Verse: לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני
Command: Do not think there are other gods
Shemos 20:3
Type: Negative
SMG Mitzva # 1
Cross-Ref: {link}
SMG
The first[1] [negative] Mitzva is not to allow the thought of [the existence of] another god other than Hashem, as it says[i] לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני. The Mechilta[ii] presents the following analysis:
since it says[iii] לא תעשה לך פסל which implies only the carving or making of an idol is forbidden. Therefore, the Torah adds our verse to teach that even an idol previously made is forbidden. [Nevertheless,] a verse cannot be taken to mean something contrary to the simple meaning. Therefore, the term על פני is taught in the Midrash to mean the simple meaning of the verse: that it is forbidden to add the term divinity to anything else.
Similarly, in Gemara[iv] it says that anyone who adds the name of heaven with something else will be uprooted from the world, as it says in the verse[v] בלתי לה’ לבדו. Our verse of לא יהיה comes to issue the prohibition, and the verse of בלתי adds the punishment.
Tosefos there adds from Rabeinu Yaakov (Rabeinu Tam) that other verses[vi] which juxtapose Hashem and others, does not mean to equalize them. [α]
[1] As noted previously, and as is obvious from his introduction to both works, the SMG composed the book on Negative Mitzvos before the book on Positive Mitzvos.
[i] Shemos 20:3
[ii] Meĉilta Yisro Chp 6
[iii] Shemos 20:4
[iv] Gem. Sanhedrin 63a
[v] Shemos 22:19
[vi] Bamidbar 21:7 and Shoftim 7:20
Discussion by SMS
In expounding on the verse which in itself translates literally as: “There should not be for you other gods on my face [or before my face]”, it would seem that there are several points being made here by the SMG as to what exactly is forbidden by the first negative Mitzva, which will be in turn discussed by Maharshal in an unusually detailed analysis of why each sentence in the SMG is required to produce the complete thought without any other possible inference:
- Thought – Having thoughts of other gods: delving into the doctrines of false religions is forbidden.
- Existence – Having an idol: allowing an idol to exist without being destroyed is forbidden.
- Combination – Having the ability to possess G‑dliness: ascribing divinity to anything other than G‑d is forbidden.
- Mastery – Having the belief that something other than G‑d has equivalent mastery of reality[1].
None of which seem to follow the simple meaning of the text ‘Do not have other gods’ – which the SMG goes out of his way to state that the simple meaning of the verse is the basis for this Mitzva.
[1] Believing that a human can affect the world independent of G‑d’s will – for example believing that Gideon has power to sway battle – meaning that fighting in his name along with G‑d’s, ensures a greater victory than only fighting in G‑d’s name.
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] [Maharshal quotes the entire contents of the SMG on the first negative Mitzva as his header, and states[1] as follows]: Many err on the first Mitzva and, if so, what shall they say [when it comes to] the last Mitzva? The vast majority think that [when the SMG states ‘not to allow the] thought’ that means not to delve into [the ideas and philosophies of false gods]. And [when the SMG states ‘to] mean the simple meaning’ and [the translation of this verse לא יהיה as being the prohibition against] the maintenance of [idols]. I [Maharshal] cannot understand [these people who interpret the SMG like this]. Because how can you think that the SMG would state [that this is] the first Mitzva, but it isn’t even one of the Mitzvos! They try to prove that it is from the outline in the introduction to the SMG etc.
I’ve seen in exacting books that do not mention any [other prohibitions against maintaining idolatry], with the exception of Thought. And according to those works, there is no question, because that is obviously the main thrust of the verse which comes to admonish, as we will explain. But they [these exacting books] also forbid Existence and Combination, and that is why it states the Torah forbade it etc., but it doesn’t say “Do not allow to Exist” or “Do not Combine” if there truly is an admonition against that. Obviously, it is as we have explained.
And that is how Maimonides concluded, and so he wrote in the work concerning the counting of the Mitzvos, where he does not number Existence and Combination, but only numbers Thought alone. This is the language of Rambam in his listing [in Sefer Hamitzvos]:
The first Mitzva of the negative Mitzvos [is] not to allow the thought that there is any god other than Hashem, as it says לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני.
And, in his book [the יד החזקה] he writes in the laws of מדע:
Anyone who entertains the thought that there is another god other than this transgresses a negative Mitzva as it says לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני.
The commentaries [on Rambam] write concerning the words על פני, this means ‘so long as I am present [i.e., forever], and my honor fills the world as the prophet writes “המכעיסים אותי על פני”.
I will now explain the opinion of the book [the SMG]: certainly, the entire intent of the Torah is regarding the thoughts of the person. This is the meaning of לך to you – in other words, only to you – which are the thoughts of the person which are only revealed to the self. This is also what is meant by [the caveat] על פני – as the commentaries explain that G‑d fills the world, and nothing is concealed from him. The verse admonishes against thoughts [otherwise].
That being said, if the Torah were to leave off after the verse לא יהיה and not continue with the next verse, one might erroneously conclude that the verse לא יהיה only limits Existence [and not Thought], because that can also be inferred from the verse. And in fact, that translation [Existence and not Thought] is more in line with the literal translation of the text in that יהיה is etymologically linked with הויה – existence and tangibility – which corresponds to Existence. And [in that case] we would take the term לך to imply [that the prohibition is limited to idols under] your control. Just like the prohibition against seeing Chometz which uses the same term לך [to imply that the prohibition is limited to Chometz under your control]. But, in that case, then the words על פני don’t fit; what is the point of those words here?
