it means some kind of long hand-held stick of sorts meant to whip or beat his servants when the master deemed it approperiate. Not something meant to kill as the killing seems to be the crime here (makes one wonder what the punishment is for deliberately killing one's servants). I would think such "rods" were common place at the time, and a master was expected to own one and use it (if necessary) for just this purpose. Otherwise, why would this ordinance be limited just to rods? Why not stones or other hard objects, or even fists? The assumption must be that the practice of disciplining your slave was to be done with special rods for this very purpose, and it was meant to be carried out calmly as a standard proceedure, as opposed to an outburst of rage which could result in the master grabbing any nearby object like a pot and assulting his slave with it.

Exodus 21:22-25 Wrote:22 And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. 23 But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

Does the hitting of the pregnant woman have to be purposeful? I don't think so as restitution implies damages or losses regardless of intent.

Verse 23 makes sense in the context fatalities (the woman's), but then verse 24 and 25 go on about eyes, teeth, hands, feet, burns, wounds, and bruises. Is this to be read in the context of no fatalities? As in, if the assailant struck the woman in the eye and she lost sight, the loss of his own eye would be added to the restitution over and above that for the miscarriage. Or is it to be read as just an elaboration on the justification for this form of justice. As in, if the woman dies, the assailant shall have his own life taken, just as you would take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.. Or is this to be read as a generalization of any kind of altercation in which one person assults another, and it was slipped in here because it was on topic. As in, if the woman dies, the assailant shall have his own life taken, and by the way, the rule in general is that, for any altercation between two people, if one takes the other's eye, he shall have his eye taken, and if one takes the other's tooth, he shall have his tooth taken, etc..

Exodus 21:26-27 Wrote:26 And if a man strikes the eye of his manservant or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall set him free in return for his eye, 27 and if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or the tooth of his maidservant, he shall set him free in return for his tooth.

No ambiguity here. An eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom. But is it limited to an eye and a tooth, or does the list of tits-for-tats in verses 25 and 26 apply even here (but implicitely). Of course, it's not an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but an eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom, but the point is, does it implicitely go through the whole list from eye to bruise? I actually don't think so, as verse 25 lists injuries one can recover from, and if a master is allowed to strike his servants with a rod, one can't not expect some form of wounding or bruising, or maybe even burning. But it seems like the losing of a hand or a foot (verse 24) ranks right up there with eyes and teeth, so I see no reason these wouldn't be implied after mentioning an eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom.

Exodus 21:28 Wrote:And if a bull gores a man or a woman and [that one] dies, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, and the owner of the bull is clear.

Poor bull, one might think, he doesn't know any better, he's just an animal acting on instrincts. But we do the same in today's world. We often put dogs down if they repeatedly attack and injure or kill people. We even hunt down wild animals, like bears or sharks, if they attack or kill human beings. The point is not to punish them for bad deeds, but to do away with them before they cause even more damage or death. They say that once an animal gets a taste for attacking, injuring, or killing (a taste for blood), it becomes less reserved about doing it again. So they must be put down. It's unfortunate, but a necessary part of protecting ourselves.

The part I don't quite get is the prohibition against eating the bull's flesh. Is the fact that the bull is a killer somehow seeped into his flesh, like a poison that, if eaten, transfers to you? I know later in Isrealite history (correct me if I'm wrong), they had a practice of transferring sin from a person to a goat and then sent that goat off into the wilderness (thus the term "scapegoat"). Could this be an early precursor of this idea? That the bull, in killing a person, has sort of "sinned" and therefore eating its flesh would transfer the sin over to you? If so, this casts some doubt on my above interpretation. I said the purpose of the bull's death is not a punishment, but a way of protecting people from the harm it does. But if the prohibition of eating its flesh is grounded on the idea that its sins will be transferred to you, then it sounds like this verse is saying the bull really is guilty of murder, that it has sinned, and actually deserves to die. What did the Isrealites actually believe about animal violence and animal sin?

Exodus 21:29-30 Wrote:29 But if it is a [habitually] goring bull since yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner had been warned, but he did not guard it, and it puts to death a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death, 30 insofar as ransom shall be levied upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul according to all that is levied upon him.

Verse 29 is clear. It's verse 30 that confuses me. What ransom is it talking about? And is the "redemption of his soul" being considered payment for the ransom? So in addition to being put to death, if someone demands ransom for damages, that ransom can be paid for by the man's soul (or the redemption thereof) in proportion to whatever's levied against him. I guess that really puts it in God's hands, doesn't it? <-- If this interpretation is right, it means they must have believed in an afterlife in which God could exact punishment for unredeemed souls, and in this case, in proportion to the levies put on him. So it doesn't sound like everlasting damnation in Hell, but a limited punishment for a short while until the ransom is paid.

Once again, BibleGateway.com makes way more sense of this:

BibleGateway.com Wrote:30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded.

This doesn't even need explanation. It's crystal clear on its surface. But is it accurate? Better clarity for a modern audience may sometimes be at the cost of translational accuracy.

Exodus 21:31 Wrote:Or if it gores a young boy or a young girl, according to this ordinance shall be done to him.

What shall be done to him? Is it saying the default punishment (death) shall be done to him if the bull gores a child, that none are to demand a levy in the case of the death of children?

According to BibleGateway.com, it seems like just the opposite:

BibleGateway.com Wrote:31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.

Since verse 29 speaks of goring a man or a woman, this verse seems to be simply clarifying that this ordinance applies to children as well.

Exodus 21:33 Wrote:And if a person opens a pit, or if a person digs a pit and does not cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall return money to its owner, and the dead body shall be his.

Exodus 21:2 Wrote:Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.

Exodus 21:3-6 Wrote:3 If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married man, his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave says, "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free," 6 his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Exodus 21:7-11 Wrote:7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go free as the slaves go free. 8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her. 9 And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]. 10 If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go free without charge, without [payment of] money.

Google Gemini Wrote:Based on an analysis of Exodus 21:7–11, a daughter "sold" by her father as a amah (maidservant/handmaid) was not a chattel slave in the modern sense, but rather a form of indentured servant or concubine (a wife of lower status). She was not "paid" a salary, but the transaction was a form of protection against extreme poverty, aiming for her to become a wife or daughter-in-law in the household.

