Ki Teitzei - Deut. 21:10-25:19

This Torah portion opens with the problematic "Woman of a Beautiful Form" story in verses 10-14.

The story goes like this:

Your army won a battle and brought back the booty. Among them were women taken as captives. You see one of them that strikes your fancy and you lust for her. So you take her for yourself. The rules state that after she is in your house, she will remove her hair and clothes and will do something with her nails. She will then mourn the loss (or death) of her parents for a month, and after that, you are then permitted to take her for your wife and come to her if you desire. If you don't, then you can send her on her way.

The final verse is chilling:

וְהָיָה אִם-לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ, וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ, וּמָכֹר לֹא-תִמְכְּרֶנָּה, בַּכָּסֶף; לֹא-תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ. 

21:14 "And it will be that if you will not [any longer] desire her, you will send her away to be her own person, and you will not sell her for money and you shall not put her to work [as a slave], because you had [sexually] abused her."

But wait...what sort of abuse are we talking about?

Later on, initah (עניתה) appears again in this Torah portion, about a man who rapes a woman, and he can never divorce her because he [sexually] abused her.

Here is the NIV translation of that verse, which correctly uses "violated".

When it comes to anything dealing with lust, with sex, with taking a woman against her will, and עינתה is used as a verb - she was raped. If there is no sex involved, it is "simple" abuse and possible torture.

In other places we find this expression as well (2 Sam 13:22 and Ezekiel 22:11 on the raping of one's sister).

I talk more about Biblical Rape in another blog post.

The Rashbam agrees, but few people who study this text will ever cite him. Instead, they will cite some of the typical apologists.

Apologetics

So let's talk about the typical apologetics on this one.

Not just Christian, but Jewish translations of this text will use "humbled" in place of "violated" or "raped", simply because it is not very comfortable to read that someone was permitted to take another against their will and exerted his will upon her. ArtScroll is an example of a Jewish publication company that has done this.

So how do you justify that God permits a man to take a woman against her will, knowing full well what will happen?

The Rambam wrote that God gave this commandment because men are lustful in times of war, and it was a way to reduce what was natural for them. Also, if God forbade this, men would do it anyway, and so this is a way for God to reduce the sinful nature of man.

Rashi concurs with this. Rashi goes further to say that she likely dressed well when captured in order to attract her male captors, which is why she is commanded to remove her clothing and remain in her captors house.

Yes, apparently, according to Rashi, she was asking for it.

One apologetic I read was that the man initially raped her to satisfy his lust, and after the cooling down period, he is free to let her go. He only took her once.

That doesn't help.

But why would the text demand that she remain in her captors house?

The Sifrei is bothered by this and, responding to this question, Rashi wrote that by remaining in the man's house, she will become repulsive to him. Perhaps he means because she is crying without any hair.

This doesn't answer the question: how is this moral?

One more thing to throw into the mixture: if, after a month in his household, the man wants to keep her and make her his wife, can she say "no!"?

The woman has no choice. And as with verses 22:28-29, the woman is condemned to be owned by her rapist all the remaining days of his or her life.

One last thing.

The woman is called an ayshet yophat to'ar. It is commonly translated as a "woman of beautiful form". But in the Tanach, an ayshet usually refers to a married woman. And so, from this the general interpretation is that even if she was married, she is now the property of her new master.

(Note: ba'al means "master, owner, lord, etc.", and is also a term that is translated as "husband".)

Shoftim (Part 2) - Deut 16:18-21:9

The Power of the Priesthood

In verses 17:8-12 we read about an incompetent judge who cannot arrive at a decision, and so he brings the people having the argument (and, perhaps, the witnesses), before someone far more capable and powerful to make that judgement.

And if someone doesn't like the judgement, there's no higher court to go to. And if that person refuses to accept it, then he or she is put to death. To refuse is considered an evil within Israel's midst.

So who is this high and mighty person who has so much power? 

It's the priest.

But not just any priest, but a priest from the tribe of Levi!

"But wait?! Aren't all priests from the tribe of Levi?"

Well, during the period of this story, yes. But much later, that wasn't always the case. (See Judges 17:5, 2 Samuel 8:18, 1 Chron. 18:17, etc.). Many apologists try to render "Kohain" into something less official because of these references. Yet many Christians are willing to have the Messiah be a priest who is not a Levite, citing Psalm 110:4. 

