[Avodah] What was actually written on the luchos, zachor or shamor?

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, July 31, 2007 7:41 pm, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: Regarding this question, I just happened to notice a relevant comment
: in Ohr Somayach's "Torah Weekly" e-mail on this week's parsha, from
: two years ago. The author there writes:
: "The first Tablets did not contain words, they contained speech."
:
: (I beleive that what he means is that the first luchos did not
: contain *written* words, spelled with specific letters.) The full
: article can be read at http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2293

I understood him differently. To quote the devar Torah:
> [I]n the case of the first Tablets this was not so. The first Tablets
> did not contain words, they contained speech. .... It means that when
> you saw the words, you saw in them G-d speaking at Sinai. Usually,
> when someone speaks, their words are present as long as they are still
> speaking them. When they stop speaking, the words vanish. The first
> Tablets perpetuated G-ds giving the Torah at Sinai, His speech at
> Sinai. That is what the Torah means when it says "all the people saw
> the voices" (Shmot 20:15)

The writing was a perpetuation of ro'im es haqolos. This visibility of
qol is then connected to the link between dibur and davar, that
"vayomer E-lokim 'yehi or!'" didn't cause light, but actually is that
davar we call light. This transparency through the devarim of the
world to the diburim of Hashem was true of the maamad har Sinai and
the luchos, but was lost with the eigel.

>In the future, we will clearly see the intention behind every thing in
> Creation, the dibbur behind every davar. This is what the prophet
> Yishayahu means when he writes, "the Glory of G-d will be revealed and
> all flesh together will see that the Mouth of G-d has spoken" (40:5)
...

The author isn't likely to be denying that the devar Hashem was
actually written in letters, as then one must radically reinterpret
"mem vesamech shebalukos" (or "ayin vetes") "beneis hayu omedim".
OTOH, such reinterpretation may eliminate the apparent machloqes
between the two versions of the ma'amar. After all, if they aren't
discussing literal letters, the two shasim could be making the same
point with different meshalim.

Perhaps informing that vertl is the Sefas Emes's notion (Bo 5631) that
the 10 ma'amaros of beri'ah were converted by the 10 makkos into the
10 diberos. Natural law becomes moral law via the notion of Divine
Justice. But it makes the author's assumed connection between creation
as dibur and the diberos more solid.

: The relevance for this thread is that this is another way that the
: first luchos could have both zachor *and* shamor. (The second set
: would need other solutions, such as those already posted.)

According to the Beis haLeivi (derush 18), the first luchos contained
kol haTorah kulah (limiting Shabbos 104a to the first luchos only),
and that until the 2nd luchos, there was no TSBP -- it was all
available in writing on the luchos. It was the eigel which
demonstrated the need for less knowledge but a more intimate
relationship with Torah. With the 2nd luchos we know less than if it
was all available to read, but are the actual klaf of TSBP.

This is why the 2nd Luchos were the luchos ha'eidus. They testified to
the intimate relationship, Yisrael ve'Oraisa veQBH, that an external
text one can point to outside oneself, does not.

The Yalkut Shimoni 405 writes that the role of TSBP is to keep the
Jewish people special. But had there been no eigel, there would have
been no shibud malkhios (Eruvin 54a) -- cheirus al haluchos. So the
BhL notes that before the eigel, when the first luchos were given,
this need for TSBP didn't exist.

There is much more there, the BhL should be seen inside.

So, leshitaso, we could suggest two possibilities:

1- The first luchos contained both sefarim Shemor and Devarim, and
thus might even have had both versions of the 10 devarim/diberos in
large.

Or perhaps
2- it contained only one version of the diberos, but (in a ro'im es
haqolos way?) that allowed people to see kol haTorah kulah in it.

Other ideas:

The Pesikta Rabasi (parashah 23, beginning) says that Yisro's version
was on the first luchos, vaEschanan's on the second. That "zachor" was
on the first luchos but "shamor" appeared on the second luchos to tell
us to have a shemirah lest they go the way of the first ones ch"v.
This is probably also peshat in BK 55a, the discussion of why only the
first luchos say "tov". It seems to say that only they had the words
in Yisro of "lema'an yitav lakh".

Ibn Ezra (Shemos 20:1) and the Ramban (ibid 8) say that Shemos's
account is historically authoritative. (see also Shevu'os 20b.) The
version in Devarim reflects the fact that it's Mishneh Torah and
therefore has Moshe Rabbeinu's explanations added. Which would seem to
imply it's an easier path to the diberos' intent.

The Penei Yehoshua says that one represents what was said at ma'amar
Har Sinai, the other what was written. He doesn't take sides which was
which.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha at aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter