Have you read Cassuto’s long commentary? (Hint: he shows there is no contradiction.) Have you checked the references to scholarly literature on the RAMBI site? This is such a broad question, and it’s worth beginning with a comprehensive review in the library. The Torah of God is worth at least the effort a reasonable person puts into writing a seminar paper at Ariel College. Best regards

In chapter 1, the creation of the man and his wife is described briefly, as part of the general act of creation, and in chapter 2 the formation of the garden and the creation of the man and his wife are described in detail.

That is how it works throughout the book of Genesis — from the general to the particular.
From creation as a whole to man; from humanity as a whole to Noah; from all Noah’s descendants to Abraham; from all Abraham’s descendants to Isaac; from all Isaac’s descendants to Jacob; and from Jacob to his dominant sons, Joseph and Judah.

And the overall message: the world is “goal-directed.”

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

Honorable Rabbi Levinger, I assume that part of the conscious upheaval that happened to anyone who started reading Rabbi Michi’s writings is not being satisfied with little homiletic quips…

See here:

האם יש משמעות להבדלי ניסוח בתורה? בין רחב”א לראב”ע

Avi Dantelsky gives an excellent explanation on Bava Kamma 54b, based on the claim that Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba “can’t stand” homiletic quips.
S. Z. L. there, as usual, disagrees with the explanation. And why? Because in his view, “the land is full of homiletic quips.”

With God’s help, 13 Tishrei 5778

To Israel — greetings,

Rabbi Hanina ben Agil assumes that on the first tablets there was the wording found in the book of Exodus, and on the second tablets there was the wording found in Deuteronomy, where it says “so that it may go well with you,” and therefore he asks: why is “good” written here and not there?

To this Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba asks: how do you know that on the second tablets it was written “so that it may go well with you”? Perhaps the second tablets were identical in wording to the first ones (as implied by the verse, “And I will write 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, in keeping with the nature of Deuteronomy, where “Moses undertook to explain this Torah.”

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

A. His words are not simple at all; the commentators elaborated at length in explaining them.

B. It seems to me that the homiletic explanation that was offered is actually a very nice one, and it has several supports that were brought there. It seems to me that the reason you don’t care for the homiletic reading (unusually for you) is because it presents a character opposite to you, one who can’t stand homiletic quips…

C. As for your interpretation itself, I disagree, because of the context.
The Talmud throughout that page (54b) discusses the differences between the “first set of commandments” and the “second set of commandments,” and derives things by means such as “general and specific” and the like. It is not discussing the status of the first versus the second tablets (whether these were written on the first tablets and those on the second tablets), and so on. The Talmud is discussing it only on the homiletic-halakhic plane. Because of changes in wording, it derives and infers laws.

From this point on, when the Talmud at the end formulates Rabbi Hiyya’s question as “Why was ‘good’ stated in the first ones and not in the second ones,” the question is on that same plane. This is a question about a change in wording, a change from which no law was derived. The question is phrased in the same terms as at the beginning of the passage: “the first commandments,” “the second commandments.” See there.

Only from Rabbi Tanhum’s answer do we learn that the first commandments were indeed written on the first tablets and the second ones on the second tablets. And that really is a novelty.

Another point: according to your approach, it is not clear why Rabbi Hiyya sends him to Rabbi Tanhum, if in his view the change is only in Moses’ words.
But as above, mainly from the flow of the passage, it seems to me not as you say.

By the way, if we are dealing with the issue of the differences between the first and second tablets, let me suggest something that seems very strange, and were I not afraid, etc.:
As is known, together with the first tablets the Book of the Covenant was given (according to Nachmanides and other commentators), and it included Parashat Mishpatim (and a bit from Yitro and Terumah). In chapter 34, at the time the second tablets are given, there is a repetition of isolated commandments from the Book of the Covenant, though in very abbreviated form. From Nachmanides there it sounds as if the Book of the Covenant was rewritten (even though it did not break like the tablets; apparently it had “expired”), but it is not clear why it was abridged so drastically.
In Ibn Ezra it says: “And although they had already been written, he wrote them another time together with the Ten Commandments; therefore this section was written twice.”
Were I not afraid and so on, it seems that Ibn Ezra means to say that these verses (the abbreviated Book of the Covenant) were written together with the Ten Commandments on the stones. This fits the flow of the verses there very well, and it explains the very abbreviated repetition of the Book of the Covenant — simply, it is a shortened wording that could be inscribed and written on the stones.
Could that be his meaning?
So far I have not found any discussion of the matter.

