A little bit of that. I think for a person to be able to grasp Emunas HaTorah, Hashkafos HaTorah, Mussar HaTorah, there has to be a willingness to recognize truth, there has to be a receptivity. How compelling reasons don't compel a person. Tonight, Be'ezras Hashem bli neder, we'll speak for tonight only, initially briefly, about a very different type of factor in which is very important in also being able to see and understand and recognize truth of Torah, and one which also helps us have perspective on what we know and what we don't know. The Gemara at the end of the fifth perek in Gittin has a machlokes whether Torah megilla nitna or Torah chasuma nitna. The way Rashi understands those two phrases, Torah megilla nitna, Torah was given literally as a bunch of scrolls that as each parsha was, Hakadosh Baruch Hu said each parsha to Moshe Rabbeinu, he wrote it down at the time, and then lesof arbaim shana so they were stitched together. And the second opinion maintains that Torah chasuma nitna, that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't write anything down until the end of the 40th year, at which point he wrote down from Bereishis till l'eini kol Yisrael. Itachen that what each of these views reflects is that Torah was given, Torah was nitna in a way that reflects how Torah is learned, how Torah is nikneh. And that again, the form in which Torah was given reflects how Torah is acquired, how Torah is nikneh. Torah megilla nitna, every inyan in Torah, every sugya in Shas has to be understood on its own terms, has to be understood internally, one can't transpose chillukim necessarily that emerged in other sugyos and transpose them to this sugya. Every sugya has its own pirtei halachos, pirtei pratim, and every sugya needs to be studied in its own right. Call it sort of the particularistic dimension of Talmud Torah. But then there's also a universal dimension of Talmud Torah, maybe reflected in the Tosefta which is quoted in Sanhedrin about כל התורה ענין אחד, perhaps it reflects this idea as well. Maybe to give a couple of examples of what this dimension of Torah chasuma, how it translates and then based on that try to describe it a little bit. Tosfos in Chagiga when they're discussing the question of whether or not the issur melacha on Chol Hamoed is d'Oraisa or d'Rabbanan quotes Rabbeinu Tam who's of the opinion that the issur melacha on Chol Hamoed is d'Rabbanan. And Rabbeinu Tam says something very interesting. He said, the Rishonim in this discussion, so they have Gemaras back and forth in Moed Katan and elsewhere with mashma'usin this way, that way, but Rabbeinu Tam, Tosfos quotes Rabbeinu Tam saying something very interesting, היכן מצינו איסור תורה. היכן מצינו איסור תורה מקצתו מותר ומקצתו אסור?
Something like that, something I don't know if that's verbatim accurate, but that's the gist of what Rabbeinu Tam says. היכן מצינו איסור תורה מקצתו מותר ומקצתו אסור? So what's Rabbeinu Tam's argument? Rabbeinu Tam says it doesn't have the feel of a d'Oraisa. There's so many categories of heterim on Chol HaMoed. Davar Ha'avad, Tzorchei Rabbim, פועל עני שאין לו מה יאכל, so many different categories of exception, so many exceptions. It's not a it's not a it's not a d'Oraisa. היכן מצינו איסור תורה מקצתו מותר ומקצתו אסור? So there's a story with the Rav Chaim. I think it's with allegedly something that the Ran says, but it obviously doesn't make a difference which which of the Rishonim it was, or someone quoted to Rav Chaim that the Ran says such and such. And and the Rav Chaim said there's no such Ran. Someone said, no, the Ran says such and such. Rav Chaim says there's no such Ran. So he goes and and brings the Ran and טאקע אין הכי נמי, he was misunderstanding the Ran and sure enough there was no such Ran. So Rav Chaim said afterwards, one needn't take the first half of this at face value, but the second half should be taken at face value. Don't think that I I know every every Ran. That's not the not the that's not the case. But I know what the Ran could say and what the Ran couldn't say. And what was being quoted, the Ran couldn't have said. Torah chasuma nitna means that that the more a person learns and fully it means that that a person learns kol hatorah kullah, there's a certain chush for what something does mean, for what something doesn't mean, for what something can mean, for what something can't mean. It's a chush which which is born of being shakua in in in Torah, in sugya after sugya after sugya. It's it's something which doesn't owe to one particular sugya and yet it can have bearing on on a particular sugya. That's the call it the Torah chasuma nitna dimension, the universal dimension of Torah. That's what Rabbeinu Tam is saying. That's not a d'Oraisa. That's not a d'Oraisa. I don't need a a diyuk. I don't need I don't need a diyuk to find that's not a d'Oraisa. That's what Rav Chaim's saying, that there couldn't be such a Ran. There's not such a Ran. Means a person's pattern of thought, he thinks the way his thinking has been molded by Torah, so that he has a chush for what's a d'Oraisa, what's a d'Rabanan. He has a chush, he thinks that way, he knows what a Rishon could say and and what a Rishon couldn't say. And therefore, it's this dimension of Torah that the Rav was referring to when he described that in his own experience, so when presented with a shayla before he could necessarily quote chapter and verse, he had an intuition for what the psak was. He had an intuition that it was assur. He had an intuition that it was muttar. He had an intuition that it was chayav, an intuition that it was patur. And Zaks would quote from Rav Shlomo Heiman, the Rosh Yeshiva in Torah Vodaas, when I heard him say it was apropos of a Rosh, but but again obviously relevant and applicable in other contexts vis-à-vis other Rishonim as well. So the medubar then was a Rosh where he's talking about a particular shaila, and so the Rosh says, first of all it's mashma like this in the Gemara, second of all it's mistavber that that's what should be. So he quoted Rav Shlomo Heiman as saying that at first glance one would think that the first raya is a more powerful raya. He's telling you, look, look in this Gemara, it's mashma like I'm telling you in this Gemara. But he said the emes is the second one, because the second one's a raya from kol haTorah kulah. Because when the Rosh tells you what he thinks is mistavber, so what what goes into that mistavber is he's telling you, no, this is a raya from Berachos to Uktzin, it's a raya from kol haTorah kulah. The other is you'll figure out how to read the Gemara differently, you'll be you'll be midachei the raya. This this chush for what what a Gemara means, what it doesn't mean, what could be a Gemara, what could be a what could be a chiddush haRan, what couldn't be, is not only true in halacha, it's true in agadda also. In fact, the Rambam, he talks about it in Peirush haMishnayos, he talks about different approaches to understanding agadda. And he says that that some people that look at agadda and with all the yiras hakavod that one should have for Chazal, but they take the agadda literally. And because of that, because of their lacking a a a sense for what's literal, what's intended literal literally, and what's not intended literal, so they make Chazal, he says, objects of scorn and ridicule because they they end up attributing to Chazal all kinds of ridiculous notions that Chazal never ever cholmed of. And he says you have to know what when Chazal are talking about agadda, what were they saying, what weren't they saying? This dimension of of yedias haTorah, learning a lot is is necessary to acquire it, but it's no guarantee. A person can, in terms of dapim in Shas, a person can make his way through a very very impressive amount and in percentage, it's no guarantee. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. I think in I think in the Nefesh HaChaim that Rav Schachter quotes the the Rav as having once said that a person can can learn all of Shas and be an am ha'aretz if if he doesn't have any feel, any sense for this this chush that we're talking about of what something what something means. I think then he he illustrated it with a lashon from the Mishnah in Shabbos about doing things shelo bertzon chachamim. All of which is to again, a, it's it's something that we should be aware of as a vital component in understanding Torah. And and it should also give us perspective on on what we know and what we don't know. De-hainu because of this dimension of Torah chasumah nitnah, and it means many more things that bli neder. But what it means is that even when a person learns a certain sugya, so what we need to recognize that not only are there so many other inyanim in Torah with which we're not conversant, but to the degree that because there are so many other inyanim, so many other sugyos, our the dimension of Torah chasuma netna in our learning is still developing, is still underdeveloped and needs to develop more. So we need to recognize that even in what we know, we need to have perspective on that that our understanding is limited. And the difference again, potential difference again, it's not automatic, but the potential difference between someone who's covered 10% of the inyanim in Torah to as opposed to someone who is a gadol b'Torah is not the 90%. The difference is even in the 10%. And all of that needs to translate and it's something which is so so important and it's difficult to exaggerate the importance of it is that a person has to know what he knows and what he doesn't know, what the implications of what he doesn't know are for even that where he does know something. And we need to speak modestly and we need to speak responsibly, not making generalizations, not making characterizations that require the dimension of Torah chasuma netna to be brought to bear on whatever inyanim we're talking about.