This article explores the Luchot through several complementary lenses: classical sources, linguistic and archaeological research, geometry, paleography, and halakhic considerations. The goal is not to resolve every question definitively, but to clarify what our sources say, where opinions diverge, and how the physical description of the Luchot deepens our understanding of Safrut and Torah itself.
1. The Material of the Luchot: What Is Sapir?
The Torah refers to the Tablets simply as luchot even—tablets of stone.1 On a plain reading, one might imagine a local stone found near Sinai. However, Chazal consistently identify the material as sapir, a precious blue stone:
“ידיו גלילי זהב, מעולפת ספירים – שהיו של סנפרינון”2
"His hands are as rods of gold set with sapir—which are of sanprinon"
“מחצב של ספיר גילה לו הקב״ה בתוך אהלו”3
"The Holy One, Blessed be He, revealed a quarry of sapir in the midst of his [Moses'] tent"
.
The sources agree on one essential point: sapir is blue. This immediately connects the Luchot to a broader symbolic system in Chazal. The Gemara teaches:
Techeilet resembles the sea
The sea resembles the sky
The sky resembles the sapir beneath the Kiseh HaKavod4
In this sense, the blue of the Luchot is not incidental. It visually anchors the Tablets to the Throne of Glory and the Sinai revelation. The blue thread of tzitzit, by extension, becomes a daily reminder of Torah and covenant. Therefore, we are not talking about a common gray stone - the sapir is blue.
2. Sapir, Sapphire, and Lapis Lazuli: A Linguistic Question
Classical commentators such as Rashi understood sapir as sapphire5 and the identification of sapir has long attracted attention because of Sapir's resemblance to the modern word “sapphire.”
Modern linguistic and archaeological research complicates the picture. The Hebrew sapir entered Greek as sappheiros and Latin as sapphirus. In classical Greek sources, however, sappheiros refers to lapis lazuli, not corundum sapphire.6
This remained the case until approximately the 4th century CE, when the Middle Persian term lājvard was borrowed into Greek as lazour, providing a specific designation for lapis lazuli.
This allowed the existing word sappheiros to undergo "semantic dissimilation"; it first expanded to include all generic blue precious stones before eventually contracting to refer exclusively to the blue corundum we now call sapphire .
As the languages shifted their terminology, the Jewish understanding of sapir in ancient texts could in theory follow suit. A similar phenomena happened when identifying the animal Tzvi mentioned in the Torah - is it deer or gazelle? And a similar discussion ensued.
Indeed, Lapis lazuli was among the most prestigious materials of the ancient world. It was imported to Egypt from Afghanistan along long-distance trade routes and used for royal and ritual objects, including the funerary mask of Tutankhamun.7 For a people emerging from Egypt, a covenant engraved on such a stone would signify supreme authority and divine kingship.
3. Two Sets of Tablets: Divine Creation and Human Partnership
Rabbinic tradition sharply distinguishes between the first and second sets of Luchot.
The First Luchot
The Torah states:
“והלוחות מעשה אלקים המה”8
The Mishnah lists the Luchot, their writing, and their script among the ten things created at twilight (bein hashmashot).9 Most commentators understand the Luchot in this Mishna to refer specifically to the first Tablets—created ex nihilo, beyond natural process and therefore totally divine.10
Indeed, if the tablets were indeed made of what we call today blue sapphire, it would constitute an immense miracle, as no single sapphire crystal of such size (estimated between 110 and 197 liters) exists in nature.
The Second Luchot
After the sin of the Golden Calf, Hashem commands Moshe:
“פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים”11
Midrashim describe Hashem revealing a quarry of sapir beneath Moshe’s tent, and Moshe mined and carved the sapir himself, while Hashem provided the script/writing. In other words, the Luchot mentioned in the Mishna as being created Bein hashmashot refer to the first Luchot, but the miraculous script and writing can refer to the second set as well.12
Coming back to the identification of Sapir, in light of the differences between the first and second set of Luchot, I wonder if we can also say they were made from different stones. Perhaps Sapir refers to a blue stone's color but not the actual composition - perhaps it can refer to both Sapphire and Lapis Lazuli. If so, the first set can be made of Sapphire, and the second from Lapis Lazuli, and we can thus harmonize the two opinions mentioned above.
4. Shape and Dimensions: Cubes, Rectangles, and the Aron
The Bavli states that each tablet measured 6 × 6 × 3 tefachim (handbreadths).14 Placed side by side, the two Tablets formed a perfect cube of 6 × 6 × 6 tefachim, fitting precisely into the Aron.
The Yerushalmi preserves a different tradition: vertical tablets measuring 6 × 3 × 3 tefachim.15 These differing traditions reflect symbolic concerns of balance, perfection, and visibility, not merely engineering.
5. The Miracle of the Letters: Script and Topology
The Bavli states that the inner portions of the letters Mem (ם) and Samekh (ס) stood by miracle.18 This presumes engraving through the stone and the use of Ktav Ashurit.
The Yerushalmi records that for those who hold the Torah was given in Ktav Ivri, the miraculous letter was Ayin.19 In that script, Ayin was a closed circular form, while Mem and Samekh were open.
This shows that the miracle depends on both script choice and engraving depth.
Letter | Ketav Ashurit (Modern) | Ketav Ivri (Paleo) | Miraculous Status |
Mem | ם (Closed Square) | 𐤌 (Open zigzag) | Miraculous only in Ashurit |
Samekh | ס (Closed Circle) | 𐤎 (Open pillar) | Miraculous only in Ashurit |
Ayin | ע (Open fork) | 𐤏 (Closed Circle) | Miraculous only in Ivri |
6. How Were the Commandments Written?
The Yerushalmi records multiple views regarding the layout of the Aseret HaDibrot:16
Rabbi Ḥanina: Five commandments on each tablet. This is the simplest spatial division: one side per tablet, five inscriptions per side.
The Sages: ten commandments on each tablet – both tablets have the full 10 commandments.
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: Twenty inscriptions per tablet – there is a repetition on each tablet. This implies writing on both sides of each tablet (ten on the obverse, ten on the reverse) and therefore the miracle of surface to surface writing and mem/samech standing by miracle would have to apply.
Rabbi Simai: Forty inscriptions on multiple sides (tatruga – four sides in greek). This implies writing on four sides of each tablet and therefore the miracle of surface to surface writing and mem/samech standing by miracle would apply.
These opinions differ not only numerically but structurally.
The notion that the letters were engraved completely through the stone, and could be read miraculously from either side is not stated as a universal assumption in the Yerushalmi.
That idea appears explicitly in Midrashim (e.g. Shemot Rabbah 41:3, Avot de-Rabbi Natan), and in Talmud Bavli Megillah 2b, but the Yerushalmi does not say that all opinions assume through-and-through engraving. In fact, the Ibn Ezra (source here) sides with the opinions that don't subscribe to the mem/samech floating miracle and thus disregards the Talmud Bavli's approach.
Therefore one cannot assume that Rabbi Ḥanina nor the sages accept letters piercing the entire thickness of the stone.
Only those that assume multi-sided engraving require this miracle. In other words, we cannot simply collect and join all opinions about the composition of the Luchot – some of them are not interdependent and that makes it difficult to have a clear picture of the mainstream understanding of Chazal.
In Jewish conscience, the opinion of Rabbi Hanina somehow became the most prevalent. This is not an halakhic debate requiring a final codification as there is no practical application for this theoretical discussion, and indeed the Rambam stayed silent about this, not recording any of the opinions nor the miracles of mem/samech.
Without doubt, Rabbi Hanina’s layout is the easiest to replicate, and that might explain why everyone uses it today. But even this simple layout can be challenging to recreate if we put our minds to it. The simple, traditional way to understand the layout is like this (source: "Al Yad Yechiel" by Shalom Cohen):
- make the left tablet font much larger, like this image:
- or just leave the same size but cause massive blank gaps (second image shows two cubes but that's incorrect according to both Talmuds - as mentioned above):
7. Iconography and Halakhah: Square or Rounded?
The rounded Tablets common in Jewish art have no basis in early rabbinic sources. The rounded shape likely originated in Western Christian art during the Middle Ages, modeled after the Roman "diptych"—hinged writing tablets with arched tops. Renaissance artists popularized this image, and it was further ingrained when King Henry III of England (1222) required Jews to wear a "badge of shame" in the shape of two white rounded tablets..20
Some authorities justified altered shapes to avoid making exact replicas of sacred objects, and that’s why many synagogues have this layout in the Aron kodesh designs.21 Others, including leading Gedolim like the Lubavitcher Rebbe, urged a return to square or rectangular forms for educational accuracy.22
This debate reached the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which had in its original logo a rounded set of Luchot for many decades, until they decided to modify them to square in recent years.
8. Conclusion
The Luchot HaBrit are not merely symbols; they are foundational objects of Judaism whose material, shape, and inscriptions is subject to great discussion in Chazal.
Through them, Torah entered the physical world, initially as the first set of Luchot – completely divine. When that experiment failed, the second set of the Luchot were a man-made but inscribed by Hashem – and that partnership endured.
Posts
