QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the verse, "Asher Shibarta v'Samtam ba'Aron" (Devarim 10:2), from which Rav Yosef learns that both the second set of Luchos and the broken Luchos were placed in the Aron.

It is not clear how Rav Yosef derives this from the verse. The verse in its entirety reads, "And I shall write on the Luchos the words that were on the first Luchos which you broke, and you shall place them in the Aron." The words "and you shall place them in the Aron" ("v'Samtam ba'Aron") clearly refer to the second set of Luchos. Hash-m commands Moshe Rabeinu to place the second set of Luchos into the Aron. When Hash-m says "which you broke" ("Asher Shibarta"), He is telling Moshe Rabeinu merely that the content of the second set of Luchos is the same as the content of the first set "which you broke." How does Rav Yosef learn from this verse that "v'Samtam ba'Aron" refers to the first set of Luchos which Moshe Rabeinu broke?

(a) The MAHARSHA writes that Rav Yosef derives this from the proximity of the words, "Asher Shibarta," to the words, "v'Samtam ba'Aron."

(b) The ALSHICH (cited by LIKUTEI SHAI) explains that the words, "Asher Shibarta," are superfluous. Moshe Rabeinu, and the Jews, already knew that the first Luchos were broken. It must be that these words are intended here to be read with the last words of the verse and to teach that even the broken Luchos were placed in the Aron. (See also TORAH TEMIMAH.)

The Alshich adds further that the preceding verse says, "Fashion for yourself two stone Luchos, like the first ones, and rise up to me on the mountain, and make for yourself a wooden Aron" (Devarim 10:1). Hash-m commanded Moshe Rabeinu to chisel two Luchos, come up to the mountain, and make a wooden Aron. The Alshich points out that the wooden Aron was necessary only for the new Luchos, and therefore its construction could wait until Moshe Rabeinu returned from the mountain. However, the following verse (Devarim 10:3) relates that Moshe Rabeinu first made a wooden Aron and afterwards ascended the mountain and engraved the words on the Luchos. Why did Moshe Rabeinu change the order of what he was commanded to do?

The Alshich explains that when Moshe Rabeinu heard Hash-m's hint to him that the broken Luchos also must be placed in the Aron, he understood the great Kedushah of the broken Luchos and the necessary respect with which they must be treated. However, Hash-m, in His Midah of humility, did not instruct Moshe Rabeinu to place the broken Luchos -- the Luchos that Hash-m Himself had prepared -- into the Aron by themselves. Only once the second set of Luchos -- prepared by Moshe Rabeinu -- was placed in the Aron (after Moshe's descent from the mountain) were Hash-m's Luchos to be placed there. Moshe Rabeinu understood this, and in his humility he gave more honor to Hash-m's Luchos and put them into the Aron immediately, without waiting to place the second ones in the Aron.

Why, though, does the Torah not state explicitly that the broken Luchos are to be placed in the Aron?

Perhaps the answer is based on the next words of the Gemara here, which says that one may not be disrespectful to a Talmid Chacham who forgot his learning. The Gemara derives this from the fact that the broken Luchos (compared to a Talmid Chacham who forgot his learning) were also treated with respect and placed in the Aron. However, if this is learned from the broken Luchos, then why does the Gemara phrase the requirement to treat such a Talmid Chacham with respect in the negative, saying that say that one may not disgrace him? The Gemara should say that one is "required to honor him," just as one is required to give honor to the broken Luchos!

The answer is that the fact that the Torah does not explicitly command us to put the broken Luchos in the Aron implies that there is no Mitzvah to give honor to the broken Luchos. Rather, the requirement is to avoid disgracing them; if they would be left out of the Aron, they would be disgraced. Since the Torah is not giving a Mitzvah to honor the broken Luchos but merely to avoid disgracing them, it teaches this obligation through an implication and not explicitly.

Similarly, there is no Mitzvah to actively give honor to a Talmid Chacham who forgot his learning. Rather, the Mitzvah is to avoid disgracing him and treating him with disrespect. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTIONS: Reish Lakish teaches that one who forgets even one thing from his learning transgresses the Torah prohibition of, "Rak Hishamer Lecha... Pen Tishkach Es ha'Devarim" -- "Guard yourself... lest you forget these things" (Devarim 4:9).

The Gemara clearly understands that this verse refers to forgetting Torah. However, the straightforward meaning of the verse is a reference to the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai, when Hash-m commanded the Jewish people not to forget the things they saw there. Indeed, the RAMBAN includes this Mitzvah in his list of Mitzvos. According to the Ramban, this verse commands us not to forget Ma'amad Har Sinai, the events of Har Sinai, and to relate it to our children. Remembering what happened at Har Sinai is central to our Avodas Hash-m, since the basis of our Emunah is the awareness that at Har Sinai the entire nation became Nevi'im and heard the words spoken by Hash-m. Such a collective witnessing of the word of Hash-m cannot be contradicted, since it is the testimony of hundreds of thousands of witnesses who all saw and experienced the same event.

(a) How, though, does the Ramban understand the Gemara here, which derives from this verse a prohibition against forgetting one's learning?

