Some Points That You Might Miss With an English Translation of Exodus 20:3

[edu]

Exodus 20:3 as translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan states
    Do not have any other gods before Me.
Although the translation gives a general sense of the verse it is not the most literal translation of the words and therefore certain messages might be more easily lost.
At a later time, I plan to point out some of these lost messages, G-d willing (and without making a vow or neder).
In the meantime feel free to add your own input on what is lost in translation in comparison to the original Hebrew text.

[edu]

The most literal reading of the text is: You shall not have for yourself other (the Hebrew word for other, here being in the plural form) "Elohim" (alt. translation, gods of others) upon (alt. translation, near) my face.
The word underlined and in italics in Hebrew has different meanings in different places of the Bible.
For the time being I will not translate the word I left in italics in order to move on to my next point.

There are a number of different opinions in Rabbinical Literature, what exactly took place in the sin of the Golden Calf. At this point in time, I will not try to favor one over the other. But I will point out that after the Children of Israel sinned, Moshe {Moses} according to the Midrash tried to appeal to G-d in his prayers, that one could lessen the severity of their sin, by saying the people made a mistake and were not intentionally rebelling against G-d, because they were using the most literal understanding of the text, that led them to make a mistake. Moshe contended that perhaps the people believed that only Moshe himself, was commanded not to have for himself other "Elohim" (alt. translation gods of others). Moshe contended that the people believed mistakenly that the rest of the nation was not obligated in this commandment.
The people were wrong, but Moshe was saying don't judge them by the harsh standards given to intentional sinners. Judge them by the more lenient standards shown to those who make sins by mistakes.

In English without being aware of the literal meaning of the Hebrew words of the text, it would be hard to arrive at an understanding how could the Midrash contend, that Moshe made such a defense on behalf of the Jewish people. But knowing the most literal meaning of the text you could understand how Moshe acting as a good defense lawyer for the Jewish people made this claim.

The question still has to be dealt with why wasn't it perfectly obvious to the Jewish people given their previous history that they were forbidden to make a Golden Calf, even if the wording of the commandment was slightly unclear. This question I hope to deal with in a future post.

[edu]

I explain the midrash (what was Moshe's defense of Israel) based on what Rambam wrote in his commentary to chapter 7 of the mishna in tractate Chulin:

You have to know that what we abstain from or what we do today, we only do this because of the command of G-d via Moshe. It is not because G-d commanded to do so to the previous prophets. An example of this is that we do not eat a limb taken from a live animal; we refrain from this not for the reason that G-d forbade the sons of No'ach {Noah} the limb from a living animal, rather because Moshe forbade upon us the limb from a living animal, in what he was commanded at Sinai that the limb from a living animal remain forbidden. And so too, we do not do circumcision because Avraham {Abraham} circumcised himself and the men of his household. Rather because G-d commanded us via Moshe to circumcise in the way that Avraham, peace be unto him did.

Moshe contended before G-d, true if the Jewish people continued to be bound by the laws revealed to the previous prophets, then they could be judged as intentional sinners. But Moshe contended, the people thought they were no longer obligated to follow the old rules, since the Sinai revelation had already taken place. The people made a serious mistake by not realizing that under the new Sinai rules it is also forbidden to make a Golden Calf, but not having yet been informed in a clear way by Moshe, that the new Sinai laws also forbid this, G-d should take this into account to lessen the severity of their sin.

[edu]

Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot "Smag" believes the phrase  "upon (alt. translation, near) my face" comes to prohibit believing that G-d has a partner.

Commentaries ask Bamidbar/Numbers 21:7 and Shoftim/Judges 7:20 seem to look favorably on G-d having human partners to do good things for the Jewish people.
Tosafot (Sanhedrin 63a) answers, that the forbidden partnership of G-d with something else is when that other things is elevated by the person to Divine or godly status.

[edu]

As I have indicated previously some of the Hebrew words used in Shmot/Exodus 20:3 have more than 1 possible meaning. Depending on which meaning you choose you could get a somewhat different message of what the verse is telling us.
The following is the Gaon Rabbi Achai view in Sha'eltot in Hebrew of the prohibition listed in the verse followed by my translation of his words

שאילתות דרב אחאי פרשת יתרו שאילתא נב

דאסר להון לדבי' ישר' למפלח לשום מדעם בעלמא ולאודויי אלא להקב"ה לחודיה שנאמר לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני וכתיב לא תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם

That it is forbidden for the House of Israel to worship to anything in this world and/or to admit (alt. translation, to offer thanks) to it, except if it is to the Holy One Bless Be He, alone, for it was stated...

After the word "for it was stated" he quotes our verse of Shmot/Exodus 20:3 and then adds a quote of the first part of Shmot/Exodus 20:5.
My understanding of why he added the additional quotation of the first part of Shmot/Exodus 20:5, is to show the context of the paragraph which he understood as supporting his interpretation.

[edu]

This is the Bar Ilan biography of Rabbi Achai.
It should be pointed out that technically he didn't have the office of Gaon, just the knowledge or level of a Gaon.
When I called him by the name Gaon, I was using the term in a more broader manner, than someone who held the position of Gaon

SHEILTOT DE-RAV ACHAI
Rav Achai (Acha) of Shabcha was born ca. 680 CE and passed away in the land of Israel in 756. Even though he was one of the greatest Torah scholars of Babylonia, he was not appointed to the office of Ga'on. Rav Acha's Sheiltot is the first known halachic work composed in post-Talmudic times for public use. Written in Aramaic, it contains traditions which are unknown to us from other sources. Each sheilta deals with a particular halakhic theme, somehow associated with the weekly Torah reading, and containing a halakhic question, solution, and aggadic homilies. The Sheiltot was first published in Venice in 1546. Various commentaries were written on the work, including one by R. Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, the Netziv of Volozhin. A critical edition of the work was published between 1960 and 1977 by Professor S. K. Mirsky.