The singular Anochi, unity, and the room for sin

ברש"י אנכי ה"א לשון יחיד.

In Rashi: "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" — "I am Hashem your God" — is in the singular form.

Rashi notes that the first commandment is phrased in the singular ("your God"), as if addressed to one individual.

ליתן פ"פ למרע"ה ללמוד סניגוריא במעשה העגל כו'.

To give an opening of the mouth (pischon peh) to Moshe Rabbeinu to argue a defense (sanegoria) in the matter of the Eigel (Golden Calf), etc.

Rashi explains the singular phrasing gave Moshe a basis to defend Bnei Yisrael over the Cheit Ha'eigel — the command was technically directed to each one alone.

ואא"ז מו"ר ז"ל ביאר הדברים כי נאמר הציווי כשבנ"י באחדות.

And my grandfather, my teacher, of blessed memory, explained the matter: that the command was spoken when Bnei Yisrael were in unity (achdus).

His grandfather taught that the singular form reflects the unity of Bnei Yisrael — they stood as one, so they were addressed as one.

ואז משה הוא ישראל וישראל הם משה כו'.

And then Moshe is Yisrael and Yisrael are Moshe, etc.

In that state of unity, Moshe and the people were so bound together that they were essentially one entity.

ונראה לבאר עוד כי באמת אם הי' המאמר לכל פרט ופרט לא הי' אפשר להיות מציאות להחטא.

And it appears one may explain further: that in truth, if the utterance had been to each and every individual, it would not have been possible for the reality of sin to exist.

The Sefas Emes adds his own insight: had the command been an absolute divine decree upon each person, sin would have been impossible — the decree would simply have taken hold.

וכשאמר הקב"ה יהי רקיע דבריו חיים וקיימים לעולם.

For when the Holy One, blessed be He, said "Let there be a firmament," His words are living and enduring forever.

When Hashem issues a creative decree like "Let there be a firmament," it comes to be permanently and unalterably.

וכל המצות הם ציווי על האדם וניתן הבחירה בידו.

And all the mitzvos are a command upon the person, and bechirah (free choice) is placed in his hand.

Mitzvos, by contrast, are commands that leave room for the person's free will to obey or not.

אבל מאמר אנכי ה"א הוא דיבור וגזירה.

But the utterance "Anochi Hashem Elokecha" is a [creative] speech and a decree.

The first commandment is not merely a command but a creative divine decree, like the decrees of Creation.

לכן הי' המאמר בלשון יחיד כשבנ"י הם באחדות כנ"ל ואז באמת חל עליהם מלכותו ית'.

Therefore the utterance was in the singular, when Bnei Yisrael were in unity, as above — and then in truth His kingship, may He be blessed, took hold upon them.

Because it was a creative decree, it was spoken in the singular to the unified nation, and at that moment Hashem's malchus genuinely rested upon them.

וא"י לבוא לידי החטא באמת.

And truly they could not have come to sin.

In that elevated state of unity and accepted malchus, sin was genuinely impossible.

וזהו ענין ליתן פ"פ.

And this is the meaning of "to give an opening of the mouth."

This is the depth of Rashi's "pischon peh" for Moshe's defense.

כענין שנא' אשר הרעותי.

Like the matter that is said, "that I have caused harm." (cf. Michah 4:6)

He alludes to the verse in which Hashem, as it were, takes responsibility — "that I have brought harm" — leaving room for human failure.

כי כביכול השאיר מקום למציאות החטא:

For, as it were, He left a place for the reality of sin to exist.

Moshe's defense was that Hashem Himself, by giving the command as a regular mitzvah rather than an absolute decree upon each individual, "left room" for the possibility of sin — so the people are not wholly to blame.

Summary: The first commandment's singular phrasing was Moshe Rabbeinu's defense after the Eigel. Had "Anochi" been an absolute creative decree binding each individual, sin would have been impossible; instead it was spoken in the singular to the unified nation, where Hashem's malchus truly rested and sin could not occur. Moshe argued that by giving it room for free choice, Hashem Himself, kivyachol, "left a place" for the reality of sin.