When the Torah emphasizes the greatness of the Luchos, Rashi is troubled by why the word luchos is not written in its full form, which would seemingly emphasize their perfection. Therefore, specifically here Rashi explains: “Luchos is written,” teaching that the two were equal. He does not write, “Luchos is written deficiently,” because, on the contrary, the fact that they were equal expresses the greatness of the Luchos.
Rashi comments in our parshah, in chapter nine:
“Luchos: Luchos is written, teaching that the two were equal.”
Rashi does not specify which verse he is explaining. However, this comment appears between his explanations of verse nine and verse eighteen.
We must therefore understand: Why does Rashi not explain this regarding the word luchos at the beginning of verse nine? Since he places this explanation after his comment on the words “I remained on the mountain” at the end of verse nine, it appears that his explanation refers to the word luchos in the following verses.
Furthermore, why did Rashi not offer this explanation regarding the word luchos in Parshas Va’eschanan: “He wrote them upon two stone tablets and gave them to me”?
This can be understood by first considering Rashi’s manner of explaining words written with deficient spellings.
At times, Rashi writes, “It is written deficiently,” “It is written without a vav,” or a similar expression. At other times, he quotes only the word in its deficient spelling, as in our case: “Luchos is written.”
The explanation is as follows:
Although Rashi does not explain every deficient or additional spelling, it is understood according to the plain meaning of Scripture that there is a reason for each such spelling. Nevertheless, that reason does not necessarily require explanation according to the plain meaning.
Rashi explains the reason for a deficient spelling only when, according to the plain meaning of the verse, the word seemingly should have been written in its full form.
For example, the first instance in which Rashi explains the reason for a deficient spelling is the verse, “Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heavens.” Rashi comments: “Me’oros is written without a vav, because it was a day of curse.”
Creation as a whole was characterized by the statement, “G‑d saw that it was good.” The word should therefore seemingly have been written in its full form to emphasize its perfection. Rashi thus explains why it is written deficiently.
However, when the deficient spelling does not express a deficiency in the thing itself, Rashi does not write, “It is written deficiently.”
For example, Rashi says, “Hataninim is written,” in connection with the great sea creatures. Hashem killed the female and preserved it for the righteous in the Future Era. This does not represent a deficiency in the sea creatures. On the contrary, it serves an elevated purpose for the righteous in the Future Era.
Accordingly, we can understand our subject.
Ordinarily, Rashi does not explain why luchos is written deficiently, because it is not his practice to explain every deficient spelling.
However, in our parshah the Torah emphasizes the exceptional greatness of the Luchos:
“The two stone tablets, written with the finger of G‑d… I grasped the two tablets, cast them from my two hands, and shattered them before your eyes.”
Moshe emphasizes the extraordinary greatness of the Luchos, despite which he shattered them. Seemingly, the word luchos should therefore have been written in its full form to emphasize their perfection.
For this reason, specifically here Rashi explains: “Luchos is written, teaching that the two were equal.”
Rashi does not write, “Luchos is written deficiently,” because the deficient spelling does not express a deficiency. On the contrary, the fact that the two tablets were exactly equal expresses their unique greatness.
It is difficult for human craftsmen to produce two objects that are perfectly equal in every detail. Furthermore, there was a particular wonder regarding the Luchos: although the final five commandments contained fewer letters than the first five commandments, the two tablets were nevertheless equal.
We can now understand why Rashi’s explanation refers to the word luchos appearing after verse nine, rather than to the word at the beginning of verse nine.
In verse nine, the emphasis is on “when I ascended the mountain”—the Luchos as they were with the Holy One, blessed be He. The greater novelty is that even after they were given to Moshe, as described in the verses following verse nine, they retained a Divine quality: “The two were equal.”
In the inner dimension of Torah:
Verse eleven states, “The stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.” The word luchos is associated with the stones rather than with the covenant.
Seemingly, the greatness of the Luchos—emphasized by the fact that the two were equal—should be associated with the covenant. The deeper novelty, however, is that the stones themselves possessed a Divine quality: “The two were equal.”