What’s the comparison? There God told him to do it, while here he did it on his own initiative. Did he rely on a miracle? According to the Sages, if the tablets were sapphire, why would Moses even think that throwing them down would break them?

Does the Rabbi mean that it was a miracle? But the plain meaning of the verses seems to be that Moses our Teacher broke the tablets on his own judgment!?

And if it was on his own judgment, then a miracle is impossible? When he struck the rock, didn’t water come out? This is a bizarre discussion. And we haven’t even started talking about whether aggadic passages really describe reality.

That the discussion is bizarre is not in dispute, but if we’re discussing it then the question is still a question. It makes no sense that Moses would secretly throw down unbreakable tablets (and then afterward, when they miraculously broke in some unexpected and unknown way, get a “well done” from God). And the case of striking the rock is easy enough to distinguish.

With God’s help, 21 Av 5780

A midrash (cited on Wikipedia, under the entry “Tablets of the Covenant,” note 18) says that beneath Moses’ tent there was a sapphire deposit from which he carved the tablets. Were the first tablets also made of sapphire, or perhaps were the first tablets made from natural stone?

Best regards, S.Tz.

Also, the radiance of the skin of Moses’ face occurred only when he brought down the second tablets. Perhaps with the first tablets, which were given amid fire and cloud, voices and lightning, there was no need for radiant light to shine from them and from the one who delivered them. Only with the second tablets, which were given privately and were the work of human hands, was there a need for radiant light both from them and from the face of the one who delivered them.

By the way, I noticed that the “gifts of his portion” over which “Moses rejoiced” came to him through great difficulty. After all, “You called him a faithful servant” happened only after Aaron and Miriam spoke against him. And “a crown of glory You placed on his head” was given to him specifically with the second tablets, after the episode of the calf. To teach us that the gifts that bring joy do not come easily, and therefore they endure more…

S.Tz., it seems you’re right, and that’s the answer—that only the second tablets were sapphire. Many thanks.
And what I wrote above, that he threw them down secretly—I was mistaken. In Deuteronomy it explicitly says: “I threw them down from my two hands and smashed them before your eyes.”

A bizarre discussion???
This question was asked by the biblical commentator Don Isaac Abarbanel. And the question also appears in manuscripts from Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz, who discusses it at length.
In practice, the answer is simple, because the Talmud in tractate Nedarim 38 notes Moses our Teacher’s strength as expressed in breaking the tablets. And see the Maharsha there, even though the tablets were sapphire.

So—
A. The discussion is not bizarre, because the great sages dealt with this topic. (And when one doesn’t know the answer, one shouldn’t dismiss it by saying the discussion is bizarre…)
B. I raised this discussion in order to show, from the answers and responses, the shallowness of thought and of the discussions taking place on this site.

Let the public judge!!!

“How you have helped the powerless, saved the arm that has no strength.” Abarbanel on Deuteronomy 9:12 rejects, “according to the plain sense,” the Sages’ statement that the tablets were sapphire and several handbreadths thick. According to the Maharsha, who holds that even the first tablets were sapphire, one could say that he learned it from the verse “Carve for yourself two tablets of stone like the first ones.” Though human strength doesn’t help in breaking sapphire (“the hammer split and the anvil broke,” etc.), so from that angle the question still stands. In my opinion, your point B is even more bizarre than the insistence on questioning and elaborating over aggadic statements.

Dear T, don’t take my previous comment personally. On the contrary, the searching you did and your precision in the Maharsha’s words—and I see you even got to Midrash Rabbah on Lamentations (“the hammer split and the anvil broke…”)—prove that you’re a worthy sparring partner on the subject.
True, there in Midrash Lamentations it isn’t speaking about human strength but about an ordinary test by some craftsman or buyer. But Moses our Teacher certainly could have broken the tablets with his human strength. (And of course Abarbanel answers according to his own approach.)
*[By the way, there’s another serious participant here בשם “Shimshon Tzvi” [named “Shimshon Tzvi”], who from today will change his initials to Sh.M.Tz.]

I still don’t see any point in explaining one aggadah on the basis of another aggadah; “of making many books there is no end.” Between me and the other person whom you challenged there is quite a lot, and I don’t know what you’re talking about.

With God’s help, 22 Av 5780

To Tzachi and T’—greetings,

Samson’s strength was not natural. As long as “the crown of his God” was upon his head, God gave him strength beyond nature; but when Samson violated his Nazirite status, “his strength left him and he became like any other man.”

And so too the tablets were “sapphire,” before which no power in the world could stand—not because they were made from a material naturally hard in itself, but because they were the Torah of God given to the Jewish people so that they would uphold it. (And perhaps their spiritual force also granted them physical force.)

Moses’ heroism was first and foremost his daring to determine that if the Jewish people were not there to uphold the Torah, then there was no need for the Torah—and then the tablets, as it were, became mere stone, returning to their nature as they had been before “the name of God was called upon them.”

