English translation — עקב א

Sicha 1<pg>51</pg>

A.

On the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And I grasped the two tablets and cast them from my two hands and broke them before your eyes",

the holy Or HaChaim asked<sup>2</sup>

"Why did he need to grasp them, were they not in his hand?"

In the Midrash³

it is stated: "That Moses was holding with two and the Holy One, blessed be He, with two etc. and the hands of Moses prevailed and he grasped the tablets and broke them,"

And in another place it is stated⁴

— that the elders grasped the tablets and the hand of Moses was strong and he broke them.

And according to this, the precise wording of the verse is understood: "And I grasped the two tablets,"

which emphasizes the grasping of the tablets from the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, or from the hand of the elders.

But it is still difficult according to the Babylonian [Talmud] and others, that it is not mentioned in them that Moses grasped the tablets from the Holy One, blessed be He, or from the elders,

and on the contrary — the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: May your strength be straight that you broke⁵

— what is the meaning of "And I grasped"?

And beyond this: In Avot d'Rabbi Natan<sup>6</sup>

it is stated "He looked

(Moses)

at them and saw that the writing was flying off them,

he said how can I give to Israel the tablets that have no substance,

rather I will grasp and break them as it is said 'And I grasped' etc." — behold that Chazal explain what Moses said "And I grasped",

that there is here a grasping and holding that is unique — "I will grasp and break them".

And it needs to be understood — what is the nature of this grasping?

2.

And it can be said about this — with an introduction to the explanation of a matter of wonder in the incident of the breaking of the tablets:

The first tablets — the hidden will be learned from the explicit in the second tablets — were given to Moses with the intention to place them in the Ark,

and it seems at first glance,

that just as all the parts and vessels of the Tabernacle

(and the Temple)

are public property⁷,

so too the tablets that were written "to teach them"⁸

— were given to all of Israel

(even though there was not yet a Tabernacle and an Ark for them).

[And as explained in the Sifri<sup>9</sup>

even regarding the second tablets

(concerning which it is said<sup>10</sup>

"Carve for yourself",

and we find in several midrashim<sup>11</sup>

that Moses hewed them "inside his tent")

— that "they were only of the community",

and as explained in the commentaries<sup>12</sup>,

that for this reason<pg>52</pg>

a special permission was needed of "Carve for yourself — your carving shall be yours"<sup>13</sup>,

for otherwise they are of the community; and all the more so regarding the first tablets<sup>*13</sup>

which were "the work of God"<sup>14</sup>],

And based on this, there is in the breaking of the tablets [an element of] damage to property

(money)

of the public¹⁵?

And one cannot answer that there was no value to the stones,

since they did not build houses in the desert

(and the like)

— because

(a)

the stones were fit for other uses,

and as it is written¹⁶

"And they took a stone etc. and he sat upon it",

making a matzeivah etc.;

(b)

it is explicit in Chazal¹⁷

that

(also)

the first tablets were of "sapphire"¹⁸

;

(c)

In any case: since the tablets were "the work of God" surely due to this itself their worth and value was great.

3.

And behold, at first glance one could say,

that the law of a damager is not related to the breaking of the tablets,

and for two reasons¹⁹

:

(a)

It is explained in our Sages, may their memory be blessed,²⁰

that Moses' intention in breaking the tablets was for the benefit of Israel,

to lighten their punishment

(for breaking the tablets is analogous to tearing the marriage contract,

because then they are judged as "unmarried" and not as "a married woman")

— and one who damages another's property in a way that is for the benefit of the injured party,

there is in this, at first glance, no law of a damager^*20.

<pg>53</pg>

[And to note&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

from the prohibition of bal tashchit,

that even though a person "must be very careful not to lose it nor ruin it nor damage it" — this is only "when he does it in a way of destruction and ruin,

but for the purpose of repair it is permitted to ruin"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;].

(b)

Since the tablets were given for the purpose of placing them in the Ark,

behold there was no possibility for Israel of benefit and use in them

(not even as a Torah scroll,

that at least they could read from it,

and on the contrary — "it stands for hearing"&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "one benefits from it and fulfills through his hearing"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;),

and it is obvious that they were not given to be sold — and thus there was no ownership for Israel in the tablets

(and worse than ownership in items forbidden for benefit),

and consequently the law of damager does not apply in this.

But still, it is difficult,

that even if you say that there is no law of a damager here,

nevertheless there is in this a prohibition of robbery — because these two reasons do not remove the law of robbery:

The first reason — that one who damages the property of his fellow for the sake of his fellow's benefit does not have upon him the law of a damager — does not apply to robbery,

because even robbery that is for the benefit of the robbed person is nevertheless forbidden,

as the law²⁵

that "it is forbidden to rob even in order to pay something better than it";

And the second reason — that the tablets, the ownership in them is like in items forbidden for benefit

(except that it is less than that)

— does not permit the prohibition of robbery.

And as explained by the Alter Rebbe

(in his Kuntres Acharon to Hilchos Pesach&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;)

regarding items forbidden for benefit,

that even though "he has no right in its body because it is forbidden for him to benefit from it"

(and therefore there is no law of damage since "he does not lack anything"),

nevertheless "it is not completely ownerless so that anyone who wishes to take in transgression may come and take against the will of the owner"

(and likewise regarding the tablets that are not "completely ownerless")&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;.

[And the explanation of the matter can be said,

that the prohibitions of theft and robbery are distinct from the prohibition of damage:

Its prohibition and liability of a damager is because he causes loss to his fellow,

and therefore the law of a damager is not possible unless the damaged object has benefit and pleasure for the damaged party

(And for this reason, if one damages his fellow's property for the sake of his fellow's benefit, he is not called a damager,

as above,

because he does not cause loss to his fellow's assets,

but on the contrary,

brings him benefit and improvement that exceeds "in its value" over the value of the deficiency&lt;sup&gt;*27&lt;/sup&gt;)

;

But not so the prohibition of theft and robbery is in this&lt;pg&gt;54&lt;/pg&gt;

who takes an object from the domain of his fellow and brings it into his own domain,

and the matter does not depend on the value of the object

(in its benefit and use of the object),

but on the essence of the ownership of his fellow²⁸].

And furthermore, the main point — the tablets were given "to instruct them" — and this is the benefit and the greatest thing,

even though the commandments themselves were not given for benefit.

And according to the above, the question returns to its place: Even if you say that in breaking the tablets there is no law of damage — but in any case there is a prohibition of theft.

And one cannot answer that there is no obligation of theft until a kinyan is made in the stolen object²⁹

— for in our case it is explicit in the verse

(as above)

"And I grasped the two tablets and threw them etc. and broke them etc.,"

meaning that before the breaking of the tablets there was a grasping

(special)

in them with the intent to break them

[And also one who steals with intent to destroy the object is a thief,

like one who takes in his hand a coin of his fellow with intent to throw it into the great sea,

that as soon as he takes it his law is as a thief and he is obligated in return³⁰].

4.

At first glance, one must explain based on what our sages, of blessed memory, [said]³¹

on the verse³²

"I am the Lord your God"

(in the singular)

— that the Ten Commandments were said to each and every individual of Israel by himself, and each and every individual of Israel says "the speech speaks with me."

And based on this, one may say,

that even when they were — the Ten Commandments,

"to teach them" — engraved on the stone tablets,

and the tablets themselves,

were not given in a manner that they would be public property

(and there is no ownership for the individual by himself),

rather that all of Israel would be partners in the tablets

(and there is ownership for each and every individual of Israel).

And since it does not reach the value of a perutah for each one of Israel, behold there is here no prohibition of "Do not steal,"

for the "prohibition³³

of "Do not steal" applies only to the value of a perutah, because the Torah does not obligate except for something of monetary value, and less than the value of a perutah is not called monetary."

But this is not so³⁴,

for nevertheless "it is forbidden to steal any amount by Torah law"³⁵,

for "although less than the value of a perutah is not called monetary and one need not return it, nevertheless a half-measure is forbidden by Torah law ab initio"³⁶.

And furthermore, the main point — that also in prohibited-for-benefit items, where there is not even something of a measure — it is not ownerless, etc., as above, the words of the Alter Rebbe.

5.

