Contradictions in the Torah – Biblical Criticism

Have you read Cassuto's long commentary? (Hint: it shows that there is no contradiction) Have you checked the references to research literature on the Rambi website? This is such a long question that it is worth starting with a comprehensive review of the literature. Theology is at least worth the effort that a reasonable person invests in writing a seminary paper at Ariel College. Best regards

In Chapter 1, the creation of Adam and his wife is described briefly as part of the general act of Genesis, and in Chapter 2, the creation of the garden and the creation of Adam and his wife are described in detail.

Thus it is in the entire book of Genesis – from the general to the specific
from the generality of creation to man; from the generality of humanity to Noah; from the generality of Noah's children to Abraham; from the generality of Abraham's children to Isaac, from the generality of Isaac's children to Jacob, and from Jacob to his dominant sons Joseph and Judah.

And the general message: the world is ‘purpose-oriented’.

With greetings, S.C. Levinger

Honorable Rabbi Levinger, I assume that part of the change in consciousness that happened to everyone who started reading the writings of Rabbi Michi is not being satisfied with the worts.

Look here:
http://ivri.org.il/2014/01/ten-commandments-differences/

Avi Dentalsky gives an excellent explanation in Baba Kama v.d., which is based on the claim that R’ Chiya bar Abba ‘does not tolerate’ warts.
Sh’el Shem, as usual, disagrees with the explanation. And why? Because in his opinion, ‘the earth is full of warts’.

13 Tishrei 88

To Israel, peace be upon you,

Rabbi Hanina ben Egil assumes that the first tablets contained the text in Exodus and the second tablets contained the text in Deuteronomy, which states, “That it may be well with you.” Therefore, he asks why it is written here, “well,” and not here?

On this, Rehab asks, where do you get the idea that on the second tablets it was written, “That it may be well with you,” since it is possible that the second tablets were identical in their wording to the first (as is evident from the scripture, “And I wrote on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets.” Exodus 34:1), and the wording in Deuteronomy is an expanded explanation of the wording written on the first and second tablets, as is the case with Deuteronomy in which it says, “For Moses has explained this Torah.”

With greetings, S.C. Levinger

A. His words are not simple, the commentators took a long time to interpret his words.

B. It seems to me that the proposed wort is a very beautiful wort, which has several references cited there. It seems to me that the reason you don't like the wort (which is not your way) is because it presents a character opposite to you, who does not tolerate worts…

C. As for your interpretation itself, I do not agree, because of the context.
The Gemara on the entire page (page 55:) discusses the changes between the ‘deborot hirshonot’ and ’deborot sechton’, and does studies such as ‘klal veparet’ – and so on. It does not discuss the status of the ‘deborot hirshonot’ and so on. The Gemara discusses only from a halachic perspective. Because of changes in the text, it demands and specifies the laws.

From now on, when the Gemara at the end formulates R’ Chiya's question ‘Why is it said in the first verses that it is good and in the second verses that it is not’, then the question is on the same level. There is a question here about a change in wording, a change from which they did not learn halakhic. The question is formulated in the same concepts as at the beginning of the issue ‘Devarot Prishonot’, Devarot Sithion’. See also.

Only from R’ Tanchum's response do we learn that the first commandments were indeed written on the first tablets, and the second were written on the second. And this is indeed an innovation.

Another thing, according to you, it is not clear why R’ Chaya sends him to R’ Tanhum, if in his opinion the change is only in the words of Moses.
But as above, mainly from the continuity of the issue, it seems to me that it is not as you say.