Similarly if the verse were to [skip the word לך and] state only לא יהיה אלהים אחרים על פני we would only explain the verse to refer to [a prohibition against] Combination, because that would explain well the words על פני which would be taken to mean [literally on my face, or] in Combination with G‑d – in other words, to Combine [or ascribe] divinity with another god. But then again, why add the word לך? Unless [it can only mean] that Thoughts [of other gods are forbidden] is implied.
That is why the SMG takes the position that in essence, the verse comes to mainly prohibit Thought. And that is in fact how the SMG starts off expounding the prohibition. Thereafter, the SMG adds the quote from the Mechilta since, once the verse is explained to prohibit the Thought [of other gods] then the verse can be taken literally. And even though you’ve heard from the verse that the Thoughts [of other gods] is what the verse cares about, the verse itself hasn’t lost its literal translation. [In other words, even though the verse itself doesn’t use the word “thought” nevertheless, that is the only possible literal meaning of the verse as a whole.] And Combination can be learned from [the end of the verse] על פני.
Then, the SMG continues, do not mistake that since the verse only prohibits Thought, why should we with difficulty attribute the meaning of על פני is what prohibits Combination, since we have already heard from the Torah that such is punishable by death as it says[i] זובח לאלהים יחרם with the caveat בלתי לה’ לבדו? To answer that, the SMG states that this verse is there to determine the punishment [but does not provide the admonishment, which is a rule in establishing what is a negative Mitzva – it must be admonished against, and a punishment must be stated]. Meaning that since we need to utilize the words על פני to provide the admonition, which is the only possible meaning of those words in context… [that’s why we need a separate verse to provide the listing of the punishment.] To which he adds the words of Rabeinu Tam concerning why there were other cases of Combination (at least verbally), but no punishment was described.
However, those who lack intelligence attempt to provide explanations as to why Rabeinu Tam is connected to the statements preceding that in the SMG. And they claim that other than that, they have no problems explaining the SMG. And they are outspoken in their nonsense in that Rabeinu Tam asked a question in the Gemara, which goes to show that according to Rabeinu Tam the meaning is literal – and the verse would thus come to prohibit only ascribing divinity in a way of mastery (as opposed to theoretical – or belief without consequence). Instead, there is a point as to why the words of the Rabeinu Tam are brought here to strengthen the words of the SMG, and to ensure that one not think that the verse only prohibits believing in Mastery – while the other verse comes to add that also Combination without Mastery is prohibited. This is why [some would claim that] the SMG brings Rabeinu Tam to teach that only Mastery is prohibited. This is not so.
Summary
Maharshal establishes that according to the SMG, the verse לא יהיה prohibits Thoughts of other gods, and includes the words על פני at the end to extend that prohibition to Combination – even thinking that other things might have divinity ascribed, whether or not those other things have Mastery. Furthermore, there is a separate verse that establishes the penalty for violating the prohibition.
Interestingly, Maharshal does not review the prohibition against the making of an Idol. That is left for later discussions.
[1] It is unusual for Maharshal to quote verbatim the entire section of the SMG. In fact, here, after doing so, he adds the language of the prohibition against adding or detracting from the Mitzvos (Devarim 13:1) meaning that the quote of the SMG is exact and complete – and presumably necessary for the complete understanding of what is to follow.
[i] Shemos 22:19
RASHI
Rashi on the verse לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני, offers three comments:
- לא יהיה לך – Why is this said? The next verse says לא תעשה לך – meaning that you should not make an idol. But what if one was already made, how would we know that we can’t allow it to be maintained? [That is why this verse is stated,] to teach us לא יהיה לך.
- אלהים אחרים – which aren’t divine, rather others have made them out to be their gods. We can’t explain the verse to refer to [actual] alternate gods [meaning that the verse comes to specify which god out of a pantheon to worship] because that would be embarrassing to identify other [beings] as gods on par with [the actual] G‑d. Alternatively, [the verse can be understood to be a gibe term of idolatry, whose gods are strange to their worshippers – who call to them, and are not answered. As if the god never knew the worshipper.
- על פני – as long as I [G‑d] exist. One shouldn’t say this command applies only to this generation.
Interestingly, the second time the verse is quoted, in Moshe’s repetition[i], Rashi adds a final thought to the comment on על פני; ‘In every place where I [G‑d] am found, which is the entire world. Alternatively, as long as I [G‑d] exist. I have already explained the Ten Commandments.’
[i] Devarim 5:5
Discussion by SMS
Why would Rashi add the new comment in the repetition of the Ten Commandments extending this prohibition to all places, and why would it be introduced there as the primary comment? A simple explanation could be – the first time the Ten Commandments were said, the intent was to forbid idolatry for all time, however, it is possible to misinterpret those words על פני to mean spatially. That possibility is negated with the repetition of the Ten Commandments in a second location – the command is not location specific but applies everywhere.
—
Regardless, Rashi clearly interprets the verse לא יהיה לך as a prohibition against maintaining idolatry, as opposed to the verse לא תעשה לך which prohibits its manufacture. Furthermore, in his commentary on אלהים אחרים he negates the possibility of the verse prohibiting an alternate divine being, as that would be embarrassing – or it refers to a non-god altogether who is a stranger to his worshipers.
Accordingly, it seems clear that Rashi does not enumerate from here the negative Mitzva against thinking of the possibility of an alternate or additional god.