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.
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.
