He says in the name of R. Elozor about two various pesukim to do with the Aron. My specific question is if you look both at Rashi in the Chumash on these two pesukim, as well as Rashi here and Rashi in other parts of Shaas, what is Rashi's general Shitta as regards how many Aranos were there both in Moshe Rabbeinu's time as well as during the times of Shmuel and the Melachim and is there a fixed opinion of what was contained in each Aron?
Boruch kahan, london u.k.
The main Sugya that deals with the number of Aronos is in Shekalim (15b). The Yerushalmi there cites a Machlokes as to whether there were two Aronos: the one (that of Betzalel) containing the second Luchos and the other (that of Moshe) containing the broken first ones, or just one containing both. According to the first Lashon, it was Moshe's Aron that would accompany the army in wartime; according to the second, no Aron ever went to war, except for the one time that it did, in the time of Sha'ul, when it was captured.
We need to understand, however, how the second Lashon explains the Pasuk in Eikev, a clear indication that there was a second Aron (the one which Moshe made)?
The Ramban there explains that, according to that opinion, Moshe's Aron was used only temporarily, until such time as Betzalel made his Aron. The moment that the latter Aron arrived on the scene (some two months later), both the Luchos and the broken Luchos were transferred into it, and Moshe's Aron was presumably placed in Genizah.
He then cites Rashi on the same Pasuk, who explains that two Aronos (that of Moshe and that of Betzalel) accompanied Yisrael in the desert. He also says that the former was the one to accompany the army to war, and that the only time that the latter was taken to the battlefield was in the days of Eli, when it was captured. This Rashi, says the Ramban, follows neither of the two opinions stated in Shekalim, but is the opinion of the Tanchuma, which Rashi seems to have adopted in spite of the Gemara. He also concludes that the second Aron must have contained the broken Luchos (otherwise what would have been the point of taking it out to war). But that too goes against the statement in this and other Masechtos, which specifically places the broken Luchos together with the whole ones inside the Aron.
The Da'as Zekenim mi'Ba'alei Tosfos, citing a Sifri, conforms with Rashi's opinion, only they reconcile the Sifri with the Gemara in Bava Basra, which states that 'Luchos ve'Shivrei Luchos Munachin ba'Aron', by confining it to before the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash, when there were indeed two Aronos. But once the Beis ha'Mikdash was built, the broken Luchos were transferred to Betzalel's Aron which remained in the Kodesh Kodoshim. And they conclude by citing the Yerushalmi which cites a dispute in the matter, as we explained. It seems that according to the Da'as Zekeinim, the opinion in the Yerushalmi that refers to two Aronos conforms with the Bavli, whereas the opinion that speaks about only one Aron will conform with the Ramban's explanation.
I thought at first, that Rashi will conform with the opinion of the Da'as Zekeinim. However, Rashi in Shmuel 1 14:18, comments that when Shaul asked Achiyah to bring the Aron, he was referring to the Urim ve'Tumim, which is how the Yerushalmi explains the Pasuk according to those who hold of only one Aron!?
So I suggest that Rashi learns like the Da'as Zekeinim, with the difference that, according to him, the opinion that holds of two Aronos confines this to as long as Yisrael were in the desert. The moment they entered Eretz Yisrael, the Shivrei Luchos were transferred to Betzalel's Aron. This would explain Rashi's statement in Eikev that 'two Aronos accompanied Yisrael 'in the desert''. According to this assertion, Rashi holds that there was only one Aron. Note that this is unanimously agreed upon regarding the period from the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash and onwards.
You also asked what was contained in each Aron. I have already clarified what was inside Moshe's Aron. As for Betzalel's, everyone agrees that it contained both sets of Luchos (either right from the outset or at a later stage, according to the various opinions that we discussed). R. Meir and R. Yehudah (both there in Shekalim and in Bava Basra 14b) dispute the location of the Sefer Torah. According to R. Meir, it was placed inside the Aron too, whereas R. Yehudah maintains that Betzalel affixed a ledge or a box-like affair to the side of the Aron to house it.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler
Here is an updated version of the answer to your questions, as it will appear in the main article in my weekly Parshah-sheet in Parshas Eikev BE'H.
My original answer contains a number of discrepancies, for which I apologize.
How Many Aronos Were There?
Hash-m commanded Moshe to manufacture an Aron in which to place the second Luchos (10:1). Rashi explains how Moshe, deviating slightly from G-d's command, made the Aron before carving out the Luchos from the mine in his tent and ascending Har Sinai for the second time, for Hash-m to engrave the Aseres ha'Dibros on them. This was to ensure that there would be somewhere to place them when he brought them with him from Har Sinai.
Rashi adds that this Aron was not identical to that of Betzalel, which he only constructed after Moshe had taught Yisrael about the Mishkan, following his descent from the mountain.
And this was the Aron, Rashi concludes, which used to go out to war with Yisrael. In fact, on the one and only occasion that Betzalel's Aron was taken out to war, it was captured by the Pelishtim.
The main Sugya that deals with the number of Aronos is in Shekalim (15b). The Yerushalmi there cites a Machlokes as to whether there were two Aronos, that of Betzalel, containing the second Luchos and that of Moshe, containing the broken first ones, or just one Aron containing both. According to the first Lashon, it was Moshe's Aron that would accompany the army in wartime. According to the second, they would go to war without the Aron, and the only time that the one and only Aron ever went to war, was in the time of Sha'ul, when it was captured.
We need to understand, however, how the second Lashon explains the Pasuk in Eikev, a clear indication that there did exist a second Aron - the one which Moshe made?
To be sure, Moshe's Aron existed, the Ramban explains, but that was only until such time as Betzalel built his. About that there is no dispute. The two opinions cited in the Yerushalmi argue over whether they retained Moshe's Aron containing the broken Luchos (as we will explain shortly) beyond that point, or whether they immediately transferred the broken Luchos into Betzalel's Aron, and (presumably) placed them in Genizah.
The Ramban claims that the final paragraph of the Rashi with which we began is the opinion of the Tanchuma, who maintains that there were two Aronos. But, he points out, this opinion is the minority opinion in Shekalim (R. Yehudah). The majority (the Chachamim) maintain that there was only one Aron, and, as we just explained, there was no opportunity for Moshe's Aron to have gone to war during that short period of time.
And what's more, the Gemara there, in Bavli Bava Basra and in a number of other places, assumes that the broken Luchos, as well as the second Luchos were placed in the Aron' (Betzalel's Aron) and not in that of Moshe.
Whereas according to those who maintain that Moshe's Aron did go to war, the Ramban claims, it must have contained the broken Luchos. Otherwise what would have been the point of taking it the battlefront?
Clearly, the Ramban therefore concludes, the opinion that there were two Aronos, is not the accepted one.
The Da'as Zekenim mi'Ba'alei Tosfos, citing a Sifri, conforms with Rashi's opinion, only they reconcile the Sifri (which they quote in place of the Tanchuma) with the Gemara in Bava Basra ('Luchos ve'Shivrei Luchos Munachin ba'Aron'), by confining it to before the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash, when there were indeed two Aronos. But once the Beis ha'Mikdash was built, the broken Luchos were transferred to Betzalel's Aron which remained in the Kodesh Kodshim. And they conclude by citing the above-mentioned Yerushalmi which cites a dispute in the matter, as we explained.
It seems that according to the Da'as Zekeinim (with whom the Rosh concurs), the opinion in the Yerushalmi that refers to two Aronos conforms with the Bavli, whereas the opinion that speaks about only one Aron learns like the Ramban.
Their own explanation follows the opinion that there were two Aronos which existed simultaneously. That era came to an end with the building of the Beis-Hamikdash, when the broken Luchos were transferred to Betzalel's Aron in the Kodesh Kodshim, and Moshe's Aron was placed in Genizah.
I thought at first, that Rashi will conform with the opinion of the Da'as Zekeinim (who holds that were two Aronos, as we just explained). Rashi in Shmuel (1 14:18), however, comments that when Shaul asked Achiyah ha'Kohen to bring the Aron, he was referring to the Urim ve'Tumim, which is how the Yerushalmi explains the Pasuk according to those who hold that there was only one Aron! Moreover, he writes that 'the Aron that Betzalel made only went once to war, and that was when it was captured', which the same Gemara also equates with that opinion.
So I suggest that Rashi learns like the Ramban, with the difference that, according to him, the era of two Aronos lasted for the entire duration of Yisrael's Stay in the desert. And it was only after they entered Eretz Yisrael that the Shivrei Luchos were transferred to Betzalel's Aron. According to this assertion, Rashi holds that there was only one Aron. He argues with the Ramban however, in that, whereas the Ramban cuts down the period of two Aronos to a virtually non-existent time period, according to him, it lasted for almost forty years, up to the time that Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael.
In any event, assuming that my interpretation of Rashi is correct, it transpires that, notwithstanding the Gemara in Shekalim, there are three ways of understanding the Chazal that Betzalel's Aron housed the broken Luchos as well as the Luchos:
1. Immediately after it was constructed (Ramban).
2. Upon their arrival in Eretz Yisrael (Rashi).
3. Only after the completion of the Beis-Hamikdash (Tosfos and the Rosh).
b'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler