I. What was written on the Luchos
The Medrash Rabba on שיר השירים has a fascinating discussion about this with 4 distinct opinions:1.רבי מנחמא בשם ר' אבון אמר: וחצובין מגלגל חמה היו. כיצד
היו כתובין חמישה על לוח זה וחמשה על לוח זה, על שם שנאמר: ידיו גלילי זהב כדברי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל, הדא הוא דכתיב: (דברים ד') ויכתבם על שני לוחות אבנים.
This is the traditional view of 5 dibros on one table and 5 on the other
2. ורבנן אמרי:
עשרה על לוח זה ועשרה על לוח זה, שנאמר: (שם) ויגד לכם את בריתו אשר ציווה אתכם עשרת הדברים ויכתבם על שני לוחות אבנים.
The Rabanan say that all 10 were written on each tablet.
3.רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אמר:
עשרים על לוח זה ועשרים על לוח זה, שנאמר: ויכתבם על שני לוחות אבנים עשרים על לוח זה ועשרים על לוח זה.
Rav Shimon Bar Yochai goes even further and says that each dibra was written twice on each tablet, 20 on each.
The Mefarshim on the Medrash understand that he holds that all 10 were written on both sides
4. ר' סימאי אומר:
ארבעים על לוח זה וארבעים על לוח זה, שנאמר: (שמות ל"ב) לוחות כתובים משני עבריהם מזה ומזה טטרוגא:
R' Simai says 40 on each tablet. The Mefarshim explain that he holds that all 10 were written on all 4 sides of each tablet.
II. Were the second luchos identical to the first
The Gemara in Bava Kama (54b-55a) has the following story:
R' Chanina ben Agil asked R' Chiya bar Abba why in the first dibros it doesn't say tov and in the second dibros it does? R' Chiya answered, you ask why it says tov, I don't even know if it does say tov and he sent him to ask R' Tanchum who explained that since the first luchos were broken they didn't say tov.
Many acharonim ask the obvious question, how could R' Chiya not know if it says tov in the dibros? Interestingly enough Tosafos in Bava Basra 113a writes that they weren't בקיאים in the pesukim which is a fascinating answer that requires it's own post.
A number of Acharonim (Pnei Yehoshua, Rif, on the Eyn Yaakov and others) explain the Gemara as follows. The discussion between the 2 was about the luchos (as we see from the Gemaras answer). R'
Chanina assumed that what was written on the first luchos corresponded to the first dibros and what was written on the second luchos corresponded to the second dibros. R' Chiya answered him, I don't know what was written on the luchos, go ask R' Tanchum. R' Tanchum validated R' Chanina's
assumption and explained the difference in the luchos explaining that since the first luchos were broken tov was not written on them. Now we can understand R' Chiya, of course he knew the pesukim in Chumash, but he didn't know what exactly what was written on the luchos. We see according to these acharonim that the maskana of the Gemara was that tov was written on the second luchos but not the first.
As I posted here there is a machlokes what ksav was used for the luchos, ivris or ashuris. The Radvaz posits that the first luchos were written in ashuris and the second in ivris.
Conclusion
I probably sound like a broken record already, but I will make the same point that I have made many times. The luchos are a major element of Jewish history and tradition, and in fact were supposed to be preserved in the aron for just this reason. Yet, we find that we have major disputes about just about every aspect of the luchos.
So basically you're wondering why everything in Judaism is a machlokes? :)
ReplyDeleteMy previous point was facetious, but its interesting to speculate if chazal realized that all these core religious concepts and beliefs are matters of dispute and so unclear, shouldn't they have suppressed the knowledge of it being a dispute, at least from the masses?
ReplyDeleteYou have to realize that at the time of Chazal it was Torah sheball peh and the only way to find about these things was to become a discipline of someone. There was the small elite and the overwhelming majority of masses. The masses were never exposed to any of this. In fact, even 100 years ago this knowledge was not well known. There was the elite and then the masses. It is only in the last 50 years that everyone goes to yeshiva and learns. Another big factor is the proliferation of seforim which cover every possible topic as well as the internet.
ReplyDeleteIn short this knowledge until very recently was not known to the masses. In fact, it probably still isn't. It is just much easier to find now.
DeleteYeah I guess you're right, but even the Rambam who's so concerned about keeping certain knowledge hidden doesn't seem to be worried about these kinds of things - I guess the questions really is why do these things not concern him or other rabbis the way some others do. In general Judaism is interesting in how theological or controversial issues are much more 'on the table' compared to, say Christianity
ReplyDeleteReally I'm more curious what the rabbis, particularly someone like the Rambam or even more recent thought about these points - not really interested what 'hamon am' thinks :)
DeleteActually me too. The problem is that I haven't found many rabbinic sources that deal with these questions.
DeleteI am now in the middle of a discussion with a Rabbi )who claims to have answers) about some of these and all he does is refer me to maharals that don't address my questions.
The Torah world simply doesn't see these points as questions. The Torah world prefers lomdus and looks at these kinds of questions as stupid and simplistic.
Unfortunately I don't think you're going to find an answer, at least not in the sense of what you're looking for. Sources like Maharal, R' Tzadok etc. discuss the philosophical/hashkafic implications of the issues you discussed, but not the ramifications that you're raising.
DeleteThe questions are pointless to the Torah world because there's only 2 conclusions: 1) 'ayn hacha nami' its a strange/interesting point now lets go 'vaiter', or 2) uh oh there's a flaw in the mesorah! To be honest - at least from my experience - I don't think anyone is avoiding these issues because they're afraid to undermine the mesorah, I just think like you said its not interesting since once you have an a prior assumption that the mesorah is true, the questions are sort of pointless and even boring.
Not sure if you've learned Moreh Nevuchim - I'm working my way through it now I'll let you know if he says anything on this topic but I don't think he does.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI notice that you're only asking 'internal questions' but nothing 'external' - is that coming soon or are you not as bothered by that stuff? (and just so you don't think I'm 'cheppering' you, I actually think I may be very similar to you and the situation you find yourself in)
ReplyDeleteExternal question are coming soon. The reason I started with internal question is that from my experience they are much less discussed and therefore I think that I am contributing something by raising them. The external questions, age of the world, the Mabul, etc have been much extensively discussed.
DeleteFair enough. I must say that personally the 'internal' questions trouble me much less or hardly at all, because I see it sort of as a 'haym amru vhaym amru' situation. To tie into what I mentioned earlier, the fact that the Rabbis freely discuss and debate these matters itself shows that they're not too bothered by it, and obviously (in their minds) these issues don't undermine the overall validity of the mesorah.
DeleteOr another way to frame it, I may know modern science, cosmology etc better than most of the gedolim for the past 1000 years, but I can't say the same about knowledge of torah, yahadus etc.
Delete@ Dove, questions similar to AJWQ bothered me greatly as I went OTD. It means the so called mesorah essentially does not exist. That the Rabbis were usually just making thing up. Add to that that there some ancient 'Jewish' sects did not accept the Rabbinic claims.
DeleteI so agree with your statement about the Maharal etc. not addressing these questions. I am in the midst of a lengthy email discussion with a rabbi who insists that the Maharal has the answer to all of my questions
ReplyDelete