I read the insights to B"K 55 with great interest.However,unlike your usual presentation it took me a long time to understand what you were trying to say.I worked my way through your pilpul and came to the realization that you are making a basic error.
There were 2 sets of" LUCHOS" one given on Shevuous and the other on Yom Kippur-as you mentioned-with a dramatic different presentation for each.
There are 2 accounts of the of the first Lucos--which are the first and second "Dibros" ---only forty years apart.(It therefore makes sense that there are illusions in the second Dibros to the egel,since it has already occured by the second Dibros etc.)
The Gemorah says "DIBROS RESHONOS and DIBROS ACHRONOS" not Luchos.
I thank you for your wonderful aid for Limud and if I am incorrect I apologize.
Naftoli Goldstein
The article is dealing with identifying the nature of the Dibros Acharonos, including whether they are based solely in the Dibros Rishonos with Moshe's explanation or the differences were all said explicitly by Hash-m by Kabalas ha'Torah. However, we also must deal with the nature of the Luchos, being that the Gemara says that the first Dibros did not contain "Tov" because they were going to be broken. The article puts all of this together. I suggest reading it again slowly (as it is quite long).
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
Thank you very much for your prompt answer. I still do not understand how you know what was written on the second Luchos? What the Torah describes in V'eschanan is a reiteration (Mishna Torah) of what had been described earlier - forty years apart - on Har Sinai (hence the Ponim B'Ponim etc. WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE WITH THE SECOND LUCHOS!!!).
What is in Aykev happened on Yom Kippur of the same year as Y'tzias Mitzraim. The Gemoro does not say Luchos Rishonim rather it says Dibros -- which did not have Tov in it. I see many of the m'forshim say as you do but I don't understand how they can come to that conclusion based on what I asked.
To better answer your question, I would suggest that you state what the second Luchos were, and your proofs that the Gemara cannot possibly mean the first Luchos when it says the first Dibros, and the second Luchos when it says the second Dibros.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
I was satisfied with your answer until we read this past weeks parsha---which if I am not mistaken states that the 2 sets of Luchos were identical[Shemos 34;1,2 "and I shall inscribe on the Tablets the words THAT WERE ON THE FIRST TABLETS"...]
My contention is that we will not know for sure what the second Luchos contain until Mosiach's time, bimhara b'yomainu,when we will be able to see for ourselvs.
Have a gutten Shabbos,
Naftoli
May Moshiach come speedily in our days.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose