The two hundred thirty-fifth "room" in the palace of Hayom Yom.
Tuesday, 17 Tammuz 5703.
This day, 17 Tammuz, is a fast day, and therefore the Rebbe first notes the practices of the day: "Fast, Selichos" — one should recite in the prayers the Selichos of the seventeenth of Tammuz; and "Avinu Malkeinu" is also said on this day because of the fast.
Afterwards the Rebbe notes the daily study portions:
Chumash, Pinchas, third aliyah with Rashi's commentary.
Tehillim, on the 17th of the month, from chapter 83 through chapter 87, inclusive.
Tanya: On this day one concludes chapter 3 of Iggeret HaTeshuvah; the lesson begins with the words "akhen mispar," on page 93, until the end of the chapter, with the words "lo tamnu."
The topic discussed in the daily lesson relates to the fact that among the events that occurred on 17 Tammuz is the breaking of the Luchot, after Moshe Rabbeinu saw the sin of the Golden Calf. Throughout the entire saying the Rebbe addresses understanding the differences between the first Luchot and the last Luchot, in his words: "the distinction between the first Luchot and the last Luchot". What are the differences? On one hand we see the superiority of the first Luchot over the second, and on the other hand the superiority that the second Luchot have specifically over the first. The source of the topic is in a maamar of the previous Rebbe, dibbur hamatchil "Beyom HaShemini Atzeret" from the year 5689; and here the Rebbe summarizes a long passage from the maamar in his own words.
The Rebbe begins first by detailing the superior qualities of the first Tablets. The first of these is in the Tablets themselves. What is the difference? "In the Tablets themselves — the first ones were the work of G-d, the second ones "carve for yourself"." The first Tablets the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Moshe Rabbeinu as Divine Tablets, whereas regarding the second ones the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him "carve for yourself" — that he himself should carve the stone from its place, and from it form the Tablets. This is the first difference.
The second difference — "the writing," namely the type of letters that were engraved on the stone. Let us examine the wording: "the writing - engraved upon the Tablets, as our Sages of blessed memory stated in Eruvin (54a), was only in the first Tablets." This quality of the letters that were engraved upon the first Tablets contains an advantage relative to the second Tablets, as the Gemara states in tractate Eruvin (page 54, side a): "Had the first Tablets not been broken, Torah would not have been forgotten from Israel"; that is to say, had the first Tablets not been broken, no person would forget anything of the Torah. The letters incised and engraved upon the first Tablets possessed a special divine quality, such that there was no concept whatsoever of forgetting the Torah. In the second Tablets, although it is stated regarding them "and I will write upon the Tablets," they did not possess this revealed quality as did the first ones. This is the second difference.
The third difference — "in the virtue of the Jewish people". There is a difference in the virtue of Israel between the first Tablets and the second. "At the first Tablets — tzaddikim," for this was after the Exodus from Egypt, in preparation for the giving of the Torah, and as our Sages expressed it, that the contamination of Israel ceased entirely at the giving of the Torah, and then they were all on the level of tzaddikim, as he immediately cites: "when they stood at Mount Sinai their contamination ceased." Whereas "at the second, baalei teshuvah," for the second Tablets came after the sin of the Golden Calf. And although the well-known expression is "in the place where baalei teshuvah stand, complete tzaddikim cannot stand," nevertheless the contamination caused by the sin of the Golden Calf did not vanish from them entirely — even though they repented — unlike at the first Tablets; the contamination remained despite the virtue of the baalei teshuvah, and in this respect the first Tablets were on a higher level, since their contamination had ceased.
The fourth point in which the superiority of the first Tablets is expressed — "in the greatness of Moshe - at the giving of the Torah, a thousand lights were given to Moshe as a gift, and at the sin of the Golden Calf they were taken from him and did not return with the second Tablets". Moshe Rabbeinu himself was, at the first Tablets, on a higher level than at the second ones. How was this expressed? At the giving of the Torah, "a thousand lights" were given to Moshe as a gift, as our Sages said, that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him a thousand lights — which symbolize very lofty Divine revelations. He received them at the first Tablets, but after Israel sinned with the Golden Calf, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "Did I give you greatness for any reason other than for their sake?", and the moment they sinned — "Go, descend", as Rashi brings, descend from your greatness. And his descent from his greatness caused that even the thousand lights he had received were taken from him, as is stated immediately in the continuation of the saying — and at the sin of the Golden Calf they were taken from him, and they did not return with the second Tablets. In the second Tablets that Moshe Rabbeinu brought, he did not receive those same thousand lights that he had in the first ones.
In parentheses he brings from the Arizal, "(only on Shabbat are they given to him, as stated in "Pri Etz Chaim")." This is one of the reasons that on Shabbat we say "Yismach Moshe bematnat chelko" — why does he rejoice in the gift of his portion? Because on Shabbat he receives that very gift which he had received with the first Tablets, those thousand lights that were taken from him through the sin of the Golden Calf, and over this there is a special joy. But this is given only on Shabbat, and apart from that — it was taken from him. Thus we have four things in which we see the superiority of the first Tablets over the second.
And he concludes and says: But on the other hand, "the advantage of the second Luchos" — there are two advantages that the second Luchos have over the first. The first — "that halachos, midrash, aggados etc. were also given, 'double for wisdom,' as stated in Nedarim (22a, b)" — the Gemara in tractate Nedarim says: "Rav Ada bar Rabbi Chanina says: Had Israel not sinned" — had they not sinned, meaning the Luchos had not been broken and they had only the first ones — "they would have been given only the five books of the Torah and the book of Yehoshua alone"; the Torah would not have included more than the five books of the Torah and the book of Yehoshua, and there would not have been all of the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, the halachos, the midrashim, and the aggados. But with the second Luchos, Israel received "double for wisdom" — much more than what there was in the first. Here we have the advantage of the second Luchos specifically over the first; this is one advantage.
The second advantage — "and the shining of the light of Moshe's face". The Torah relates that the skin of Moshe Rabbeinu's face shone with light, and this occurred only when he received the second Tablets; with the first Tablets he did not have this advantage of the shining of the light of the face.
These are all the differences between the two sets of Tablets. In the same maamar from which these words are taken — "Bayom HaShemini Atzeret" 5689 — after all the elaboration in which the Rebbe Rayatz brings these differences, he concludes at length with their significance according to pnimiyus haTorah; but here the Rebbe brings only the facts, in a summary distinguishing between the Tablets.
And regarding the connection to the continuation of the Rambam, let us look at the hint. We are now at the book of Mishpatim, and the halachot that follow after the Hilchot Avadim that we read are Hilchot She'ilah u'Pikadon. It is interesting that in Hilchot She'ilah u'Pikadon, in the final eighth chapter, the halachot are brought that if a certain object was in the possession of the shomer and it was stolen, and the thief was found — the thief pays double; and sometimes there is a situation where the shomer himself says that he will pay the double in advance in place of the thief. This idea we see here: there were the first Luchot, they were broken and lost, and the Holy One, blessed be He, paid the second Luchot — and what did He pay? "Kiflayim le'tushiyah" (double for wisdom). The second Luchot were given in double, much more than the first, and thereby He hinted at the idea of double payment when the first ones disappeared.