A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why do we need Hashem (ה׳)'s mercy before we've even sinned? The shiur traces the Thirteen Attributes through the Moreh Nevuchim's framework, revealing that unintentional sins appear last because they reflect deeper character flaws than intentional transgressions. While deliberate sins stem from intellectual error that can be corrected, carelessness reveals that Torah (תורה) values haven't penetrated one's essential being.
This shiur examines the famous Gemara (גמרא) in Rosh Hashanah 17a that describes how Hashem (ה׳) showed Moshe the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, promising that when Klal Yisrael recites them, He will forgive their sins. The lecture begins with the fundamental question raised by the Rosh: why do we need Hashem's mercy before sin? The Rosh answers that even before actual transgression, one who has improper thoughts regarding forbidden relationships (hirhurei arayos) requires forgiveness, as such thoughts are considered actual sins in this realm. The Moreh Nevuchim offers a different approach, explaining that even before sin, we need divine mercy because Hashem owes us nothing - our very creation and sustenance is pure chesed (חסד), not an obligation. The shiur distinguishes between the first three Names (Hashem, Hashem, Kel) which are 'shemos she'einam nimchakim' (Names that cannot be erased) because they relate to divine justice, versus the subsequent attributes which are erasable because they represent pure mercy beyond justice. The Ra'avad's explanation differentiates chesed (divine benevolence from God's perspective as the ultimate good) from rachamim (mercy from the recipient's perspective when in distress). The lecture proceeds through each attribute: Rachum (mercy within the framework of justice), Chanun (completely undeserved grace), and Erech Apayim (patience that delays punishment to allow for repentance). A significant portion addresses the puzzling order of 'Nosei avon vafesh'a v'chata'ah' - why unintentional sin (chata'ah) appears last when it seems to require less forgiveness than intentional sins (avon) or rebellion (pesha). The Moreh explains that while intentional sins may be more severe in terms of the act itself, they stem from intellectual error and can be corrected through proper understanding. Unintentional sins, however, reflect a deeper character flaw - a lack of sensitivity and mindfulness that is more fundamentally embedded in one's nature. Though the person knows right from wrong and would never consciously choose to sin, their carelessness reveals that Torah (תורה) values haven't penetrated their essential being. This makes unintentional sins paradoxically more difficult to uproot, requiring a more complete form of divine forgiveness that addresses the person's core character rather than just correcting a mistaken decision.
Rosh Hashanah 17a
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.