However, ostensibly there is room to discuss this according to Rashi's method³⁷

that less than a perutah's worth is not "yours"

[meaning that which "all of Israel are fit to sit in one sukkah"³⁸

—<pg>55</pg>

"It is impossible that all of them will have [the case of] 'it does not reach the value of a perutah for each one' except through borrowing",

we see that if not for "it reaches the value of a perutah for each one" it is not called "yours"]

— and thus in our case where it does not reach the value of a perutah for each one,

behold it is not "yours" and there is no law of ownership regarding this,

and then the prohibition of theft does not apply to this.

But it is impossible to say so,

because

[In addition to this that one must say,

that Rashi's intention is only regarding money of partners who partnered on their own,

that specifically then we require a perutah for each one and if not it is not "yours"³⁹,

but not regarding money that is acquired for them by another

(as in our case,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, acquired for them the tablets through Moses),

even when a perutah does not reach each one it is yours,

behold]

All the above supposition,

to say that the tablets were not given to Israel as public property

(and in the manner of all the things in the Mishkan and Temple)

but as partnership property,

is for the reason that then one could say that each individual of Israel has private ownership in the tablets

(as above)

— but according to the above

(according to Rashi's method)

it is found,

that as partners not even one of the children of Israel attains any ownership in the tablets

(because a perutah does not reach each one)

!

And in any case — the words of the Alter Rebbe in their intensity.

6.

And one can say the explanation in this,

And with the introduction:

Even though the tablets were supposed to be placed in the Ark,

nevertheless,

there is a fundamental difference between the tablets and all parts of the Mishkan,

for even after they were brought into the Mishkan, the tablets are not essentially part of the Mishkan, but rather they are a matter unto themselves,

and as is proven from this very fact that they were given to Moses several months before the making of the Mishkan⁴⁰,

except that afterwards Moses was commanded to make another Ark⁴¹

and to place them in it, and all this in the Mishkan.

And based on this, it can be said,

that there is a difference between all parts of the Mishkan and the tablets regarding the law of their ownership,

for although all parts of the Mishkan need to be of the community

(and from community funds),

the tablets are different

(which preceded the Mishkan),

that they do not need to be community funds⁴².

And we find explicitly such an opinion regarding the second tablets — in Tanchuma on our parshah⁴³,

and this is its wording: "Carve for yourself in your merit and it is yours,

said

(the Holy One, blessed be He),

Moshe, I gave to you⁴⁴

and you conduct yourself with them with a good eye, you gave them to them

(meaning that from the outset they were given to Moshe and he conducted himself with a good eye and gave them to Israel⁴⁵).

And it must be said,

that even though the tablets, after the Mishkan was erected

(and the Holy Temple was built)

— they were supposed to be placed in the Holy of Holies,

nevertheless

(according to this opinion)

they are yours,

except that with a good eye "you gave them."

And based on this, it can be said,

that regarding the first tablets, according to all opinions, they were the property of Moses⁴⁶,

<pg>56</pg>

And as it is written⁴⁷

"And He gave to Moses, when He finished speaking with him, the two tablets of the testimony, etc.,"

And our Sages explained⁴⁸

that "He gave" is an expression of a gift.

And although seemingly the giving to Moshe as a gift is — regarding the

(words of)

Torah

(that the Torah was given to Moshe as a gift)

— nevertheless,

behold the simple meaning of the wording of the verse refers to the giving of the tablets

(and this does not contradict that the words of Torah were given as a gift),

and accordingly according to the interpretation that "vayiten" is an expression of gift,

it must be said that also the tablets themselves were given to Moshe as a gift⁴⁹.

7.

And based on all the above, one can explain the precision of the wording of the verse — "And I grasped the two tablets etc. and I shattered them etc.":

Just as regarding the second tablets Chazal said

(according to the opinion of the Tanchuma as above)

that Moshe acted with a good eye and gave them to Israel

[And so it is in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

regarding the pilpul of Torah that was given only to Moshe and his seed "and Moshe acted with it with a good eye and gave it to Israel"]

— likewise it can be said also regarding the first tablets,

that although the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them to Moshe as a gift,

nevertheless, because he was "good of eye" it was not in his mind to acquire them for himself but to give them to Israel.

And this is what the verse informs us "And I grasped the two tablets etc. and I broke them etc.": so that it would be permitted for Moshe to break the tablets

(without any concern of the prohibition of theft etc.)

it was necessary that they be his completely,

and since initially Moshe intended to give them to Israel,

there was a need for a unique grasping to nullify his previous thought&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

and to acquire them for himself so that they would be his completely.

