Probably one of the great surprise endings of Torah literature is Rashi’s closing comment to the Torah Shebichsav, which concludes with Hashem’s hesped (eulogy) for Moshe Rabbeinu. The hesped explicitly refers to the unsurpassed level of prophecy which Moshe achieved and to the role that Moshe had in performing the miracles of our redemption from Mitzrayim. Yet it concludes with a vague reference to the (34:12) "mighty hand and most awesome acts that Moshe did for all to the Jews to see". Obviously this needs Rashi.
Rather surprisingly Rashi interprets that this refers to the shattering of the first Ten Commandment tablets. Thus the final verse of Hashem’s tribute to Moshe and expectedly its climax brings us back to what must have been one of the most painful events of Moshe’s career. Furthermore, Rashi seems to place this grand disappointment up with Moshe’s unique status as a prophet, peerless in clarity and understanding. Moreover, it is at first blush quite difficult to see how a moment of desperation and failure should figure together with Moshe’s majesty as he orchestrated the miracles of the exodus and Yam Suf. Where are the references to the many items we would expect to see in the hesped for Moshe: feeding millions with the miraculous manna and the traveling wellspring, arguing with G-d in defense of His people, silencing the powerful and popular rebellion of Korach, building the Mishkan and the superhuman efforts in climbing Har Sinai and the ensuing lifetime of teaching Torah?
Simply glancing at the last two pesukim of the Torah one can readily see what was bothering Rashi. Reading them together we understand that Hashem distinguishes between the mighty miracles that Moshe did as an agent of Hashem (34:11) and the awesome event that Moshe himself publicly performed for the entirety of our people (34:12). Indeed it would be hard to find a better fit. What other event aside from the throwing down of the luchos was witnessed by all the Jews and shows Moshe’s unparalleled independence as he clearly was not acting as an agent of Hashem? This independence is emphasized by Rashi, who also quotes the passage in the gemora that records Hashem’s consent and praise for Moshe and his actions.
Nevertheless we still need to understand why the culmination of Hashem’s homage to Moshe should include what seems to be a moment of grave and enduring failure.
It would seem to me that though the frustration and disillusionment of Moshe’s descent from Har Sinai were enormous, the shattering the luchos turned into the consummate expression of his acquisition and ownership over Hashem’s greatest gift to us. No teaching or observance, no legislation or appropriate change, expresses our title to the Torah as the decision to withhold and even ruin its divinely determined form. Pondering that moment will forever remind us that we have been entrusted with Hashem’s Torah not only to observe it and teach it, but to treat it as our own and interpret it, take responsibility for transmitting it and legislate based on our understanding of it.
Thus the climax of Hashem’s words about Moshe described a defining moment of Moshe’s life, one that would never be surpassed by mortal man and one that would forever inspire us to care for our mesorah and its study with depth and rigor, with passion and concern.
Perhaps that is also communicated in the manner in which we celebrate Simchas Torah. This most joyous celebration of Torah study is marked almost entirely by customs that our people have conjured up over centuries. The hakafos and dancing, the chasanim and their berachos, the unending aliyos and the kol nearim, to name a few, are all "grass root" expressions of our joy even as they celebrate our privileges and responsibilities of ownership of our tradition.