So there is this special expression that you can scan for, which speaks of Levitical Priests, which is הכהנים הלוים, or "HaKohanim HaLevi'im", which renders the second word as a modifier of the first.

This expression occurs more than 80 times in the Tanach, of which 5 are in the Book of Deuteronomy (17:9, 17:18, 18:1, 24:8, and 27:9).

The very idea was not even considered in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers.

And so, by saying, "You will come to the Levitical Priests...who will be there in those days..." is akin to saying, "You must not come to a priest who is not a Levite...in those days...".

So the Deuteronomist was a supporter of the Aaronoid Priests, supported their absolute power, and was against giving such power to the non-Levitical priests who would either existed during his time, or had existed.

This, of course, sets the authorship of Deuteronomy much later than literalists are willing to accept.

And as I noted in the previous blog post, the Deuteronomist was well aware of the stories in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.

It's not a problem if you see Deuteronomy as literature that was authored about 2500 years ago.

It's only a problem if you see Deuteronomy as having been authored by Moses.

Shoftim - Deut 16:18-21:9

This week has a lot of good stuff for the Biblical Critic.

Besides the usual anachronisms, such as iron ax head (19:5) and the Canaanite Goddess Asherah (16:21) we have what I call the "Royal Edict", meaning, the commandment or suggestion to have a king.

Now why do I say "commandment OR suggestion"? That has to do with the Deuteronomist quoting from the book of Samuel and citing examples from the book of Kings and Chronicles.

You see, while Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were often unaware with the commands of the Torah, the Torah seems eerily aware of what went on in those books that speak of periods that are centuries after Moses had died.

Think of it as a continuity problem with a general rewrite.

In verses 17:14-15, we read that when the Jews enter the land, they will say, "I will set a king over me like all of the nations (goyim) around me" and then they will appoint a king.

And in 1 Samuel 8:5 we read that the Jews would do just that, and say to Samuel "Set a king over us like all of the nations (goyim)."

It is almost word-for-word.

But there is one important distinction.

In the Book of Samuel, God hated that the people wanted a king and, in 1 Samuel 8:7, Yahweh proclaims that the Jews have rejected Him by wanting a human king. And in verses 8:11-18, 1 Samuel lists all of the horrible things that kings do to their subjects, but to no avail.

So why is there a confusion over the beginning of Deut. 17:14 to ask if it is a commandment (a position held by the Ramban) or a suggestion (A position held by the Rambam and many others)?

The first thing is the that first word could be read as "when", "because of", "for", and even "if". And the problem that many people have with this text is that is contradicts the Book of Samuel by showing a king in a positive light, and something that God would approve of at all.

And it gets better.

The text (Deut. 17:15-20) describes the type of king to avoid and it then describes King Solomon to a tee (but doesn't name him)! It lists his major sins - having too many wives, too many horses, and sending the Jews to Egypt to work. It says that having too many wives would turn one away from God (Solomon had idols erected for his foreign wives). And Deuteronomy tells us that kings are forbidden from having too much gold, which Solomon had, and it was his lust for it that caused his  kingdom to split.

The Deuteronomist, like Samuel, either did not care or was unaware of the decree by Jacob (Genesis 49:10) that the kingship would always be with Judah, especially since the first king chosen by God was Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin.

So it seems that the Deuteronomist was aware of the books of Samuel and Kings/Chronicles.

Recap

The "Royal Decree" is a commandment to have a king. It it does not matter from what tribe he comes from, but being from a tribe, he is Jewish. And this king should be righteous, and good and when he dies, if he was good, then his son will also be a good king.

Classical commentators have a problem with this because these verse contradict the Book of Samuel and it contradicts everything that we read in the books of Kings and Chronicles about the type of kings who ruled over Israel.

Solomon (albeit nameless) is an example here of the worst kind of king. And if you read the Book of Kings you will discover that there was never a good an righteous king who kept to these rules. According to the Abarbanel in his commentary to the Book of Samuel, there was never a righteous king over Israel. (He gives one person, Jotham the son of Uzziya, a pass because Scripture doesn't really speak of him at all!)

There is no mention of any king who wrote a copy of a Torah (whatever that means, since there was no Pentateuch, no single collection of the "5 books", at the time that Deuteronomy was written), and every King written about was a bad king.

It's possible that the Deuteronomist was being sarcastic, perhaps giving a wink at the idea "this is what God really wanted, but we never got this!"