8.

And regarding mussar and chassidus, it can be said:

Our Sages, of blessed memory,⁵²

on the reason for the saying "I am the Lord your God"³²

in the singular — "to give⁵³

an opening for Moses to plead in defense regarding the incident of the calf..

Not to them did I command..

But to Me alone."

And this — and even more so — can be said regarding the breaking of the tablets,

that from the greatness of Moses' love for Israel,

and his self-sacrifice for the entire Jewish people⁵⁴,

he wanted to remove from the Children of Israel any connection to the matter of the breaking of the tablets,

so that all this would be only on his "responsibility" alone,

and therefore he "seized" the tablets so that they would be entirely his

(as above).

Based on this, we can explain the saying of our Sages, of blessed memory⁵⁵

"that the death of the righteous is as difficult before the Holy One, blessed be He, as the breaking of the tablets" — from this that the Torah of truth compares and equates the matters,

it is understood that they are similar to each other<pg>57</pg>

(Not only in the magnitude of the difficulty and the pain that they cause,

but rather)

also in their content.

And one of the explanations of this, one can say⁵⁶

:

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said⁵⁷

that the death of the righteous atones,

and it is explained in Tanya⁵⁸

the novelty in this atonement relative to the atonement through sacrifices,

that sacrifices atone only for the unintentional,

but not so through the passing of the righteous — "He works salvations in the midst of the earth⁵⁹

to atone for the sin of the generation, even for the intentional ones."

That is to say: together with the greatness of the ascent of the soul of the righteous at the time of his departure from the world,

when then ascends "his spirit and his soul to the source from which it was hewn"⁶⁰

with "all his deeds and his Torah and his service which he served all the days of his life"⁶⁰

— behold, also in this ascent of his,

not only does he not abandon the flock of his pasture,

but furthermore,

that this ascent itself works "to atone for the sin of the generation, even for the intentional ones"

(the very lowest extremity)

!

And it is emphasized also in the breaking of the tablets,

that although Moses had no connection whatsoever to the sin of the calf

(not even in the category of it being in his power to protest,

since he was on the mountain),

nevertheless,

not only did he exert himself to the point of actual self-sacrifice to effect atonement for the sin

(as he said to the Holy One, blessed be He, "If You will forgive their sin, and if not, please blot me out etc."&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;),

but also the breaking of the tablets

(which came about because of the sin of the calf)

Moses did in such a way that only he alone was responsible for it,

as above.

9.

And regarding every death, and especially that of the righteous — it is said, "and the living shall take it to heart"&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;

— to learn from all the above for the day of the 20th of Menachem Av

(which falls this year

(event,

'_dyn_edn_1')

"&gt;*

(5747)

on Shabbat Kodesh Parshat Eikev)

— the day of the passing of my master, my father and teacher — that the cause, in a natural way, of the passing of my master, my father and teacher was because of his self-sacrifice for the community,

to the extent that through this he departed from the world before his time:

Seventy years, and if with strength, eighty years, and his days were one hundred and twenty years,

Out of self-sacrifice etc.

And it is understood,

that if at the passing of every tzaddik they said that "He works salvations in the midst of the land",

all the more so at the histalkus whose cause

(in a natural way,

nature of "the land")

was because of mesiras nefesh for the sake of all of Yisrael.

And so it is every year on the day of the yahrtzeit,

that then "these days are remembered and done"⁶³,

that they are drawn again and effect "salvations in the midst of the land",

and on the contrary — since every year

(on the day of the histalkus in particular)

the soul of the tzaddik ascends with greater strength and vigor⁶⁴,

it is understood,

that also the "salvations"

(that are from this ascent)

are on a higher level.

And all salvation, and especially salvations

(plural)

And in the midst of the land, they bring near and hasten the&lt;pg&gt;58&lt;/pg&gt;

The general, primary, and inner salvation — the true and complete redemption through our righteous Moshiach,

And in the manner of "He performs salvations in the midst of the land"&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;

— below ten handbreadths,

also in the public domain&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;,

in physicality and simplicity,

and in our actual immediate time.

(From sichos of Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot,

night of Simchat Torah and day of Simchat Torah 5726; Kaf Men-Alef 5745)