THE SHAPE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The tablets of the Ten Commandments, according to rabbinic tradition,
were prepared at the eve of Creation, antedating history and humanity
and independent of time and place. They were hewn from the Throne of
Glory and were therefore majestic, splendid and of Divine
origin. The fact that there were two of them symbolised the harmony
between man’s double duty, with the first tablet representing duty to
G-d and the second, duty to man. This symmetry was made possible by
having five commandments on each tablet but required the fifth
(respect for parents) to be interpreted as a duty to G-d.
No-one, however, is certain as to the exact shape of the tablets. The
great rabbinic compilations, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds,
record conflcting traditions. The Babylonian view was that the tablets
were approximately 22 inches square, whereas the Jerusalem envisaged
No-one... is certain as to the exact shape of the tablets
them as oblong, about 22 inches by 11.
Neither thought of them as having arched or domed tops, though this is
the way they have generally been depicted for centuries. They entered
Christian art in Italy, where they had the form of two rectangles.
According to GB Sarfatti they acquired an arched top due to the
influence of the dipytch, a register folded into two leaves with
curved tops which was used by the Romans to list the names of
magistrates and later by the Catholic Church to record the names of
deceased people commemorated with oblations. This design spread to
many branches of religious art and architecture and made its way into
the arched windows of abbeys and churches.
As we can see from a statue in Lincoln Cathedral and from other
contemporary sources, even old Haggadot, the Jewish badge in medieval
England took the form of the tablets of the Decalogue.
Jewish communities themselves began to depict the Ten Commandments in
about the 13th century and the Decalogue eventually became a
widespread feature of synagogue buildings, almost always with the
rounded shape introduced by the Christian artists of the Middle Ages.
These days some Jewish artists prefer the square or rectangular shape
known in the time of the Talmud, but this is still the exception
rather than the rule. The Ten Commandments figure in many areas of
Jewish ritual art, ranging from Ark curtains to tallit clips. They
often figure on Torah breastplates and Chanukah menorot. Almost
everywhere they top the synagogue ark. In some places the m’chitzah
(the partition between men’s and women’s seating) is decorated by a
line of joined tablets of the commandments.
Though there is a general view that the characteristic Jewish symbol
is the Magen David or Shield of David, the Decalogue is more ancient
and has greater authenticity. Its theological significance lies in its
balancing of the inner and outer dimensions of a Jew’s being.
JEWISH & CHRISTIAN VIEWS
One of the few works of art found in most synagogues are the tablets
of the Ten Commandments. They occupy a place of honour and appear to
be the highest teaching of the Bible. People who keep very little day
to day Judaism boast of their dedication to the Decalogue. Kashrut,
daily prayer, even the m’zuzah on the door – all are brushed aside,
but we are solemnly assured, “I do live by the Ten Commandments”. If
only this were really true in an age when murder and mayhem, adultery
If only those who boast about the Ten Commandments kept the fourth one, about Shabbat! 
and theft are so powerful! If only those who boast about the Ten
Commandments kept the fourth one, about Shabbat!
Christianity gave Judaism some problems with the Decalogue. The
Midrash revelled in its poetical acclaim for the Revelation, but the
sages removed the Ten Commandments from the daily liturgy. That they
were part of the daily service in the Temple is recorded in the
Mishnah (Tamid 5:1), reflected in the Nash Papyrus in which they are
side by side with the Sh’ma, and confirmed by fragments of t’fillin
found in the Qumran caves.
However, Judaism abandoned the daily reading “because of the claims of
the sectarians” (Ber. 12a). The followers of Paul believed that only
the Ten Commandments and not the rest of the Mosaic law were Divine,
eternal and binding. For Jews to give priority to the Decalogue might
have signalled agreement with the sectarians, so the daily reading was
abandoned in order to show that all the 613 mitzvot were Divine
commands.
From then onwards, the Decalogue has not formed part of the statutory
service, though some people add it to their personal prayers and the
commentators averred that the teachings of the Ten Commandments were
hinted at in the Sh’ma. Chief Rabbi JH Hertz wrote, “The Teachers of
the Talmud were most careful to emphasise that the Ten Commandments
did not contain the Whole Duty of Man. The Decalogue laid down the
*foundations* of Religion and Morality, but was not in itself the
entire structure of Human Duty”. Maimonides opposed standing for the
Ten Commandments on Shabbat Yitro and Va’et’chanan or on Shavu’ot
unless one always stood during the Torah reading, “as this may lead to
the mistaken idea that one part of the Torah is greater than another”.
The Decalogue is quoted frequently in the New Testament, but Christian
attitudes varied. Because some laws were a source of embarrassment,
the commands about idolatry and the Sabbath received
re-interpretation. The phrase “thou shalt not” was deprecated as too
negative and unfavourably compared to Christian formulations of
ethics.
The Decalogue “was of no particular importance in Christian tradition
until 1246 CE when it was for the first time incorporated into a
manual of instruction for those coming to confession. The traditional
division of the commandments into two ‘tables of duties’ toward G-d
and toward man made it possible to regard the second table as a
succinct statement of the ‘law of nature’ within the framework of
medieval Christian theology” (Encyclopedia Britannica). Protestantism,
however, included the Ten Commandments in manuals for instruction.
Luther set the seal on Protestant approval when he wrote, “Outside the
Ten Commandments there is no good and G-d-pleasing work thinkable”.