(b) The RAMBAM, on the other hand, does not include this verse in his list of Mitzvos. He does not count it as a Mitzvah not to forget Ma'amad Har Sinai, and he does not count it as a Mitzvah not to forget one's learning. How does the Rambam understand the Gemara? Moreover, the Rambam himself in IGERES TEIMAN writes that "Hash-m commanded us to always remember Ma'amad Har Sinai, and He warned us not to forget it, and He commanded us to teach it to our children... as it says, 'Hishamer Lecha...'." Why does the Rambam not include this as a Mitzvah in his list of Mitzvos?

(a) The Ramban himself alludes to the answer to this question. He writes that although the Gemara in Kidushin (30a) derives from this verse the obligation to teach the entire Torah to our children and to our children's children, the teaching of Ma'amad Har Sinai, the basis of Emunah, is also considered teaching Torah. The verse is warning us not to forget this part of Talmud Torah.

Although the Gemara here clearly says that this warning applies to all parts of Torah and not only to Ma'amad Har Sinai, since the Torah forbids forgetting Ma'amad Har Sinai it is obvious that forgetting any part of Torah is also forbidden. This is because the significance of remembering Ma'amad Har Sinai is that we should know the truth of the Torah that was given there. Since we are commanded to teach our children about the basis of Emunah of the Torah, certainly we must teach them the Torah itself.

(b) The opinion of the Rambam, who does not count this verse as a Mitzvah at all, may be understood as follows. The MEGILAS SEFER (on the Rambam's SEFER HA'MITZVOS) explains that the Rambam maintains that this verse is not an independent Mitzvah in itself, but it teaches how to fulfill the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah. The verse teaches that one must learn Torah in such a way that it should not be forgotten. This includes learning Torah during every free moment, as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Talmud Torah (1:10). It also includes constant review of one's learning.

Since the Rambam does not count ancillary obligations of a more general Mitzvah as separate Mitzvos, he does not include this verse in his list of Mitzvos. The Rambam already includes in his list of Mitzvos the general Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, and thus he does not count this verse as a separate Mitzvah, since this verse teaches how to fulfill the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah.

One may ask, however, that this explains only why the Rambam does not count this verse as a Mitzvah not to forget one's learning. How does this approach explain why the Rambam does not count this verse as a Mitzvah not to forget Ma'amad Har Sinai? In what way is remembering Ma'amad Har Sinai a fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah?

Perhaps the answer is as follows. The RAMCHAL in DERECH HASH-M (4:2) explains that the study of Torah differs from the study of all other forms of knowledge. When one learns any other form of knowledge, the purpose in learning is the acquisition of the knowledge itself. Consequently, it does not make a difference how he learns and acquires that knowledge. In contrast, Hash-m gave the Torah in order to learn it and, through its wisdom, to gain a special connection with Hash-m Himself.

Similarly, the event of Ma'amad Har Sinai was not an isolated, historical event. It was not merely the time at which Hash-m gave the Torah to the Jewish people. It was an event through which the entire Jewish people experienced an existential transformation, an unprecedented spiritual connection with Hash-m, hearing His words and experiencing His presence.

The Ramchal explains that anyone who learns Torah has the opportunity to relive the experience of Ma'amad Har Sinai. When one learns Torah the same way that it was given at Har Sinai -- with awe, fear, trembling, and shuddering ("b'Eimah uv'Yir'ah uv'Reses uv'Zi'a"; see Berachos 22a), and with the understanding that the Torah is the primary means for forming a connection with Hash-m -- he merits at that moment to hear and experience Hash-m's presence and he relives Ma'amad Har Sinai. Accordingly, remembering Ma'amad Har Sinai indeed is a part of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah. The way one must learn Torah is with Ma'amad Har Sinai in his mind. One must not forget Ma'amad Har Sinai, because if one learns Torah without remembering Ma'amad Har Sinai, his learning is not a way of connecting with Hash-m but merely an intellectual exercise. The ideal way for one to learn is to imagine that Hash-m is speaking to him now. When one achieves this degree of awe and fear, he experiences the connection that existed at Ma'amad Har Sinai.

Moreover, the prohibition against forgetting Torah in general is directly related to remembering Ma'amad Har Sinai. The Midrash (Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 1:4) teaches that if the Luchos would not have been broken, no one would have ever forgotten anything he learned. This is because at Ma'amad Har Sinai, the words of the Torah were inscribed on the hearts of the Jewish people, as the verse says, "Kasvem Al Lu'ach Libecha" -- "Write them on the tablet of your heart" (Mishlei 3:3). The experience at Har Sinai was not a mere communication of information from Hash-m to the Jewish people. It was an experience that fundamentally changed the essence of the Jewish people, leaving an indelible impression upon their hearts.

Accordingly, it is clear why the Rambam omits the prohibition against forgetting Torah from his list of Mitzvos. As mentioned earlier, the Rambam does not count branches of general Mitzvos separately. Remembering Har Sinai, and learning the Torah the way it was given at Har Sinai, helps a person not to forget his learning, and thus it is included in the general Mitzvah of Talmud Torah. This also explains how both the straightforward meaning of the verse (a reference to Ma'amad Har Sinai) and the Derashah of the verse (a reference to forgetting one's learning) teach the correct way to fulfill the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah. (Heard from HA'RAV EZRIEL AUERBACH shlit'a.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)