Transcript

The opening words of Pirkei Avos משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע Yehoshua l'zkenim etc. So Rabbeinu Yonah writes as follows משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע. I get the dibbur hamaschil can be a little bit misleading but don't be misled.

משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע בין תורה שבכתב ובין תורה שבעל פה שבתורה בפירושה ניתנה.

So the Rabbeinu Yonah says that the first phrase in משה קיבל תורה מסיני is referring to Torah she'b'ksav and Torah she'ba'al peh whereas the pshat says that the second phrase of u'mesarah l'Yehoshua is certainly talking about Torah she'ba'al peh. Yehoshua had no standing, Moshe Rabbeinu wrote thirteen Sifrei Torah, gave one to each shevet, put one in the aron. Yehoshua has no standing in terms of Torah she'b'ksav. So kuntress that what we said in the Hakdamos HaRambam that we asked what does it mean when the Rambam writes

והמצוה שהיא פירוש התורה לא כתבה אלא צוה בה לזקנים וליהושע ולשאר כל ישראל שנאמר את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אתו תשמרו לעשות לא תסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה.

So we said at first glance that the Rambam seems to have inverted the cause and effect right. It's not because Moshe Rabbeinu didn't write it it's called Torah she'ba'al peh. It's because HaKadosh Baruch Hu wanted this to be Torah she'ba'al peh that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't write it. So what does the Rambam have in mind? So we said no what the Rambam means is like this. The separation, the differentiation between Torah she'b'ksav and Torah she'ba'al peh in terms of mesorah didn't happen at that first link of Moshe from HaKadosh Baruch Hu because HaKadosh Baruch Hu didn't hand Moshe Rabbeinu a written Sefer Torah and then tell him פירושים המקובלים בעל פה. So in terms of Moshe Rabbeinu's kabbalah there was no differentiation. So the challos wasn't chal yet. Of course it was intended and HaKadosh Baruch Hu dictated that it be that way and that's what the Rambam is saying ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה that the challos was first chal that u'misham yipareid that differentiation, right that separation happened at the stage of Moshe l'Yehoshua. So according to the way Rabbeinu Yonah says pshat lishitovos it's mamash Mishna Avos. משה קיבל תורה מסיני is referring to Torah she'b'ksav and Torah she'ba'al peh. It's the same, it was the same kabbalah, there wasn't a qualitative difference in terms of the mesorah miPi Sinai. Then in the next generation u'mesarah l'Yehoshua now we're talking only about Torah she'ba'al peh. So basically the pshat we said here in the hakdama is those are the opening words of Pirkei Avos. Okay. אף על פי שלא נכתבה תורה שבעל פה. I think that's where we got up to.

אף על פי שלא נכתבה תורה שבעל פה למדה משה רבינו כולה בבית דינו לשבעים זקנים

v'Elazar u'Pinchas v'Yehoshua sheloshtan kibel mimoshu

וליהושע שהוא תלמידו של משה רבינו מסר תורה שבעל פה וצוהו עליה.

So the Rambam says Moshe Rabbeinu taught the shivim zkenim but then he singles out that Elazar, Pinchas, and Yehoshua were the ones who were mekabel so all the shivim zkenim. shiv'im zekeinim were lomeid, learned. But it was davka Elazar, Pinchas, and Yehoshua who were mekabel, but then it was davka to Yehoshua of that trio, it was davka Yehoshua to whom Moshe Rabbeinu was moseir Torah she-Baal Peh v'tzivahu aleha. So what does that mean? So if you take a look in your mail, let's see. This from the volume Kovetz Chiddushei Torah that reprinted Divrei Torah from the Rav and his father that had been printed in different Torah journals. So this... this dvar Torah is from the Rav. So on the first page you got, which is page samach in the upper right hand corner, beginning os tes on the bottom. So the Rav begins עיין בהקדמת הרמב"ם לספר משנה תורה v'zeh l'shon rabbeinu.

אף על פי שלא נכתבה תורה שבעל פה למדה משה רבינו כולה בבית דינו לשבעים זקנים ואלעזר פנחס ויהושע שלשתן קבלו ממשה וליהושע שהוא תלמידו של משה רבינו מסר תורה שבעל פה וציוהו עליה. ובשלשלת הקבלה בהקדמתו כתב.

This next line the Rav is about to quote, if you take a look in the Frankel Rambam, it's on amud gimmel in any edition. It's where the Rambam then has the forty generations from Har Sinai to chasimas ha-Talmud. Where the Rambam summarizes and has the forty generations, so he goes again, he's counting up, meaning he's beginning with counting with Rashi's generation one and going back to Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu. Moshe mi-pi ha-gevurah. So the Rambam, if you take a look, lamed ches, lamed tes, mem. You see that? You see where we are?

מפנחס מיהושע ממשה רבינו רבן של כל הנביאים מאם השם אלוקי ישראל.

So here in this summation of the shalsheles ha-kabbalah, the Rambam describes Pinchas as having been mekabel from Yehoshua. Right, that's what the Rav is about to quote.

ובשלשלת הקבלה בהקדמתו כתב ופנחס מיהושע ויהושע ממשה רבינו ודברי רבינו הגדול צריכים ביאור.

Aleph.

מה הוא פירוש הדברים וליהושע שהוא תלמידו של משה רבינו מסר תורה שבעל פה וציוהו עליה. ציווי זה מה טיבו? והלא בעצמו כתב ששלשתן קיבלו ממשה.

So what more is there besides their being mekabel? What more is there that is expressed in the masar v'tzivav?

אם כן מדוע ייחד את יהושע והדגיש כי לו לבדו מסר תורה שבעל פה וגם ציוהו עליה.

Beis.

מדוע נזקק פנחס ליהושע כדי לקבל תורה ממנו, הא קיבל ישר ממשה? פעמים רבות יצא לפני אבא מורי הגאון החסיד זצ"ל

u'shibeir ha-devarim me'od

וגם חזר עליהם בשיעור כי מדברי הרמב"ם מוכח שמסורה מהווה חלות שם בפני עצמה בנוגע לתורה שבעל פה.

So we'll read this paragraph and then we'll try b'ezras Hashem l'havin.

שמסורה מהווה חלות שם בפני עצמה בנוגע לתורה שבעל פה ואינו רק דין נאמנות וביאור. ונראה דבעיקר של אמיתת תורה שבעל פה נאמרו שתי הלכות מיוחדות.

Aleph.

דחכמי המסורה ממשה ואילך נאמנים למסור את התורה שקיבלו מסיני ותורה שבעל פה המצויה עכשיו בידינו היא היא אותה התורה שניתנה למשה מפי הגבורה.

Beis.

דעצם הקבלה אינו רק מעשה ביאור בעלמא אלא מהווה חלות שם בפני עצמו של מסירה וקבלה. דתורה שבעל פה ניתנה להימסר כמו תורה שבכתב שניתנה להיכתב ועצמה של תורה שבעל פה נתפס במסורה כמו זו שבכתב בכתיבה. ולאמיתה של דבר לימוד ומסורה שני דברים נפרדים הם. לימוד אינו רק ביאור ומסורה הוי הלכה בפני עצמה חוץ דין לימוד. דתורה שבעל פה נמסרת בחלות שם מסורה מרב לתלמיד על פי הלכה מיוחדת ודינים מסויימים.

v'zehu she-kasav Rambam

דאף על פי שכולם למדו בבית דינו של משה ופנחס ויהושע שלשתן קבלו ממשה מכל מקום ל... נמסרה להם תורה שבעל פה בחלות שם מסורה ושלשלת הקבלה וכדי למסור את התורה לאחר הוצרך לחלות מעשה מסורה בפני עצמה לשם מסורה וקבלה ומסורה זו נתקיימה על ידי משה ליהושע בלבד ופינחס הוצרך לקבל את התורה עוד הפעם ממשה כדי למוסרה לאחרים ומקודם הרמב"ם הוא ילקוט שמעוני פנחס

v'tzivisah oso l'eineihem v'lahalan v'atzvinu

ואין ציווי בכל מקום אלא דברי תורה דהיינו מסורת תורה שבעל פה ופירושם של דבריו הללו הוא דליהושע מסר תורה שבעל פה בתורת וחלות מסורה

v'tzivahu l'mosra l'acherim. So the Rav says it's not only the pshat that at least in the initial generations of the masorah, it's not simply the pshat that one who learned could then transmit, but rather the masorah was entrusted by one generation to the next generation. That's what it means that there was an act of masorah means it's that it's not simply that those who learned then were in a position to transmit, but rather there had to be an official as it were, there had to be a chalos shem kabbalah and masorah that the masorah was entrusted from one generation to the next. And that's what it means that yes, shivim zekeinim and even more than shivim zekeinim, the fourth time Moshe Rabbeinu gave the shiur, the braisa in Eruvin says, so anyone could come. It wasn't only the shivim zekeinim. Anyone could come the fourth time Moshe Rabbeinu gave the shiur. But and even if but all that was just bevchinas learning. Now the emes is that Pinchas and Elazar like Yehoshua were mekabel everything from Moshe Rabbeinu, but Moshe Rabbeinu entrusted the masorah based on the gzeiras hakasuv of קח את יהושע והעמדת אתו וציויתה אתו לעיניהם. This is a Hakadosh Baruch Hu instruction to do this. Moshe Rabbeinu entrusted the masorah to Yehoshua. He entrusted the masorah to Yehoshua that Yehoshua would be the one again, not only that it was entrusted to him but part of what that entails is to interpret authoritatively, definitively. So it's not just sort of something that emerged mimailla because he learned so much, but it was a chalos, right? That's what the Rav means as the second halacha. Now obviously halacha number two that the Rav is listing is very much built upon and predicated upon the first. Obviously there had to be there had to be learning. Obviously there was learning and there was mastery, but the point is that the chakham ha'masorah represented is something that assumed that but is even more than that. That there was a as it were a guardianship of the masorah. That the masorah was entrusted and Moshe Rabbeinu entrusted the masorah to Yehoshua, again charging him with a responsibility and B, elevating him that his interpretations were authoritative. That's and that's what it means that. Hagam, that in terms of their learning, so, absent the gezeirah hakasuv of vitzivisu oso l'eineihem, so it seems that Pinchas and Elazar were also candidates for this masorah, but the masorah was entrusted to Yehoshua. Yehoshua was the one who again had that chalos in terms of receiving and transmitting the masorah, which explains that Pinchas didn't need to learn anything more from Yehoshua. What was he going to learn from Yehoshua that he hadn't already learned from Moshe Rabbeinu? But for Pinchas then to take his place in that masorah and again a masorah which was a function not only of mastery, but also it again it was a designation. It was it was that's what the Rav means by a chalos. So Pinchas needed to get that from Yehoshua. That's what the Rav explains here. Now if you skip to the fourth page, on the fourth page as you have for a moment and you go to number eight. You can see it in the fourth page of what you've got number eight.

יש לדייק בדברי רבינו הגדול בהקדמתו שהעתקתי לעיל לימד משה רבינו ובית דינו לשבעים זקנים ואלעזר ופנחס ויהושע שלשתם קבלו ממשה. לכאורה נראה דהרמב"ם מחלק לא רק בין לימוד ומסורה אלא גם בין קבלה ומסורה דהוסיף ביהושע שהוא תלמידו של משה רבינו מסר תורה שבעל פה וצוה עליה ויש שם שלשה דברים. א' לימוד, ב' קבלה, ג' מסורה על מנת למסור לאחרים וצריך עיון.

In mimaila we understand not everyone who learns from Moshe Rabbeinu was mkabel hamasorah from Moshe Rabbeinu. But what's this difference that the Rambam is introducing between kabbalah and masorah? So I don't know the Rambam leaves it b'tzarich iyun, so you have to look very carefully for errors in what we're about to suggest in light of that. But lulay d'mistafina it would seem like this. The pshat would seem to be as follows. Let's read a little further here.

ויהושע שהוא תלמידו של משה רבינו מסר תורה שבעל פה וצוה עליה וכן יהושע כל ימי חייו לימד על פה וזקנים רבים קבלו מיהושע וקיבל עלי מן הזקנים ומפנחס ושמואל קיבל מעלי ומבית דינו ודוד קיבל משמואל ומבית דינו ואחיה השילוני יוצא מצרים היה ולוי היה ושמע ממשה והיה קטן בימי משה והוא קיבל מדוד ומבית דינו אליהו קיבל מאחיה השילוני ובית דינו ואלישע קיבל מאליהו ובית דינו וכולו.

So the Rambam stops using the lashon masorah, right? He only uses both lashons kabbalah and masorah when talking about Moshe Rabbeinu to his generation of talmidim. There he says that Elazar, Pinchas, and Yehoshua שלשתם היו מקבל ממשה and then he singles out Yehoshua that but the mesirah was to Yehoshua. But then subsequently the Rambam stops talking about mesirah, only talks about kabbalah. So lulay d'mistafina it would seem like this. B'etzem usually kabbalah and mesirah haynu hach. By being mekabel the masora in its totality, that gufe means that it was nimsar to them and they, again, I'm not just learned enough to practically transmit, but the Torah she-ba'al peh has been entrusted to them and they are now the, again, not only the guardians but the authoritative interpreters of the Torah she-ba'al peh. And really, masora and kabbalah are two sides of a coin. The Rambam only distinguished them when there was a gezeirat hakatuv that said that even though Elazar, Phinehas, and Joshua were really all worthy and אף על פי כן, the gezeirat hakatuv was v'tzivito l'eineihem that it elevated Joshua above. So there the Rambam says that the kabbalah didn't translate into this chalos shem of being moseir to the next generation. Davka at this stage where, again, absent the gezeirat hakatuv, if Hakadosh Baruch Hu hadn't told Moshe Rabbeinu v'tzivito l'eineihem, so then I think we would have described the shalshelet hamasora as משה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע אלעזר ופנחס or something to that to that to that effect. The gezeirat hakatuv was v'tzivito l'eineihem, so here the Rambam has to say that agam that Elazar and Phinehas were mekabel, and in all subsequent links in the masora, the kabbalah and masora are just two sides of a coin. It's by being mekabel, that's how that was the act of mesira, again, to transmit to future generations to authoritatively interpret the Torah she-ba'al peh. But in this generation, there was a distinction was introduced, and that agam that all three, Elazar, Phinehas, and Joshua were all mekabel, but here the two sides of the coin were split, and it was davka to Joshua that it was nimsar and davka to Joshua that it was entrusted. Maybe let's come back to the second page, page samech-aleph here, והנה בפרק ג הלכות תשובה. Yes. What made Elazar and Phinehas more right for kabbalah than people in future generations who developed a perfect, had the mastery of Torah and limmud? Again, please? What's what's the difference between Elazar and Phinehas who were right to be- have the masora through them and therefore they have the kabbalah versus other people throughout the ages who had the ability to, who had the limmud? I mean like all those zekenim, that זקנים רבם קיבל מיהושע etc. So again, the answer is, I think, absent the gezeirat hakatuv, v'tzivito l'eineihem, there wouldn't have been a difference. That's gufe what the gezeirat hakatuv was, is כך פחת יהושע ממנו and v'tzivito l'eineihem is that Joshua was singled out. That's gufe the thrust of the gezeirat hakatuv. And that's why the Rambam says, no, eini nami, they were mekabel, and absent that gezeirat hakatuv, then that again kabbalah and, again, this is all within what the Rav says, that it's a, that it's a chalos which goes beyond just learning. But ordinarily, the kabbalah translates into their having been a mesira, but here the gezeirat hakatuv was the difference. Eini nami, in sevara I don't know that that, I think, I think the Rambam is indicating... והנה בפרק ג הלכות תשובה kosev haRambam vechein hakopher bepirusha והוא תורה שבעל פה vehamach'chish magideha kegon Tzadok uBaisos כל אחד משלשה אלו kopher baTorah. ולכאורה הדברים מעורפלים קצת vehadgashaso shel haRambam דישנה לכפירה בפירוש התורה דהוא תורה שבעל פה uchphira bemagideha דהיינו חכמי המסורה אינה מובנת דלכאורה היא חדא כפירה dekeivan shekopher bemagideha הרי הוא כופר ממילא גם בתורה שבעל פה. Meaning, the lashon vehamach'chish magideha means that the Rambam is identifying two types of kfira. One is כופר בפירוש תורה שבעל פה. The other is he's mach'chish the חכמי תורה שבעל פה. But what's the difference? The חכמי תורה שבעל פה are the ones who tell us that ayin tachas ayin means mamon. So how is it two types of kfira if a person says 'No, I don't believe you, I don't believe you the what, I don't believe you that ayin tachas ayin is mamon.' So what is the Rambam sort of differentiating and talking about two different types of kfira, one's kopher bepirusha and one's mach'chish magideha? The magidim are just the ones who are telling you what the pirush is. So it's tainu hach. Uveram haPerisha gluya dekai afilu hacha shekopher bechachmei hamesora benogea ladevarim shehotziu min hasvara lo min hakabbala vecholek al svarasam ושיקול דעתם של חכמי הגמרא deyachas le'etzem hakabbala lais lei kphira

ובכל זאת הרי הוא אפיקורוס משום שחלק על חכמי הקבלה

vechaphar beba'alei hamesora. So says the Rav that hamach'chish magideha means that he contradicts that which the chachmei hamesora say misvarasam, mishikul da'atam. Right? Famously many years after this was written, so the Rav referenced this in a drosha. Someone, someone rather infamously wanted to say that you know the chazakos that Chazal have, they were just a function of contemporary sociology and when there are halachos which reflect the fact that Chazal say that טב למיתב טן דו, that a woman very, very much wants to get married and she'd rather be married with something that seems like a not such a welcome shidduch as opposed to remaining single. And then there are halachos in terms of when kiddushin can be construed as kiddushei ta'us which are based upon that chazaka. So someone said, 'No, Chazal, they were just, it was a reflection of whatever, I don't know exactly what this person said.' But he basically wanted to do away with this chazaka. So in that drosha where the Rav spoke out very strongly against it, so he referenced this Rambam and the understanding of the Rambam that what distinguishes hamach'chish magideha as an additional type of kfira from just being כופר בתורה שבעל פה... as a כופר בתורה שבעל פה means 'No, pri etz hadar isn't an esrog'. No, that's kopher bepirusha. And hamach'chish magideha means when the magideha, those who are transmitting the Torah sheba'al peh, when the chachmei hamesora told us something like such a chazaka, so that they didn't necessarily have the kabbala, that was their understanding. So if a person denies that, so it's also a kfira. So the Rav says umidvarim halalu muchach dechol hakopher begavra shel chachmei hamesora אף דאינו כופר במסורה עצמה harei hu apikoros beta'am shel.

אבל שהוא דעצם הגברא של חכמי המסורה מהווה לה שם בפני עצמו ודעתו והכרעתו הינה כמסורה נתונה להלכה ואסור לחלוק עליהם.

So without the Rav's chiddush, so the baalei hamesora are just tape recorders. Sorry, that's a bit of a dated... whatever. You know tape recorders? Phones. That's a sacrilege. I don't know, whatever. They... you get the point. Without the Rav's chiddush, so the chachmei hamesora simply are by rote, mechanistically saying, now Moshe Rabbeinu at Har Sinai that a pri eitz hadar is an esrog and that ayin tachat ayin is mamon and Vekatzosa es kapa doesn't mean literally and ובת איש כי תחל לזנות is not talking about a bas kohen who's a pnuyah vechulu. In light of the Rav's chiddush here that no, there's a din of mesora, dehinu it's not just simply a function of having learned and being able to accurately reproduce, but that the mesora is entrusted. So again, that means that the person to whom it's entrusted, again it's entrusted, A, that's what we kept saying, A, that he's the guardian, but B also that he or they then become the authoritative interpreters of Torah Sheba'al Peh. And that's what we see reflected in this Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva that what the chachmei hamesora say misvara, again presumably here we're talking until the end of the chachmei hagemara, we're talking until then, what would they say misvaras atzmam becomes a part of the, is a part of the mesora. Again, the chachmei hamesora don't only, didn't only accurately transmit, but they became, as it were, the embodiment of the Torah Sheba'al Peh. Okay. There is one other... it could be that the tzivui to Yehoshua in addition to differentiating him from Elazar and Pinchas, it also did something else which has no analog in the future generations.

וזקנים רבים קיבלו מיהושע וקיבל עלי מן הזקנים ומפינחס ושמואל קיבל מעלי ובית דינו ודוד קיבל משמואל ובית דינו ואחיה השילוני מיוצאי מצרים היה ולוי היה ושמע ממשה והיה קטן בימי משה והוא קיבל מדוד ובית דינו אליהו קיבל מאחיה השילוני ובית דינו ואלישע קיבל מאליהו ובית דינו ויהוידע הכהן קיבל מאלישע ובית דינו.

