Transcript

כל המצוות שנתן השם למשה רבינו לא נתנו לו אלא עם פירושן ויאמר השם לו את הנוסח ושוב אמר לו את פירושו ומדרשו וכל מה שכלל אותה הנוסח המוסכם.

Just to help us process this, we'll skip a little bit to where the Rambam again, depending on what edition you're looking in, it's where the Rambam a little bit later gives a mashal, ve'amar lecha mashal, if you see where he quotes the pasuk of בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים and says I'll give you an example for instance.

ואמר לך משל הנה אמר לו השם בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים וכן הודיעו יתעלה שהסוכה הזאת חובה על הזכרים ולא הנקבות ואין חייבים בה החולים והולכי דרכים ושלא יהיה הסכך אלא בדבר שגידולו מן הארץ ואינו סכך לא בצמר ולא במשי ולא בכלים ואפילו מן הגידולי בארץ כגון מחצלות והבגדים שיאכלו בשתי ובערב בכל שבעת הימים ושלא יהיה בחלל פחות משבעה טפחים אורך שבעה טפחים רוחב ולא יהיה בגובה פחות מעשרה טפחים וכאשר בא השליח עליו השלום נתנה המצווה הזו ופירושה וכמו כן שש מאות ושלוש עשרה המצוות הן ופירושן נוסח המצווה נכתב במגילה והפירוש על פה.

So the Rambam emphasizes again, and it's impossible to sort of exaggerate the importance of this, the inseparability of Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh. לא נתנה לו אלא עם פירושה. Just also clear and again the Rambam here is that the original tzuras halimmud because of this. natural inseparability of Torah Shebichsav and Torah Sheba'al Peh is that obviously with the exception of הלכה למשה מסיני that will come to later bli neder im yirtzeh Hashem at some point that the Torah Sheba'al Peh wasn't learned or taught independently but it was taught as it is compressed expressed etc. within the Torah Shebichsav. So it wasn't that we have Chumash and then we have Mishnayos we have Kitzurei Dinim. No, the original tsuras halimud was כל מה שכלול בתוך הנוסח המוסכם everything that was again encapsulated within compressed within within the pasuk which is the way we have the Torah Sheba'al Peh in the Mechilta in the Sifra in the Sifrei is also that way. It's the dinim as as they're expressed within encapsulated compressed within the psukim. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky has a whole essay in Emes L'Yaakov where he says that ultimately what the overriding consideration in terms of tsuras halimud is the ולמדתם אתם ושמרתם לעשותם is whatever will be most successful in mastering the body of knowledge because Mishna already certainly reflects already a different tsuras halimud than you have in the Midrashei Halacha. You don't necessarily see the connection between the Torah Shebichsav and the Torah Sheba'al Peh you just have the results you have the derivations and then it's one of the primary fosai of Gemara then is to reconstruct what that bridge is the mena hanei milei between the Mishna and the between the Torah Sheba'al Peh and the Torah Shebichsav. So basically what Rav Yaakov suggests is that the din d'oraisa is that the ikar is that people have to know the Torah Sheba'al Peh. They have to know the dinim. They have to know the Torah Sheba'al Peh. If it's more effective to organize that thematically and systematically and then later come back to show how the is contained within the Torah Shebiktav, so then that's what the basically what the way Rav Yaakov understands what the Torah is not just giving license for but the Torah saying should be done because the the ulimadetem otam should be in a way that that is most effective most conducive to the sequel of ushmartem la’asotam. And and that's the subsequent development of Torah Sheba'al Peh being written down vechulu.

היה סדר הלימוד לישראל כפי שנאמר לך היה משה באוהלו ונכנס אליו תחילה אהרן והיה מגלה לו משה המצווה בנוסח שנמסר לו פעם אחת ומלמדו פירושה ומסתלק אהרן ופונה לימין משה רבינו ונכנסים אחר כך אלעזר ואיתמר בניו ומגלה להם משה גם כן.

