Parshas Eikev
1. In our parshah1, where Moshe Rabbeinu recounts how he went up to receive the Luchos from G‑d, the expressions "לוחות האבנים" ("the tablets of stone") and "לוחות הברית" ("the tablets of the covenant") appear several times. Rashi cites the word "לחת" and explains: "לחת כתיב ששתיהם שוות" ("It is written 'לחת' — that the two are equal")2.
Rashi does not indicate from which verse he copies the word "לחת" in his commentary; but from the place where Rashi inserted the comment — between his commentary on verse 9 and on verse 18 — it is understood that his comment is on the word "לחת" that appears between these two verses
[and since in the intervening verses the word is mentioned several times — in verse 10: "ויתן ה׳ אלי את שני לוחת האבנים כתובים גו׳" ("And G‑d gave me the two tablets of stone, written, etc."); in verse 11: "ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה נתן ה׳ אלי את שני לחת האבנים לחות הברית" ("And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights that G‑d gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant"); in verse 15: "ואפן וארד מן ההר גו׳ ושני לוחת הברית על שתי ידי" ("And I turned and went down from the mountain… and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands"); in verse 17: "ואתפש בשני הלחת ואשלכם גו׳ ואשברם לעיניכם" ("And I grasped the two tablets and cast them… and broke them before your eyes") — one must say that Rashi means either one of these verses, or the word "לוחת" that is written deficiently in all these verses]3,
but not the two occurrences of "לוחת" that are written deficiently at the beginning of verse 9: "בעלתי ההרה לקחת לוחת האבנים לוחת הברית גו'" ("When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant, etc."), for Rashi gives his comment on "לוחת" after his comment on the words "ואשב בהר" ("And I remained on the mountain"), which come later in verse 9.
This needs to be understood: the explanation that from the deficient "לחת" we learn that "the two are equal" Rashi already gave earlier, in Parshas Tisa, on the verse4 "ויתן אל משה ככלתו לדבר אתו בהר סיני שני לחת העדת לחת אבן" ("And He gave Moshe, when He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of testimony, tablets of stone") — "לחת כתיב שהיו שתיהן שוות" ("It is written 'לחת' — that the two were equal")5. However, since the earlier comment is separated from here by many parshiyos of the Torah (more than two Chumashim), Rashi repeats the comment once again in our parshah6, as one finds similar cases several times in his commentary.
It is not understood, however: why does Rashi explain this on one of the (or all of the) later verses (10, 11, 15, 17), and not right where "לוחת" is written deficiently here for the first time (in verse 9)?
One cannot say that Rashi explains this specifically on verse 117 (or 17), where the word "לחת" is missing both vavs, including the vav after the lamed — and not on verse 9 (and 10), where it is written "לוחת", with a vav after the lamed. For to the content of the comment "It is written 'לחת' — that the two are equal"8 only the vav after the ches is relevant: when it is missing, the word "לחת" changes from the plural form to the singular form. The vav after the lamed, by contrast, changes nothing at all in this matter — even when "לוחת" is written (missing a vav only after the ches) one can derive "that the two are equal"9.
2. Furthermore: if Rashi needs to repeat the comment (from Parshas Tisa) after a long interruption (between the Book of Shemos and Devarim), he should have given it even earlier — not in our parshah, Eikev, but in Parshas Va'eschanan10, where too (after the Ten Commandments) "לחת" is written without a vav: "ויכתבם על שני לחת אבנים ויתנם אלי" ("And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me").
And in truth, the same question arises even regarding his comment the first time, in the Book of Shemos — in Parshas Tisa: there too it is not the first place where "לחת" is written deficiently; it already appears earlier, in Parshas Mishpatim11: "ואתנה לך את לחת האבן גו׳" ("And I will give you the tablets of stone, etc."), where "לחת" is written deficiently (without both vavs), exactly as in Parshas Tisa. Why, then, does Rashi not explain this in Parshas Mishpatim, where "לחת" is written deficiently for the first time, but rather waits until Parshas Tisa12?