Incidentally, if we are dealing with the issue of changes between the first and second tablets, I would like to propose something that would seem very strange, were it not for Damasthena, etc.:
As is known, together with the first tablets was given the Book of the Covenant (according to the Ramban and other commentators) which included Parashat Mishpatim (and some of it and Teruma). In chapter 34, at the time of the delivery of the second tablets, there is a repetition of a few commandments from the Book of the Covenant, albeit in a succinct manner. From the Ramban there it is implied that the Book of the Covenant was rewritten (although not broken as tablets, apparently “expired”), but it is not clear why it was so shortened.
In the Book of Ezra it is written: ”And although they were already written, they were written at another time with the Ten Commandments, therefore this section was written twice”.
If it were not for Damascene and the like, it seems that the author intended to say that these verses (the short Book of the Covenant) – were written together with the Ten Commandments on the stones. This fits very well with the sequence of the verses there, it explains the very abbreviated repetition of the Book of the Covenant - simply a shortened version of the wording that could be taken up and written on the stones.
Is it possible that this is his intention?
So far I have not found any reference to the subject.

In the 13th chapter of Tishrei 8:8, Rashi briefly explains that the description of the creation of Adam and his wife in chapter 2 is the elaboration of the brief description in chapter 1: “And the plainness of the text: Here He informed you that they were both created in the sixth, and He did not explain to you how they were created, and in another place He explained it.”

Rashi explains this in more detail in chapter 2:8: “I saw in the baraita of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yossi of Galilee, two measures that the Torah requires, and this is one of them: “A rule after which an act is a detail of the first,” and He created Adam and so on. This is a rule. Just where did his creation come from and just his actions, he repeated and explained: And the Lord God created and the like, and a garden of Eden grew for him, and sleep fell upon him, the listener believes that it is another act and is nothing but a detail of the first..

But Chapter 2 is not only a detail of Chapter 1, but also. sets before man an additional destiny. In Chapter 1, man and his wife together accept the role of leaders of the living world. In Chapter 2, an additional destiny is added to man: to work the earth and preserve it. (And in this purpose, the woman is a ‘helper’.

Verses 4-7 detail the works of the second and third days, in which the boundary between the ’heaven’ and the ’earth’ was created, a boundary that made possible the existence of the ‘water cycle’, the vapor rising from the earth, stopping in the &#8217sky’and condensing and watering the earth, thus allowing plants and trees to grow.

The next stage is described: the creation of man who was to work the earth. The establishment of his dwelling place in the &#8217Garden of Eden’ and the creation of his life partner. The creation of the animals and birds comes here incidentally, to teach that in them man did not find a suitable partner who would be his helper in working the earth and preserving it, and therefore there is no detail here Regarding them, a detail has already been made in Chapter A.

Together, the two chapters teach the destiny of man, to lead the animal world and to work and preserve the earth.

With regards, S.C. Levinger

And one can read Rabbi Soloveitchik's Man of Faith and get a completely different direction.

For Israel
With all my appreciation for the wonderful innovations of Abram the Hebrew (and here is the place to refer the Bible lovers among us to the Eretz Hevrim blog), his commentary on the issue sounds much more sloppy than the Rashad's.
He explains that Sh’a Hiyya bar Abba did not like sloppy, and therefore when asked why in the first commandments it was not said “good”, he said “until you ask me why it was not said …I do not know whether it was said …good” or not”; that is, I do not know whether there is any significance to the difference between the first and second commandments. And he cited as a reference the commentary of the Rabbi, that the text in the first commandments is the &#8221original” And in the second commandments, it is not necessarily only the speech of Moses, and there is no meaning to the changes in the text.
For this method, Rehab would have had to say, “I do not know if *in the second commandments it was not said* in them well. Because the first commandments are the original text, and the second commandments are the rhetorical text - my rebuke of Moses.”
And they have already commented on the explanation of the Rabbi (Rabbi Joel ben Nun), that the changes between the commandments do not only amount to words (the clothing) but also to meanings (the bodies). In the first commandments, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and rested.” And in Deuteronomy “Keep the Sabbath day to keep it holy, so that your ox and your servant may rest… and remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt”.
That is, remember = divine and essential meaning in creation, remember = social and community meaning. And about this the sages said “Keep and remember in one word were said, what the ear cannot hear, etc.’.” That is, the mind cannot accept that both meanings were said in &#8221one word”.

I agree that it is a vort.

But it is a beautiful and well-founded vort:

1. Because he sends it to those who are versed in the aggadah, and does not open the Pentateuch, and does not send it to those who are versed in the Bible.

2. Because from the perspective of deviating from the aggadah, we see that the aggadah was not R. Hiyya's strong point.

Regarding the need for Ibn Ezra, I would say that there is no need for it. R. Hiyya tells him, I do not know if it says ‘tov’, and that does not interest me, so I have not checked and will not check. I am now busy writing a responsa or preparing a lesson.
That is, in relation to the previous studies that were cited in the issue, that from the various changes, laws were learned, this change has no halachic significance.
Therefore, the Maggid of the lesson sends the young man to a ’mashgich’, who has a tradition in studying the ‘Chomes’ and ’Hashkaf’.

And what do you think about what I brought up regarding the second book of the Covenant?

The section of the Covenant is one of the most obscure in the Torah.
I do not know what Rav A's opinion was on the question of the content of the Covenant. I looked at chapter 34 and did not find any repetition of social commandments there (but only on the Sabbath, the New Year, and the firstborn), and after all, they are the essence and foundation of Parashat Mishpat, and if in his opinion they were in the original Covenant, as the Ramban believes, and the Lord commanded them to be written again, why are they completely absent from the section on the commandment on writing second tablets?
I returned and saw that the stone apparently believes, like the Ramban, that he is writing explicitly, "and since they were already written," all of the commandments of Mishpat were written. But one should not interpret the entire Covenant as being written again, but only these commandments specifically. Because they are apparently the skeleton of the renewed covenant (of course this requires explanation and in-depth study..). As it is written there (33:27) And the Lord said to Moses, Write these words for you, for according to these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel..
And so there is a great innovation here that the second tablets included the feasts and the firstborn. And according to their statement, “And”R Sheshet because of R”A ben Azariah, anyone who despises the feasts is as if he were worshipping this detestable deed. God has given you a mask, you shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Pesach 12:8).
But what is the point of the commandment of the firstborn to the tables? (Here there is a place to quote the prophet Ezekiel's attitude towards the commandment of the firstborn: And I also gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they should not live, and I defiled them with their gifts, in that they made all the wombs pass through, because of their iniquity. A rebuke from God for the shame of your gifts, in that you made your sons pass through the fire, and you are defiled with all your idols to this day.) So perhaps There is truly a parallel between these commandments and the prohibition of idolatry. They are truly the main points of the Torah and deserve to be included on the tablets.)

Now I noticed that there is no need to innovate such a great innovation, and it is unlikely that this was Ibn Ezra's intention.
Furthermore, Moses was not commanded to write the second tablets at all. As it is written, And the Lord said to Moses, Hew you two tablets of stone, the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke, meaning that the letter is the letter of God.
Even if you say about the verse there, "And it was there with the Lord," Forty days and forty nights he ate no bread and drank no water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. Moses is the writer. It is still explicitly written, "The Ten Commandments," and not the additional commandments.
Therefore, it should be interpreted that the Book of the Covenant is the book that accompanies the tablets and constitutes a practical extension of them (and was preserved together with the tablets, as stated in 2 Kings 23: “And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great; and he read in their ears all the words of the Book of the Covenant that was in the house of the Lord.
Since the first tablets were broken, it was necessary to rewrite the Book of the Covenant that accompanied it. The new book included the commandments written there in chapter 34, perhaps for the reasons I suggested above.
Here is a short summary of the Book of Covenant https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8:%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95_%22%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA%22%3F
For a better understanding, see a wonderful lesson by Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun “What was the Book of Covenant at Mount Sinai” YouTube.

As is known, the Ten Commandments begin with the words, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” One of the commandments that was intended to bring the memory of the Exodus from Egypt to mind is the commandment to “deliver to the Lord every firstborn of the womb,” upon the fulfillment of which our children will ask, “What is this?” And we will answer them: “With a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was hard pressed to let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every firstborn of the males, and every firstborn of the sons of Ebed-melech” (Exodus 13).