In every subsequent link, we'll see there is a question that comes later once you turn the page, but in every subsequent link, so the kabbala is not from an individual, the kabbala is from the Sanhedrin. Shmuel kibel not just from Eli but me'Eli uveis dino, from the Sanhedrin. So Eli was the nasi of the Sanhedrin. He was the outstanding, the most outstanding... they were all outstanding obviously, but he was the nasi, but the kabbala is from the entire סנהדרין של שבעים ואחד. And similarly David kibel miShmuel uveis dino. Even Eli where it doesn't say beis dino, but it says mizkeinim uPinchas. זקנים רבים קיבלו מיהושע, not Yehoshua and anyone else, just me'Yehoshua, not Yehoshua Beis Dino. There's no analog to what the Rambam is going to describe in every other stage or link in the Masorah where the again the Kabbalah and the Masorah was to the סנהדרין של עין אלף. Okay, the סנהדרין של עין אלף had a Nasi, had a Beis Din, in later generations is listed also, but l'maiseh the Kabbalah, the Masorah and Kabbalah is not being funneled through a yachid, it's being funneled through the סנהדרין של עין אלף. But Yehoshua is different. Right, זקנים רבים קיבלו מיהושע. It's from Yehoshua alone. And could be that that's also was included in the V'tzivisohu l'eineihem that Yehoshua had this special status in terms of the Masorah, that the Kabbalah was from him, not me'Yehoshua Beis Dino but the Kabbalah was from Yehoshua. I mean in order for a second stage, in order for Eli's Beis Dino to have been moser to Shmuel, wouldn't they have already had to have been mekabel themselves from... I mean anytime it says u'Beis Dino why are Beis Dino not also stipulated in the Kabbalah themselves prior? How can they give over without having already been mekabel? Because it doesn't mean when it says that קיבל עלי מזקנים ופינחס it doesn't mean only Eli. I don't think it means only Eli, but maybe Eli is the most outstanding one. So why does he need to say that they gave it over then? I mean if Eli itself is mashma Beis Dino like the Rambam would he need to say it? Why is there more need to say it in terms of Shmuel's Kabbalah than there is at the stage of vis-a-vis the next generation than this generation? So I have to think what these words mean and maybe we'll take a stop with that. Again not because it doesn't need to be understood and elaborated but you can be mekabel as a yachid but you can only be moser as a סנהדרין של עין אלף. That l'chora is what it says. If there had been no one else other than Eli, Eli would have been mekabel, but he couldn't have been moser. If there had been no one else in his generation other than Shmuel, he would have been mekabel and he was the most outstanding one, but to be moser it goes through, again with the exception of Yehoshua, with the exception of Yehoshua it goes through the סנהדרין של עין אלף. And I don't know if we ever had occasion to discuss this but at the beginning of Hilchos Mamrim, בית דין הגדול שבירושלים meaning the סנהדרין של עין אלף in Lishkas Hagazis,

הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה והם עמוד ההוראה ומהם חוק ומשפט יצא לכל ישראל. ועליהם הבטיחה תורה שנאמר על פי התורה אשר יורוך ועל המשפט אשר יאמרו לך תעשה.

Zo mitzvat asei

וכל המאמין במשה רבינו ובתורתו חייב לסמוך מעשי הדת עליהם ולהישען עליהם.

Noch a mol,

וכל המאמין במשה רבינו ובתורתו חייב לסמוך מעשי הדת עליהם ולהישען עליהם.

It's the Sanhedrin who in each generation, and again we'll talk about this in a minute, it's the סנהדרין של עין אלף who continue that mesorah from Moshe Rabbeinu. That's why the Rambam says it this way. If there's a chiyuv lismoch, the Rambam doesn't say ich veys in Hilchos Ma'acholos Assuros

וכל המאמין במשה רבינו ובתורתו אסור לו לאכול נבילה וטריפה.

He says אסור לו לאכול נבילה וטריפה. It says it in the Torah that you can't eat neveilah u'treifah. So why that formulation over here וכל המאמין במשה רבינו ובתורתו? The Rambam is saying that just as Moshe Rabbeinu was initially the authoritative guardian, transmitter, and interpreter of the Torah She'be'al Peh, so that's the function that the Beis Din Hagadol has in future generations. That's why he says it that way:

וכל המאמין במשה רבינו ובתורתו חייב לסמוך מעשי הדת עליהם ולהישען עליהם.

So in every generation it's the Sanhedrin which, again, so next week im yirtzeh Hashem we should talk about how we understand again when there's no Sanhedrin anymore, let's say Shas. But in every generation it was the סנהדרין של עין אלף who were the ikar of Torah She'be'al Peh. So a yachid personally could be mekabel, but then to be transmitting it, it had to be, it had to be the סנהדרין של עין אלף. Okay, we'll stop.