The broken tablets teach us that the Torah needs us to accept and uphold it with devotion, and then the tablets return to being “the pavement of sapphire,” radiating and illuminating the world, and no power in the world can stand against them. And therefore, perhaps specifically the “broken tablets” went out with the Jewish people to battle, to awaken the fighters to the insight that “when they look upward and subject their hearts to their Father in Heaven”—then they are like sapphire, stronger than any force in the world.

Best regards, S.Tz.

To Tzachi.
I don’t think the discussion is bizarre, and for years this question bothered me, and I answered myself that this was Moses’ strength—but of course I can’t say that if I’m not on the level of the Maharsha or something like that.
Thank you for opening my eyes!!

Regards, a Jew searching for the plain meaning.

With God’s help, 22 Av 5780

It is worth noting that in Far Eastern fighting traditions (for example, karate), techniques are known for breaking hard objects by concentrating one’s inner powers. Since Moses’ father-in-law knew all the forms of worship of the ancient world, it would not be surprising if his son-in-law Moses learned some fighting methods or other from him and knew how to use them when necessary.

Best regards, Shatzioshi Levingara, talkbacker from Tokyo 🙂

By the way, this discussion began on 20 Av, the ninth anniversary of the passing of Rabbi Raphael Halperin, of blessed memory, who also knew how to combine the powers of spirit and body.

And perhaps Jacob too knew the power created by concentrating one’s inner forces, and thus succeeded in rolling by himself the heavy stone from the mouth of the well in Haran. Perhaps in this direction the paytan alluded in his Prayer for Dew, describing him as: “He focused his heart and rolled the stone from the mouth of the well of water.”

Best regards, S.Tz.

Haha. To the talkbacker from Tokyo—I liked the idea. And with the addition from our dear Sh.M.Tz. it becomes even stronger. Though in the verses it sounds like the tablets were broken by the throwing itself.
I liked even more the point you noticed, that we happened to raise this discussion on the yahrzeit of Raphael Halperin.
But that was really completely unintentional.
By the way, since I got a bit annoyed by the claim that this discussion is bizarre, I forgot to raise another question on the topic that still troubles me, and I’d be happy to hear your answers.
In the portion of Ki Tisa it says that Moses our Teacher came down with the tablets in his hand—that is, in one hand. But in the portion of Eikev it says that he came down with the tablets in his two hands. How is this contradiction resolved?

(Tzachi, the meaning of the verses isn’t conclusive, and the Maharsha there wrote that the practical implication comes from grasping them with two hands. And in general, in the portion of Eikev it doesn’t say that he came down with the two tablets in his hand, only that when he came to break them he held them with both hands. Besides, “in his hand” is a general expression for holding and possession, not necessarily one hand. The rabbinic interpretation of “and all his master’s goods were in his hand” with reference to a document was learned from “all his goods,” not from “in his hand.”)

Oops, I was mistaken—you are right. In Eikev it says, “I turned and came down from the mountain, with the two tablets of the covenant on my two hands” (whereas in Ki Tisa it says, “Moses came down from the mountain, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand”). But according to this I don’t understand the Maharsha there, who wrote that the Talmud specifically brought the verse from Eikev (“I seized the two tablets and threw them down from my two hands”), because from there it sounds as though only when he saw the calf and came to break them did he transfer the tablets from his hand to his hands, and therefore he broke them by throwing, not with an iron tool—and from here we see that he was mighty. As for the question itself, I still think “in his hand” does not necessarily mean one hand. As in “if the kidnapped man is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death,” and dozens more.

Correct, T’. The question is also on the Maharsha.
You prove it nicely from the verse “if he is found in his hand” (and similar ones), but we see that in the portion of Ki Tisa the Torah emphasized—on the way down, “the tablets in his hand,” and when throwing them, “he threw them from his hands” (and in truth there’s a ketiv and qere here: it is written “from his hand” and read “from his hands”). It seems to me that because of the distinction above, it still requires explanation…
In any case—many thanks!

To the Jew searching for the plain meaning (above):
You can find Abarbanel’s explanation in Deuteronomy. (The question and the answer.)
But I wanted to share with you a nice tidbit that I saw quoted from manuscripts of Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz. He brought the question in the name of the commentators (without saying who), and answered in their name: that what broke in these tablets were the samekh and the final mem, which were floating in the air. Interesting… (and he continues to discuss the subject there).
Enjoy and be delighted.

On the contrary, from the change between “in his hand” and “in his hands” we should learn דווקא that it’s the same thing, as throughout the Hebrew Bible.

But that simple resolution still doesn’t help in understanding the Maharsha’s words [for he raised on his own why the Talmud didn’t bring the verse from Ki Tisa (to which one could say: what advantage does the earlier verse have over the later one?), and how did the Talmud know that he didn’t break them with an iron tool (to which one could say: Scripture doesn’t generally leave such things unstated. And also, as a matter of intuition, to brandish a sword and desecrate sacred objects that are carried on the shoulder sounds more degrading)]—and this seems very strange indeed.