Exodus 21:12-14 Wrote:12 One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. 14 But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die.

biblegateway.com Wrote:12 Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

Exodus 21:18-19 Wrote:18 And if men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or with a fist, and he does not die but is confined to [his] bed, 19 if he gets up and walks about outside on his support, the assailant shall be cleared; he shall give only [payment] for his [enforced] idleness, and he shall provide for his cure.

Exodus 21:20-21 Wrote:And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. 21 But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.

Exodus 21:22-25 Wrote:22 And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. 23 But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

Exodus 21:26-27 Wrote:26 And if a man strikes the eye of his manservant or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall set him free in return for his eye, 27 and if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or the tooth of his maidservant, he shall set him free in return for his tooth.

Exodus 21:28 Wrote:And if a bull gores a man or a woman and [that one] dies, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, and the owner of the bull is clear.

Exodus 21:29-30 Wrote:29 But if it is a [habitually] goring bull since yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner had been warned, but he did not guard it, and it puts to death a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death, 30 insofar as ransom shall be levied upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul according to all that is levied upon him.

BibleGateway.com Wrote:30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded.

This doesn't even need explanation. It's crystal clear on its surface. But is it accurate? Better clarity for a modern audience may sometimes be at the cost of translational accuracy.

Exodus 21:31 Wrote:Or if it gores a young boy or a young girl, according to this ordinance shall be done to him.

BibleGateway.com Wrote:31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.

Since verse 29 speaks of goring a man or a woman, this verse seems to be simply clarifying that this ordinance applies to children as well.

Exodus 21:33 Wrote:And if a person opens a pit, or if a person digs a pit and does not cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall return money to its owner, and the dead body shall be his.

Did this happen often? Were donkeys and bulls regularly falling into pits? If not, this seems like such an arbitrary ordinance. For example, why limit it to donkeys and bulls? Why not goats? Why not sheep? Were all other animals just more careful? More resilient? Were bulls and donkeys just that much more valuable? Anyway, the punishment seems fair. In fact, it doesn't seem like a punishment at all. He's simply buying a meal he can feed his wife and kids for days.

Other than that, all other verses are pretty straight forward. I will bring in ChatGPT to add some insight into some of the questions I posed above, but that will be for a later post. And then it will be on to Exodus 22.]]> <![CDATA[Isaiah 53 speaks about the people of Israel]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1729 Wed, 04 Mar 2026 04:28:45 -0800 Eliyahu]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1729
Isaiah 53 speaks about the people of Israel. The evidence for that is abundant and very strong.

For the finer details look here: Isaiah 53]]>
Isaiah 53 speaks about the people of Israel. The evidence for that is abundant and very strong.

For the finer details look here: Isaiah 53]]> <![CDATA[Hebrew in NY and NJ public schools]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1728 Tue, 03 Mar 2026 01:54:15 -0800 grandpatzer92]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1728 <![CDATA[Happy Purim!]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1727 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 19:02:57 -0800 searchinmyroots]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1727
May our enemies lay down their arms and peace be upon us.]]>
May our enemies lay down their arms and peace be upon us.]]> <![CDATA[A comic I'm making]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1725 Wed, 18 Feb 2026 20:58:49 -0800 potatge]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1725 You can read it here.
[Image: peaceinthedesert.png]

]]> You can read it here.
[Image: peaceinthedesert.png]

]]> <![CDATA[Peace on Earth?]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1713 Wed, 14 Jan 2026 10:05:54 -0800 J-Man 70]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1713
Then they celebrate their pagan holidays like Ishtar (Easter) and in December they're putting up their pagan decorations! Don't they realize December 25th is the birthday of MANY pagan gods?

I've been in their Catholic churches watching them worship their statues. I do like their wine though!]]>
Then they celebrate their pagan holidays like Ishtar (Easter) and in December they're putting up their pagan decorations! Don't they realize December 25th is the birthday of MANY pagan gods?

I've been in their Catholic churches watching them worship their statues. I do like their wine though!]]> <![CDATA[Exodus 20]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1711 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 22:51:29 -0800 gib65]]> https://www.thehebrewcafe.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1711 ). I have to warn you in advance, this post is by far the longest post I've written--I guess on a subject like the 10 Commandments, one cannot say enough. Anyway, my official sources are:

* primary: chabad.org

* secondary: biblegateway.com

* And if all else fails: chatgpt.com*

And I have to apologize for not being more specific in previous posts. When I cite quotes from BibleGateway.com, I'm using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. I will be sure to make that more explicit in future posts.

Exodus 20:1-4 Wrote:1 God spoke all these words, to respond: 2 "I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 You shall not have the gods of others in My presence. 4 You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth.

We are obviously getting into the 10 Commandments now. But through what medium is God communicating these words? And to whom exactly? Chapter 19 ends with Moses going down the mountain to transmit God's words to the people. If chapter 20 begins with "God spoke all these words, to respond" is He there with Moses speaking to the people directly? Has Moses returned up the mountain, in which case "respond" might be interpreted as "followed up with Moses"? I probably don't need to point out the 1956 adaptation of this story in the movie "The Ten Commandments" in which Charlton Heston (as Moses) is seen at the top of the mountain receiving the commandments in the form of carvings in stone at God's hand which takes the form of a great arm of fire, but from what I understand, this adaptation fails in so many ways to be faithful to the actual text and is geared more towards entertainment than honoring the original story.

So once again, I fall back on biblegateway.com which doesn't add much except it omits the "to respond" leaving only "God spoke all these words". Does that help? Not really. It only states that at some point, in some context, God spoke those particular words.

So then I take a trip over to ChatGPT and it tells me that God is definitely speaking to the people directly. It also points out that in Exodus 20:18-19 "the people ask Moses to speak to God on their behalf because the direct encounter is overwhelming" which tells me I'm getting ahead of myself. It also says that the writing on stone tablets appears later in the text, the first mention of which is Exodus 24:12. I won't speculate further on this, but rather I will be patient and wait to see what later texts say on this question. I do ponder however whether Moses returning up the mountain to speak to God on behalf of the people (because of how overwhelming God's words were) is where the stone tablets come in. After all, bringing a set of stone tablets on which are written God's laws would be much less overwhelming to the people than God speaking directly to them.