3. Simply, one could have answered on the basis of the well-known principle13 that full and deficient spelling in itself is not a difficulty in the plain meaning of Scripture which Rashi must resolve (as is evident from the fact that for the most part Rashi does not dwell on full and deficient spellings in the verses). And the reason Rashi does address it in our parshah is that in the same verse (11) the Torah changes one after the other: "את שני לחת האבנים לחות הברית" — first deficient (entirely), and then immediately full (with the second vav). Therefore Rashi explains that the verse thereby comes to emphasize the deficient spelling: "It is written 'לחת' — that the two are equal"14.
And for this reason Rashi does not explain it on verse 9 in our parshah, "בעלותי ההרה לקחת לוחת האבנים לוחת הברית", because there "לוחת" is written deficiently both times; nor earlier, in Parshas Va'eschanan (where it says "ויכתבם על שני לחת אבנים") and in Parshas Mishpatim (before Parshas Tisa) — since in those places the word appears only once, there is no change within the same verse.
This, however, is not a sufficient explanation, because:
a) In Parshas Tisa, although the word appears twice in the verse, "לחת העדות לחת אבן", both are deficient, so there is no change within the verse for the sake of emphasis — and nevertheless Rashi does explain it there.
b) In any case, the question can be asked in our parshah regarding the verses themselves: why does the verse change and allude to the idea of "the two are equal" specifically in the later verse (11), and not in the earlier verse (9), where the same word appears twice?
[Accordingly it is understood that the above questions cannot be answered by the fact that there are many differing opinions and views in the Masorah regarding deficient and full spellings15, namely16, that according to Rashi's view the Masorah in Parshas Tisa is such that the word is written once full ("לחות") and once deficient ("לחת") (not17 as in our texts18); and in our parshah, in turn, Rashi's view is that (before the words "ואשב בהר") "לחת" is written deficiently both times
— because19 in any event the question remains regarding the verse itself (as above): why does the Torah change specifically in verse 11 (and likewise in Parshas Tisa) in order to emphasize "It is written 'לחת' — that the two are equal", and not in the earlier verse 9, where the same wording "לוחת האבנים לוחת הברית" appears?]
4. This will be understood by first prefacing a precise point in Rashi's wording in his commentary on the Torah regarding deficient (and full) spellings, in which we find variations:
Sometimes Rashi says "חסר וי"ו" ("missing a vav")20, "חסר כתיב" ("written deficiently")21, and the like22; and in several places Rashi merely cites the word as it is written in the verse and does not say "missing a vav" or "written deficiently" and the like23, as in our parshah24: "It is written 'לחת'".
And since Rashi's wording is precise, it is understood that the above variations in Rashi's wording are also intentional and precise; especially since these are variations found in very many places in his commentary on the Torah, sometimes in the first manner and sometimes in the second.
5. One can say the explanation of this based on a further clarification of the above principle (beginning of section 3), that the variation of deficient and full spellings in itself is not a difficulty in the plain meaning of Scripture of the kind that Rashi must resolve for a five-year-old beginning Scripture25 [only — when there is a different difficulty in the plain meaning of Scripture, and it is resolved through the explanation of the deficient or full spelling, then Rashi brings it and explains it26].
This principle, however, applies only where there is no question or contradiction in the deficient or full spelling itself (there is only a question of "what is the reason" it is deficient or full); whereas where, by virtue of the content of the verses, the word should necessarily have been written full and not deficient (or the reverse) — then Rashi addresses it.
And the reason: the variation of full and deficient spelling is not like a separate matter in the Torah, having no connection to learning "the plain meaning of Scripture" (with Rashi making use of full and deficient spellings only when needed, to resolve a matter in the plain meaning of Scripture, similar to the way he makes use of an "אגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא" ("an aggadah that settles the words of Scripture")27);
even in the plain meaning of Scripture it is understood that full and deficient spelling in a word of the Torah is not merely a matter of the manner in which the word is written in the Torah, but relates to the content of the writing and of the verse28, i.e., the variation of full or deficient spelling and the like indicates a change in the content of the word or of the verse.
It is only that the explanation and reason — what is expressed by the deficient (or full) spelling — is not something required in the study of the plain meaning of Scripture; rather, it belongs to the other modes of Torah study.