With God’s help, 13 Tishrei 5778

The simple explanation that the description of the creation of man and his wife in chapter 2 is a detailed expansion of the brief description in chapter 1 is already brought succinctly by Rashi on chapter 1 verse 27: “And the plain meaning of the verse is: here it informs you that both were created on the sixth day, but it did not explain to you how they were created, and elsewhere it explains.”

Rashi explains this in greater detail on chapter 2 verse 8: “I saw in the Baraita of Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, among the 32 rules by which the Torah is expounded, and this is one of them: ‘A general statement followed by an act is the detail of the first statement.’ ‘And He created the man, etc.’ — this is a general statement. It gave no details of where his creation was from, nor of his deeds, and then it went back and explained: ‘And the Lord God formed, etc.,’ and ‘He planted for him the Garden of Eden’ and ‘He caused a deep sleep to fall upon him.’ The listener might think it is another act, but it is only the detail of the first one…”

But chapter 2 is not only a detailing of chapter 1; it also presents man with an additional purpose. In chapter 1, the man and his wife together receive the role of leaders of the animal world. In chapter 2, an additional purpose is added for man: to work the ground and guard it. (And in this purpose the woman is in the category of “a helper corresponding to him.”)

In verses 4–7 there is a detailing of the acts of the second and third days, in which the boundary between “heaven” and “earth” was created, a boundary that made possible the existence of the “water cycle”: the mist rising from the earth is stopped by the “firmament,” condenses, and waters the ground, thus enabling plants and trees to grow.

After that comes the next stage: the creation of man, who is destined to work the ground; the establishment of his dwelling place in the Garden of Eden; and the creation of his life partner. The creation of the beasts and the birds is brought here incidentally, to teach that among them no suitable partner was found for man to be “a helper corresponding to him” in working the ground and guarding it, and therefore there is no detailed treatment of them here; that detailing was already done in chapter 1.

Together, the two chapters teach man’s purpose: to lead the animal world and to work and guard the ground.

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

You can also read The Lonely Man of Faith by Rabbi Soloveitchik and get a completely different direction.

To Israel,
With all my appreciation for Avaram HaIvri’s wonderful innovations (and this is a good place to direct those among us who love Bible study to the blog Eretz HaIvriim), his interpretation of the Talmudic passage sounds much more like a homiletic quip than Rabbi Shatz’s interpretation.
He explains that Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba did not like homiletic quips, and therefore when he was asked why in the first set of commandments the word “good” was not said, he replied, “Before you ask me why it was not said… I do not know whether ‘good’ was said there or not,” meaning: I do not know whether the difference between the first and second sets of commandments has any significance. As support he brought Ibn Ezra’s interpretation, that the wording in the first commandments is the “original” wording, whereas in the second commandments it is not necessarily so, but rather Moses’ speech, and the changes in wording have no significance.
According to this approach, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba should have said, “I do not know whether in the second commandments ‘good’ was not said,” because the first commandments are the original wording, and the second commandments are Moses’ rhetorical, admonitory wording.
And they already noted regarding Ibn Ezra’s explanation (Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun) that the differences between the commandments are not limited only to words (“the clothing”), but also to reasons (“the bodies”). In the first commandments: “Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it — for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed”; and in the second commandments: “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, so that your ox and your servant may rest… and you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt.”
That is, “remember” = a divine, essential reason rooted in creation; “keep” = a social and communal reason. And about this the sages said: “ ‘Keep’ and ‘remember’ were said in one utterance, something the ear cannot hear, etc.” That is, the mind cannot accept that both reasons were said in “one utterance.”

I agree that it’s a homiletic quip.

But it’s a nice and well-grounded one:

1. Because he sends him to someone expert in aggadah, and doesn’t open a Humash, and doesn’t send him to someone expert in Bible.

2. Because from Sotah 40 we see that aggadah was not Rabbi Hiyya’s strong side.

As for relying on Ibn Ezra, I would say there’s no need for that. Rabbi Hiyya tells him: I don’t know whether “good” is written there, and it doesn’t interest me, so I didn’t check and I’m not going to check. I’m busy now writing responsa or preparing a lecture.
That is, compared to the previous derivations brought in the passage, where laws were derived from the various changes, this particular change has no halakhic significance.
And therefore the maggid shiur sends the student to the mashgiach, who has a tradition in studying Humash and worldview.

And what do you think of what I brought regarding the second Book of the Covenant?

The passage of the Book of the Covenant is one of the most obscure in the Torah…
I don’t know what Ibn Ezra’s view was regarding the contents of the Book of the Covenant. I looked at chapter 34 and didn’t find there any repetition at all of social commandments (only idolatry, festivals, and the firstborn), yet those are the essence and foundation of Parashat Mishpatim. So if in his view they were in the original Book of the Covenant, as Nachmanides says, and God commanded that they be written again, why are they completely absent from the chapter commanding the writing of the second tablets?
Then I looked again and saw that Ibn Ezra apparently agrees with Nachmanides, because he explicitly writes, “And although they had already been written,” meaning the commandments of Mishpatim had been written. But there is no need to explain that the entire Book of the Covenant was written again — only these specific commandments. Because they seem to be the skeleton of the renewed covenant (of course this requires explanation and deeper analysis). As it says there (34:27): “And the Lord said to Moses: Write these words for yourself, for according to these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”
And according to this, there is a great novelty here, that the second tablets included the festivals and the firstborn. And see also their statement: “Rabbi Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah: whoever disgraces the festivals is as though he worships idols, as it is said: ‘You shall not make molten gods for yourself’ — ‘You shall keep the Festival of Unleavened Bread’ ” (Pesahim 118).
But what is the connection of the commandment of the firstborn to the tablets? (Here there is room to quote the prophet Ezekiel’s attitude toward the commandment of the firstborn: “I also gave them statutes that were not good and laws by which they could not live, and I defiled them through their gifts, by making every first issue of the womb pass over, so that I might appall them…” — an explicit rebuke concerning “And when you offer your gifts, when you make your sons pass through the fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day” [Ezekiel 20]. So maybe there really is a parallel between these commandments and the prohibition of idolatry. And they really are core Torah principles worthy of being on the tablets.)

Now I noticed that there is no need to introduce such a major novelty, and it is unlikely that this was Ibn Ezra’s intention.
Beyond that, Moses our teacher was not commanded at all to write the second tablets. As it says: “And the Lord said to Moses: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.” Meaning, the writing was the writing of God.
Even if you say about the verse there — “And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” — that Moses is the writer, it still says explicitly “the Ten Commandments” and not additional commandments.
Therefore it should be explained that the Book of the Covenant is the book that accompanies the tablets and serves as their practical expansion (and was kept together with the tablets, as it says in II Kings 23: “And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and every man of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests and the prophets and all the people, from small to great, and he read in their ears all the words of the Book of the Covenant found in the house of the Lord”).
Since the first tablets were shattered, it was necessary to rewrite the accompanying Book of the Covenant. The new book included the commandments written there in chapter 34, perhaps for the reasons I suggested above.
Here is a short summary on the Book of the 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 Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun’s wonderful lecture, “What Was the Book of the Covenant at the Revelation at Mount Sinai,” on YouTube.

With God’s help, 13 Tishrei 5778

As is known, the Ten Commandments open with “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” One of the commandments meant to internalize the memory of the Exodus from Egypt is the commandment “You shall set apart every first issue of the womb to the Lord,” about which our sons will ask us, “What is this?” and we will answer them: “With a mighty hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of man to the firstborn of beast; therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every male that first opens the womb, and every firstborn of my sons I redeem” (Exodus 13).

Moses says to Pharaoh, “Israel is My firstborn son,” and therefore Pharaoh is required: “Send out My people that they may serve Me.” The people of Israel, as the firstborn son of the Holy One, are dedicated to the service of God and to representing Him in the world. After all, the values and commandments in the Ten Commandments are universal human values. The people of Israel receive them as the “firstborn,” the first to receive these values and pass them on to the whole world.

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

Now I remembered that a similar idea came up among biblical critics. In their view, only the verses in chapter 34 were written on the tablets, not, as I suggested, that they were written as an addition to the Ten Commandments.
I should note that even from a literal reading of chapter 34 it seems that they are right — of course, on condition that we take it out of the general context of the book of Exodus and set it on its own.