It's a funny lashon. It's a lashon Chazal, from ברייתא עירובין נד. It's not the Rambam's lashon, mistalek Aharon. I mean, I think if one didn't know from context that that it's a wrong translation, we would have we would have thought lehistalek means to go away. Siluk, right? Siluk means a removal. So lehistalek means to to remove oneself, to go away. So it's a funny lashon to use here. I mean, Aharon's not, he's sort of changing his seat. He's not I mean we would we would have looked for a different word. He's... so itachen the pshat is that that the... but again the format is that the talmid sits in front of the rebbe. The talmid is in front of the rebbe. So when Aharon changes his seat and is now alongside Moshe Rabbeinu rather than in front of Moshe Rabbeinu, so the emes is that's not stam well, they start to play music, I mean and he ends up he ends up in in in a different seat than than he was previously. Itachen what it reflects is no, the first shiur is taka is a shiur for Aharon. The second shiur is a shiur for Elazar and Itamar and Aharon is present and Aharon hears the shiur again, the Rambam's about the cheshbon how Aharon hears the shiur four times from Moshe Rabbeinu, but it's mistalek in the sense that he's being mistalek from the shuras hatalmidim. And in that sense it's not stam that he's sitting, well he's in the same room but in a different seat. No, he's being mistalek from the from the shura of the talmidim because that's the tzura that that the rebbe's in front and then the talmidim, the rebbe is is here and then the talmidim are in front of the rebbe.

ונכנסו אחר כך אלעזר ואיתמר בניו ומגלה להם משה גם כן כפי שגילה לאהרן ומסתלקים.

Same again, same diyuk in the lashon Chazal, in the lashon Harambam.

ופנה אחד מהם לשמאל משה רבינו והשני לימין אהרן ונכנסים לאחר מכן שבעים זקנים ומלמדם גם כן משה כפי שלימד את אהרן ובניו.

So what's the, what is the Rambam emphasizing here, the k'fi shehigid l'Aharon, which is again how he describes the the shiur to Elazar and Itamar and now the shiur to the shiv'im zekenim is כפי שלימד את אהרן ובניו. So the peshat is what the Rambam means, and this l'chora is reinforced by what's about to come soon, is that Moshe Rabbeinu repeated the same shiur verbatim. It's not only that the content obviously didn't change, it was the same, again the Rambam's about to give the example from Hilchos Sukkah, it's not only that the content was obviously identical, but that Moshe Rabbeinu actually repeated the shiur verbatim in the same, the same words. When the Rambam describes, okay, we'll read to the end instead of skipping, we'll see l'chora how this is reinforced.

נכנסו לאחר מכן המון העם כל מבקש השם ומגיד גם להם כדי שישמעו כולם ממנו נמצא שאהרן שמע אותה הלכה ארבע פעמים מפי משה.

That's meforash. Aharon heard not just the same tochen, Aharon heard the exact same words four times. Moshe Rabbeinu each time repeated the shiur verbatim.

ובניו שמעו ממנו שלוש פעמים והזקנים שתי פעמים ושאר העם פעם אחת ומסתלק משה מהם וחזר אהרן ומגיד אותה הלכה שלמד אשר שמע ממשה ארבע פעמים כפי שאמר לכל הנמצאים.

Then Aharon repeated the shiur verbatim as well. Again, not not a a paraphrase just preserving that that the content should be identical but the actual wording was identical. And again when Elazar and Itamar then take their turn giving the shiur.

ונמצא שבניו שמעו גם כן ארבע פעמים שלוש ממשה ואחת מאהרן ואחר שנסתלק אהרן עומדים אלעזר ואיתמר גם כן אחר שנסתלק אהרן ומגידים אותה הלכה עצמה ששמעו ארבע פעמים מפי משה רבינו לכל הנמצאים ומסתלקים גם כן מללמד נמצא ששבעים זקנים שמעו אותה הלכה ארבע פעמים גם כן שתי פעמים ממשה ופעם מאהרן ופעם מאלעזר ואיתמר וחוזרים גם שבעים זקנים ואחר כך מגידים אותה הלכה להמון העם פעם אחת ונמצא שהעם שמעו אותה הלכה גם כן ארבע פעמים פעם ממשה ושניים מאהרן ושניים מבניו וברביעית משבעים זקנים.

So what's the k'peida that again for verbatim? And it's a din that you see l'doros also, right? That חייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו. Obviously when Moshe Rabbeinu said the shiur the first time, he taught it in the best possible way. Now maybe, maybe there were two equally, this is English, but maybe there were two equally best... ways to say something. Even if they are, even if they are, let's assume for argument's sake that that is true, but it's clear that this din of daled p'amim, daled p'amim means that the most effective way to teach is for the talmid to hear the shiur again and again. And clearly that is only maximized if he'll hear the identical words. Even if there would be, again, even if for argument's sake you would have two totally equivalent formulations, again, itachan that that premise is very debatable. But even mistama Moshe Rabbeinu spoke lashon mikra. Rambam says there are no synonyms in lashon mikra, so it probably is very debatable whether or not there really are two equally best ways of saying something. But lu yitzuyar that that would be, in terms of the effect of Aharon, Elazar, Itamar, the Zekeinim, all of Klal Yisrael hearing it four times, that effect is maximized by just hearing the replay as opposed to being quote distracted by paraphrase, by having it said differently. I just want to be sure, maybe being medayek in the lashon of oson devarim? Also halashon especially. I just don't see that. Is that in all the translations? Oh, I don't know. What do you have? I'm just saying 'Vechazar Aharon', what do you have for that sentence when Aharon gives the shiur?