It seems that the Deuteronomist was aware of those other books, while the authors of those other books were not aware of the Book of Deuteronomy.

And I find that to be a fascinating idea.

Re'eh (Part 2) - Deut 11:26-16:17

Meaty Issues

There are three issues in this week's portion that I want to address.

Where's The Beef?

In Leviticus 17:3-5, while complaining that the Children of Israel were bringing offerings of meat to the local satyrs, we are told that all animals that are butchered away from where God's place was must have their meat and blood brought to the temple so that God can get His portion, the priests their portion, and the blood may be dashed upon the alter. The owner of the animal would bring the rest of the animal home for consumption.

Now, imagine that, centuries later, the people are spread out across the land, and it is not convenient to bring an animal to Jerusalem when you live a full day's journey away.

Deuteronomy reflects that period, and changes a couple of the rules.

The first is that you don't have to bring any animal to the Temple unless you proclaim it to be cherem to you, holy and forbidden, and only for the Temple. You are permitted to kill your own animal and eat it. And unlike the Levitical requirement to cover the blood after it has been poured upon the ground, the Deuteronomist simply required that the blood be poured on the ground "like water" and not eaten.

One likely explanation for this difference, telling the people that they could kill and eat their own livestock, could have been the result of people actively ignoring the priestly requirements.

Read how the Deuteronomist repeatedly stresses that the non-Levites must not forget about the Levites, and that the non-Levites need to give a portion to the Levites, that the Levites should be treated like one of the poor, and that the Levites don't have as much. Could this also reflect a time when people were fed up with the Levitical cult and the Deuteronomist is emphasizing such a  condition?

In any case, there is a difference between the Leviticus and the Deuteronomy view of butchering your own livestock.

What To Eat?

This weeks portion also lists a lot of animals that you may eat, and those what you should refrain from eating. You may eat any bird that is tahor (it doesn't explain what that means, and is often rendered as "pure"), and it then lists a number of birds that we cannot eat.

But guess what? We don't know what animals that most of the biblical names are referring to! Sure, one translator is keen on having a bird be a carrion eater, after all, what is less tahor than one of those? But another translator may decide that it's not really a carrion eater at all. Is an eyal a "deer"? Or is it more like an impala since the horns of a deer are used to blow an alarming sound.

Because of these problems, the Rabbis, who claim that there was an "oral Torah" where MNoses told people what all of this meant, admitting that they don't know as well made up a rule about birds: if your family doesn't have a tradition of eating a specific bird, then you don't eat it. And I know some people who, for this reason, refrain from eating turkey.

Meat, Milk, and OCD

Verse 14:21 ends with, "You shall not boil/cook ["seethe"] a kid (gadi) in the milk of it's mother."

This does not refer to a cow, chicken, or even a sheep, but a goat.

Three times this prohibition is given, but no reason is ever mentioned.

Some people say that it was a type of food of idolaters, but there is no evidence that this was the case. The Rambam, who disagreed that it was idolatrous food declared that it was likely unhealthy, but this too is without any evidence.

And so, the Rabbis declared that all of the meat forms that would be brought for Temple sacrifices (bovine, sheep, goat) would be considered meat, and any milk, even from a different animal, was forbidden to cook in the same vessel at the same time. They later added birds either because they were also Temple offerings, or because people confused bird meat with meat from one of the other animals. They refrained from including fish in the meat category since it was never a Temple offering (unlike the Greeks who would offer a tuna to the Temple of Poseidon).

And even though the Talmud speaks of using a bowl for cooking a dairy meal, and after washing it out, using the same bowl for cooking a meat dish, later Rabbis ruled that you could not use the same cooking vessels for meat and dairy.

And, of course, since you cannot derive any benefit from it, you cannot feed your pet meat/dairy food, and there are those who have two washing sinks, one for meat, and one for dairy.

Some people do the same thing for their trash as well.

The Torah does not forbid cheeseburgers, and the zealots treat the layers of Rabbinical ordinances based on Deuteronomy 14:21 as though God really was demanding that everyone have two sets of dishes!

(With the invention of very hot electric dishwashers, some people, but not many, have reverted to using one set of dishes).

It has been my observation that the more religious a person is, the more OCD he or she is concerning all of these rules.