I’m copying from the Hebrew Encyclopedia:

In biblical criticism, the opinion became widespread that the oldest Ten Commandments are the cultic Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:14–26), and they are the “ten words” mentioned there (verse 28). This is the cultic decalogue of J as opposed to the moral decalogue of E (Exodus 20; and see also Bible, pp. 321–322), which appears with some changes in Deuteronomy. This opinion relies on the assumption that in the development of human culture, ritual preceded morality; that the Ten Commandments do not fit the conditions of life in the wilderness; and that their conformity to prophetic norms proves that they are later than the prophets. By contrast, Cassuto holds…

For ease of reference, I’m copying most of chapter 34:

(1) And the Lord said to Moses: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
(2) Be ready by morning, and in the morning come up to Mount Sinai and present yourself there to Me on the top of the mountain.
(3) No man shall come up with you, and no man shall even be seen anywhere on the mountain; even the flock and the herd shall not graze opposite that mountain.
(4) So he hewed two tablets of stone like the first ones, and Moses rose early in the morning and went up Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and he took in his hand the two stone tablets.
(5) And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.
(6) And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed: The Lord, the Lord, a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abundant in kindness and truth,
(7) preserving kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but not clearing entirely, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.
(8) And Moses hurried, bowed to the ground, and prostrated himself.
(9) And he said: If now I have found favor in Your eyes, Lord, let the Lord please go in our midst, for it is a stiff-necked people, and forgive our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Your inheritance.
(10) And He said: Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do wonders such as have not been created in all the earth or among any of the nations, and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.
(11) Observe what I command you today. Behold, I am driving out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
(12) Beware lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are coming, lest it become a snare in your midst.
(13) Rather, you shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, and cut down their sacred trees.
(14) For you shall not bow down to another god, for the Lord — Jealous is His name — is a jealous God.
(15) Lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go astray after their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invite you and you eat from his sacrifice.
(16) And you take from his daughters for your sons, and his daughters go astray after their gods and lead your sons astray after their gods.
(17) You shall not make molten gods for yourself.
(18) You shall keep the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in the month of Aviv you came out of Egypt.
(19) Every first issue of the womb is Mine, and every male firstborn among your livestock, whether ox or sheep.
(20) And the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a sheep, and if you do not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and they shall not appear before Me empty-handed.
(21) Six days you shall work, and on the seventh day you shall rest; in plowing time and in harvest time you shall rest.
(22) And you shall observe the Festival of Weeks, the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
(23) Three times in the year every male among you shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
(24) For I will drive nations out from before you and enlarge your territory, and no man shall covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year.
(25) You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of the Passover festival shall not remain overnight until morning.
(26) The choicest first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.
(27) And the Lord said to Moses: Write these words for yourself, for according to these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.
(28) And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water, and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten words.

Israel, allow me to dismiss this interpretation with a smile…
Too many “factual determinations” stand at its base (in the development of humanity, ritual preceded morality? Did human morality in the biblical style — “do not” murder, “do not” commit adultery, in an absolute, realistic sense — develop outside the people of Israel at all? And if not, then that means only morality could have produced ritual! Right?)
Likewise, we would have to read the chapter not only detached from the book of Exodus, but almost detached from all the Torah’s commandments based on “I am the Lord your God,” and “you shall remember 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 assign his words corresponding weight. I’m fine with the agenda I already have… I really don’t like attempts to portray Judaism as just another sort of ritual, some part of a broader world culture. To me that is a very shallow, dismissive, and unserious attitude.

A. I wasn’t asking to get into the subject of biblical criticism; I mentioned only an idea similar to my interpretation in Ibn Ezra.
B. Personally, I do not accept the documentary hypothesis on which that interpretation is based.
What bothers me is that you dismiss an interpretation based on the extensive literature of many scholars without knowing the large body of material on which it is founded. That’s not serious.
So true, the documentary hypothesis is a theory under dispute, and some would say its status is declining. But someone who apparently doesn’t know the terms J and E is asked not to dismiss theories with a smile alone.
There is a huge amount of documentary and scholarly material, both on the development of ritual and thought in the ancient world and on the documentary hypothesis.
As far as I’m concerned, we can return to the interpretation I wrote from the beginning, based on Ibn Ezra.