Moses tells Pharaoh, “My sons, the firstborn of Israel,” and that is why Pharaoh is required to “let my people serve me.” The people of Israel, as the firstborn of God, are dedicated to the service of God and to representing Him in the world. The values and commandments in the Ten Commandments are universal. The people of Israel accept them as the first “firstborn” to accept these values and pass them on to the entire world.

With blessings, S.C. Levinger

Now I remembered that a similar idea arose among the biblical critics. In their opinion, only the verses of chapter 34 were written on the tablets, and not, as I suggested, as an addition to the Ten Commandments.
I should note that even from reading chapter 34 literally, they seem to be right, provided, of course, that we take it out of the general context of the Book of Exodus and stand it on its own.

I am copying from the Hebrew Encyclopedia:

In biblical criticism, the opinion prevailed that the ten earliest commandments are the ten commandments of worship (Exod. 34:14-26), and they are the ten things mentioned there (28). This is the ritual (?) Decalogue of J as opposed to the moral (?) Decalogue of E (Exod. 20:1-2), which comes with some changes in Deuteronomy. This view is based on the assumption that in the development of human culture, worship preceded morality, that the laws are not suited to the conditions of life in the desert, and that their conformity to the norms of the prophets proves that their time is late for the prophets. On the other hand, some believe that

For the sake of convenience, I am copying most of the p

(a) And he said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone, the first: and thou shalt write upon the tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest:

(b) And thou shalt rise in the morning, and shalt go up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and shalt stand there upon the top of the mount:

(c) And no man shall come up with you, neither shall any man fear any thing in the mountain, neither shall the flocks nor the herds go up that mountain:
(d) And he hewed two tables of stone, and Moses set them down in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone:
(e) And he came down Jacob stood in a cloud, and stood there with him, and called his name Jacob:
(6) And Jacob went before him, and called Jacob Jacob, merciful and gracious, abounding in mercy and truth:
(7) Showing mercy to thousands, bearing iniquity and transgression and sin, and purifying himself, that no man may cleanse him. The iniquity of fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and fourth degree:
(8) And Moses made haste, and bowed himself to the ground, and they sat down:
(9) And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, my Lord, let us go near unto the Lord, for we are a stiff-necked people, and forgive our iniquity and our sin, and forgive us:
(10) And he said, Behold, I will make a covenant with all your people, and I will do wonders that have not been done in all the earth or among all the nations. And all the people to whom you are brought shall see the work that I will do with you, and they shall be astonished at it:
(11) Keep therefore that which I command you this day. Drive out from before you the Amorites, and the Kenites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites:
(12) Take heed to yourselves, lest the land, whither thou goest to possess it, be destroyed before thee:
(13) For their altars thou shalt break down, and their groves thou shalt break down. And his asherahs shall be a sacrifice:
(14) For thou shalt not bow down thyself to another, for he is jealous for his name:
(15) Before he made a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they went a whoring after their gods, and sacrificed unto their gods: and he called thee, and thou didst eat of his altar:
(16) And thou took of his daughters for thy sons, and played the harlot. His daughters shall be after God, and they shall feed their sons after God:
(17) God of the Lord, thou shalt not make a covenant with thee:
(18) Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread seven days, thou shalt eat unleavened bread, which I commanded thee, at the time of the new moon of the year: for in the new moon of the year thou camest out of Egypt:
(19) All the grace of God For all your possessions you shall remember the name of the Lord your God, the Lord your God, and the Lord your God:
(20) And the name of the Lord your God, the Lord your God, you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall redeem it with the firstborn of your sons, and they shall not fear their empty faces:
(21) Six days you shall work, and on the seventh day you shall rest in the harvest, and in the harvest you shall rest:
(22) And the feast of seven days You shall observe the firstfruits of your grain harvest and the feast of ingathering at the time of the year:
(23) Three times in the year shall all your remembrance fear the face of the Lord, and hope in the God of Israel:
(24) For I will scatter the nations before you, and I will enlarge your borders, and no one shall desire your land because of you. To see the face of Jacob your God three times in a year:
(27) You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice upon an unleavened bread, nor shall you sacrifice the Passover sacrifice on a morrow:
(28) The first of the firstborn of your land you shall offer to the house of Jacob your God. You shall not boil a kid of the goats in its mother's milk:
(27) And Jacob said to Moses, Write these words to me, for according to these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel:
(28) And he was there with Jacob forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread and did not drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments:

For Israel, allow me to dismiss this interpretation with a smile…
Too many “factual assertions” underlie it (in human development, did worship precede morality? Did human morality “at all” develop in a biblical style - “Thou shalt not* murder, *Thou shalt not* commit adultery in an absolute “realistic” way - outside of the people of Israel? If not, then that means that only morality could have given rise to worship! Isn't that right?)
Also, we will have to read the chapter not only in isolation from a number of names, but from almost all the Torah commandments based on I am the ’ your God, and you remembered that you were a slave, etc.
P.S. I'm biased of course (-: I don't know exactly who J is and who E is, but if someone "comes with an agenda" and doesn't hide it, I allow myself to give their words appropriate weight. I'm fine with the agenda I already have... I really don't like the attempts to portray Judaism as another type of cult, some kind of part of a general world culture. In my opinion, this is a very shallow, dismissive, and frivolous approach.

A. I did not seek to enter into the subject of biblical criticism, I merely mentioned an idea that is similar to my interpretation of Ibn Ezra.
B. Personally, I do not accept the doctrine of the documents on which this interpretation is based.
What I find regrettable is that you are dismissing an interpretation that is based on extensive literature by many scholars, without knowing the vast material on which it is based. This is not serious.
So it is true that the doctrine of the documents is a controversial doctrine, and some would say that its status is fading. But a person who is apparently unfamiliar with the terms J and E is asked not to dismiss theories with a smile alone.
There is a lot of documentary and research material, both on the development of worship and thought in the ancient world, and on the doctrine of the documents.
As far as I am concerned, we can return to the interpretation I wrote at the beginning, according to the father.

To Israel
I wrote this because here was a demonstration of what criticism does: takes a chapter, rips it out and disconnects it from the entire book (and from the ”spirit of the book” and Judaism in general), and the reasoning it uses to allow itself to do this is the practice in the development of idolatry and worship, and the impact on the practice in the Jewish people.
Regarding J and E, this was of course a sarcastic comment, I am actually familiar with the concept (not something I am particularly proud of..).
I do find many theories to be irrelevant to the Jewish people in my humble opinion (at most relevant to understanding the commandments of the Torah concerning relations with other nations and the Jewish people, which is why I find them interesting). In my opinion, the Torah of the Certificates also has fascinating educational potential, because it can teach the meaning of the connection and context that are projected on the understanding of entire chapters of the Torah, especially for those who (like me) see the entire text as given from heaven.
But the above interpretation seems to me so contrary and disconnected from the spirit of Judaism and the meaning of the revelation of God in the Ten Commandments and the covenant we made with God. Sinai, which was worth a disparaging response (-: You do not uproot the foundation of an entire religion because of a general, non-binding assumption about a “path of development” and a local comment that amounted to no more than a hypothesis. I would not do this with Buddhism and Christianity, for example.
Please do not see in these things a personal tone, H”s, which was not in them to begin with.
Regarding Ibn Ezra, see what I wrote above. What do you think?
P.S. Rash”t wrote a different reason from mine for the importance of the commandment of the firstborn - “with the strength of our hand we brought him out... and killed every firstborn”. I prefer his reason, because of the more positive tone. According to the above interpretation, the firstborn is a branch of “I am the one who is Your God” the positive, more than the negative “You shall not have” (with the chilling connotation of giving one's son to Molech..)
This meaning is strengthened with the explanation of being among the “firstborn of the nations” with the responsibility that entails. But I only have a small comment on this to the Rabbis: I think that the Ten Commandments highlight the virtue of Israel as the “chosen of the nations” and not the firstborn of the nations, and the Sabbath commandment that is unique to us will prove it.