Therefore, when by virtue of the content of the verse it should necessarily have been written full, and it is written deficiently — since from the content of the verse it should emerge that there is no deficiency there — Rashi must answer the question (of the five-year-old beginning Scripture): why is it written "deficiently"?
6. Among the examples of this:
a) In the first place where Rashi explains the matter of "deficient"29: "יהי מארת ברקיע השמים גו'" ("Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven, etc."), Rashi says: "חסר וי"ו כתיב על שהוא יום מארה כו'" ("It is written missing a vav, because it is a day of curse, etc."):
The content of the verses (which speak of the things G‑d created in the six days of Creation) consists in bringing out the virtue of the things G‑d created; and particularly and especially the content of the creation of the luminaries, as the verse concludes there30 (and with all the works of Creation31): "וירא אלקים כי טוב" ("And G‑d saw that it was good")32. "מאורות" should therefore have been written full (with at least one vav, as in the following verse), to emphasize33 the perfection in this34.
b) In Parshas Noach35, after the Flood, where the verse says "וירח ה׳ את ריח הניחוח ויאמר ה׳ אל לבו לא אסף לקלל עוד את האדמה בעבור האדם כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו ולא אסף עוד להכות גו׳" ("And G‑d smelled the pleasing fragrance, and G‑d said in His heart: I will no longer curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will no longer smite, etc."), Rashi explains: "מנעוריו כתיב משנער לצאת ממעי אמו ניתן בו יצר הרע" ("'From his youth' is written [so] — from the time he stirs to come out of his mother's womb, the evil inclination is placed in him") —
since the verse gives the reason for "לא אוסיף לקלל עוד" ("I will no longer curse") — "for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth" — why is it written deficiently, connoting a deficiency in "his youth", as if "the inclination of man's heart" were not truly evil "from his youth", but only later — contrary to the content of the verse36?
c) Similarly we find further on, in Parshas Chayei Sarah37: "ועפרון ישב" ("And Efron was sitting"), Rashi says: "כתיב חסר אותו היום כו׳" ("It is written deficiently — that very day, etc."). For in the continuation of the verses the virtue of (the children of Ches and of) Efron is brought out — that he agreed to (sell, and even more, to) give away the Cave of Machpelah to Avraham for Sarah's burial. Why38, then, is "ישב" written deficiently in the verse at the beginning of the account of Efron — connoting a deficiency in him39?
7. Accordingly, one will also understand the difference in wording in Rashi's commentary, where sometimes he says "missing a vav", "written deficiently" and the like, and sometimes not:
When the deficient spelling in the verse comes to convey a deficiency in the content of the word (or of the matter), Rashi says "written deficiently" and the like;
when, however, the deficient spelling does not come to convey a deficiency, but to bring out something else, or an added emphasis in the matter itself, Rashi does not say "written deficiently" (since here there is no deficiency (explicitly)), but merely highlights the change in the word, to allude to its special content and meaning.
And in the above examples:
In the first comment, on "יהי מארת", Rashi says "חסר ויו כתיב על שהוא יום מארה ליפול כו'" ("It is written missing a vav, because it is a day of curse, to befall, etc."), meaning that here there is a matter of deficiency in the word "מאורות".
Similarly, on the verse "ועפרון ישב" Rashi says "It is written deficiently" — because this was a matter of deficiency in Efron, in his "sitting": "אותו היום מנוהו שוטר עליהם מפני חשיבותו של אברהם שהי' צריך לו עלה לגדולה" ("That very day they appointed him officer over them; because of the importance of Avraham, who needed him, he rose to greatness"). That is, the verse thereby comes to indicate that Efron on his own was "lacking": he was not distinguished in greatness among the children of Ches, but only "because of the importance of Avraham, who needed him, he rose to greatness" — only then did his "sitting" begin40.
In Parshas Noach, by contrast, regarding the word "מנעריו", Rashi does not say "written deficiently", "missing a vav" and the like, but "מנעריו כתיב משננער לצאת כו'" ("'מנעריו' is written — from the time he stirs to come out, etc."). For here there is no deficiency or lack regarding "his youth"; on the contrary — it adds to the content of the verse and to the reason, in the plea of merit on behalf of man: since immediately "from the time he stirs to come out of his mother's womb, the evil inclination is placed in him" (not only "from his youth"), this further strengthens the reason for "I will no longer curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth"41.
And similarly in many other places where Rashi does not say "written deficiently", it is for the above reason. For example — the first time in the Chumash (and only a few verses after his comment "מארת חסר ו' כתיב") where Rashi explains a matter of "deficient" without using the term "deficient"42:
On the word "התנינם" ("the great sea creatures")43, Rashi brings from the words of aggadah: "הוא לויתן ובן זוגו שבראם זכר ונקבה והרג את הנקבה ומלחה לצדיקים לע"ל שאם יפרו וירבו לא יתקיים העולם בפניהם התנינם כתיב" ("This is the Leviathan and its mate, whom He created male and female; He killed the female and salted it for the righteous in the Time to Come, for if they would be fruitful and multiply, the world could not endure before them; 'התנינם' is written") — and he does not say "written deficiently" —
because44 the fact that "התנינם" is written [so] on account of His having "killed the female" is not a matter of "deficiency" in the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He; on the contrary, through this the existence of the world was secured (and also with regard to the female itself, it was "salted for the righteous in the Time to Come")45.
8. Accordingly, it is understood in our case regarding the word "לחת":
Rashi does not come simply to explain why the word "לחת" is written deficiently, just as he does not explain other deficient and full spellings.
Rashi explains it only where the verse emphasizes the exaltedness of the matter — and that is only in Parshas Tisa and in our parshah.
Whereas in the earlier places in the Torah, both in Parshas Mishpatim (before Parshas Tisa) and in Parshas Va'eschanan (before our parshah, Eikev), where the verse does not set out to emphasize the virtue of the Luchos, Rashi does not address the fact that "לחת" is written deficiently, as will be explained.
9. In Parshas Tisa it says: "ויתן אל משה ככלתו לדבר אתו גו' שני לחת העדת לחת אבן כתבים באצבע אלקים" ("And He gave Moshe, when He finished speaking with him… the two tablets of testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of G‑d") — the great virtue of the Luchos:
And similarly, and even more so, in our parshah46: "ויתן ה' אלי את שני לוחות האבנים כתבים באצבע אלקים ועליהם ככל הדברים אשר דבר ה' עמכם בהר מתוך האש גו'" ("And G‑d gave me the two tablets of stone, written with the finger of G‑d, and on them were all the words that G‑d spoke with you on the mountain from the midst of the fire, etc."), and in continuation of this47: "And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights that G‑d gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant" — all of which follows upon48 "ובחרב הקצפתם . . בעלתי גו'" ("And at Chorev you provoked… when I went up, etc."), and is a preface to49 "ויאמר . . קום רד . . ואפן וארד מן ההר גו' ושני לוחות הברית על שתי ידי וארא והנה חטאתם גו' ואתפש בשני הלחת ואשלכם מעל שתי ידי ואשברם לעיניכם" ("And He said… arise, go down… And I turned and went down from the mountain… and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands. And I saw, and behold, you had sinned… And I grasped the two tablets and cast them out of my two hands, and broke them before your eyes"),
i.e., Moshe here sets out to extol the great exaltedness of the Luchos, and that notwithstanding this, the sin of the Jewish people brought about their breaking — "and I broke them before your eyes". In these two verses (at least), then, it should have been written not "לוחת", deficient, which indicates a deficiency, but "לוחות", full.
So Rashi explains and clarifies: "It is written 'לחת'" — here there is no "deficiency" (lack) in the matter; on the contrary, this itself comes to bring out an exaltedness that was in the Luchos, "that the two are equal"50, which emphasizes all the more how it was a G‑dly thing:
Besides the fact that by human hands it is very difficult (or impossible) to measure so precisely51 that two things should be exactly equal52, there is a novelty in the Luchos: on the two Luchos were written the Ten Commandments, "חמש (ה)דברות (ה)כתובין על לוח אחד וחמש (ה)כתובין על השני" ("five commandments written on one tablet and five written on the second")53, and in the first five commandments there were54 many more words and letters than in the last five commandments — and nevertheless "the two are equal"; one was not larger than the other!
[And in the simple sense, the writing on them was the same (in the size of the letters) on both Luchos — not that on the first tablet the words of the commandments were written in smaller letters, and the last commandments, on the second tablet, in larger letters. And seemingly55, likewise the spacing and separation between the words and the letters was equal on both Luchos56.]
And note the miracle in their being "כתובים משני עבריהם" ("written on both their sides"), which Rashi explains57: "משני עבריהם היו האותיות נקראות ומעשה נסים הי'" ("From both their sides the letters could be read, and it was a miraculous work").
Accordingly, this fits the continuation — the content of the verse, which comes to bring out the exaltedness of the Luchos that G‑d gave to Moshe; and through this itself, an added severity and warning in the "דברי תוכחות" ("words of rebuke")58 that Moshe spoke to them, warning them "זכור אל תשכח גו' ובחרב הקצפתם גו'" ("Remember, do not forget… and at Chorev you provoked, etc.")59 — that they had caused the breaking of the Luchos.
Whereas in Parshas Va'eschanan before this, where "לחת" is written deficiently, the content discussed there concerns "את הדברים האלה דבר ה' אל כל קהלכם גו' ויכתבם על שני לחת אבנים ויתנם אלי" ("These words G‑d spoke to all your assembly… and He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me"), but it does not speak there of the special virtue of the Luchos. And similarly in Parshas Mishpatim: "ויאמר ה׳ אל משה עלה אלי ההרה והי׳ שם ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורתם" ("And G‑d said to Moshe: Come up to Me on the mountain and be there, and I will give you the tablets of stone and the Torah and the commandment that I have written, to teach them") — it does not emphasize the virtue of the Luchos.
10. Accordingly, it is also understood why Rashi takes care to address the word "לחת" that appears after verse 9, and not the two occurrences of "לחת" at the beginning of verse 9, "בעלתי ההרה לקחת לוחת האבנים לוחת הברית":
The content of verses 10–11 concerns the Luchos as they were given to Moshe — "ויתן ה׳ אלי" ("And G‑d gave me"), "ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום גו׳ [נתן] ה׳ אלי" ("And it came to pass at the end of forty days… G‑d [gave] me"). Verse 9, by contrast, speaks of how Moshe went up to receive the Luchos, i.e., when the Luchos were still with G‑d.
The precision and emphasis on the great virtue of the Luchos (in order to add severity to the words of rebuke to the Jewish people for their breaking) applies (not when they were still with G‑d — "When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant" — but specifically) when they came into Moshe's hands to be given to the Jewish people: that (even) as G‑d gave them to Moshe, they were an entirely higher thing — a thing of "אלקים" ("G‑d") ("written with the finger of G‑d", etc.), not like created things.
11. Accordingly, one can explain (at least in "יינה של תורה" ("the wine of Torah")) another matter: the word "לחת" written deficiently in verse 11 appears in relation to the stones, "לחת האבנים", while the word "לוחות" that follows it is written full, in relation to the covenant — "לוחות הברית".
Seemingly, the virtue of the Luchos, in that they were given by G‑d and "written with the finger of G‑d", lies mainly in (and stems from) their being "לוחות הברית אשר כרת ה' עמכם" ("the tablets of the covenant which G‑d made with you")60 — the covenant between G‑d and the Jewish people — and not in their being (physical) "stones". Seemingly, then, it should have been the reverse (in verse 11): "לוחות האבנים" full and "לחת הברית" deficient — "It is written 'לחת' — the two are equal" — in order to emphasize, regarding the tablets of the covenant, the virtue of their bond with "G‑d"?
According to the above, this is understood: for the main emphasis here is not on the spiritual content — that the tablets of the covenant are a G‑dly matter — but that even the physicality of the Luchos, their being "tablets of stone" (and it was in this that the breaking occurred, "and I broke them before your eyes"), is a G‑dly matter, to such an extent that "the two are equal" —
to the point that in this there were two opposites: "the two are equal", although one tablet had many more letters and words than the other (in the same size) — nevertheless "the two are equal".
