coveting

[cellio]

Our torah-study group got to the last of the ten commandments on Saturday. In English it's usually rendered "do not covet your neighbor's wife; do not covet [property, livestock, etc]". In the first version, in Exodus, the same word is used for "covet" both times -- "tachmod". In the repetition in Deuteronomy, the first is "tachmod" and the second is "titaveh".

"Titaveh" is the word that's used when the people demand meat instead of manna in the wilderness. It's a strong, negative, feeling. JPS translates it as "crave", which fits the incident with the quail. The people were so persistent and demanding that God rained down dead quail upon them until they were waist-deep in it. The people gorged on it and a lot of them died.

It's possible that the second phrase, which lists a bunch of things not to covet (or crave), is just amplification, as it ends with "nor anything that is his". If it's not amplification, and we're meant to see these as two ideas -- don't covet the wife and don't crave the property -- it's striking that the property gets a sterner warning than the wife. I mean, isn't it more important to protect people from unwanted attention than to protect property? Or is it, instead, saying that craving property is bad and merely desiring another's spouse is equally bad? Could be either, both, or neither -- there are 70 faces to the torah. So nothing deep here, but the question grabbed me.

This is the sort of thing I'd expect Rashi to have something to say about, but he just says the words are synonyms. Gee, thanks. :-)

Comments

[nobble.livejournal.com]

What about the wife as property argument. I question whether they aren't equal. Looking into the minds at the time, is it possible that women were viewed as property? Craving someone else's wife also makes it sound so much more lascivious. Perhaps not focussing attention on it, yet still stating the prohibition less 'emotively' produced teh desired effect. I dont know.

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

An excellent point, especially after the story where Moishe works for one woman and then is tricked with a second. And then there's that "thinking impure thoughts" sin that continues to be something one must do penance for.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I do think it is a good point - that we are tempted to view historical situations with a modern eye.

I'm sure your religious study level has vastly exceeded my own from my distant past, cellio. But when I was a boy and studying Judaism, the ketubah and the Jewish marital relationship were considered relatively progressive for their day and age. Said my teachers. Women were mostly considered chattel and property at the time, but the Judaic system of marriage made women a special class of chattel and property, one that had actual rights.

Sometimes, though, I wonder if the individual word-parsing can be taken too very much of an extreme. I don't always write as carefully as I might wish. For example. :-)

[cellio]

It is true that wives are a kind of property -- with the protections of the ketubah, to be sure, but marriage is a business transaction in which the man acquires a wife.

But wives seem to be different from other property. The penaltry for adultery is death; the penalty for other theft is compensation and fines. I had read this as saying that wives are more important than other property, but maybe I've got that backwards -- if someone steals your flock you at least get something out of it (if the guy is caught). Hmm. *twists brain*

I don't necessarily emphasize individual word choice all that much -- it's a curiosity and sometimes a jumping-off point for a train of thought, but not necessarily any more. The classical commentators, though, believed that every word of the torah was written by God, who of course is perfect, so there would be no mistakes. It's those sources that I would expect to have something to say on this.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

But wives seem to be different from other property. The penaltry for adultery is death; the penalty for other theft is compensation and fines. I had read this as saying that wives are more important than other property, but maybe I've got that backwards -- if someone steals your flock you at least get something out of it (if the guy is caught). Hmm. *twists brain*

Indeed, wives were a special class of property, where the property had RIGHTS. Backwards from today, forward looking for then..

It is true - what does a dead mamzer gain me? Revenge does so little..... And it is also true that sheep and cows are fungible, but wives (one hopes) are not. And the "theft" changes/ruins the value of the property.

Hmmmm.... I am increasingly uncomfortable with discussing people as property, and yet somehow fascinated with the twists and turns of all that it implies.

[cellio]

Hmmmm.... I am increasingly uncomfortable with discussing people as property, and yet somehow fascinated with the twists and turns of all that it implies.

Same here.

And despite the property status, tradition gives women elevated status in some areas. Maybe property in the historical context, but valuable property.

[astroprisoner.livejournal.com]

Or is it, instead, saying that craving property is bad and merely desiring another's spouse is equally bad?

Although I know very little, what you've said above would be my interpretation.

A man can look with envy and desire upon his neighbor's house, his car, his pool, his yard...but these are mere objects. When a man looks with desire upon his neighbor's wife...a whole different set of dynamics comes into play. An entirely different obsession.

Consider this: no matter how many times I walk next door and talk to my neighbor's car...no matter how many nice things I say to it, no matter even if I wash it and wax it and polish the hubcaps...that car is never going to get up of its own volition and park itself in my driveway. In order to get that car into my driveway, I either have to buy it from him or steal it. The first action is permitted, the second is not.

But if I begin to flirt with his wife (and wash her and wax...ummmm...well, you get the point) I may persuade her to walk out of my neighbor's house and into mine. I haven't abducted (stolen) her, she came over of her own free will. So have I done something wrong? Yes, of course, we instinctively know that morally I've done something wrong but in the letter of the law it would seem I have not.

No, men's obsessions are such that a stricter standard must be held for my neighbor's wife. I can think "I wish I had his car" and I can even have a fantasy about driving the car, there's nothing wrong with that. But a fantasy about driving his wife? Much different.

Although I assume this would not be a valid reference for your study, consider this from the book of Matthew: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (5:27-28) It seems to me to support this same position regarding a "higher standard."

[cellio]

Consider this: no matter how many times I walk next door and talk to my neighbor's car...no matter how many nice things I say to it, no matter even if I wash it and wax it and polish the hubcaps...that car is never going to get up of its own volition and park itself in my driveway.

Excellent point.

We are also commanded to "not place a stumbling-block before the blind", which isn't just about physical sight and barriers. When adultery happens both people sin, so your luring the neighbor's wife over to your place would be leading her into sin as well as sinning yourself.

"Lo tachmod/titaveh" is arguably the only commandment strictly involving feelings. ("Arguably" because we are also commanded to love God -- but there it's followed up with some specifics.) In general, Judaism doesn't hold you accountable for your fantasy life if you keep it in check and don't express it. This is an exception.