Netvort Eikev 5773:    The Cover-Up

By Rabbi Joshua (paradoxically known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

            Moshe, continuing his farewell address to the people, describes what happened with regard to the giving of the first and second sets of tablets – the luchos at Mt. Sinai, with one addition. The first luchos were both made and written by God, while the second luchos were made by Moshe and written by God. In regard to the second luchos, God told Moshe, as described in our parsha, but not in Parshas Ki Sisa, to build an aron, or ark of wood, in which to store them, while, in regard to the first set of luchos, this is not mentioned at all, in either parsha. The Ramban, in one explanation, which, he says, seems to be the plain sense of the verses, says that the ark mentioned here is the same one that Betzalel made for use in the Mishkan. Rashi, however, says that it is not the same ark, and the Ramban, in an earlier explanation, also says that it is not the same ark, but, rather, a separate, temporary one, made to store the luchos until Betzalel built the Mishkan and its aron. Why, according to this explanation, wasn’t such an ark made in which to place the first luchos until the Mishkan was built? The Ramban and Ohr HaChaim give different explanations, each of which highlights the difference between the two luchos. 

            The Ramban says that God did not command Moshe to build an aron for the first luchos because He knew that they would eventually be broken in response to the worship of the eigel.  The Ohr HaChaim says that since the first luchos were made by God, they were able to stand by themselves, and did not need to be placed in an aron. Rabbi Mordechai Mendel Pomerantz, in his commentary Meorei HaChaim to the Ohr HaChaim, points out that, according to both opinions, the first set of luchos, after they were broken, needed to be placed in an aron, but which aron that was is uncertain. According to Rashi, the broken luchos remained in the aron made by Moshe, and that aron, with the broken luchos inside, went out to war with the people.  According to the Ramban, the broken luchos were placed in the aron made by Betzalel for the Mishkan, together with the second set of luchos, and the aron made by Moshe was hidden away and not used again. The Ohr HaChaim, says Rabbi Pomerantz, could conceivably agree with either of these opinions. 

            Perhaps we can suggest another reason for placing the second luchos, in contrast to the first, in an aron during the interim before the Mishkan was built. Rashi, quoting Chazal, says that the second luchos were given to Moshe privately, unlike the first luchos, which were given publicly and ended up being destroyed, to teach us that there is nothing better than modesty.  Perhaps, then, as part of this more private approach, the second luchos were placed in an aron during the interim period in contrast to the first, which, had been exposed to public view, to further teach the importance of modesty. 

            Interestingly, Rav Amnon Bazak, in his Nekudas HaPesicha to Parshas Eikev, points out another difference between the transmission of the two sets of luchos, based on the different descriptions of their transmission given in Shemos and in Devarim. In the book of Shemos, the first set of luchos are connected to the aron to be made by Betzalel, to be placed there and then used in the Mishkan as a vehicle toward bringing down the divine presence among the people.  In Devarim, however, the luchos are mentioned without any reference at all to the Mishkan.  Earlier in Parshas Eikev (Devarim 9:15-17), in Moshe’s description of his breaking of the luchos, the sense of the verses is that this act would constitute a breaking of the covenant between God and the Jewish people, as it was done before God’s anger after the episode of the eigel was assuaged. After Moshe’s prayer on their behalf, however, He relented and retained the covenant from that point on, says Rav Bazak, the luchos would no longer be in Moshe’s hands, subject to the possibility of being broken, as a symbol of the breaking of the covenant. Rather, they would stand by themselves in a special aron, symbolizing the permanence of the covenant between God and the Jewish nation. 

            Rav Bazak’s explanation takes on added significance when we take note of the opinions of Rav Sa’adia Gaon, as mentioned in the Ibn Ezra, and expanded upon by the Netziv in his HaAmek Davar to Ki Sisa. In a certain sense, they say, the second luchos were on a higher level than the first, because the second set was made by Moshe, thus adding the human element, while the first luchos were made by God. This human element actually gave the second luchos more permanence. The Netziv explains that while the first luchos incorporated the entire corpus of Torah, including the oral law, the second luchos required human effort in order to extrapolate the oral law alluded to in them. Following Rav Bazak, then, even though the second luchos were made by Moshe, they had more permanence than the first luchos that were made by God, and, therefore, there was a need to house them in a separate aron to symbolize that, paradoxically, precisely the human element that assured their permanence placed them in God’s realm, indicating that the covenant He made with the Jewish people would remain forever.