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Eikev and Shabbos Parshas Re'eh, 5743)
Notes
1) Devarim 9:9ff.
2) In Tanchuma on our parshah, §10: "אמר רבי חנינא לחת כתיב שלא היו גדולים זה מזה אלא שניהם שוין והיתה פסולת שניהם כאחד" ("Rabbi Chanina said: 'לחת' is written, for they were not larger one than the other, but the two of them were equal, and the chippings of both were alike"). However, there it concerns the word "לחת" stated further on regarding the second Luchos (10:1). Similarly, what is written in Midrash Lekach Tov there, "לוחת שיהו שניהם שוין" ("'לוחת' — that the two of them should be equal"), refers to the second Luchos. And see below, section 9, and notes 52; 54.
3) And even this word in verse 17 — and although there it is written "הלחת" — one can say that Rashi is not concerned with it, since it is not part of the root of the word.
4) 31:18.
5) And in Tanchuma, Tisa §16: "א"ר חנינא לחת כתיב לא זה גדול מזה" ("Rabbi Chanina said: 'לחת' is written — neither was larger than the other"). Similarly in Shemos Rabbah 41:6 (Rabbi Chanina — as in Tanchuma on our parshah there).
6) In contrast to Parshas Tisa afterward — 32:[OCR unclear]. Similarly there, 34:1–4; there, 28–29 (regarding the second Luchos).
7) So too in Maskil LeDovid on Rashi — see below, note 14.
8) In the printed editions and manuscripts of this comment of Rashi (and similarly in Rashi on Tisa) there are variations in the heading of this comment: in the first and second printings (and others) and in several manuscripts (in my possession), the heading of the comment is "לוחות" (full, with two vavs); in several manuscripts (in my possession) and printings the heading is "לוחת"; and in the common printings — "לחת". There are likewise variations within the comment itself: in the first printing (and others) and in several manuscripts, "לוחת כתיב"; in the second printing and in several manuscripts, "לחת כתיב" (as in the common printings).
9) As written in Sefer Zikaron here (and in Parshas Tisa, and elsewhere).
10) 5:19.
11) 24:12.
12) Seemingly one could say that the precise point and difficulty in the verse (in Parshas Tisa and in our parshah) is not (only) the deficient "לחת" in itself, but (also) that there is a contradiction in the verse, since it says "שני" ("two") and afterward "לחת", which implies one (as written in Devek Tov (and elsewhere) on Parshas Tisa there); whereas in Parshas Mishpatim, where it does not say "two" but only "ואתנה לך את לחת האבן" (and it is also not known from the preceding verses that there were two Luchos), Rashi therefore did not explain anything (and that is also why he did not explain it here, on verse 9, since it does not say "שני לחת" there). But from the fact that Rashi, in Tisa and likewise in our parshah, did not copy "שני לחת" in the heading, but "לחת" alone, it is implied that he comes to explain the deficient "לחת" in itself (and especially in our parshah, where verse 9 says "לוחות האבנים" — it is not possible to answer in this way).
13) See Gur Aryeh on Rashi, Bereishis 1:14. See also Maskil LeDovid here (and in many places). So too in several commentators on Rashi. And see Klalei Rashi (Kehot, 5740), ch. 13 (in the 5751 edition — ch. 14), and the sources cited there.
14) Maskil LeDovid too writes that Rashi's intent is the "לחת" in verse 11. However, [he says this] because the verse is superfluous (and he explains similarly in Parshas Tisa). But it is somewhat difficult to say that the superfluity of the entire verse comes only for the exposition on the word "לחת". This is not the place to elaborate.
15) See, for example, Minchas Shai, Chayei Sarah 25:6 (and the sources cited there); Terumah 25:22; Balak 23:9; and elsewhere.
16) Especially since we are not expert in deficient and full spellings — Kiddushin 30a, end. So too in the Rema, Orach Chaim 143:4. And see also there.
17) Similar to Rashi on Chayei Sarah and Terumah there; Devarim (1:13) — which is not as in our Masorah (see Minchas Shai there).