וחזר אהרן משנה המקרא ששמע ממשה עד ד' פעמים כמו שאמר משה רבנו לכל המצווה.

Also hamikra? Oh, meaning the identical thing is only for the pasuk? That's what you have. That's a big difference. א גאנצע שיטה ממש. Maybe read the whole?

וחזר אהרן פרש המצווה היא אשר למדה ושמעה ממשה עד ד' פעמים.

Vechal, doesn't have a lot. יום טוב של ראש השנה... what do you have? Kapach? Also mikra. Also mikra. Inna nami, you don't have it in those translations. You don't have Mashneh Torah. I think we're going to tell a story. Someone came to the Gaon with 40, I forget how many questions it was, maybe it was something like 40 questions, I don't remember the number. A large number of questions that he and everyone he had posed the questions to were stymied. And so he asks the Gaon one question. The Gaon tells him: ask all your questions. So he presents all the questions and then the Gaon talks quickly, rapidly, for two minutes, and stops. So he says: but you only answered two of my questions. So the Gaon repeats verbatim what he said. Again. And the guy says: okay, so I hear your answers to six of the questions. So the Gaon repeats verbatim what he said. B'kitzur he says, eventually he realized that he just wasn't able to process it all, but by hearing the same lashon again and again, so ultimately he realized how everything, how the Gaon had answered everything initially. But you're right, the other translation, I don't know, let's look at the... And how does it describe what Moshe Rabbeinu does? It says the first take everyone gets is from Moshe. פירש משה ואמר להם מה שאמר לו המקום. Okay, I understand. So mistama you have the earlier mashmaos you do have, the even stronger mashmaos is not present in the other translations.

ונמצא שהעם שמעו אותה הלשון גם כן ארבע פעמים פעם מפי משה שנית מאהרן שלישית מבניו רביעית משבעים זקנים אחר כך נחלקים העם ולמדו זה לזה מה ששמעו משלוח השם

kakatuv hanusach b'megillas. I think to our ear, the term Moshe Rabbeinu is with an honorific, is kavodik, and sort of the more, I don't know, just anonymous description of shliach Hashem seems less so. The emes is that what that the phrase Shliach Hashem which the Rambam often employs captures two things which are obviously true and fundamental that we take for granted within the phrase Moshe Rabbeinu but the phrase itself isn't isn't articulating, again shnayim shehem echad, to two sides of a coin. The the ultimate shevach that you can say of a person is is that he's that he's the Shliach Hashem. There is no no greater shevach that can be said of of than he's Shliach Hashem A. B, it also emphasizes again the yesod haemunah that there's nothing from Moshe Rabbeinu, that Moshe Rabbeinu was just a conduit for Torah and and that he's not adding, he's not embellishing rachmana litzlan, that Moshe Rabbeinu is is transmitting as as he was told, as as he was taught. That's what is all inheres within that phrase Shliach Hashem.

ונחלק עם משה על כל ישראל ללמוד ולדרוש עד שילמדו אותו הלשון וידעו את קריאתו ומלמדם גם כן את פירוש אותו הלשון.

So here oso halashon taka sounds like it means the lashon of the Chumash, right, doesn't mean the Moshe Rabbeinu's commentary.

ונחלק עם משה על כל ישראל ללמוד ולדרוש עד שילמדו אותו הלשון וידעו את קריאתו ומלמדם אותם גם כן את פירוש אותו הלשון

hanasan mei-esh Hashem

ואותו הפירוש הוא כל ענייניו ויכתבו את הלשון ומשננין על פה את הקבלה וכך אומרים חכמים עליהם השלום

Torah shebiksav and Torah sheba'al peh. So after everyone had been taught so then everyone wrote down the pesukim and then they would learn ba'al peh the peirush. וכך אומרים חכמים עליהם השלום Torah shebiksav and Torah sheba'al peh. The Sifrei that the Rambam is quoting, the Sifrei is is isn't that a Chumash thing? The Torah says in parshas Bechukosai at the end of the tochachah

אלה החוקים והמשפטים והתורות אשר נתן השם בינו ובין בני ישראל בהר סיני ביד משה.

