Ki Tisa answers



Ki Tisa 5731

Alef.

Since in 32:19 Moshe breaks the Tablets, the gravity of what he becomes so much greater by emphasizing what the Tablets contained, i.e., the literal “writing” of HaShem. Consequently this is repeated, after already being stated in Shemot 31.

Beit.

1.  Abrabanel’s question: Why are the second Tablets not identical to the first—if the first were both “Hewn” and “Written” by HaShem, why vis-à-vis the second Tablets, while the “Writing” is still by HaShem, the hewing is to be carried out by Moshe?

a. Pachad Yitzchak: The first Tablets were “too holy” in as far as they were not only “Written” by HaShem, but also “Hewn” by Him, and it was for this reason that they could not remain intact when given to man. The second Luchot are “a notch down” in holiness, by virtue of their being hewn by Moshe, and therefore they have more “staying-power.”

b. Abrabanel: The only way that Moshe will be able to “see” the Vision that he is meant to see is via the Tora, which is more closely symbolized by the second Tablets that Moshe plays a role in forming by his hewing the material upon which HaShem “Writes” the Ten Commandments. Moshe’s role in terms of the First Luchot is completely passive and this will not allow him to “see” what he is meant to “see”.

c. Meshech Chachma: The Jewish people had to be taught in dramatic fashion that there is nothing with intrinsic holiness aside from HaShem Himself. The first Tablets were certainly objects invested with holiness; however that holiness was a function of the actions of the Jewish people and had Moshe given them to the Jews, they would have treated the Tablets as replacements for the Golden Calf. The sin of the Calf stripped those Luchot of holiness and therefore per force they had to be destroyed. To illustrate that the holiness of the Luchot is a function of the compliance of the people with God’s Will, the first Tablets are smashed and are replaced by Moshe’s hewing a second set. Moshe is the middleman, but holiness will be a function of the people’s compliance with the covenant. Both the broken Tablets as well as their whole replacement are placed in the Aron in order to stress this lesson.

d. Cassuto: Even though there is repentance and forgiveness, the original sin cannot be completely undone. The fact that Moshe hews the second Tablets rather than HaShem is the everlasting sign of a residual reminder of the destruction of what once was whole and pure.

e. Benno Jakob: The error of the people was to think that material things are as important and holy as spiritual ideas. Therefore the first Tables whereby both the stones as well as the writing originated from the Divine had to be replaced with an object where the dichotomy between the two and the importance of one over the other was never in question, i.e., only the writing would be from HaShem, but the stone would come from man, in this case Moshe.

In summary, 1)Pachad Yitzchak focusses upon an adjustment from something too holy to something more appropriate for what people would be able to handle and preserve.

2) Abrabanel understands the replacement with Moshe’s participation as a teaching moment for Moshe so that he understands the means by which he is to relate to HaShem, i.e., via the Tora.

3) Meshech Chachma and Benno Jakob share the sentiment that the change was to emphasize to the people that holiness resides in spirituality and their compliance with God’s Will rather than in any material object.

4) Cassuto stresses the residual nature of a break in a relationship that can never be totally repaired.

2.  Abrabanel’s answer is intended to take issue with the view that one person is capable of “seeing/perceiving” God more than another. Even Moshe will ultimately relate to God via the Tora, but not because of some specific quality with which he has been endowed.

3.  In addition to the issue raised by Abrabanel, Meshech Chachma adds that HaShem Approved of Moshe taking the initiative and destroying the first Luchot. One might have thought that it was rather audacious for Moshe to have done this act, and Meshech Chachma views what Moshe did as having God’s Approval due to the lesson being conveyed.

Gimel.

1.  Shemot 34:1 “And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which thou didst break” has a superfluous final phrase. Of course Moshe broke the Luchot—it is clearly stated in 32:19 “And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.”  Consequently the words of this phrase are subject to interpretation which Reish Lakish in Shabbat 87a does.

2.  One could have thought that HaShem did not Approve of what Moshe did when he took it upon himself to destroy the Tablets that God had Given to him. Even if Moshe were not to deliver the Tablets at this point of time, he still could have saved them and secreted them until such a time when the people would be worthy of receiving them. To use the Tablets as essentially a prop to display his displeasure with what the people had done could have been considered a profanation of an object that had been invested with great holiness. The Gemora probably served as a basis for Meshech Chachma’s approach to the entire issue.

3.  The interpretation that RaShI’s chooses to associate with Shemot 34:1 contains a slight critique of Moshe, rather than Divine Approbation:

רש"י שמות פרק לד פסוק א

פסל לך - אתה שברת הראשונות, אתה פסל לך אחרות. משל למלך שהלך למדינת הים והניח ארוסתו עם השפחות, מתוך קלקול השפחות יצא עליה שם רע, עמד שושבינה וקרע כתובתה, אמר אם יאמר המלך להורגה אומר לו עדיין אינה אשתך. בדק המלך ומצא, שלא היה הקלקול אלא מן השפחות, נתרצה לה. אמר לו שושבינה כתוב לה כתובה אחרת, שנקרעה הראשונה. אמר לו המלך אתה קרעת אותה, אתה קנה לך נייר אחר, ואני אכתוב לה בכתב ידי, כן המלך זה הקדוש ברוך הוא, השפחות אלו ערב רב, והשושבין זה משה, ארוסתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא אלו ישראל, לכך נאמר פסל לך:

At least in terms of the moment, Moshe was made to realize that he had destroyed a holy object and in the future should not be cavalier about such actions. With regard to the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, there was a price to pay when something valuable and ethereal is destroyed, no matter how important the cause. However, at the end of Devarim, when essentially Moshe’s epitaph is being given by RaShI, the practical detail of the Tablets’ destruction is trumped by Moshe’s audacity in defense of the people, recognizing that his first priority was to do his best to bring them around to becoming an Am Segula and Mamlechet Kohanim, whatever it might take.

3