ChatGPT

As for the commandments themselves, I think I'll go through them one by one and comment on each. Some of them seem pretty straight forward so I won't have much to say, but others raise some questions in my mind which I will pose below.

Exodus 20:3 Wrote:You shall not have the gods of others in My presence.

This is definitely a different wording from what I am used to. I am used to hearing the first commandment as "You shall not have any other gods before Me". Here, God seems to be saying "It's ok to have other gods (to worship? to follow?) just as long as you don't do so in my presence." or "...just as long as you don't bring them into my presence." I know that God is said to be omnipresent, so not having any other gods period seems like the only way to follow this commandment. But is this how the Israelites at the time thought of God? As omnipresent? Given the structures of their religious traditions and establishments at the time, it seems God can be more present under certain circumstances than others. For example, God is more present in the Holy of Holies than elsewhere (right?). God is more present the higher up the mountain one climbs than at its base.

biblegateway.com phrases this verse in the traditional way: no other gods before me. So that doesn't help.

Then at ChatGPT, an interesting (and alternate, at least to me) interpretation surfaces. It says that both translations mean the same thing. So how can "before me" mean the same as "in my presence" (which, according to ChatGPT, can also be rendered "upon My face")? The only way they can mean the same thing, in my estimation, is if "before me" is taken literally to mean "standing before me" or "brought before me" (as a subject might bring something before a king), and not "put ahead of me" or "treated as more important or more significant than me".

Now what could that mean? My guess is that at the time, like I said above, there were places where God was thought to be "more present" than at other places. So take the Holy of Holies, for example. Is God saying here that one must not bring other gods (literally or in the form of an idol, or something else) into the Holy of Holies? And likewise in other such places/contexts where God is more present?

This is my interpretation, not ChatGPT's. ChatGPT only made me think of it based on its claim that both renditions mean the same thing. So I imagined how "before Me" could be read as "in My presence" and I came up with the above. However, ChatGPT seems to want to steer the interpretation in the other direction, interpreting both to mean what we typically think it means here in the West--that one shall not worship other gods ahead of (as more important or significant than) God Himself. It concludes with this:

ChatGPT Wrote:Importantly, the meaning is the same across both renderings:
“You shall have no other gods before Me” = don’t worship any gods above or instead of the one true God.
“You shall not have other gods in My presence” emphasizes that in relation to God’s exclusive claim on you, there is no room for other gods.

...suggesting (I guess) that "my presence" means that God is always present with you so long as He has an exclusive claim on you (meaning, I suppose, that you are bound to the covenant). And so the creation of any graven image, especially to be worshipped or prostrated before, is, so long as you are bound to the covenantal relationship with God, to bring other gods into God's (with the capital G) presence.

ChatGPT

In any case, I hope others here can shed some light on this. I'll move on with the other commandments, hopefully without spilling out an entire novel like I just did here Big Grin

Exodus 20:4 Wrote:You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth.

I could chalk this up to not worshipping false idols as is the usual interpretation, and this probably wouldn't be wrong, but how did this become the official interpretation of this passage? The meaning seems evidently clear (even if you don't believe in waters beneath the Earth) except for "graven image". I think the exact interpretation of this commandment hinges on the meaning of "graven image". I don't think it could possibly mean any man-made object that's made to resemble something else (like a toy horse) even though it clearly stipulates that it encompasses far more than just graven images of God (a graven image... which is in the heavens... on the earth... or... in the water beneath) <-- So basically, anything in those 3 realms (even the Earth!) (And are we to assume that these 3 realms are all there is to existence? No 4th realm? No 5th?).

Biblegateway.com drops the "graven" part leaving just "image". So it is forbidden to create any image whatsoever of anything in the aforementioned realms. And if the aforementioned realms exhaust all of existence, it is forbidden to create images period. Yikes!

Google AI defines "graven image" as "a carved or sculpted idol, often made of wood, stone, or metal, that is worshipped as a representation of a deity..." So at least according to Google, worship and representation of a deity is baked into the definition of "graven" (which would include God Himself, so not even graven images of the God they're supposed to worship). Nonetheless, this passage is followed up with Exodus 20:5-6 which puts it into context explicitly:

Exodus 20:5-6 Wrote:You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, 6 and [ I ] perform loving kindness to thousands [of generations], to those who love Me and to those who keep My commandments.

It's not clear whether verses 5 and 6 are "narrowing down" this commandment to "prostration" and "worship" specifically, which aligns closer with traditional interpretation, or is adding to verse 4. In the latter sense, one is not only forbidden from creating images (of anything) but one is especially forbidden from worshipping such images and prostrating one's self before them. But given God's follow up about how He is a zealous (not jealous?) God, it seems clear He is qualifying this commandment to things which would make Him zealous/jealous (namely, worship and prostration). So Google is probably correct about the meaning of "graven" (but in that case, my question is: if this is what "graven" means, why the need to expand on it to clarify that such images are not to be worshipped or prostrated before?).

Now, a couple observations:

1) I've never seen this passage use the word zealous as opposed to jealous (and I assume this is not a typo). The word "jealous" makes more sense to an unseasoned reader such as myself, whereas zealous (meaning passionate or enthusiastic or with fever) is harder to square with this passage. If God is simply saying He is jealous of when his Israelite children follow other gods, it makes sense why he would forbid them from worshipping or prostrating themselves before graven images. But zealous is much less clear. Why does God being zealous mean they shouldn't worship/prostrate themselves before graven images? One interpretation that occurs to me is that zealous as passionate might mean prone to emotions, and emotions of jealousy in particular.

Google AI once again sheds some light on this. It says, "Exodus 20:4 uses the Hebrew word qanna, which means God is a 'jealous' or 'zealous' God, implying intense, protective passion for His covenant relationship with His people, not petty envy." <-- So, very much aligned with my interpretation, except that the zeal God feels doesn't get narrowed down to jealousy (at least not according to the modern Western way of thinking of jealousy) but passionate and protective feeling towards the covenantal relationship binding His people to Himself.

2) It's interesting that this seems to be the only commandment that God thought warrants an explanation/justification. The 4th commandment (about the Sabbath) does the same, but not nearly to the extent that this one does. God could have phrased it as "You shall not make for yourself a graven image..." and left it like that. But instead, He follows it up with verses 5 and 6 explaining why one must not make any graven images. As noted above, this explanation adds some needed context to the commandment in order to make it clear in what sense one must not make any graven image (namely, to be worshipped or prostrated before), but why that explanation itself couldn't just be the commandment itself--as in "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness [in Heaven, Earth, or the waters beneath] to be worshipped or prostrated before."--but as a follow up, God seems to want to make it clear that He is a zealous/jealous God, and that is the reason for this commandment. It's the only commandment, in other words, where God seems to want to reveal something about Himself, about His temperament, or the value He places on the covenantal relationship between Himself and His people, as a justification for the commandment. And this could answer my question about why the need for the expansion in verses 5 and 6 if it's already clear from the meaning of "graven" that such images are not to be worshipped or prostrated before--it's not that God wants to make clear the definition of "graven image" but to be up front with the Israelites that He is a zealous/jealous God.

And of course, there's the part about visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the 3rd and 4th generations of sons who hate Him. And also loving kindness to a thousand generations of sons to those who love Him and keep His commandments. Well, the rewards certainly outweigh the punishments, that's for sure. And do the 4 generations include the fathers, or is God talking about 4 generations of sons only, excluding the fathers? I think the fact that God cares to mention the 3rd and 4th generations of sons indicates that it includes the fathers, for in that case, this passage explicitly mentions all generations: "who visits the iniquity of the fathers [1st generation] upon the sons [2nd generation], upon the third [3rd generation] and the fourth [4th generation] of those who hate Me." If this passage was meant to exclude the fathers, then God skipped the 2nd generation and for no reason mentions the 3rd generation before mentioning the 4th generation (as opposed to saying "up to the 4th generation" without needing to mention the 3rd).

And what if the sons of the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation renounce their ties to the sins of their fathers? If their fathers worshipped idols, but they themselves refused to do so on account of this commandment, will God still see his punishment through to all 4 generations? I guess that's why this passage ends with "who hate Me." If a son (or even a father) learns to love God, rather than hate Him, then supposedly that son (or father) will follow this commandment, and thereby be redeemed in God's eyes even before the end of the 4th generation. And on that point, it's interesting that the thousand years of love depends on two conditions (that 1. one must love God, and 2. that one must keep His commandments) but the 4 generations of punishment depends only on hating God. It doesn't mention anything about violating God's commandments. Perhaps the author took it as obvious that if you hate God, you wouldn't respect His commandments (and visa-versa), so it goes without saying that one who hates God wouldn't follow His commandments (so why mention it in the text?). If that's the case, I guess this means that even when one loves God, one might still need to be told to keep the commandments as a demonstration of one's love for God. In other words, it isn't so obvious to puny humans that loving God also implies taking on a set of responsibilities, and God lists out those responsibilities as the 10 Commandments.

And is this statement on the part of God tied exclusively to the 2nd commandment or does it apply to all commandments? Or even beyond? It certainly seems clear that God will visit punishment up to the 4th generations of those who don't observe this commandment (and a thousand generations of love to those who do), but the phrasing "...to those who keep My commandments" (plural) suggests all commandments and not just this one. Which again makes this expansion on this particular commandment all the more strange. If this reward/punishment regimen applies to all commandments, why does God choose to mention it here and only here, in this 2nd commandment only? Why not as a commentary before or after enumerating all 10 Commandments?

Wow, it seems as I plow through the commandments, my commentary gets longer and longer. Let's see how far I can make it before I have to split this into several posts Big Grin

Exodus 20:7 Wrote:You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain.

Typically, this commandment is interpreted as don't use God's name as a curse word. And this may be part of this commandment, but from what I gathered from Jordan Peterson's Exodus, there is a deeper interpretation that goes like this: don't commit egregious or self-serving acts in the name of God (e.g. holy wars). <-- Is there any substance to this interpretation?

Over at biblegateway.com, the 3rd commandment is translated thus: "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." I think the word "misuse" captures both translations, and then some. Performing egregious or self-serving acts in God's name is certainly a misuse of His name, as is using God's name to swear. It might also include seemingly innocuous acts such as giving someone a gift on their birthday in God's name (i.e. I give you this gift because it's what God would want me to do). If it's something you would do anyway, or even something you would do because of a social obligation/expectation, you're not really doing it in God's name.

Exodus 20:8-11 Wrote:8 Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it. 9 Six days may you work and perform all your labor, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord, your God; you shall perform no labor, neither you, your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your beast, nor your stranger who is in your cities. 11 For [in] six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

Six days of work and then a day of rest mirrors the six days of gathering manna and the seventh of resting from gathering manna. One might think this commandment is simply an instruction to continue this practice and make it a formal part of Israelite society, but verse 11 ties it back to the six days of creation and the 7th day of rest God took and blessed. One interpretation that ties it all together is that the Lord instructed them to gather manna for six days and to rest on the 7th also as a means of keeping aligned with the six days of creation and the 7th day of rest and sanctity (the sanctity of the 7th day may even be God's reason for not making manna fall from the sky--it was His day of rest--which suggests even God Himself observes this commandment). So both draw their origins from the 6 days of creation and the 7th day of rest and sanctity from Genesis.

I might even note that this short background on what the justification for this commandment is, like that of the 2nd, is rare for the commandments, though not nearly as elaborate as the 2nd.

And it certainly seems that no one--no one--is to work on the Sabbath--not even the beasts and the strangers in the cities. The beasts, I can understand. The beasts wouldn't work unless their owners put them to work, which means their owners would be working. But the stranger in your city? What if he didn't get the memo? Is he instructed not to work on the Sabbath before he enters? What if he comes from a different land where they have different customs? Is it a "when in Rome" sort of thing? And why would it matter if the stranger works? Isn't this a commandment for the Israelites only? Or is it more a matter of the place the stranger is in? As in, if he works on the Sabbath in one of the cities in the land of Israel, that defiles the city as a holy place? On a surface reading, it seems this commandment is to ensure, besides the obvious intent of honoring the holiness of this day, that one gets sufficient rest after a week's worth of work (the Lord rested on the 7th day). This would even explain why the beasts are to rest, but not the stranger. Is God just as concerned for the stranger's need for rest as He is His chosen people?

I asked ChatGPT about this (here) and the response was interesting. To summarize, it said "By commanding rest for servants, animals, and foreigners, Israel is required to act as the opposite of Pharaoh. No one under your authority is allowed to live as a slave, even temporarily." This isn't so clear from verse 11 but ChatGPT also cites Deuteronomy 5:15: "And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord your God took you out from there with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm; therefore, the Lord, your God, commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." Now, this may be splitting hairs, but this interpretation suggests that the stranger shall not be forced to work on the Sabbath, but not that he shall be prevented from working. Also, why this should apply only to strangers in the cities (as opposed to the country side or on the farm) isn't quite explained by this interpretation either.

So once again, I consulted ChatGPT, which had the following points to say: 1) "So the 'prevention' is not an added idea—it is the mechanism by which the command is fulfilled." In other words, by preventing the stranger from working on the Sabbath (as opposed to merely not forcing him to work), it ensures that no work is done. And I suppose the idea is that it's better to force the stranger not to work than to force the strange to work (as a slave). <-- A bit of a weak argument in my opinion, but then ChatGPT has more to say: 2) "'Within your gates' = legal jurisdiction, not moral instruction" (the translation ChatGPT quotes says "gates" instead of "cities" which it in turn translates as a domain of legal jurisdiction). <-- This explains why the commandment doesn't apply to strangers outside the cities (or the gates)--that literally means beyond the jurisdiction of Israelite law. And finally, 3) "The commandment ensures that no one profits from another’s labor on God’s day, even if that labor is self-chosen." <-- This interpretation suggests that by "work" (or "labor"), what the 4th commandment really means is paid work (or labor)--as in, working at your job. By allowing the stranger to work on the Sabbath, it pulls the employer into a business engagement with the stranger in which he must pay the stranger for his work, and this obviously corrupts the purpose of the Sabbath. It does, however, raise the question of voluntary unpaid work. I suppose if the stranger were to work voluntarily, it would be for himself and perhaps be driven by some kind of inspiration or creative force that, by some interpretations, might be considered God working through him (as Christians might call it, the "holy spirit"). <-- Would that be in alignment with the purpose of the Sabbath?

Apparently not. According to the same ChatGPT discussion linked to above, creative or inspired activities, even on the part of the stranger, is a clear example of what's forbidden by this commandment. At this point, I will leave these questions alone and move on.

Exodus 20:12 Wrote:Honor your father and your mother, in order that your days be lengthened on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you.

So 2 questions on this commandment:

1) What is the exact translation of "honor"? I didn't ask ChatGPT about this one, but I did google it, and google summoned up Gemini, it's own AI assistant, which said: "'honor' means to give weight, respect, reverence, obedience, and support, recognizing parents' God-given authority and importance, involving care, gratitude, and maintaining dignity, even if parents are imperfect, but always prioritizing God's commands" So "honoring" one's parents means:

* Giving them weight (taking them with all due seriousness and importance).

* Respect (treating them as authoritative and worthy of one's attention).

* Reverence (kind of the same as respect except on an emotional level, recognizing their closeness to God relative to one's self).

* Obedience (following their instruction and teaching; Gemini emphasizes that the exception to this is when such instruction and teaching goes against God's law).

* Support (caring for them especially in old age).

In other words, treating your parents as any child is expected to treat his/her parents. Common sense.

2) How does honoring one's parents result in one's days being lengthened on the land that God has given one? Instead of consulting ChatGPT on this one, I'll refer back to Jordan Peterson's Exodus. I may be butchering this translation, but I recall the discussion emphasized how following this commandment encourages it throughout the whole community, making it a cultural tradition, which means the odds that it will be followed when you are old and grey and need the support and care of your own children will be higher than if you didn't follow this commandment. Nothing lengthens one's days like the care and support of one's children. And does it have to be on the land that God has given one? Well, I think this speaks more to community than the literal land on which one lives. I imagine one honoring one's mother and father on the land of Israel, and then when one grows up, one gets married and moves to a different land. On that foreign land, one has children, and the children grow up and fail to uphold this commandment. Why? Because they are not surrounded by the community of Israelites that encourage and foster the observance of this commandment and serve as examples. If no one is around to enforce this commandment (or at least explain why it's important), the children are far less likely to obey it.

Exodus 20:13 Wrote:You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Wow, talk about jamming commandments together into one concise verse! We have 4 commandments here for the price of one verse! Big Grin

What's even more interesting is that biblegateway.com splits each commandment into it's own verse. So whereas chabad.org crams them all into verse 13, biblegateway.com expands them over verses 13 to 16. This tells me that different biblical translations don't only translate the original Hebrew differently, but take license to structure the verses of each chapter according to whatever scheme they see fit. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it does mean one has to be careful when citing scripture. Does Exodus 20:14, for example, refer to the 7th commandment (as at biblegateway.com) or the 10th commandment (as at chabad.org)?

Anyway, I suppose cramming them together is warranted since they are pretty much cut and dry, straight forward without too much ambiguity. Don't commit murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal. And don't bear false witness (don't lie) against one's neighbor.

But of course, trust me to find the ambiguity and draw it out, which I will do now. Thou shalt not murder is pretty unambiguous, but what about Thou shalt not commit adultery? What does adultery mean? According to Gemini (i.e. my google search), adultery is "sexual intimacy between a married person and someone other than their spouse, violating the marriage covenant as a serious sin against God, the spouse, and the sacred bond of marriage, extending even to lustful thoughts, and breaking the Seventh Commandment." My first thought is that adultery, according to this interpretation, is to be contrasted with fornication (sex outside marriage). And who is the guilty party in cases of adultery? The married person only? Or both participants? And if both participants are married, have they committed "double" adultery? Once for the case of cheating on their spouse, and once more for violating the marriage of their sexual partner?

The part about extending even to lustful thoughts is intriguing, suggesting that one must exercise some serious discipline over one's desires and thoughts if one is to obey this commandments. However, if I recall correctly, a different interpretation is offered in one of the episodes of Jordan Peterson's Exodus in which Denis Prager, a Jewish radio talk show host, explains that the "mental" part of this commandment is not so much about thinking adulterous thoughts but intending adultery with one's thoughts. So if the thought of sleeping with someone else's spouse passes through your mind, don't worry about it (but don't fixate on it either). But if one intends or plans on committing adultery, one might as well already be guilty of adultery? <-- I'll add that if this is the correct interpretation, it *should* apply to pretty much all commandments. Why would intending to commit adultery count as just as much as violation of this commandment as actually committing it if intending to murder, for example, doesn't? But then again, could the same be said of simply allowing the thought to pass through one's mind? Could simply thinking of murder (in a moment of rage, let's say) count as just as much a violation of the 8th commandment as committing murder? Geez, I hope not.

Then there's bearing false witness against one's neighbor. Typically, this is translated as Thou shalt not lie. But the phrasing here seems a lot more narrow. It seems to be describing a legal situation in which one is brought in to testify against an accused about some incriminating evidence that one has not actually witnessed even though one claims to have witnessed it. So unless it involves a court case, lying in itself (say, for example, to your employer about how many hours you worked) is not a violation of this commandment. But then when I consult Gemini via Google, I get this: "...you must not lie or give untrue testimony to harm someone, applying specifically to court settings but broadly to all forms of slander, gossip, and spreading falsehoods that damage another's reputation, character, or well-being, emphasizing truthfulness as a core moral duty." It's the "broadly" part that adds some grey area to this, and moreover only in the case of damaging another's reputation, character, or well-being. So lying about the hours you worked might not count under this commandment since it doesn't (not directly at least) damage anyone's reputation, character, or well-being. And I must remember, these commandments are meant to establish a society, to ground it on a set of laws and structure its operations such as to create social cohesion and harmony. In other words, it is inevitable that this commandment will figure prominently not only in a court of law but any social institution that must function properly in order to see the society through to this state of cohesion and harmony. If lying harms a person's social reputation, character, or well-being in the context of any of these social institutions or contexts, it damages the functioning of society in general, its cohesion and harmony. So where is the line drawn? Where does this commandment apply and where does it not apply? Well, it seems obvious it applies in court cases, and according to Gemini, it also applies to social institutions and a well functioning society overall, but what about the case of, let's say, lying in a game of cards, or something recreational. What about lying to one's spouse about one's not-so-flattering opinion of one's mother-in-law? Does this commandment cover these kinds of lies?

And how is one to interpret "neighbor"? It seems obvious it implies more than just the person who lives a few houses down, as a modern day reader might interpret it. The interpretation that makes the most sense to me is: anyone who is a member of one's community, or one's society at large. That is the only way such a commandment can, when followed, achieve it's goal of forming a well functioning society. The Gemini interpretation translates "neighbor" to "someone" (as in, to harm someone) and "another's" (as in, another's reputation). So basically, anyone in the community or society. And when I explicitly ask Gemini about the meaning of "neighbor" it more or less concurs with this, even bringing in Jesus's interpretation that "neighbor" is universal, covering any other human being whomsoever.

Exodus 20:14 Wrote:You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or whatever belongs to your neighbor."

If there is any ambiguity to this commandment, it would revolve around the word "covet" and what it means (other than that, it's pretty straight forward). Covet is colloquially understood to mean desire or want--in a sort of jealous or resentful way--so one often interprets this commandment to mean be content with what you have. However, some might say this makes it an unreasonable commandment to bear as we've all desired or been jealous of the things our neighbor had and turning off this desire/jealousy is no easy task. But Dennis Prager, a Jewish radio show host, tells us (in Jordan Peterson's Exodus) that to covet must be distinguished from desiring the same kinds of things your neighbor has (as in, I want a house just like that) as it specifically means to want your neighbor's house (I wish my neighbor's house belonged to me instead). This tells us something about coveting--namely, that it is more than just wanting what your neighbor has, but to wish your neighbor didn't have it--a sort of petty resentment towards your neighbor for having something you don't; if it were just a desire for what your neighbor has, then having a similar thing for yourself so that your neighbor can keep his would satisfy; but if the only way to quench coveting is to take it from your neighbor, this tells us that coveting is more about a sort of spitefulness or resentment towards your neighbor rather than the desire for his possessions. Prager also tells us that in order for it to be coveting, one must actually intend on taking the thing from one's neighbor, or at least be predisposed to taking it should the opportunity arise. So again, it's not just about the desire, but how one regards one's neighbor to the extent that it clouds one's judgment as to what is an acceptable way to treat one's neighbor. This, in my opinion, removes some of the burden of observing this commandment as it speaks more towards one's attitude and actions towards one's neighbor, rather than one's feelings and desires which often cannot be helped.

Those are the Commandments, but the chapter doesn't end there. It continues with Exodus 20:15-18:

Exodus 20:15-18 Wrote:15 And all the people saw the voices and the torches, the sound of the shofar, and the smoking mountain, and the people saw and trembled; so they stood from afar. 16 They said to Moses, "You speak with us, and we will hear, but let God not speak with us lest we die." 17 But Moses said to the people, "Fear not, for God has come in order to exalt you, and in order that His awe shall be upon your faces, so that you shall not sin." 18 The people remained far off, but Moses drew near to the opaque darkness, where God was.

What an incredible experience that must have been--to witness God Himself speaking directly to them--so much that they can't bear it and plead with Moses to tell God to (so to speak) back off. My first impression is that the sight (or sound, or both) of God is too powerful for the people, so much so that they feel they could "die". But based on Moses' response--that God has come to exalt them and so that his awe upon their faces will prevent them from sinning--makes me wonder if it's more a matter of guilt than too much power--that is, the people are too sinful to withstand being in the presence of the purity of God, and they know it all too painfully. This is why Moses can draw nearer to God in the opaque darkness whereas the people recoil in timidity. If it were just a matter of God's power or awesomeness, I see no reason Moses would be any more impervious--he's just as human as they are, after all--but in terms of his goodness or moral purity, he is obvious far beyond the people and therefore does not feel the pain of guilt when in God's presence.

Exodus 20:20-23 Wrote:You shall not make [images of anything that is] with Me. Gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves. 21 An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter beside it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle. Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you. 22 And when you make for Me an altar of stones, you shall not build them of hewn stones, lest you wield your sword upon it and desecrate it. 23 And you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar, so that your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it.' "

What a strange way to end a chapter focused on the 10 Commandments. God goes into great detail instructing His people how to build alters and how to approach them. But why follow up the 10 Commandments with this? Reading ahead to the next few chapters, it seems this is just the start a long list of very specific and detailed rules/laws the Israelites are to follow. How do these relate to the 10 Commandments? Are they like bylaws or ordinances that fall under the more general rubric of the 10 Commandments? And to think about it, why do we consider the first 10 such laws to stand apart from these more specific ones that follow? We call them the "10 Commandments" but in the original Hebrew, were they numbered? They certainly aren't numbered in the Chabad or BibleGateway translations. So is there any reason to assume a discontinuity between the first 10 and the rest that follow?

Well, I can think of a couple reasons. First of all, verses 15 to 18 seem to take a break from God's unveiling of His laws to the people in order to see the people's reaction (so there's a gap here). Second, without reading ahead, I assume that, unlike all the minutia to follow in the next handful of chapters, the 10 Commandments are to be written on stone tablets, making them in a sense "special" compared to the former. And I also want to take a step back and think about this in the context of how records and stories of this sort were structured in these times. A modern day writer, for example, might think it makes sense to end the chapter after, say, verse 18, and then start the next chapter with verse 19, establishing a clean separation between the 10 Commandments themselves and the more detailed laws/rules that are to follow. But the writers of the Exodus (Moses, if I'm not mistaken) seem to be taking a different approach--that of reaching a certain, I guess, "reasonable" volume of content before moving on to the next chapter--as if ending it at verse 14 would have been too short and including the entirety of all the more detailed and specific rules/laws would have made it too long--so he decided to tack on just the bit about constructing alters before closing chapter 20... Maybe. Just a thought.

Anyway, delving into the verses 20 to 23 themselves, there's a lot of unpack here. God begins, for some reason, by reiterating the 2nd commandment--that of no graven images--before giving instructions on how to build an alter. And when you think about it, this actually does make sense. God is simply saying here, "Now, I know I said no graven images, but here's what you can do..."--you know, just to distinguish building idols before which one worships and offers sacrifice from building alters before which one worships and offers sacrifice. He lists specifically gods of silver and gods of gold, but I take this not to be a limiting parameter but just an example of what not to build. That the people are to build an alter of earth (dirt, I presume) sounds as if the Israelites are following a nature god here, but I think verse 22 adds a bit of context--that they can build an alter of stone but not hewn stone (artificially smoothed or carved stoned such as your marble counter top) "lest you wield your sword upon it and desecrate it"; here it sounds like God is saying that your alters must preserve their natural rugged look--anything obviously artificial or man-made risks being blemished or looking defected (anyone who owns a house and has kids knows what I'm talking about). Does this make God a "nature god"? Maybe. If I were to interpret (which is basically all I'm doing here), I'd say God is trying to "stay real". Unlike the Egyptians, God wants the people of Israel to stay as attached to reality as possible, meaning no artificial or "fake" structures that posture as more magnanimous than they really are (I'm reminded of the saying "the bigger they are, the harder they fall"--the more lavish and pristine you make your alter, the more the falsity of this lavishness and pristineness shows through with the slightest blemish or scuff mark); God seems to be saying that if you keep it natural, it remains impervious to bumps and dents because, well, that's nature--any bumps or dents it incurs just add to its natural look, keeping it connected with the real. So, in a sense, yes, I guess, God is showing His "nature god" side. But what else would you expect from a god that created the Heavens and the Earth, all of reality? Of course, He's a nature god, and it is my interpretation that these instructions to keep one's alters "natural" is a way to keep the Israelites away from artificial (fake) things and closer to reality itself.

Moving on with the rest of this passage, what is the meaning of "Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you"? Where are these places where God allows is name to be mentioned? And bless you for what? Just for being in those places? Or for mentioning His name in these places? Or something else? It seems obvious that it is linked with building alters but the details of its meaning could use some fleshing out. Is God saying anywhere you build an alter (according to My specifications), you may mention my name? Or are there designated places where God's name can be mentioned (like the Tabernacle?) and other places where it can't, and so long as you build your alter in the former places, you will be blessed? Or you will be blessed in response to worshipping and sacrificing at those alters? BibleGateway.com renders this passage as follows: Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. Causing one's name to be honored is certainly different from allowing one's name to be mentioned, but in this case, I find no further clarity in its relevance to alter building and worshipping/sacrificing (I will save a ChatGPT discuss for another post). One note I will end on is that I realize God's name is not only commonly obscured but in some circles forbidden to be spoken. I've seen many on this forum, in fact, refer to God as G_d and I assume this reflects this practice. (I hope I can be forgiven for so crassly using the word "God" but my background is not not Judaism or Christianity--I'm not even religious in any denominational sense--so I'm used to using the word "God" as simply a practical word for talking about our Creator; I mean no offense in my use of it, and I hope that if it does cause offense, someone here will let me know and suggest better alternatives.) So this passage makes total sense; if God's name is so sacred (so much that it warranted the 3rd Commandment... maybe?), it would make sense that God would allow or disallow its utterance in particular places or circumstances. But where these places and what these circumstances is what I'm asking here.

And finally, verse 23: "And you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar, so that your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it." What is God saying here? That one shall not build steps up to His alter? Or that one shall not ascend the steps (if there are any) to His alter? If the latter, what would the steps be for if not to ascend them? Or maybe the verse is intended to be read as a whole, including the "your nakedness shall not be exposed" part. Is God saying "Don't walk up the steps to My alter naked"? <-- That makes the most sense of all, but let's see what BibleGateway.com has to say: "And do not go up to my altar on steps, or your private parts may be exposed." As in, if you climb the steps to the alter, people will be able to see up your garments? I think this would be a faux pas for any steps, assuming the common dress code amongst the Israelites at the time was to wear loose fitting robes with nothing underneath. Or perhaps those who performed specific rituals or ceremonies that required ascending steps to the alter were required to wear potentially "exposing" garments (as sort of the formal clergical dress code). And again, I must ask: how else is one to get up to the alter if it has steps? Or is this verse saying: don't build steps up to your alter; save yourself the embarrassment of exposing yourself. This too I will research further with ChatGPT, but I'll save that for a later post. For now, I'll just point out that "exposing one's self", even inadvertently, must have been more than an inconvenient embarrassment but an offense to God such that He saw it fit to make a rule/law prohibiting it.

Well, that's it--Exodus 20! This is by far my longest post on a single chapter of Exodus! And it might be no wonder as the 10 Commandments figures as one of the central, most significant, and most common pivots in the entire story--so there is a lot to say. On a more practical note, I want to ask readers: what do you think of modern society having not one, but two, days out of the week to celebrate the Sabbath and focus on that which is sacred and holy? There are many reasons we adopted the two day weekend, but one major reason is to accommodate the two main religions of Western culture: Judaism (whose sacred day is traditionally recognized on Saturday) and Christianity (whose day is Sunday). If Jews consider Saturday to be the Sabbath, what do they do on Sunday? The commandment to honor the Sabbath only says to honor the Sabbath, but not that one must work every other day of the week. Is it considered a sin, therefore, to take the odd Sunday off and just relax (or even focus on scripture)? I wouldn't think so. But another question this raises is: if the Jewish community generally recognized Saturday as the Sabbath, do they think the Christians have it wrong by considering Sunday to be the Sabbath? And for that matter, does it matter which day of the week is the Sabbath? Could the Jewish community, hypothetically, agree one day to switch the Sabbath from Saturday to (let's just say) Wednesday? Could an individual Jew go against the grain and decide that, just for him/herself, he/she will take Wednesday as the Sabbath? I mean, I can't imagine it's easy to trace our current Saturdays definitively all the way back to the day of the week the Israelites who originally inherited the 10 Commandments recognized as the Sabbath (let alone the day on which God rested after creation). How do we know Saturday is the right day? And does it matter? When God commanded that the Sabbath be recognized and kept holy, was He thinking a specific day of the week, or just one day, any day, so long as it repeats every 7 days? How certain are Jews today that Saturday is indeed a multiple of seven days since the original Sabbath? And does it matter? Do they look at Christians like they've got it wrong? Or do they raise their arms and say "Who knows?! At least we're both taking one day out of seven to focus on God and the spiritual life"?

Well, would you look at that! As lengthy as this post is, I managed to fit it all into one, avoiding the need to split it into two posts. I'm proud of myself (and grateful to TheHebrewCafe for allowing such a large character limit Tongue

). And I promise most of my posts won't be nearly as long. And now I will shut up so as not to make it longer.

* An interesting discussion about how useful ChatGPT is for interpreting scripture can he found here. Note that my use of it is not to answer questions on scriptural interpretation as objective fact (like it has the final say on all questions scriptural) but to help my imagination to come up with interpretations of difficult passages. Always feel free to point out when ChatGPT, or any AI I might use, has steered me wrong.]]> ). I have to warn you in advance, this post is by far the longest post I've written--I guess on a subject like the 10 Commandments, one cannot say enough. Anyway, my official sources are:

* primary: chabad.org

* secondary: biblegateway.com

* And if all else fails: chatgpt.com*

And I have to apologize for not being more specific in previous posts. When I cite quotes from BibleGateway.com, I'm using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. I will be sure to make that more explicit in future posts.

Exodus 20:1-4 Wrote:1 God spoke all these words, to respond: 2 "I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 You shall not have the gods of others in My presence. 4 You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth.

Exodus 20:3 Wrote:You shall not have the gods of others in My presence.

ChatGPT Wrote:Importantly, the meaning is the same across both renderings:
“You shall have no other gods before Me” = don’t worship any gods above or instead of the one true God.
“You shall not have other gods in My presence” emphasizes that in relation to God’s exclusive claim on you, there is no room for other gods.

Exodus 20:4 Wrote:You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth.

Exodus 20:5-6 Wrote:You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, 6 and [ I ] perform loving kindness to thousands [of generations], to those who love Me and to those who keep My commandments.

Exodus 20:7 Wrote:You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain.

Exodus 20:8-11 Wrote:8 Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it. 9 Six days may you work and perform all your labor, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord, your God; you shall perform no labor, neither you, your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your beast, nor your stranger who is in your cities. 11 For [in] six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

Exodus 20:12 Wrote:Honor your father and your mother, in order that your days be lengthened on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you.

Exodus 20:13 Wrote:You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Wow, talk about jamming commandments together into one concise verse! We have 4 commandments here for the price of one verse! Big Grin

Exodus 20:14 Wrote:You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or whatever belongs to your neighbor."

Exodus 20:15-18 Wrote:15 And all the people saw the voices and the torches, the sound of the shofar, and the smoking mountain, and the people saw and trembled; so they stood from afar. 16 They said to Moses, "You speak with us, and we will hear, but let God not speak with us lest we die." 17 But Moses said to the people, "Fear not, for God has come in order to exalt you, and in order that His awe shall be upon your faces, so that you shall not sin." 18 The people remained far off, but Moses drew near to the opaque darkness, where God was.

Exodus 20:20-23 Wrote:You shall not make [images of anything that is] with Me. Gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves. 21 An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter beside it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle. Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you. 22 And when you make for Me an altar of stones, you shall not build them of hewn stones, lest you wield your sword upon it and desecrate it. 23 And you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar, so that your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it.' "