Interesting points about the Luchos

In last weeks parsha (כי תשא) we read about the luchos (both the first and the second). There are a lot of questions and interesting issues that come up in relation to the luchos.

I. Did the first and second Luchos have the same text

From the pesukim it sounds like they did, the pasuk states:
וכתבתי על הלוחות את הדברים אשר היו על הלוחות הראשונים אשר שברת
However, there are a number of sources that say that the 2 sets of luchos had different text.

Gemara בבא קמא נד - נה

The Gemara has the following story:

R' Chanina ben Agil asked R' Chiya bar Abba why in the first dibros it doesn't say טוב and in  the second dibros it does? R' Chiya answered, you ask why it says טוב  I don't even know if it does say טוב and he sent him to ask R' Tanchum who explained that since the first luchos were broken they didn't say טוב.

Many acharonim ask the obvious question, how could R' Chiya not know if it says טוב in the dibros? A number of Acharonim (Pnei Yehoshua, Rif, on the Eyn Yaakov and others) explain the Gemara as follows. The discussion between the 2 was about the luchos (as we see from the Gemaras answer). R' Chanina assumed that what was written on the first luchos corresponded to the first dibros and what was written on the second luchos corresponded to the second dibros. R' Chiya answered him, I don't know what was written on the luchos, go ask R' Tanchum. R' Tanchum validated R' Chanina's assumption and explained the difference in the luchos explaining that since the first luchos were broken טוב was not written on them. Now we can understand R' Chiya, of course he knew the pesukim in Chumash, but he didn't know what exactly was written on the luchos.

We see according to these acharonim that the maskana of the Gemara was that טוב was written on the second luchos but not the first.

Ramban 

Shamor and zakhor were both on the first luchos, and only zakhor on the second luchos

Beis Halevi

The Beis Halevi (דרוש י"ח) explains that the first luchos had all of תורה שבכתב and all of תורה שבעל פה written on them. However, the second luchos had only the 10 dibros. 

נצי"ב

The Netziv in Haamek Davar, states explicitly that the first luchos had the text written in Yisro and the additional text from Vaeschanan was Torah She Baal Peh, and then the second luchos included the

additions from Vaeschanan, and were therefore in some respects greater.

II. In what כתב were the luchos written?

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (21b) has a machlokes between R' Yosi and Rebbi whether the Torah (e.g. the luchos) was given in כתב עברי or כתב אשורי. R' Yosi says כתב עברי and Rebbi says כתב אשורי. 

Geonim

The Geonim and Rashi understand R' Yosi literally, that כתב אשורי was not used until עזרא came and changed the כתב. In other words, the writing on the luchos and every other sefer torah, tefillin, mezozus was in כתב עברי until עזרא came and changed the כתב. 

Ritva

The Ritva is bother by a number of questions:

1. There are so many halachos/derashos related to כתב אשורי how could it be that it was not given at Har Sinai?

2. The Gemara in Shabbos says that the ם and ס of the luchos were a נס. That only works in כתב אשורי

Therefore, the Ritva claims that the luchos were given in כתב אשורי, however, כתב אשורי was considered to be too holy and therefore all oner seforim etc. were written in כתב עברי. Then, עזרא came and changed the כתב so that all seforim would be written in כתב אשורי.

Radvaz

The Radvaz has a fascinating yeshiva about this issue. He starts off assuming like the Rtva. However, he then finds a Yerushalmi in Megila that states that according to the opinion that the luchos were given in כתב עברי the ע was the letter that was בנס in the luchos.

Based on this Yerushalmi, the Radvaz explains the following. The first luchos were given in כתב אשורי, but the second luchos were given in כתב עברי and that is what the Yerushalmi is talking about.

Brisker Rav

The Brisker Rav in Menuchos (29b) has a fascinating pshat in the Gemara. The Gemara there has the famous aggaddta where Moshe sees Hashem putting the כתרים on the letters and Hashem explains to Moshe that R' Akiva is going to darshen these. The Gemara then says that Moshe asked Hashem מי מעכב. The Brisker Rav is bothered by the לשון of מי מעכב. He explains the Gemara as follows. The Gemara is going like R' Yosi that the Torah was given in כתב עברי and like the Geonim, that even the luchos were in כתב עברי. We know that כתב עברי doesn't have כתרים, so Moshe was asking, מי מעכב, what is stopping you from giving the Torah in כתב אשורי so we could already have the כתרים. 

We see a number of fascinating things from this Brisker Rav:

1. The Gemara in Menachos is going like R' Yosi
2. He understands R' Yosi like the Geonim 
3. The derashos of the כתרים only came into existence at the time of עזרא

III. Who wrote the second luchos?

While most assume that Hashem wrote the second luchos as well, there is a Medrash Raba in Shemos  (http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14385&st=&pgnum=370&hilite=) which states explicitly that Moshe wrote the second luchos.