Re'eh - Deut 11:26-16:17

As I have mentioned several times before, theists who view themselves as monotheistic, will offer the Book of Deuteronomy as their primary proof text within the Torah, ignoring all of the problems that the other four books offer when one holds that the Torah is anything but henotheistic. However, one who does this is careful to not quote Deuteronomy as a whole, since that mostly monotheistic view of this book is not carried through the entire book because, like the other books, it was also not composed by a single author, although it does appear to have fewer authors than, say, Genesis.

The term "Other Gods" (אלהים אחרים) appears more in Deuteronomy than the other four books of the Torah combined, with a third of those occurrences appearing in this Torah portion alone.

So because of that, I thought that it would be useful to describe how the ancient people viewed an invasion by a people with their special God, especially based on the audience of the OT.

Remember, Yahweh was first appears in Canaan, and decides to create a special cult for Himself, choosing Abraham to father this cult.

And when the Hebrews went into exile, Yahweh, in effect, went into exile as well, for more than 200 years, dwelling atop a mountain near Midian, upon which, Moses would encounter Him, and would be chosen to lead the people back to Canaan, carrying their God on His golden throne, bringing Him back to Canaan, where He would be the one and only God of the land.

But it's been awhile, and while Yahweh was gone, other Gods were the protectors of the other peoples, and they needed to be destroyed.

If you read the Book of Daniel, the idea of supernatural agents, in this case, angels, fighting one another was a common view. Each nation had its own supernatural agent, and when one nation went to war against another, the supernatural agents went to war as well. Humans fought humans and Gods fought Gods.

(It should be noted that the difference between Gods, angels, and demons are simply semantics.)

So in this week's portion, Moses tells the people that they are going to encounter resistance, and that the incoming Hebrew forces needs to wipe out all of the places where the other Gods are worshiped, which includes their shrines, alters, idols, and even their names.

One of the words used is asherim, which are the idols of the Goddess Asherah. This term appears in Exodus 13:34, Deut. 7:5, and this week's verse. 12:3. Using this expression is an anachronism. Asherah was not a Goddess in Egypt, nor would she have been known by the Jews in the wilderness. However, during the first-Temple period, she was quite popular among many Judeans. The Hebrew word for tree, eitz, also means wood, or when used as an adjective, "wooden". So while some translations (KJV excluded) translate "eitz-asherah" as an "asherah tree", a more likely expression of this would be a wooden idol of asherah, and being a fertility Goddess, likely a phallic one at that.

The wiping out of the names commandment is an interesting one in that the Tanach will often not mention the names of the other Gods, as in "Lord of Peor" (baal-peor), or will use polemical names, such as "Lord shit-eating-pest (fly)". From this commandment to erase the names of other Gods, a the sages of the Talmud enacted a law to forbid the erasure of 7 names of God: Yahweh, Adoni, El, Eloah, Elohim, Shaddai, and Tzvaot. The Jewish code of Law (Shulchan Aruch) lists another 90 names.

Summary

The ancient view of the Gods was that each nation had one, and when there was an invasion, the invading force brought their God with them to fight the resident God. This is exactly what the Book of Deuteronomy is depicting in its preparation for the Israelites coming to the land of Canaan, after having been bred and raised and trained to be part of the Yahwist cult, carrying Him like the returning King, to depose those who had taken over after He had left more than 200 years before.

It's not quite the same story that one is presented on a Sabbath sermon.

Eikev - Deut 7:12-11:32

There are a lot of words in the Torah that we really don't know what they mean. Some of them have meanings applied to them because the context seems to imply a meaning, and others are assigned a meaning because that is what tradition from the ancient sages has passed down to us.

Sort of.

But I'll get to that.

In this week's Torah portion there are several obscure words. in verse 7:13 it speaks of the "ashterot of your flock". Is ashterot based on the number ten (eser)? Does it infer a wealthiness of the owners (ashir)? Is it associated with the Canaanite Goddess of that name? Many just translate it as "lambs", even though there are existing words for it.

Another in verse 7:15 speaks of the "medavei of Egypt". It in in the plural form, but even the singular form is unclear. The Aramaic Targum replaces it with a word to mean "pestilences". But is it really referring to the plagues? One could make a case for it in that instance, but when comparing the only other two uses in the Tanach (2 Sam. 10:4 and 1 Chron. 9:4), that case falls apart.

So we have a lot of words where interpretation is based on tradition, and not textual criticism.

