No community start suggestion yet.
Why did Moshe break the Luchos after seeing the Golden Calf? The Gemara (גמרא) learns from a kal vachomer with Korban Pesach (פסח), but Tosafos (תוספות) questions this logic. The shiur reveals that both Korban Pesach and milah uniquely represent our covenant of servitude to Hashem (ה׳), making the Luchos inappropriate for a people who had just rejected that direct relationship through idol worship.
This shiur explores a profound Gemara (גמרא) from Shabbos (שבת) and Pesachim about why Moshe Rabbeinu broke the Luchos when he descended Mount Sinai and found the Jewish people worshipping the Golden Calf. The Gemara asks what biblical precedent (drasha) Moshe used to justify breaking the Luchos, and answers that he learned from the law of Korban Pesach (פסח) that a mumar (one who rejects Torah (תורה)) cannot eat from it. Moshe reasoned through a kal vachomer (logical inference): if someone who rejects even one mitzvah (מצוה) cannot participate in the Korban Pesach, then certainly those who committed the sin of the Golden Calf cannot receive the entire Torah represented by the Luchos. Rabbi Yeshaya Greenberg ZT"L addresses Tosafos (תוספות)'s challenge to this reasoning, questioning whether it constitutes a true kal vachomer and why the rest of the Torah should be withheld from them when teshuvah remains possible. The shiur delves into what makes Korban Pesach unique among mitzvos, noting that both Korban Pesach and bris milah are the only positive commandments whose neglect incurs the severe punishment of kares (spiritual excision).
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Shabbos and Pesachim (regarding Moshe breaking the Luchos)
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Up Next in this Series
How was Yitzchok comforted after Sarah's death through marrying Rivka? The Hebrew 'vayinachem' means both comfort and change of direction, revealing that healing comes through shifting focus outward. Depression and mourning are self-absorbed states; true comfort emerges when we channel our pain into caring for others.
How could Avrohom keep the entire Torah before it was given, including rabbinical laws? The key insight is that mitzvos represent eternal spiritual realities, not just historical commemorations, so Avrohom could access these truths through his genuine search. His entire 172-year journey—even his early idolatry—retroactively became service of God once he reached ultimate truth.
Why does the Gemara say Avrohom knew God from age three while the Rambam says forty, after describing his idolatrous past? The principle that baalei teshuvah transform past sins into merits explains how Avrohom's early struggles became retroactive mitzvos once he used that experience to reach other idol worshippers. Unlike Shem and Ever who lacked such background, Avrohom's difficult past became his greatest qualification for helping others.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
