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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