To Israel,
I wrote that because this was a demonstration of what criticism does: it takes a chapter, tears it out and disconnects it from the whole book (and from “the spirit of the book” and Judaism in general), and the argument it uses to permit itself to do that is the pattern in the development of paganism and ritual, and the projection of that pattern onto the practice of the people of Israel.
As for J and E, that was of course a sarcastic remark; I actually do know the concept (not something I’m especially proud of…).
I am interested in the topic of the development of ritual and thought in the ancient world, but I find many theories irrelevant to the people of Israel, in my humble opinion (at most relevant for understanding Torah commandments dealing with relations to other peoples and idolatry, which is why I find them interesting). In my opinion, the documentary hypothesis also has fascinating study potential, because it can teach the meaning of context and literary framing that affect the understanding of whole Torah chapters — דווקא for one who (like me) sees the entire text as given from Heaven.
But that interpretation seemed to me so opposed and detached from the spirit of Judaism and the meaning of God’s revelation in the Ten Commandments and the covenant we made with God at Sinai, that it deserved a dismissive response (-: You do not uproot the foundation of an entire religion because of a non-binding general assumption about a “path of development” and a local note whose value is no greater than a conjecture. I wouldn’t do that with Buddhism or Christianity, for example.
Please do not read a personal tone into these words, Heaven forbid; there was none from the outset.
As for Ibn Ezra’s interpretation, see what I wrote above. What do you think?
P.S. Rabbi Shatz gave a different reason than mine for the importance of the commandment of the firstborn — “With a mighty hand He brought us out… and He killed every firstborn.” I prefer his reason, because of its more positive tone. According to that interpretation, the firstborn is a branch of the positive “I am the Lord your God,” more than of the negative “You shall have no other gods,” with the chilling connotation of passing one’s son to Molech…
This meaning is strengthened by the explanation of the people of Israel as the “firstborn among the nations,” with the responsibility that entails. Except that on this I have just one small comment to Rabbi Shatz: I think the Ten Commandments highlight specifically Israel’s quality as the “chosen of the nations,” not the firstborn of the nations, and our unique Sabbath commandment proves it.

With God’s help, eve of the Festival of Ingathering 5778

To David — greetings,

Maharal (apparently in Tiferet Yisrael) notes that the difference between “remember” in the first commandments and “keep” in the later ones parallels the difference in the rationale for the commandment of the Sabbath.

In the first commandments, the reason for the Sabbath is as a memorial to the act of creation, a reason that belongs to all inhabitants of the world, for whom it is fitting to see the Sabbath as a special and festive day, “a memorial to the first day.”

By contrast, in the later commandments, where “keep” is emphasized, the prohibition of labor is given the reason: “And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God took you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm… therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.” The obligation to refrain from labor was made unique to Israel, for only they were enslaved in Egypt and redeemed.

According to Maharal, the Sabbath has a universal dimension, a memorial to the act of creation, and a dimension unique to Israel, a memorial to redemption from Egyptian bondage.

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

However, all the inhabitants of the world can join the “vanguard corps” of “the people who sanctify the seventh,” in the words of Isaiah 56:6: “And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to Him and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants — everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and who holds fast to My covenant — I will bring them to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer; their burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted upon My altar, for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

To David — greetings and blessings,

Regarding the attitude to the documentary hypothesis and to scholars, I don’t have much to add.

Regarding writing the words of the covenant on the tablets: true, my leaning on Ibn Ezra as a great authority is not necessary (and in this I accept your view). It can be explained that Ibn Ezra meant that Moses would write the words of the covenant separately on a scroll, and God would write the ten words on the tablets. And although his language is ambiguous (“he wrote them another time together with the ten words”), Nachmanides’ wording is clearer (“He commanded that he write a Book of the Covenant and read it in the ears of the people”), and one may learn the ambiguous from the explicit. I also found that this is how it was understood in the book Ancient Prophecy in Israel, p. 80 (if that matters to you, what it says).

In any case, I have not found rest from the enormous difficulty (on the plain meaning, as Rabbi Shatz would say!): why is there an abbreviated repetition of the Book of the Covenant here? That is a very strong question.

And if we were to explain 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 at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal is shortened for the same reason), that would sit well with me.

But of course you can’t innovate whatever you want on the basis of a difficulty. And it seems to me that your reluctance to accept so large a novelty — that there was additional material on the tablets — is what kept you from accepting my idea.

However, now that I have seen that Netziv in Ha’amek Davar writes that additional material appeared on the tablets (“ ‘Write for yourself these words’ — according to the plain meaning, learn from its context that it is speaking about writing on the tablets, and not as Nachmanides wrote, that He commanded him to write in the Book of the Covenant and read it in the ears of the people as before with the first ones, for the matter of reading and descending is not mentioned in between even in the command, and it is impossible to explain writing in a Torah scroll, for it does not speak of a Torah scroll until the command ‘Write for yourselves this song,’ where it says ‘in a book’; rather it is speaking of writing on the tablets, since that is the subject at hand. However, it certainly is not speaking of the Ten Commandments, for the Holy One, blessed be He, said ‘And I will write on the tablets’; moreover, there would be no need to explain the reason ‘for according to these words, etc.,’ for Moses had gone up for them and this is nothing new. Rather, Moses was commanded concerning the whole Torah that besides God writing the ten words on the tablets, Moses should write on the tablets these words, from Genesis until ‘before the eyes of all Israel.’ ”)

So I say: even if Ibn Ezra did not mean this, one can interpret from the context as I wrote originally — that the first Book of the Covenant was nullified when the covenant was breached with the sin of the calf, and the abbreviated Book of the Covenant before us was written on the tablets. And my words properly resolve all of Netziv’s questions against Nachmanides; look carefully and analyze.

According to this, another difficulty is resolved, for there is a major contradiction as to who wrote what was on the tablets. One verse says, “Hew for yourself… and I will write 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 words.” And the commentators were forced to say that “and he wrote” refers to God; see there.
According to my approach, it can be said that “and he wrote” refers to Moses. And it would be interpreted like this: “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant beside the ten words.” Moses wrote them beside the Ten Commandments that were written by God.

According to this it is very understandable why the tablets received the designation “tablets of the covenant,” since they contain the abbreviated Book of the Covenant (though the first tablets are also called that in Deuteronomy).

I’m not sure that this is the truth, but it seems to me that the matter is plausible, and they left room for me to distinguish myself. What do you think?

But it says: “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten words”!

Best regards, S. Z. Levinger

I already addressed that — the intention is the addition of the words of the covenant alongside the ten words.

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

I think only Christians would have a theological problem with the assertion that there were additional commandments on the tablets…
A middle interpretation can be suggested: the first Book of the Covenant did not “expire.” On the contrary, certain commandments from it received renewed force by being written on the second tablets (or together with them), after the Israelites had failed with the calf: “You shall not make molten gods for yourself” (corresponding to “and they made themselves a molten calf”); the festivals (the main point in them, in my opinion, is “three times a year all your males shall appear” — thus the men would come to the house of God and remain “connected,” so as not to be pushed away, etc., and the episode of the calf would not recur); and the firstborn, as we wrote above.
In II Kings 23, in Josiah’s reform, it seems that all the commandments there really are from the abbreviated covenant (idolatry, Passover). For example, it does not say that he commanded the release of Hebrew slaves (and that needs resolution). But by then it was already written “in a book.”

I didn’t understand why that should bother Christians.

By the way, according to Malbim too, additional things were written on the tablets.

The contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 is relatively easy. Anyone who wants to understand the strength of the documentary hypothesis should go, for example, to the story of Noah’s ark. There there are contradictions within the very same passage, like the contradiction between two of every animal and seven of the pure ones. Contradictions that division into two sources explains very nicely.

Elhanan, I don’t understand why.
Precisely the more obvious and adjacent the contradiction is, the more likely it is that there is no contradiction.
Think of a verse: “And he begot only three sons, and the fourth became king.” The contradiction is obvious, but since it is a contradiction in the very same breath, it is likely that there is a plain meaning that resolves the contradiction.

The Rabbi’s response says nothing:
“Either this is a combination of different sources that were edited together at some stage (as the scholarly studies maintain), or there are several documents here, all of them from Heaven.”

The questioner is asking whether the contradictions show lack of unity in the material and its construction from different documents. And what does the Rabbi tell him? Either yes, or no. That’s not an answer!

So either the Rabbi thought the questioner didn’t know Rabbi Breuer’s approach.
Or the Rabbi wanted to show that he indeed does not settle for the third answer (which he didn’t mention), namely the traditional interpretation that reconciles the contradictions.

Right?

I answered that.

Indeed, the difficulties in the Noah story seem hard at first glance. I don’t really accept the claim that the clearer the contradiction, the less difficult the problem is, because biblical criticism argues that the one who combined the different aspects felt a halo of sanctity toward the texts that came before him and did not want to alter or delete things. If so, he would have had to insert them together even though they would look contradictory.

However, Rabbi Professor Joshua Berman of Bar-Ilan University already resolved these matters in his book Ani Maamin, and showed that the beautiful chiastic literary structure that weaves together the entire Noah story is completely destroyed if we believe there are two texts here. Likewise, he deals there with the claim that the story was copied from other cultures.
Still, there’s a little knot in the heart when you come to subjects like these.
Rabbi Michi — on the basis of reason alone, is it really easier to believe these answers, or the idea of several documents all from Heaven, than the theory that several people wrote the story based on folk tales from other cultures and that it was then compiled together?

The question is not presented correctly. If all I had before me were the text of the Torah as it stands, I wouldn’t bother looking at it at all (just as even today I don’t look at it too much). But there is background, a framework, tradition, and philosophical considerations, which together add up to a more significant weight for this text.