So the Toras Kohanim says that chukim are the midrashim, mishpatim are the mitzvos and toros, you see that there's Torah shebiksav and Torah sheba'al peh. Rashi quotes part of it

והתורות אחת בכתב ואחת בעל פה מגיד שכולם למשה מסיני.

So why does the Rambam quote this Toras Kohanim? Is there a reason? Could he have equally well have quoted the Gemara in Gittin where the Gemara in Gittin darshans from the pasuk in parshas Ki Sisa of

כתב לך את הדברים האלה כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל.

So Chazal as you know darshan from that pasuk

כתב לך את הדברים האלה דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בעל פה וכי על פי הדברים האלה דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בכתב.

So obviously there too Chazal are referring to and therefore identifying this Torah she'biksav, this Torah she'ba'al peh. And what's more, I don't know, maybe sort of the preference for a Gemara as opposed to Toras Kohanim is ours and isn't really correct, especially where the Gemara is a drasha of an Amora. But over here isn't the Rambam talking about that they were learning דברים שבכתב מתוך הכתב and they were learning דברים שבעל פה בעל פה? So isn't the Gemara in Gittin a more direct source and isn't that... so what would it have served the Rambam equally well and arguably doesn't it serve his purposes even better? Because the Toras Kohanim here in Bechukosai doesn't say anything about דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאמרם על פה and דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאמרם בכתב, and that's what the Rambam seems to be describing, no? That

היו כותב את הלשון ומשננים על פה את הקבלה. וכך אמרו חכמים עליהם השלום תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה.

But the emes is like this. The Rambam writes in perek alef of Talmud Torah halacha yud bet, he quotes the Gemara in Kiddushin of

לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו שליש במקרא שליש במשנה שליש בתלמוד.

So a person the way the Rambam understands it, unlike Rabbeinu Tam, is that yeshalesh means into three equal parts. So a person should divide his time equally between Torah she'biksav, which is Tanakh, Torah she'ba'al peh, which for the Rambam means halacha, and then the third is for what for Gemara, for Talmud, for the iyun and for the derivation for מוציא דבר מתוך דבר, etc. Then the Rambam says, okay so okay maybe we'll read from the beginning of the halacha. Keitzad?

היה בעל מלאכה והיה עוסק במלאכה שלש שעות ביום ובתורה תשע. אותן התשע קורא בשלש מהן בתורה שבכתב ובשלש בתורה שבעל פה ובשלש מתבונן בדעתו להבין דבר מדבר. ודברי קבלה בכלל תורה שבכתב הן ופירושן בכלל תורה שבעל פה והעניינות הנקראים פרדס בכלל התלמוד. במה דברים אמורים בתחילת תלמודו של אדם אבל כשיגדיל בחכמה ולא יהא צריך ללמוד תורה שבכתב ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה יקרא בעתים מזומנים תורה שבכתב ודברי השמועה כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדברי דיני תורה.

There's different nuschaos here in that phrase. Some have just כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדיני תורה, some have שלא ישכח דבר מדברי דיני תורה, and some have כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדברי תורה. I think are the three different nuschaos. I think the one that they say is the most reliable, one minute. And the ksav yad from Teiman, which is... one second. The one that doesn't have the point we're going to say meforash first is the least authoritative of the two. So nochma, the Rambam says bameh devarim amurim, listen to the lashon haRambam.

במה דברים אמורים בתחילת תלמודו של אדם אבל שיגדיל בחכמה ולא יהיה צריך ללמוד תורה שבכתב ולא לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה.

So he talks about lilmod torah shebechsav and he talks about לעסוק תמיד בתורה שבעל פה. So what what's that shinui lashon about? The Rambam says yikra be'itim mezumanim yikra be'itim mezumanim torah shebechsav vedivrei hashmua כדי שלא ישכח דבר מדברי דיני תורה. So it seems quite clear in the Rambam, I think the Shulchan Aruch haRav says this meforash, that the Rambam has a different standard of yedias hatorah for torah sheba'al peh than he does for torah shebechsav. Chazal say

ושננתם לבניך שיהיו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיך שאם ישאלך אדם דבר אל תגמגם בו אלא אמור לו מיד.

So the Rambam understands that that standard is true for the dinim of torah sheba'al peh. It's not true for lashon of psukim. A lashon of a pasuk, you can say, okay, let's nesei sefer venichzei. You know, you know, yeah, this is a pasuk in in Tehillim, it's kapitel whatever. So let's look in and check what the exact wording of the pasuk is. It's not to say that it isn't a gevaldige ma'ala to to be a sofer who's sofer osios hatorah, but in terms of where the bar is set for what the chiyuv of yedias hatorah is that a person has to aspire to. So by divrei, by torah sheba'al peh, so it's not just that a person should know now, okay, it's in siman reish in Shulchan Aruch so I can look up the din there. That's also a gevaldige madreiga, but in terms of what the chiyuv is to which a person aspires, is שיהיו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיו, meaning that torah sheba'al peh not only is it that torah sheba'al peh originally until torah sheba'al peh was written down was learned orally, but torah sheba'al peh also the standard of yedias hatorah was that a person should know it ba'al peh. And torah shebechsav it's not only that it's still written down, but the standard is just that you are able to consult the ksav and and look it up. Obviously, to consult the ksav requires a degree of mastery and fluency, but not the same degree of mastery and fluency. And that's two different dinim. You could have had one without the other. You could have had the dvarim shebechsav especially let's add add one point. The Rambam writes, the Rav used to call attention to the fact, the Rambam writes in the hakdama lemishneh torah. He says

רבינו הקדוש חיבר המשנה. מימות משה ועד רבינו הקדוש לא חיברו חיבור שמלמדין אותו ברבים בתורה שבעל פה אלא שבכל דור ודור ראש בית דין או נביא שיהיה באותו הדור כותב לעצמו זכרון בשמועות ששמע מרבותיו והוא מלמד. ומדברים שנתחדשו בכל דור ודור בדינים שלמדו מפי השמועה במידה בשלוש עשרה מידות

The Rambam here says meforash that long before there was an eis la'asos of writing Torah she'ba'al peh down, people used to have notes. They used to take notes on what they had been taught, and they used to write down their own chiddushim. And that the din of דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בכתב, that was a din in mesoras haTorah, that the way the way Torah was taught, the way Torah was transmitted is you didn't write a sefer and then and then have people read the sefer. You didn't you didn't give the notes that you had from your rebbi's shiurim, you didn't give the notes to your talmidim, because then Torah she'ba'al peh was being nimseres mitoch haksav. But there was never a din that the cheftza of of Torah she'ba'al peh shouldn't be written down. There was never a din, it was there was never a din in the din of כי על פי הדברים האלה is דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בכתב, le'omram to others, to communicate them, to transmit them. That's what you see klar from from the Rambam here. So now nachzor ledidan. So be'emes by Torah she'ba'al peh there were two different, and really when you think about it conceptually, independent dinim. You could have easily have had each one without the other. Number one is this din, again, the Rambam's havana of that din in the Gemara in Gittin, that Torah she'ba'al peh is supposed to be nimseres ba'al peh. It's supposed to be nimseres ba'al peh. Again, take the Rambam's examples, when you teach the din of the dinei Sukkah and and you talk about how it should be gidulo min ha'aretz etcetera, so you shouldn't write that down and and publish a sefer, but no, the the din was before the eis la'asos that that you were supposed to be moseir that, you were supposed to teach and transmit that ba'al peh. Then there's a second din which again, conceptually is independent, you could have separated the two out entirely, is that the mastery you should have of the dinim of Torah she'ba'al peh should be ba'al peh so that you know it all ba'al peh. You don't have to go refer to your own notes. You could have thought, okay, I'll I'll refer to my notes and I'll I'll prepare and then then then you give the shiur and you'll be moseir things ba'al peh, but your mastery isn't necessarily a mastery ba'al peh. So there's really two different dinim associated with Torah she'biksav and Torah she'ba'al peh. Din number one is how you transmit it. The way you transmit Torah she'biksav is you give a Sefer Torah. You give a Sefer Torah. That's the way you transmit a Torah she'biksav. And when a sofer writes a new Sefer Torah, he writes it looking at a Sefer Torah that's already written. So the way Torah she'biksav is transmitted is mitoch haksav. The way Torah she'ba'al peh is transmitted is orally. That's din number one. Then there's din number two, which is a din in yedias haTorah. Din number two is a din in yedias haTorah that the Rambam says by Torah she'ba'al peh a person has to be oseik bah tamid, not just he has to learn it, which is what he says of Torah she'biksav, he has to be oseik bah tamid so that שלא ישכח דבר מדברי דיני תורה. He doesn't say that you shouldn't forget a word, it's not a chiyuv avada avada, it's a very holy madreiga, not chas veshalom to make light of it, rachmana litzlan, but it's not a chiyuv to know Tanach ba'al peh. It's not a chiyuv to know to know Tanach ba'al peh. It is a chiyuv kefi kocho that a person should know as much of Torah she'ba'al peh as he is capable of knowing ba'al peh, that they should know the halachos ba'al peh. That's what so kumt ois that the Gemara in Gittin of

כתוב לך את הדברים האלה כי על פי הדברים האלה

and the Toras Kohanim are not just two different sources about Torah she'biksav and Torah she'ba'al peh, they're telling us two different dinim. The Gemara in Gittin is telling us the din that how you transmit each of the two, that Torah she'biksav should be transmitted mitoch haksav and Torah she'ba'al peh should be transmitted orally. The Toras Kohanim in Bechukosai is telling us a different din in gantzen. It's telling us that that Torah she'biksav is something in terms of yedias haTorah, you have to know the ksav, you have to be able to find the pasuk, you have to be able to understand the pasuk when you find it. You're not mechuyav to know it ba'al peh. The Gemara in Bava Kamma. So at the very end of the fifth perek.

שאל רבי חנינא בן עגיל את רבי חייא בר אבא מפני מה בדברות הראשונות לא נאמר בהם טוב ובדברות האחרונות נאמר בהם טוב.

Rashi says גבי כיבוד אב ואם דכתיב בהם למען ייטב לך. So why is it only say that in Va'eschanan and not in Yisro? So he answers him,

עד שאתה שואלני למה נאמר בהם שאלני אם נאמר בהם אם לאו שאיני יודע אם נאמר בהם טוב אם לאו.

I don't remember the pasuk. So first ask me if I know what the pasuk says then. So the Acharonim explain what this means, but Rebbi Akiva Eiger points out, he's metzayen a Tosafos in Bava Basra, and it's clear from the way Tosafos in Bava Basra, he's metzayen a Tosafos in Bava Basra קיג עמוד א, and it's clear from the way Tosafos in Bava Basra, it's meforash in Tosafos in Bava Basra that they understand this Gemara kipshuta. Not that I don't understand the significance of whether it says ki tov, no, I don't remember. I can tell you there's a devar acher and I can find them in the Sefer Torah and I can teitsch it when I open it, but I don't remember bal peh whether it says lema'an yitav lach, where it says lema'an yitav lach, where it doesn't say lema'an yitav lach. That's the pshat. That's what the words literally mean in the Gemara and that's what Rebbi Akiva Eiger is metzayen the Tosafos in Bava Basra and Tosafos in Bava Basra understood the Gemara kipshuta. So that's exactly what what this Rambam is saying. That's what this Rambam is saying and that's what it means over here. He says היו כותבים את הלשון ומשננים על פה את הקבלה, they weren't writing the, they weren't being משננים על פה את הקבלה because דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בכתב because the Rambam's talking about just doing the chazarah for their own yedias HaTorah. And according to the Rambam, the din of דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בכתב is only a din in mesiras HaTorah. So al korchacha the din that the Rambam is telling us here is that second din of where the bar is for yedias HaTorah. That's not in the Gemara in Gittin, that's only in the Toras Kohanim. And the Toras Kohanim is not talking about how you're moseir, how you're moseir, no, it's talking about two different cheftzas, that the Torah Shebichtav is a cheftza of Torah Shebichtav, it means you have to be able to find the pasuk, read the pasuk, understand the pasuk. Torah Shebal Peh is a cheftza of Torah Shebal Peh, you're supposed to have it at the tip of your tongue. That's where the bar really is. That's what a person is supposed to aspire to k'fi kocho obviously. הכל כפי כחו של אדם. And that's why the eis la'asos doesn't affect that because the two are two different dinim. The fact that a person can now find and know what siman, what seif to consult in Shulchan Aruch and be able to read it and understand it, again it's a gevaldig, a gevaldig madreigah, halevai we could do that for every siman and seif in Shulchan Aruch, not chas veshalom to make light of that, but in terms of what it is that the person is supposed to aspire to in terms of chiyuv yedias HaTorah, so the bar is even higher, again כפי כחו של אדם obviously, הכל כפי כחו של אדם. What time is it? One thirty-four.