NOT A PRECEPT MORE, NOT A PRECEPT LESS
The Bible uses ten as the basic unit, probably because it conforms
with the body’s ten fingers and ten toes, and ten became the first
convenient stopping point in arithmetic. Ten is the basic social
group, from which the idea of the minyan developed. There are a of decads and
Ten is the basic social group, from which the idea of the minyan developed.
pentads of laws in the Torah, which itself has five
books, half of ten. The Psalmist gives ten synonyms for mitzvah in
Psalm 119.
Not all the ten in the Decalogue are laws in the usual sense of the
word. The first one does not explicitly order us to do anything, and
it cannot be adjudicated in a court of law. But it identifies the
lawgiver, G-d who redeemed the people from bondage. Maimonides sees it
as a command to the mind – “Know that there is a First Cause bringing
all else into existence” – not a command to believe, since no-one can
force a person to believe when they do not want to. Another opinion
said it was a command to accept G-d’s sovereignty: “The Monarch whose
great deeds on your behalf you witnessed and experienced, that is the
Monarch to whom you must be loyal and whose commands you must obey.”
The problem disappears, however, when we note that the Torah itself
calls the Decalogue “Aseret HaDib’rot”, “Ten Words” or “Ten
Statements” – i.e. ten principles. The English term Decalogue conveys
a similar idea since it comes from the Greek for Ten Words.
Christianity, wishing to maintain the idea of ten laws, saw “I am the
Lord your G-d” as merely a preamble. The Greek and Protestant Churches
divide our second “commandment” into two, separating the law against
polytheism and the law against idolatry. The Roman Catholics and
Lutherans divide the law against coveting into two.
That law against coveting is still a problem in that no earthly court
can read your mind and punish you for being envious. If the Decalogue
is seen as a set of principles and not laws, this becomes a warning
against fighting the facts. An illustration is given by Abraham Ibn
Ezra. He says that one peasant can covet the good fortune of a second,
more prosperous peasant. But he is not likely to covet the king’s
daughter because he knows he could not have her except in a fantasy
world. A believer knows what has been allocated to him has been
decided by G-d and whilst he can be ambitious he has no right to covet
the impossible, like the peasant marrying the princess.
If “Do not covet” is seen as a law, it shows us that it is in the
heavenly court that we will be held accountable for our infractions.
Certain precepts are also actionable on earth, especially killing and
stealing, but that does not detract from the status of the document as
a set of moral obligations to G-d. The rabbis point out that though
coveting takes place in the human heart and mind, it can lead to the
infringement of the other precepts. If you strongly covet something
that is your neighbour’s you can find yourself telling lies in order
to acquire it (an infringement of “Do not bear false witness”),
stealing it (“Do not steal”), even taking your neighbour’s wife (“Do
not commit adultery”), and even murdering your neighbour (“Do not
kill”).
SHORT, SHARP, STACCATO – THE 5 “DO NOTS”
The last five of the Ten Commandments are short, sharp, almost
staccato. As the first five exhort reverence for G-d, the last five
command reverence for man’s life, marriage and family, property and
possessions, reputation and integrity. All are negatives, “Do not”.
Negatives are clear, unambiguous and concise. Try to turn them into
something positive and the result is wordy and imprecise: “Respect
human life” is very nice, but “Do not kill” is clearer. As it has been
said, “G-d Almighty hath said in a voice that goeth thundering through
the centuries, ‘Thou shalt not”. Never! Never! Never!”
WR Matthews wrote, “Neither Jews nor Christians hold that prohibitions
are enough, or that moral goodness consists in observing them. What is
maintained is that such a series of negative commandments is an
indispensable aid to moral development and cannot safely be thrown
aside even by persons of mature character”. As children we realised
there was a difference between right and wrong when we heard “Do not”.
“Don’t touch the hot fire… don’t cross the road by yourself…” Matthews
says, “’Thou shalt not’ is not the last word in morals, but it is the
first word”.
There is no human group or society that did not formulate laws of this
kind. Every society develops a law against murder. So does the Sixth
Commandment contribute anything which we might not have worked out by
ourselves?
Fundamentally, the link between “I am the Lord your G-d” and “do not
murder”. Not murdering is thus not merely a counsel of prudence that
recognises that such an act invites retaliation and vengeance and
endangers everyone, but it has a higher motive based on the principle
that there is a G-d who has made man in His own image (a concept to be
understood not in a literal but an ethical and intellectual sense).
Man is part of God, and to murder a human being is to diminish God.
Whatever the provocation, when a person is provoked and sorely
tempted, the thought of G-d should hold them back from transgressing.
The sages say that when Joseph was tempted by the wife of Potiphar,
his father appeared to his mind’s eye and he knew he could not sin;
all the more, when the thought of G-d appears before us, we know we
cannot commit a sin.
The command against murder also has broader implications. It is not
only acts which are murderous. There are also murderous attitudes. The
Torah (Deut. 21) established a ritual to be followed if a dead body
was found and no-one knew who had killed the person. The elders of the
nearest city had to wash their hands and say, “Our hands did not shed
this blood, nor did our eyes see it”. Would anyone have suspected the
city fathers? The elders implied, “This man did not come to us hungry
and we failed to feed him. He did not come to us friendless and we
failed to show concern for his welfare”. If social problems exist and
we fail to deal with them adequately, we are in a sense guilty of
murder because we have left others to their fate and signalled that
their lives are not worth saving.