No community start suggestion yet.
Was Moshe's hiding his face at the burning bush a merit or a mistake? The machloket in Berachos reflects whether Moshe could have achieved divine vision through total bittul. Using the Kli Yakar's distinction between Moshe and Yehoshua removing shoes, the shiur develops that "lo yirani ha'adam vachai" means one cannot see God while remaining an "adam" - but transcending to "admas kodesh" makes divine vision possible.
This shiur examines a fundamental machloket in Gemara (גמרא) Berachos chapter seven regarding Moshe Rabbeinu's reaction at the burning bush when he hid his face from Hashem (ה׳). One opinion holds this was a zechus (merit) that later earned him the radiance of his face (karno panav). The opposing view considers it a tainah (complaint) - that when Hashem wanted to show Moshe divine revelation, Moshe refused to look, and therefore when Moshe later requested "Ha'reini na es kevodecha" at Har Sinai, Hashem responded "when I wanted, you didn't want; now that you want, I don't want." Rabbi Yeshaya Greenberg ZT"L addresses the Maharsha's difficulty: according to the second opinion, if Moshe could have seen the divine, how do we understand "ki lo yirani ha'adam vachai" (a person cannot see Me and live)? The analysis incorporates insights from Kli Yakar and Rabbeinu Bechaye regarding the command "shal na'alecha me'al raglecha" (remove your shoes). They contrast Moshe's experience with Yehoshua's encounter with an angel - both were told to remove footwear, but the language differs significantly. Yehoshua was told "shal na lecha" (singular shoe) because he could only purify his spiritual side while his physical remained a barrier. Moshe was told "shal na'alecha" (plural shoes) indicating his capacity to purify even his physical being completely. Furthermore, Moshe was told the place was "admas kodesh" (holy ground) while Yehoshua heard only "kodesh" (holy place), suggesting Moshe could sanctify even the physical adamah itself. Rabbi Yeshaya Greenberg ZT"L proposes that according to the second opinion in the Gemara, Moshe indeed could have seen the Divine, but it required total bittul (self-nullification) and zichuch chomer (refinement of physicality). The phrase "ki lo yirani ha'adam vachai" specifically uses "adam" (from adamah - earth) to indicate that one who remains on the level of physical existence cannot see God. However, if one achieves complete bittul and becomes "admas kodesh," transcending ordinary human limitations, divine vision becomes possible. Moshe's fear wasn't mere terror but recognition that seeing would require absolute self-nullification - becoming no longer an "adam" but rather "admas kodesh." His choice to remain afraid represented choosing to stay within normal human boundaries rather than achieving total transcendence of physicality.
Berachos 7a
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.
