Our Gemara at the end of Daf 54 into Daf 55 shares a seemingly bizarre dialogue, where a great Rabbi and sage appears to be ignorant of a basic verse in the Ten Commandments:
שָׁאַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן עָגֵיל אֶת רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: מִפְּנֵי מָה בְּדִבְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״טוֹב״, וּבְדִבְּרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנוֹת נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״טוֹב״? אָמַר לוֹ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה שׁוֹאֲלֵנִי לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״טוֹב״, שְׁאָלֵנִי אִם נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״טוֹב״ אִם לָאו – שֶׁאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״טוֹב״ אִם לָאו; כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּר חֲנִילַאי, שֶׁהָיָה רָגִיל אֵצֶל רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי – שֶׁהָיָה בָּקִי בְּאַגָּדָה.
Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For what reason is the word good not stated in the first version of the Ten Commandments, whereas in the latter version of the Ten Commandments, in the context of the mitzva to honor one’s parents, the word good is stated there: “In order that it shall be good for you” (Deuteronomy 5:16)? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Before you ask me why the word good is stated, ask me if the word good is actually stated there or not, since I am not sufficiently proficient in my knowledge of the biblical verses to remember the precise wording, and I do not know if the word good is stated there or not. Go to Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai, who was commonly found at the academy of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was an expert in aggada. Perhaps he heard something from him on this matter and can answer your question…
הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפָן לְהִשְׁתַּבֵּר.
since they were ultimately destined to be broken after the Jews made the Golden Calf.
וְכִי סוֹפָן לְהִשְׁתַּבֵּר מַאי הָוֵי? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, פָּסְקָה טוֹבָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
The Gemara asks: And even if it had mentioned the term good, and they were ultimately destined to break, what of it? Rav Ashi said: If this term had been mentioned in the first tablets, all good would have, God forbid, ceased from Israel Once they were broken. Therefore, only the second version, which was written after the breaking of the tablets, contains the word good, so that there would always be good for the Jewish people.
It is hard to take at face value that Rabbi Chiyya Bar Abba could not have been proficient in the basic text of the Ten Commandments. If so, what did he mean when he said, “I do not know if “good” is written in the first set of Ten Commandments”? And what does the given answer about first and second set signify?
Maharal (Tiferes Yisrael 35) explains this beautifully. He defines the first set of Ten Commandments as representing an ideal state, such as Adam before the sin or a post messianic era. The word “Tov” or “good” has a connotation of a practical earthly accomplishment. Thus, when God creates the world, the completed acts of creation are deemed “Good” - “Tov”. Thus the first set of Ten Commandments (Shemos 20:12) describe “lengthened days” as the reward for honoring parents, but the second set (Devarim 5:16) adds the reward of “good” - “Tov”. Lengthened days is an allusion to the ultimate long days of eternal life, but “good” refers to existence in this world. If the original commandments included “good”, then it means that even the first commandments were meant for this world leaving, the Jewish people with no “plan B”. Meaning to say, if the first set of Ten Commandments represented an angelic primordial ideal, the sin of the Golden Calf and whatever spiritual gaps it represented, would not mean a total cutoff because they have the less ideal, but practical second set of commandments. But if even the first commandments were meant to be fulfilled practically, then the Jews would be unable to fulfill the covenant.
The question Rav Chiyya Bar Abba was pondering is whether the Tov or practical real world standard was in the first set of Ten Commandments. He was taught that the first set of commandments were destined to break, and thus Tov was not in them, and this would ensure that “Good would not cease from Israel”. As we explained, the second set of commandments were the real world expression and expectation of the commandments.
The Jewish covenant to God is often compared to a marriage (for example, see Hoshea 2:21-22). In a marriage we also may have ideal expectations of ourselves or our spouses, but then after a few Golden Calf betrayals, we have to adjust to what our spouse and what our marriage really is. This might sound pessimistic, as if I am saying, “Settle for less, grow up and be practical.” But that is not what I mean, or not what I mean exclusively. Rather, the point is to embrace that despite certain ideals and wishes that may not be fully realized, there is an expression of them that still exist and can be honored. Yes, perhaps some accepting of practical limitations is necessary but not to the extent of no fulfillment, rather a reframing of the fulfillment.
As an example, a person had hopes for certain connection or intimacies, and in real life there is much frustration and disappointment. Yet, efforts to connect and find love can be met in different ways by a spouse and often require communication, compassion and flexibility. Those real world experiences are not pure fantasy and wish fulfillment and can nonetheless be gratifying. Good might be good enough.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)