On the eve of the Feast of the Harvest,

To David, greetings,

The Mahar (as I believe in Tiferet Yisrael) notes that the difference between “remember” in the first verses and “keep” in the last verses parallels the difference in the explanation of the commandment of the Sabbath.

In the first verses, the meaning of the Sabbath is a remembrance of the act of creation, a meaning that belongs to all who are worthy of seeing the Sabbath as a special and festive day, a “remembrance of Sunday.”

On the other hand, in the last verses, where “keep” is emphasized, the prohibition of work is The reason is given: ‘And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a strong hand and with a strong hand,, therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day, the obligation to refrain from work was unique to Israel, who alone were enslaved in Egypt and were redeemed.’.

According to the Maharal, the Sabbath has a universal aspect, a remembrance of the act of Genesis, and a unique aspect to Israel, a remembrance of the redemption from the slavery of Egypt.

With blessings, S.C. Levinger

However, all who come from the world can join the ’pioneer army’ of the ‘people of the seven temples’, as Isaiah says: ‘And the sons of the stranger who are joined to the Lord’ To serve Him and love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, all who keep the Sabbath from profaning it and hold fast to My covenant, and bring them to My holy mountain and rejoice in My house of prayer, their burnt offerings and their sacrifices as a pleasing aroma on My altar, for My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples.

To David, peace and blessings,

Regarding the attitude towards the Torah of the Certificates and the scholars, I have little to add.

Regarding the writing of the words of the covenant on the tablets: It is true that my dependence on the Abijah as on a great tree is not necessary, (and I accept your opinion on this). It can be explained that the Abijah intended to say that Moses would write the words of the covenant separately on a scroll, and that the Abijah would write the Ten Commandments on the tablets. Although his language is obscure (”He wrote them another time with the Ten Commandments”), the language of the Ramban is more explicit (”He commanded him to write a book of covenant and read it in the ears of the people”), and he learned that the obscure is more explicit. And I also found that he understood this in the book ‘Early Prophecy in Israel’ p. 80 (if it matters to you what he says).

In any case, I have not found any rest for the enormous puzzlement (according to Pesht, Shchel!), why there is an abbreviated repetition of the Book of the Covenant here. This is a very strong question.

If we were to interpret that the Book of the Covenant was shortened, so that it could be written on the tablets (just as the text written on the altar on Mount Gerizim and Ebal is shortened for this reason as well), I would be fine.

But of course, due to a question, it is impossible to innovate what you want. And it seems to me that the fear of accepting such a great innovation that the tablets were additional material – is what prevented you from accepting my idea.

Indeed, now that I saw that the Netziv was deep in writing on the tablets, additional material appeared ( "Write these things to you." According to the plain text, we learn from his meaning that he wrote on the tablets from Meiri, and not according to the Ramban, who commanded him to write on the Book of the Covenant and read in the ears of the people as was the case at the time in the beginning, since the matter of reading and descending is not mentioned even in the commandments, and it is impossible to interpret writing in a Torah scroll, which does not speak of the commandment "Write this song for you," where it is written on a book, but rather of writing on the tablets, which speaks of their meaning from Meiri. Indeed, he certainly does not speak of the Ten Commandments, since the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "I wrote on the tablets," and this did not require any interpretation, because according to these words and so on, since Moses ascended for them and this is nothing new. Rather, throughout the Torah, Moses was commanded that, in addition to writing The Lord will write on the tablets the Ten Commandments, Moses will write on the tablets these words from the beginning in the sight of all Israel.

So, I say, that even if the Father did not intend this, it can be interpreted according to the context as the beginning. That the first book of the covenant was abrogated when the covenant was broken in the sin of the calf, and the abridged book of the covenant before us was written on the tablets. And my words properly settle all the doubts of the Netziv on the Ramban, Aiyyah and Dok.

