A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the fundamental nature of Kriyas HaTorah—hearing Moshe's nevuah or a public din of Talmud (תלמוד) Torah (תורה)? The shiur develops a yesod in the Rambam (רמב"ם) that Moshe had two separate mitzvos: "omer" (transmitting nevuah orally) and "kosev" (writing the Torah). This chakira explains why the last eight pesukim have unique halachos, resolves the Kesef Mishna's question, and clarifies why some hold you may stand for Aseres HaDibros without kefirah concerns.
This shiur presents a fundamental chakira regarding the nature of Kriyas HaTorah and develops a profound yesod in understanding Moshe Rabbeinu's role in transmitting the Torah (תורה). The analysis centers on Rosh Hashanah 27a and addresses multiple difficulties in the Rishonim and Rambam (רמב"ם). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether one can hear two voices simultaneously (trei koli), leading to a discussion about the requirement that only one person reads the Torah at a time. The Gemara establishes that the entire Torah must be read by a single reader (yachid korei oso), not just the last eight pesukim. The Gemara then states cryptically: "Moshe omer v'kosev" - Moshe spoke and wrote. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) understand this to mean that before writing each word, Moshe had to say it aloud - a halacha (הלכה) in hilchos sofrus (scribal law). According to Rashi, in the last eight pesukim describing Moshe's death, he couldn't say the words due to his sorrow, so he wrote them with tears.
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!
Rosh Hashanah 27a
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.
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.