*) Similarly in Parshas Nasso 7:1, "כלח כתיב" [OCR unclear], according to the reading of the first and second printings and several manuscripts of Rashi (in my possession). And according to the explanation of the Riva and Tzeidah LaDerech on Rashi. And see Minchas Shai there.
18) So too (as in our texts) in the Masorah and in Minchas Shai, Tisa there.
19) In addition to the main point, that it is very forced to say so (without any source), since in Rashi there is no hint of this. Especially since the Masorah and the Minchas Shai, who gathered from many books and versions, did not cite variations in Parshas Tisa (as in the previous note).
*) In contrast to Rashi on Chayei Sarah, Terumah and Devarim there (and elsewhere), where it is stated explicitly in Rashi (and see the questions of the commentators there; one can say [an answer] according to the Minchas Shai, Parshas Balak there; this is not the place to elaborate).
20) Bereishis 1:14; there, 28. Chayei Sarah 23:16. Shemos 3:15. Mishpatim 23:2 (missing a yud; and see there before it: "על ריב — על רב"). Emor 23:40. Nasso 7:19 (missing a yud). Shelach 15:24 (missing an alef). Devarim 1:13.
21) Chayei Sarah 23:10 ("written deficiently"); 25:6. Balak 22:5.
22) Noach 9:12: "written deficiently"; Toldos 25:24 (Vayeshev 38:26): "deficient" (unqualified); Vayakhel 35:26: "a letter was omitted, etc." (except that he also concludes "והנשאם כתיב" ("'והנשאם' is written") — as in the places in the following note).
23) Bereishis 1:21; 6:2. Noach 8:21. Lech 14:14. Vayeira 18:1; 19:1. Chayei Sarah 24:39. Tisa 31:[OCR unclear]*. (Nasso 7:11.) Devarim 2:33. Va'eschanan 6:9.
*) So it is in the first printing ("ככלתו כתיב"), and elsewhere. And see below, p. 59, in the notes, note 3.
**) See above, the gloss on note 17.
24) And in Parshas Tisa (but note that in a manuscript of Rashi (in my possession), Tisa there: "חסר כתיב" ("written deficiently")).
25) Similar to the matter of dots over words, which need not necessarily be explained in their simple sense — see Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 112ff. The book Klalei Rashi there, ch. [OCR unclear] (at its end) (in the [OCR unclear] edition — ch. 14, item 11ff.).
26) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 18, p. 77; and in many places.
27) Wording of Rashi, Bereishis 3:8.
28) Especially in their days, when "לא היו הנקודות . . כתובים" ("the vowel points were not… written"), for "החומשים שלהם היו בתיקון ס"ת ממש בלי נקודות כו'" ("their Chumashim were written exactly like a Sefer Torah, without vowel points, etc.") (wording of the Alter Rebbe in his Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:1, and in Kuntres Acharon there, sub-par. 2; and see Perishah, Yoreh De'ah, end of 270, sub-par. 8; Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 423 and note 10), the matter of deficient and full spelling is even more relevant to understanding the words.
29) Bereishis 1:14.
30) 1:18. And see there, 1:4: "וירא אלקים את האור כי טוב" ("And G‑d saw the light, that it was good").
31) 1:4 (in relation to the second day); 12; 21; 25.
32) And even more so — at the conclusion of all the works of Creation it says (there, 31): "והנה טוב מאד" ("and behold, it was very good").
33) And see, in a different manner, Gur Aryeh and Maskil LeDovid on Rashi (1:14).
34) Although in many instances Rashi did not explain the deficient spelling, even in the works of Creation — e.g., "ברקי" [OCR unclear] (1:5), which is written deficiently — it is understood that even when he explains "deficient" because it contradicts the content of the word or of the verse and the like (as above in the main text), this is only where, according to grammar, it should be full, such as "מאורות", in the plural (see Maskil LeDovid there [OCR unclear]); whereas "ברקי" [OCR unclear] and the like are always written deficiently in Scripture. The other examples below, in the main text and in the notes, may be explained similarly. And note Rashi, Lech 16:5: "כל בינך שבמקרא חסר וזה מלא" ("Every 'beinecha' in Scripture is deficient, and this one is full"). From this it is evident that wherever Rashi explains "deficient" — although one could say that he also explains it because of the deviation from the usual — that is not the whole reason; otherwise he would have written so explicitly, as in Parshas Lech there.
