Ki Tissa 5775 - English

Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik

Congregation Kol Shearith Israel, Panama

Moses comes down from Mount Sinai with three tablets in his hands and announces to the people of Israel that God has given them fifteen commandments.  At that moment, one of the tablets slips out of his hands and shatters on the floor.  Moses corrects himself and says: ten, ten commandments.

The scene is one of the funniest in the movie “History of the World: Part I” (1981), where Mel Brooks parodies Charlton Heston from the classic film “The Ten Commandments”.

Mel Brooks’ sharp satire stands on the idea of three tablets (the Torah, Ex. 34:28-29, clearly states there were two and that the “divine expressions” –a more precise translation than commandments– were ten) and on the logical statistic that each tablet must contain five commandments. 

But it’s not just statistics.  An ancient Midrash (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Yitro, parashat 8) says the Ten Commandments were arranged five on one tablet and five on the other… 

The Midrash even poses that there is a direct correlation between the commandments on one tablet and those on the other (the first with the sixth, the second with the seventh, etc.), pointing out, as is well-known, that the first tablet refers to the commandments between man and God, while the second takes on the individual and his neighbor.

The artists have also agreed with this idea of placing five commandments on each tablet, and that is how they can be seen in our synagogues where images show the two tablets with the Ten Commandments symmetrically arranged.  

However, this image so well-spread poses some issues. Whether we count letters or words, the last five commandments constitute only a sixth of the whole.  In both cases, the middle point is located at the beginning of the fourth commandment (which is the longest of them all).  A fair distribution, in accordance with the length of the text, would arrange the first three commandments on one tablet and the remaining seven on the other.   

The second issue is presented by the Torah when it says: “tablets inscribed on both their surfaces: they were inscribed on the one side and on the other.” (Ex. 32:15) Even though Rashi (France, XI Century) explains that it was an engraving that penetrated and went through the stone, which made it miraculous (for certain “closed” letters would not hold), Abraham Ibn Ezra (Spain, XII Century) –with more common sense– claims they were thick stones that allowed writing on both sides.      

This last commentary leads us again to our initial Midrash that stated each tablet held five commandments.  That was the opinion of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa.  The sages did not agree.  They asserted each tablet held all Ten Commandments, meaning both tablets were the same.  (Mel Brooks’ joke would lose its edge in this case.)

What is the logic behind this affirmation?  Like any written agreement, it was important to have a copy for each of the signatories.  Several documents have proven that this was the common practice in ancient times (and in fact we continue to do so when we sign a contract).

When the agreement was between unequal parts, the copy belonging to the most powerful side was deposited where he resided, while the vassal’s copy had to be placed in the temple of his god.  

For that reason, in our case, both copies had to be placed in the Ark in the Mishkan (sanctuary), it being the place of “residence” of God and the Temple consecrated to the God of Israel at the same time.  That is how the Torah settles it: “And deposit in the Ark [the tablets of] the Pact which I will give you.” (Ex. 25:16)

I think this interpretation of the two tablets as two copies of the Pact holding the same text makes a lot of sense.  Besides, the idea of only one tablet holding all Ten Commandments must strengthen the notion that our relationship with God, as defined in the first commandments, cannot be dissociated from our behavior towards our fellow human beings.  

Finally, the fact that all Ten Commandments were written on one tablet should remind us that separating the “religious” from the “ethical” (a phenomenon which sadly grows more popular every day) is a fallacy.  

Like our Hasidic teachers taught: To love God, one must first love human beings.  If someone tells you they love God but not their fellow human beings, you will know they are liars. 

Shabbat Shalom

Gustavo