According to this, another question arises, for there is a great contradiction as to who wrote what was written on the tablets. One verse says, "I made a stone for you, and I wrote it on the tablets," and another verse says, "And he was there with the Lord forty days." And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. And the interpreters were pressed that it should be written, “And it should be written, ‘Above the Ten Commandments,’” according to the verse.
In my opinion, it should be written, “Above Moses.” And it is interpreted thus: And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant (alongside) the Ten Commandments. Moses wrote them along with the Ten Commandments that were written by the Lord.

According to this, it is very understandable why the tablets were called “the tablets of the covenant,” since they contain the short book of the covenant (although the first tablets are also called that in the Pentateuch).

I am not sure that this is true, but it seems to me that things are clear, and I was allowed to qualify myself. What do you think?

After all, it is written: ‘And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments’?

With greetings, S.C. Levinger

I have already referred to the intention of adding the words of the covenant alongside the Ten Commandments.

Of course there is a difficulty in this, but I pointed out the interpretive difficulties in the alternative.

I think that only for Christians there will be a problem with the statement that there were additional commandments on the tablets…
An intermediate interpretation can be offered: the First Book of the Covenant did not “expired”. On the contrary, certain commandments from it received a new validity when they were written in the second tablets (or together with them), after the Israelites failed with the calf: You shall not make for yourself a carved image (as opposed to “and they made for themselves a carved image of a calf”), the appointed times (the main thing about them in my opinion is “three times a year all your memory shall be seen”, so that the men may come to the house of the ’ and be “connected” lest they be rejected, etc.’, and the case of the calf shall not be repeated) and the firstborn, as we wrote above.
In 2 Kings ’ In Josiah's revolution, it seems that all the commandments there are truly from the shortened covenant (foreign worship, Passover). For example, it is not written that he commanded the Hebrew slaves to be freed (and to be settled). But by then it was already written “on a book”.

I didn't understand why this should bother Christians.

By the way, the Malbim also had other things written on the tablets.

The contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 is relatively easy. Anyone who wants to understand the strength of the doctrine of certificates should go, for example, to the story of Noah's Ark. There, there are contradictions within the same passage, such as the contradiction between 2 of all the animals or 7 of the pure. Contradictions that dividing into 2 sources makes very clear.

Elhanan, I didn't understand why.
The more obvious and close the contradiction is, the more likely it is that there is no contradiction.
Think about the verse: “And he had only three sons, and the fourth became king”, the contradiction is obvious, but since it is a contradiction in speech, it is likely that there is a simple solution here that resolves the contradiction.

The Rabbi's response says nothing:
”Either there is a combination of different sources that were compiled at some stage (according to the researchers) or there are several documents here that are all from heaven.”

After all, the questioner is asking for an answer as to whether the contradictions show the inconsistency of the material and its construction from different documents. And what does the Rabbi tell him? Either yes, or no. This is not an answer!

So either the Rabbi thought that the questioner was not familiar with Rabbi Breuer's method.

Or the Rabbi wanted to show that he was not satisfied with the third answer (which he did not provide), and it is the traditional interpretation that excuses the contradictions.

Right?

I answered that.

Indeed, the problems with the story of Noah seem difficult at first glance. I do not accept the claim that the clearer the contradiction, the less of a problem, because biblical criticism claims that the one who put together the verses felt a sacred aura towards the texts that were brought before him, and did not want to change or delete things. If so, they should have been put together even though the things would seem like a contradiction.

However, Rabbi Professor Yehoshua Berman of Bar Ilan University has already settled the matter in his book Ani Maamin and shown that the beautiful chiastic literary structure that weaves the entire story of Noah is completely destroyed if we believe that there are two texts here. He also deals with the claim that the story was copied from other cultures.
However, there is still a knot in the heart when it comes to such issues.
Rabbi Michi – Is it really more convenient, based on reason alone, to believe in these answers, or in certificates that are all from heaven, than the theory that several people wrote the story based on folktales from other cultures, and it was pieced together?

The question is not presented correctly. If I had only the text of the Torah as it is, I would not bother to look at it at all (just as I do not look at it too much today). But there is a background, a framework, a tradition, and philosophical considerations, which together add more significant weight to this text.