*) Similarly "אלקים" without a vav (1:1), which is written so in many places (and it is also understood here, according to Rashi there, "לבראותו במדת הדין" ("to create it with the attribute of judgment")). So too regarding "תהו ובהו וחשך" (1:2), which are likewise written so in many places (and [OCR unclear] also by virtue of their content).
35) 8:21.
36) See Maskil LeDovid there — in a different manner.
37) 23:10.
38) One can say similarly in other places where Rashi explains "deficient"; this is not the place to elaborate.
39) And although further on there (23:16) Rashi explains Efron's shortcoming, that is a separate novelty learned from the verse there, and it does not bear on the beginning of the matter concerning Efron — where, simply, his virtue is being discussed, as in the main text.
40) Similarly is the content of "deficient" in the other places listed in notes 20–22 — see below, p. 58ff.
41) See Re'em and Gur Aryeh there.
42) Similarly in the other places listed in note 23, as below, p. 58ff.
43) Bereishis 1:21.
44) Similarly in Parshas Lech 14:14, "חניכו כתיב זה אליעזר שחנכו למצות כו'" ("'חניכו' is written — this is Eliezer, whom he trained in mitzvos, etc."), Rashi prefers to explain that the verse comes to emphasize the virtue in the matter (regarding Eliezer), and not a matter of "deficiency" in the word (and in the number of men who went with Avraham (since "ברב עם הדרת גו'" ("in a multitude of people is the glory, etc."))) — see Rashi's next comment there.
45) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 19ff., and the notes there.
46) 9:10.
47) There, 11.
48) There, 8–9.
49) There, 12–16.
50) Accordingly, one can better appreciate the difference in Rashi's wording between Parshas Tisa, "שהיו שתיהן שוות" ("that the two were equal"), and our parshah, "ששתיהם שוות" ("that the two are equal"): in Parshas Tisa the discussion concerns the Luchos themselves — "And He gave Moshe… two tablets… of stone" (and the section of the Golden Calf and the breaking of the Luchos that resulted from it comes afterward in the parshah as a separate matter); he therefore emphasizes "that the two were equal", as at their giving. Whereas in our parshah, where the whole matter of the Luchos was only a detail within the words of rebuke — that their sin caused the breaking of the Luchos — and there is no need to emphasize that they were equal before their breaking, he writes only "that the two are equal". One may also explain otherwise; this is not the place to elaborate.
51) See Yefeh To'ar on Shemos Rabbah (and Etz Yosef on Tanchuma), cited in note 5.
52) And although according to the Midrash this was so also with the second Luchos, which Moshe made (as above, note 2), one can say that they learned that this was so in them from what is written (Tisa 34:1; our parshah 10:1), "פסל לך שני לחת אבנים כראשונים" ("Carve for yourself two tablets of stone like the first"), and it is not [OCR unclear] that in this too there was a wonder; and perhaps this is so also according to Rashi (see also Rashi, Tisa there). And see Sefer HaSichos 5703, p. 123ff., and the sources cited there.
53) Rashi, Tisa [OCR unclear], "מיסודו של ר' משה הדרשן" ("from the foundation of Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan"). And see also Rashi, Shir HaShirim 4:5.
54) In the first Luchos, which are being discussed here (and similarly in the latter Luchos).
55) Although the five-year-old (beginning Scripture) sees in the books he studies (and in a Sefer Torah) that the spacing, etc., is not equal in all the lines.
56) See the commentary [OCR unclear] on Shemos Rabbah there (printed in the supplements to Shemos Rabbah — Vilna).
57) Tisa 32:15.
58) Wording of Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Devarim.
59) Our parshah, 9:7–8.
60) There, 9.
Key Lesson
The deficient spelling "לחת", which might seem to signal a lack, in fact reveals the G‑dly perfection of the Luchos: two tablets bearing unequal amounts of text were nevertheless exactly equal. The emphasis falls not only on their spiritual content but on their physical stone itself, showing that even the physical side of what G‑d gives is G‑dly, which in turn made the loss caused by the sin all the more grievous.