As I explained in this post about the word tzitzit, accepting the meaning of words that are not explained in the Torah can have some lasting consequences, such as arguing what it is, how to wear it, the rules about wearing it, forbidding women from wearing them, and everyone feeling as though this is a commandment from God, while imposing their interpretations upon the rest of the public.

This brings me to a similar word in this week's portion: totafot.

"And you shall wear them as a totafot between your eyes, and as a sign (ot) upon your arm." (Verse 11:18).

According to the rational reader of the text, such as the Rashbam, this is simply an expression to keep the commandments of God (he argues that it meant the "10 commandments", and there is evidence that many segments of Judaism held the same opinion) always before you, and always be thinking about them, not for a literal wearing of something that is not defined.

But no, the ancient sages declared that "totafot" means "tefillin", those leather phylacteries that Jewish men wear on their head and arm.

Except one is not told to wear a totafot on the arm, but a "sign", which is the word "ot". So how does one justify calling both tefillin?

They just do.

Rashi, the 12th century French Apologist and commentator wrote that the word is "African in origin" but doesn't tells us (1) why God would use an African word and (2) what is the evidence that this word is African?

The myth that there is an "Oral Torah" that came from Moses (things that he talked about but never wrote down) and that the only way to understand the "written Torah" is through the "oral Torah" is how Jewish men got to wear boxes. If you read the Talmud, almost never does any sage admit "we don't know what this means". They argue about meaning, they vote on it, and the majority wins.

Tefillin is no different.

There are assorted opinions as to when Jews started wearing these. Was it to counter the Greek culture that wore amulets? Was it a remnant from Egyptian culture? Were they seen as charms?

In the Cairo geneiza, it was discovered that Jews didn't always wear square tefillin, but round or conical tefillin was the norm:

And as to what commandments were to be put into the tefillin and in what order, what Jews wear today was affirmed in the 12th century CE, by Rashi who had no issue with his daughters wearing them, and set the standard that most Jews used.

That is, until Rashi's grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, decided that the contents needed a bit of an adjustment.

And so, today you have Jews who will own TWO sets of tefillin: one approved by Rashi, and one by Rabbeinu Tam, and they will do the first half of their prayers wearing one set, and the second half wearing the other set.

Of course, then you have the zealots who don't want to have half of their prayers invalid because they were wearing the wrong set, and so you have Jewish men who will wear BOTH SETS at the same time!

You will have most men wear them only during morning prayers (prayer: tefillilah) but some zealots will wear them all day long.

And then you have the misogyny issue with wearing tefillin.

In Orthodox Judaism, there is a statement that if something is "time based", then women are exempt, and in modern days, "exempt" has become synonymous with "forbidden". And so, you have women who also want to pray wearing these leather boxes as God supposedly commanded, according to those who determined that totafot meant something else.

And so you have an internal battle over such nonsense.

One last thing, which has to do with the modern design and symbolism of these phylacteries which has another layer of superstition over them.

Of the tefillin contains the letter "ש" on the outside. The tefillin itself is in the modern shape of the letter dalet (ד), and it is worn on the had, or yad which was represented by the letter yud (י). There is a teaching that this spells Shaddai, or a name of God which designates protection and fertility. This is also written on the outside of most mezzuzah scrolls (also a Rabbinical invention and mentioned in this weeks Torah portion). And the belief is that wearing such things, are a form of protection.

But only if they are valid. So this means that religious Jews will bring their tefillin and mezzuzot to a scribe who will check them, because some believe that a crack in a single letter will have supernatural consequences. Imagine if a letter broke and the word changed and the meaning indicated that your son would die, that would be horrific! There are people who will take their tefullin and mezzuzot to also be checked when disasters are taking place in their lives. After all, all tragedies are supernaturally based!

Summary

There are a lot of words in the Torah that we don't know the meaning of and rather than admit "we don't know" the typical reaction is to just make things up, which is dishonest.

We don't know what totafot really meant, but based on the context, it could be several things, but leather boxes isn't one of them.

Religion uses such positions of power to control the lives of its adherents. And to put women into second-calls positions, it forbids them from participating in a ritual that men have determined is for them alone.

Va'Etchanan (Part 3) - Deut 3:23-7:11

What is the REAL Decalogue?

Verses 5:6-18 is technically and traditionally called aseret haDibrot, or the "10 sayings/statements" and usually, albeit erroneously, "the 10 commandments". I say "erroneously" because there are more than 10 commandments in the text, although, to be fair, there are disagreements as to how many there are, especially if you want to reconcile them with the version in Exodus 20:2-14, as we will see below.

It should be noted that chapter 5 of Deuteronomy does not call these rules aseret haDibrot, and that term won't appear until Deut. 10:4 with no list of what those commandments are. This is also true with Exodus 20:2-14 - the list is not called aseret haDibrot, and when that term does appear (Ex. 34:28), the expected list of commandments (e.g., "don't steal", etc.) is not there, and the ones that are there are rejected as being the real list:

So based on tradition, the aseret haDibrot in Exodus 34:13-26 is not the real one, but only the ones found on Exodus 20:2-14 and Deut. 6-18.

So let's focus just on those. But before I show the differences between the two versions, I want to cover just a bit of history on the aseret haDibrot has changed as part of the lifestyle of its fans.

The "10 Commandments"

So where does the first commandment begin?

Apparently, there is disagreement on that as well.

When writing the aseret haDibrot in a Torah scroll, the tradition is to put a bit of blank space just before it to indicate a new segment of the text that stands alone. The place where it is done today is just before "I am Yahweh, your God...", but according to Ibn Ezra, it should be as the Masorites decided, which was what is commonly seen as between the second and third commandments. At some point, the Masoretic tradition changed, and the spacing changed to have "I am Yahweh, your God..." to be the first commandment, even though it is not technically a commandment, some include it in their count.

There was a period in history where reciting the aseret haDibrot every morning was a requirement for every Jew. And even today, most prayer-books will include it in the section for preliminary prayers. But for some reason, and there is no universally accepted reason for it, that tradition was stopped even though the text still remain in the prayer-books. One reason given is that Christians used that to show that the "10 commandments" and not the entire Torah was the most important thing. Another is that it made the morning supplications too long. Nobody is completely certain, but it isn't recited like it used to.

Finally, there reading of the Torah portion where the accepted "10 commandments" are listed is considered to be a great honor. Some reserve that honor for the Rabbi. Others have their own ways of deciding who will get to stand before the Torah as the Decalogue is being recited. And there are different communities who have different traditions concerning standing when the Decalogue is being read. Many do, and some don't.

The Differences

I will present non-commandment portions in italics and note the differences in red.

1. I am Yahweh, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.

No differences. All second-person references are in the singular, and the Targum changes that to the plural as well as changing "slavery" to "servitude". There is a debate as to whether or not this is a commandment: "Acknowledge that Yahweh is God".

2. There will not be for you other Gods in My presence. (literally, "face").

No differences. Given the Deuteronomist's monotheistic views, it is likely that he was repeating this as it was traditionally known, but held that "other Gods" did not mean that other Gods actually existed. The  author(s) of Exodus obviously did hold that such Gods existed. Many people render "in My face" as "besides me" based on a more monotheistic view and justify the rendering based on how על used in this verse is rendered as "beside" in Numbers 28:15, Genesis 28:9, and Genesis 31:50. It does make it less anthropomorphic.

3. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured-image of any likeness of what is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters below the earth.

No differences. Saadiah removed "for yourself" in his translation in order to eliminate the idea that you could make a sculpted image (pesel) for someone else. One key bit of text that is often ignored is that the Genesis 1 text has the earth floating on the lower waters, with the upper waters held back by the FIRMament. This verse echoes that view.

4. You shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I am Yahweh, your God, am a jealous God, Who causes the sin(s) of the fathers to fall upon the children unto the third generation and unto the fourth that hate me, but doing kindness to the thousandth generation to those who keep my mitzvot (commandments).

No difference. The first line that is not in italics is the actual commandment. Which is actually two commandments: do not bow down to idols (1) and do not serve idols (2). Prior to this you have (3) do not make idols and (4) have no other God. There are those who claim that the first verse represents (5) Acknowledge that Yahweh is God is a commandment. Some do not. Few see "keep my mitzvot" as a commandment, but you might include it as well.

5. You shall not (swear) take the name of Yahweh, your God, in vain, for Yahweh will not hold guiltless anyone who takes His name in vain.

No difference. However, notice that the speaker switched to the third person, saying "His name" rather than "My name". It is generally taught that this refers to making oaths, such as "I swear to Yahweh that it will rain three weeks from today", or on Monday someone says "I swear to Yahweh that today is Monday". Saying, "This dinner is so good, even Yahweh would love it" would not fall under this category. Nor would, "Jesus Christ, that's stupid!"

6. Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it as Yahweh your God has commanded you.

The Exodus version has Keep instead of Remember. This difference as caused a lot of apologetics, such as "God said both at the same time" to which the rationalists have responded, "How can you hear two different things at the same time?" Jews have two loaves of bread, light two candles, and, depending on the traditions of that family, will do other forms of "two" to justify having two different terms of keeping the Sabbath. One could also argue that "sanctify it" and "keep/remember it as God commanded" are two commandments, and not one. As for why Christians keep Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath and still claim to keep it in the manner that Yahweh commanded...I cannot explain that.

7. [For] six days you will labor and do all of your work (malachot).

No difference. Some hold that this sentence joins the previous one and the next one, while others hold that this is a commandment in and of itself, which is that you have to work for six days and complete it, which could be one or two commandments. This also means that one cannot spend all six days simply learning and not doing a single bit of malacha (work), but must also do something each day and complete all of the necessary preparations prior to the Sabbath.

8. But the SEVENTH day is for Yahweh, your God. You shall not do any work (malacha); [Neither] you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant nor your ox nor your ass nor any of your cattle, nor the [non-Jewish] stranger who is within your [city] gates so that your male servant and your female servant may rest like you do.

No difference. The Hebrew term ger means "stranger" or "outsider". It is typically an abbreviation for a ger-toshav, an outsider who dwells among the Jews, and who isn't Jewish. Later, when conversion became a thing, which is post-Biblical, the Septuagint used a form of proselyte and that term has found its way into many translations, but one should not read that it is talking about converts.

The variant that is missing the "and/nor" prefix could be a simple scribal error or preference. The addition of "ox and ass" in the Deuteronomy version, which is missing in the Exodus version might indicate a more prosperous period of time. Of course, these commands are being addressed to prosperous men who have servants and property.

In either case, it does increase the number of commandments in this version.

It is at this point that the text diverges as to why one needs to follow the previous commandment. According to Exodus, the ger is irrelevant, but you need to keep the Sabbath as a symbol of Yahweh creating and working for 6 days before ceasing from all work.

The Deuteronomist sees that as irrelevant and instead focuses on why the ger should also be permitted to rest which is to ensure that your servants rest as well, which is not in the Exodus text.

Here are the different views:

9. Exodus: For in six days, Yahweh made the heavens, earth,sea, and all that is in them. Therefore, Yahweh, your God, blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

9. Deut.:  And you must remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and Yahweh your God took you from there with a strong hand and and an outstretched arm Therefore Yahweh, your God, has commanded you to make the Sabbath day.

And then the two texts come back together. So the Deuteronomist has added another commandment, but the Exodus text has not.

 10. Honor you father and your mother as Yahweh, your God, commanded you, so that your days will be lengthened and so that it will be good for you in the land that Yahweh, your God, is giving you.

 

No differences.  It is interesting to note that one who does this should have a long life, and there have been legends created to explain why this doesn't really happen ("the land" means "the World to Come"). Of course, the context of this verse, just before the Jews are to go into the land, dismisses such nonsense.

11. You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not be a lying witness against your fellow.

In these 4 commandments the only difference is that the Exodus version tells one not to be a witness for a vain reason, which likely means to get something out of it. This could infer lying, but it is not explicitly stated.

Adultery refers to a married woman. A married man could have multiple wives, concubines, and conjugal slaves.

Stealing is understood to mean "kidnapping", rabbinically.

12. You shall not covet your fellow's house nor field. You shall not covet the wife of your fellow, nor his male servant nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your fellow's.

While the Exodus writer put the wife first, the Deuteronomist put the house first and added the field as well. This could be each one's personal priorities, which makes for a fun interpretation. And as we can see, this is speaking to the male elites of the time who were property owners, telling them not to covet the stuff of other male elites.

Summary 

The "10 commandments" is more than 10 commandments, has two (or three) versions, and depending upon the period that it was written, there was a different focus concerning the strangers who dwelled among the Jews and how the wealthy property owners of their day should treat their peers.

Of course, one can read a lot into these words, and many people do.

And hopefully you will have learned something new from this.

Thanks for reading!