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.

[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."