Is there a Halachic consequence from the teaching that the Mem and Samech stood miraculously on the Luchos?

Rav Elyashiv: Yes. They must be written in such a way that naturally, they could not stand. i.e. they must be totally closed; the smallest gap disqualifies. For other letters, it suffices to have the proper form. E.g. Tzadi is a Nun with a Vov connected to it; a tiny separation between them does not disqualify.

What is the source that an open Mem that was made closed is valid?

Rashi: The closed (final) Mem in "v'Niskeihem" (on other days, it says "v'Niskah") is expounded like an open Mem (the first letter of Mayim).

Rav Elyashiv: Pnei Yehoshua (Megilah 3a) asked, initially we thought that Tzofim said Menatzpach, but before them, there was only one form of each letter. If so, surely we may expound the Mem in "v'Niskeihem" for the first letter of Mayim! He left this difficult. I say, the reason to be Machshir an open Mem made closed is not due to the Luchos. Rather, it is because when the Torah was given, every Mem was closed!

Rav Elyashiv: Perush ha'Mishnayos says that one who intended to write Shimon, and he wrote Shem, is liable. The Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah ben Beseira - if so, he should be exempt! The Rambam rules like R. Yehudah citing R. Gamliel, that one is liable for Sas, Tes or Rar (103b). Any two letters are considered a Melachah - however, if they are the same letter, they must last (be a word). The Rambam obligates one who intended to throw eight Amos, and threw four. Even though he did not do his full intent, he did a Shi'ur of Melachah. The Gemara asked from R. Yehudah of the Mishnah, who obligates for Shem Katan from Shem Gadol, i.e. Shin Mem must be considered a name. If so, an open Mem that was made closed must be valid. (NOTE: Perush ha'Mishnayos obligates for Shem mi'Shimon, for we follow the pronunciation! i.e. this suffices to consider it Shem Katan, even though it has an open Mem at the end. - PF)

Why is a closed Mem better?

Rashi: Rav Chisda taught that Mem and Samech stood miraculously on the Luchos. This refers to a closed Mem - no miracle is needed for an open Mem! R. Yirmiyah taught that prophets said Menatzpach, i.e. the Pashut (not final) forms of the five letters.

Rav Elyashiv: When the Torah was given, every Mem was closed.

This is unlike Megilah (3a), which questions R. Yirmeyah's teaching from Rav Chisda's. This shows that also R. Yirmeyah discusses closed letters!

Rashi: This is not difficult. The Gemara switches matters in order to ask. It could have answered that Rav Chisda discusses closed letters, and R. Yirmeyah discusses open letters; it gave a different answer.

Tosfos: There, we challenged R. Yirmeyah from "Elu ha'Mitzvos", and if you will say that R. Yirmeyah discusses closed letters, also he is unlike Rav Chisda! Rather, he discusses open letters. The Gemara uses the acronym Menatzpach, unlike their order in the Aleph Beis, for this is like 'Min Tzofim.'

How could the forms be forgotten? One may see from a Sefer Torah, Tefilin or Mezuzah!

Tosfos (Megilah 2b): This was forgotten after Amon burned the Sefer Torah. (NOTE: Did he burn all Kisvei ha'Kodesh, Tefilin and Mezuzos of all Yisraelim?! Indeed, the finding of the Sefer Torah in the days of Melech Yoshiyah implies that Sifrei Torah were not found. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Originally, the Torah was given to Yisrael in Kesav Ivri. In the days of Ezra, it was given in Ashuris (Megilah 2b). The Ritva there explains that surely the Luchos were in Ashuris, and so the Torah was given, just they wrote Seforim in Ivri; Ashuris was of Ashur. In the days of Ezra, it was taken from Ashur and given to Yisrael. 'A Navi may not be Mechadesh' does not apply, for the Kesav already existed. Prophets said Menatzpach - they could not look at the Luchos, for they were hidden, and all their Seforim were in Ivri.

Pesach Einayim (Megilah 2b): Yisrael merited Ashuris in Ezra's days, when Chachamim prayed to abolish the Yetzer ha'Ra for idolatry, and Hash-m consented. Radvaz says that the first Luchos were in Ashuris; they were broken. The second Luchos were in Ivri.

Rav Elyashiv: During the mourning over Moshe's death, 3,000 Halachos were forgotten. They asked Yehoshua to ask Hash-m. He refused, for "Lo va'Shamayim Hi" (Temurah 16a). This shows that "Lo va'Shamayim Hi" applies even to revealing what was forgotten! R. Chananel here says that most commoner scribes had forgotten. The Nevi'im merely established that the tradition of the experts was correct. Rashi (Sukah 44a) says that Nevu'ah restored the law of Aravah, which had been forgotten. This seems unlike Temurah 16a! Rather, "Lo va'Shamayim Hi" does not mean that Torah is only via tradition. Rather, Torah in Shamayim is different. After Torah was given, matters are decided here (on earth). If it is a Safek whether Tzara'as came first, or the white hair, the Heavenly academy argued above the law. They decided that Rabah would decide the matter. He died amidst saying 'Tahor', like R. Akiva, unlike Rabanan. The Rambam rules that it is Tamei; Kesef Mishneh explains, since he said so when he died, "Lo va'Shamayim Hi" applies. However, to reveal something that was forgotten, we rely on Shamayim if we cannot resolve it below. In Temurah, it was possible below - Osni'el ben Kenaz restored the lost Halachos via Pilpul.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chasam Sofer (1:208): There is no source to apply to "Lo va'Shamayim Hi" to something said close to death! Rather, Rabah died alone. His death was not known until a Bas Kol informed people. We know what he said before death via a dream, or Eliyahu. In such cases 'a Navi may not be Mechadesh' and "Lo va'Shamayim Hi." If not, Torah would not endure. Everyone could say 'he told me in a dream', or 'Eliyahu told me in the name of Chacham Ploni'! People could do wonders via strategies or witchcraft [and change Torah]. So did the Navi of Islam and Shabtai Tzvi. Everyone could say 'I dreamed that this Chelev is forbidden, and this is permitted.' Even if Eliyahu expounds in the name of a Chacham, we rely on this only if it can be verified. Seven teachings were said Shabbos morning in front of Rav Chisda in Sura, and Shabbos afternoon in front of Rabah in Pumbadisa. Did not Eliyahu say them (Eruvin 43a)? We rely on them only because they can be verified. (NOTE: The Gemara did not say that Eliyahu taught in the name of a Chacham. It implies that he himself taught them! - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: In Eruvin (13b), a Bas Kol taught that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel. They had argued about whether the Halachah follows the majority in quality, or in quantity. We should say "Lo va'Shamayim Hi"! Really, they did not resolve based on the Bas Kol. Rather, after hearing it, some of Beis Shamai contemplated and decided like Beis Hillel. (NOTE: Others explain that all agree that the Halachah follows the majority of Chachamim; they argued about whether or not Beis Hillel qualified as Chachamim. Surely a Bas Kol can reveal such a matter! Or, they argued about "Lo va'Shamayim Hi." R. Eliezer (from Beis Shamai), brought proofs from Shamayim that the Halachah follows him. R. Yehoshua (of Beis Hillel) replied "Lo va'Shamayim Hi" (Bava Metzi'a 59b). Now that Shamayim ruled like Beis Hillel, Beis Shamai had to concede. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Admor of Strikov: It was Hashgachah that they be forgotten, to teach that Torah is acquired through great exertion, to remember what was forgotten. We find 'Eshtomem for a while, and later answered' - a Chidush in Torah comes after he leaves existence and totally nullifies himself. This is like a seed must disintegrate before it can sprout and grow.

What is the significance that the Luchos could be read from the front or back?

Rashi: This teaches that the letters were carved out through the entire thickness of the Luchos.

Maharsha: We learn from "mi'Shnei Evreihem."

Iyun Yakov: This shows that there is no Mukdam or Me'uchar in the Torah (it can be out of order), and Tov Reishiso me'Achariso and Acharis me'Reishiso.

What is the Chidush of Rav Chisda's latter teaching, that the Luchos could be read from the front or back, i.e. the letters were carved out from one side to the other? We know this already from his teaching that the Mem and Samech stood miraculously!

Maharsha: Since they were carved out all the way, in back, the letters should have been like a mirror image, and they were read from left to right, and then they are in the correct order (Nevuv ba'Har Saru). This was not so. Miraculously, each letter appeared normally (not reversed), but the order of the letters was reversed - Nevuv to Buvan... There must be a Drashah from reading the words backwards, just like below we expound the Aleph Beis in reverse order At Bash, and "Anochi" backwards is Yehivah Kesivah Ne'emanim Imreha (105a).

Rav Elyashiv: Sefas Emes questioned Ohr ha'Chayim (Shemos 34:15), who said that the Luchos were Edus (testimony) that Hash-m wrote them - they read the same on both sides. This is unlike our Gemara! Rashi said that the letters were read on both sides, miraculously; Sefas Emes and Sifsei Chachamim said, with difficulty, that the miracle was that the Samech and closed Mem stood. I say that miraculously, each letter read properly (it was not reversed, like a mirror image), but the order of the letters was reversed. Rashi on Chumash and Ohr ha'Chayim refer to this miracle, unlike Rashi here, who said that the only miracle was the Mem and Samech.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Maharsham (3:39) brought several sources that reversed letters are not considered writing. Therefore, one may melt plates of a printing press that have Kodesh names in reversed letters, in order to reset them to print something else. "Kesuvim mi'Shnei Evreihem" - the back of the Luchos is called Kesav, even though the letters were reversed, because on one side they were written properly. According to Maharsha, also in back the letters were normal.

Why did Rav Chisda mention 'Nevuv', 'ba'Har' and 'Saru', and not words that were on the Luchos?

Daf Al ha'Daf: Tosfos left this difficult. Matzpas Eisan wrote, Rav Chisda hints that the writing on the Luchos (Nevuv) b'Har Sinai departed (Saru) quickly (the letters flew off). I add, Yesh Shishim Ribo Osiyos l'Torah (Zohar); Degel Machaneh Efrayim explains, every Yisrael has a letter in the Torah; if he sins, he blemishes and darkens it. 'Nevuv' is the Chilul (hollow) in the Luchos due to their sin. Alternatively, "v'Ish Navuv Yilavev" is one who is empty, without Da'as (Rashi Iyov 11:12). Such people Saru (veered) from the [proper] way b'Har Sinai.