Come back for a minute to the Rambam's Hakdoma to the Yad. כל המצווה שניתנה לו למשה מסיני בפירושה ניתנה. שנאמר ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן
ve'hatorah ve'hamitzvah. תורה זו תורה שבכתב ומצוה זה פירושה. וציוונו לעשות התורה על פי המצוה. ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה.
So we've discussed how the Rambam defines and explains that mitzad hachepztah of what it is, תורה שבעל פה is a peirush. Again, the mashal that we gave, if you have a Chumash printed with Rashi on the bottom, so what defines Rashi is not whether Rashi is written down or whether Rashi would be a series of recordings that we had, what defines Rashi is that Rashi is commentary to the Chumash. So then kind of begs the question which was raised after one of the previous shiurim. But the Rambam's lashon says that Torah she-bichtav is not nikreis Torah she-bichtav, it is Torah she-bichtav, meaning, תורה שבעל פה is the chepztah of peirush which is הנקראת תורה שבעל פה על שם אופן מסירתה. Ma she-ein kein Torah she-bichtav is not nikreis Torah she-bichtav, it is the chepztah of Torah she-bichtav. Hashta d'aseinan l'hachi, תורה שבעל פה is peirush, so then why doesn't that suggest that the Torah she-bichtav is the chepztah of text and it's nimtza bichtav? Meaning the text is בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ and then the peirush is the תורה שבעל פה. That's clearly not the case, right? That's clearly not the case, right? The Torah she-bichtav is a chepztah of Torah she-bichtav, it's not the chepztah of the text to the peirush which is nimtza bichtav the way the peirush is nimtza ba'al peh, and that's what we know, that the Rambam says that the two terms Torah she-bichtav and תורה שבעל פה are not parallel. תורה שבעל פה refers to the ofan hamesirah, והמצוה שהיא פירוש התורה לא כתבה אלא ציווה בה ומפני זה נקראת תורה שבעל פה,
Ma she-ein kein התורה שבכתב היא מצד החפצא תורה שבכתב. So let's just give a few examples. כל מצוות הבן על האב, משנה קידושין כט עא, כל מצוות הבן על האב האנשים חייבים ונשים פטורות.
The obligations to a son are incumbent upon the father, אנשים חייבים ונשים פטורות. תנו רבנן האב חייב בבנו למולו ולפדותו וללמדו תורה.
So the father has a chiyuv to teach the son Torah. ללמדו תורה הגמרא בקידושין כט עב מנלן דכתיב ולמדתם אותם את בניכם,
in the second parshah of Krias Shema. והיכא דלא אגמריה אבוה מחייב איהו למיגמר נפשיה, where the father didn't teach him, מחייב איהו למיגמר נפשיה, he has to teach himself. Dechsiv ul'madtem, it's a different pasuk, right? ולמדתם אותם ושמרתם לעשותם in Vaeschanan. אי היא מנלן דלא מיחייבא? Dechsiv v'limadtem, ul'madtem, כל שמצווה ללמוד מצווה ללמד וכל שאינו מצווה ללמוד אינו מצווה ללמד.
There's a hekesh. Where's there a hekesh? A hekesh is only when you have two things in the same pasuk. Then you have a hekesh. You have a pasuk here and a pasuk over there, it's not a hekesh. So Rashi explains that, and again, this is just one illustration of I don't know how many. That when it said v'limadtem, so that's the traditional krei, that we have a masora, that's the way when we read the pasuk, so we're supposed to vocalize it, again, the pasuk in the second parsha of Krias Shema, we're supposed to vocalize it with a chirik under the lamed, v'limadtem. But heyos that the way the letters are written, you could also vocalize it as ul'madtem, right? So v'limadtem means to teach, and ul'madtem means to learn. So both are intended. The Torah intends us the fact that we have a tradition, which Moshe Rabbeinu brought down from Har Sinai, that when we read the pasuk, when we read the pasuk aloud, that we're supposed to vocalize it with a chirik, v'limadtem. That doesn't mean that that's the exclusive reading which is intended of the word. The fact that nekudos are not written, we sort of, I don't know, I think somewhere along the way, we get this erroneous impression that whereas lehavdil English, so vowels are written, so in Lashon Hakodesh, the convention is that vowels are not written. But it's not convention. It's adaraba, it's because the nekudos are not written, so that allows, again, the pasuk that we know from Krias Shema as ולמדתם אותם את בניכם is intended as v'limadtem, but it's also intended as ul'madtem, which creates a hekesh between v'limadtem and ul'madtem. And that's the hekesh that one is only chayav to teach, v'limadtem, if one is chayav to learn, which is ul'madtem. And then the Gemara has a similar hekesh in the pasuk of, so since an isha is not chayava to learn, she's not chayava to teach. How do you know she's not chayava to learn? Because the pasuk of ul'madtem, you do the same thing, that even though, again, the tradition from Moshe Rabbeinu is that when you lain from the Sefer Torah, when you're reading the pasuk aloud, so there it's with a shva, it's ul'madtem. But the way it's written it can also be v'limadtem. So there too there's a hekesh: the only one who's chayav to learn is the one who's chayav to, is someone who's taught, b'neichem v'lo b'noseichem, so kitzer amaiseh, the all this is only possible because it's not just that it's nimmsar bechsav, but because it's a cheftza of Torah Shebiksav. The cheftza is not, again, the cheftza of again giving, illustrating with this pasuk, the pasuk in the second parsha of Krias Shema, ולמדתם אותם את בניכם, the cheftza shel Torah is not the v'limadtem. The cheftza shel Torah is the vav, lamed, mem, dalet, taf, mem sofit. That's the cheftza shel Torah. And that's what it means that it's a cheftza of Torah Shebiksav. Another example, again, all these are, I don't know, you might want to ask one of these people with photographic memories how many such examples there are in Shas. I don't know. Ask Rav Asher Weiss how many such examples there are in Shas, he probably will tell you. But all these, again, all these are not echad mini elef. It's more than that. It's everywhere you go, right? Let's say the Gemara in Sukkah. So the Gemara in Sukkah has a, so we pasken that a sukkah has to have three d'fanos. So how do you know that a sukkah has to have three d'fanos? Because it says basukkos, basukkos, basukkos. And once it's malei... And twice it's chaser. So even though each time when we when we layin we say basukkos, basukkos, basukkos, but if you'll look at the ksiv, so twice it's basukkas, basukkas and only once is there a vav basukkos. So that gives you four, right? As it were, the Torah was referring to four sukkos. One of them is legupei, it's to tell you schach. That's what the the the schach is what provides the protection, and then you're left with three to tell you how many defanos you need. So so there too, it's only because the cheftza is a cheftza of Torah she-b'ksav that that you have that drasha and that basically illustrates all all chaseiros ve-yeseiros, right? All all chaseiros ve-yeseiros are not are only that distinction only exists b'ksav. It doesn't exist ba'al peh because the each of those three instances are all read the same way, basukkos. And and that's what it means that the that the cheftza is the Torah she-b'ksav. The the and Tosafos there comments. So the Gemara in Sukkah says that Rabbi Shimon requires four defanos. And and the Chachamim, who we pasken like, say three defanos. So the Gemara says the machlokes is whether yesh em le-mikra or yesh em le-masores. So Rabbi Shimon says yesh em le-mikra, each of the three instances are read as though it were malei. basukkos, basukkos, basukkos, it tells you six. So dal chad legupei, so that knocks you down to four. So Rabbi Shimon says you need four defanos. And we say yesh em le-masores, which means the ksiv, so we begin with four, you knock one off for dal chad legupei, so we're left with three. So Tosafos there comments everyone agrees that you always darshan both. בין לרבי שמעון בין לרבנן, you darshan both both the kri and the ksiv. Both the kri and the ksiv. The machlokes only is is over here where there would be contradictory inferences between the kri and and the ksiv. So in terms of the number of defanos, so then which one should should you look to? But everyone agrees that לא על חנם נכתב in a certain way. And again, that's the whole basis of of chaseiros ve-yeseiros. Is it that you could only darshan those that that Chazal darshan or really any word in the Torah could be learned off in any way? We certainly haven't received every drasha that that even that Chazal made. We don't have. And Rabbi Akiva, as the Gemara in Menachos, Rabbi Akiva was דורש תילי תילים של הלכות on all the kotzim. So we we don't have that. So there's certainly even lu yehei that that we were limited to the drashos of Chazal, we don't even have all the drashos of Chazal. So there's certainly more to darshan than than we have. Hasha de-asinu lehachi, I don't know that that even Rabbi Akiva exhausted, you know, exhausted every possible drasha. But that having said that, it's not really a mashal and a nimshal but it's the same, it's מענין ענין באותו ענין. So it's very fashionable nowadays to in learning Tanakh to say you find this word here and this word here and then say a whole shtikel Torah. Sometimes you can make a birchas ha-Torah on that shtikel Torah and sometimes you don't have to put it in sheimos. You shouldn't make a birchas ha-Torah and you don't have to worry about putting it in sheimos. Now the method is certainly legitimate. The Ba'al Ha-Turim does it all the time, right? The Ba'al Ha-Turim tells you, you know, you find this word so many times. He always points it out, right? You find this word two times in all Tanakh. You find this word three times in Tanakh. But what do you do with that? Okay, so if you're the Ba'al Ha-Turim, you know what to do with that. You know, if if you then, you know, can draw on, you can creatively draw... can say at best nonsense, and at worst less than nonsense. There's also negative numbers, and not just positive numbers. So, yes, one can darshan. Lachora, we're not again, we don't even have all the drashos of Chazal, so certainly it's not as if the drashos shenitnu lehidareish are all recorded in Bavli, Yerushalmi, Sifra, Sifrei, etc. How many people are in a position to make such drashos? Might have to wait for the tzenta to come to get the minyan, you know? Might have to wait a while. How could there be a man de'amar that's according if Torah shebiksav is a cheftza shel peshat, how could there be a מאן דאמר יש אם למקרא? Again, I think that's what Tosafot, I think that's what Tosafot is addressing your question. Tosafot is saying that the מאן דאמר יש אם למקרא... Kulei modu, vav amud beis. Again, it's in Sanhedrin also and elsewhere, right? בן שמעון סבר יש אם למקרא. כולי מודו דדרשינן מקרא ומסורת,
interesting masores here refers to the ksiv, which is interesting. כולי מודו דדרשינן מקרא ומסורת דלאו הכי נכתב כן. אלא במילתא דמכחשי אהדדי פליגי.
So once you have that כולי מודו דדרשינן מסורת as well, so then I think that addresses your question. But if it's a cheftza shel ksav, so then how could there be a man de'amar that says that when they're machlik, you choose the mikra? I don't know, לא גרוע מעין תחת עין, where the Torah sheba'al peh tells you how to understand it, right? Lo garua me-hasam lachora. Is every, is every time there's a keri ukhsiv a rayah to this yesod? If every time there's a keri ukhsiv... Yeah, probably. Probably. Are numbers the same way? Meaning, let's say there's twenty-four thousand people who died by ma'aseh Shitim, twenty-four thousand people who died by Bnei Shimon in Parshat Balak, and twenty-four thousand talmidei Rabbi Akiva died. Is it possible to go ahead and say that there's one yesod there or numbers sometimes they're not like that? I think that's part of, you know, that's part of I think having that, you know, the same chush that the Baal HaTurim has to tell us what the significance is of how many times it says melachto, you know, in Tanakh and in a different context. I think he would also know what to do with that. But potentially yes, potentially I think numbers potentially numbers would be the same. וכבר אמרו רבותינו חמישים שערי בינה נבראו בעולם וכולם נמסרו למשה.
Chutz mi-echod. וכל הנמסר למשה רבינו. I'm jumping around, I'm jumping around. וכל הנמסר למשה רבינו בשערי הבינה, הכל נכתב בתורה בפירוש או ברמיזה בתיבות או בגימטריאות
o betzuras ha'osiyos בכתיבתן כהלכתן או המשתנות בצורתן כגון הלפופות והעקומות וזולתן או בקוצי האותיות ובכתריהם.
So in all languages other than lashon hakodesh, so letters are just phonetic symbols. They're symbols for a sound. So when you get them, they're the ABCs as you learn that, you know, B is for the 'b' sound and C can be a hard 'c', it can be a soft 'c', etc. And then we're told about short vowels and long and long vowels. And that's all that's all there is to letters in every other language. In lashon hakodesh, they're also phonetic symbols, you know, me'ikar hadin, you know, if we would pronounce an ayin properly, so then a kohein wouldn't duchen if he confused an aleph and an ayin, an ayin and an aleph, a ches and a chof, a chof and a ches. So they certainly are phonetic symbols in lashon hakodesh as well, but they're much more than phonetic symbols. The osiyos of the aleph-beis—see, again we sort of get the wrong impression, I don't know, I'm not asking any kashya on the Kotzker, but you know, the Kotzker famously said that the only Rebbe that he had a tainos on was his aleph-beis Rebbe. Everything he told him was emes v'yatziv except his aleph-beis. He had a tainos against him. So he says he can have a shtikl tainos on the aleph-beis Rebbe also. You know, if the aleph-beis Rebbe gives you the impression, you know, that aleph-beis-gimel, that you know beis makes 'b' and gimel makes 'g', and gives you the impression that they're only phonetic symbols, okay, so the Kotzker had a gor good vort about the aleph-beis, but the aleph-beis Rebbe didn't give him this erroneous impression. That's what the Ramban is saying. The tzurah of the letters, there's all kinds of remazim in the shape of the osiyos of aleph-beis או בקוצי האותיות ובכתריהם. When when you have a kotzo shel yud, when you have the little kotzo shel yud is also—all these, there's Torah encoded in all of this. Kemo she'amru. Again the Gemara in Menachos that we referred to before, בשעה שעלה משה למרום מצאו להקב"ה שהיה קושר כתרים לאותיות.
Hakadosh baruch hu is mezayen tagin, kiviyachol. Amar lo: eilu lamah? what do you need the tagin for? אמר לו עתיד אדם אחד לדרוש בהם תילי תילים של הלכות.
Rabbi Akiva is gonna darshen on all the tagin. In all of this, again, that Torah shebe'al peh is a cheftza shel peirush הנקראת תורה שבעל פה על שם אופן מסירתה. In contrast, Torah shebiksav is a cheftza of Torah shebiksav. It's not only the meaning of the words or the sounds of the letters which is Torah, it's the osiyos themselves as written are Torah. Then the Ramban has further on, very famously, עוד יש בידינו קבלה של אמת כי כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקב"ה.
What do you mean? כגון בראש יתברא אלוקים. Right it's the same the the the letter sequence is the same but they're rearranged into different word units. Vechol haTorah kein. And all of Torah is intended so it's not only that what's written as what's what we have a masoret to vocalize as ulimadetem but heyost that it's also written in a way that's ulimadetem. That's part of how the pasuk is supposed to be understood. But even that unit that the letters that those those six letters constitute that word unit is also only one form in which Torah is is to be to be understood. And then the Ramban says that he thinks in the Midrash Chazal that Rashi refers to an esh das lamo that the Torah was written באש שחורה על גבי לבנה. So the Ramban says ונראה שהתורה הכתובה באש שחורה על גבי אש לבנה בעניין הזה שהזכרנו היה שהייתה הכתיבה רצופה בלי הפסק תיבות.
That there was no again the way we write the way you have to write a Sefer Torah so then there's a space between the word Bereishit and the word Bara. In this esh in the Torah which was written באש שחורה על גבי אש לבנה from Bereishit till le'einei kol Yisrael there were no there was no break between words. I think no the Rambam's manuscript is like that. I think the Rambam didn't leave space between the between words. I think Baba Basra has a machlokes about the last eight pesukim in the Torah who wrote them. So one man de'amar says the psukim which begin וימת משה וימת שם משה so obviously Moshe Rabbeinu couldn't write that. Moshe Rabbeinu can't write something that's not true. So those were written by Yehoshua. And the other man de'amar says but Torah all the Torah has to be written by Moshe Rabbeinu. Torah which is chaser is is not a Torah. So what do you mean and the Torah tells us Moshe Rabbeinu wrote the whole Torah and and he gave it to the Bnei Yisrael. Ella mai it was Moshe Rabbeinu kasav bedema. ד מ ע. So the simple pshat I think Rashi says that is that lashon dima with tears that Moshe Rabbeinu wrote with tears because he was he was recording his own he was recording his own death. So there's a famous a famous pshat from the Vilna Gaon right? When terumah and chullin get mixed together so the chullin are referred to as being meduma. מ ד ו מ ע. The same shoresh mixed up. So the Gaon says no the kasha shelishit the kasha shelishit here on the one hand how could it be that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't write it? Me'idach gisa how could it be that Moshe Rabbeinu did write it if it's not true? Moshe Rabbeinu kasav bedema. He wrote the letters but he didn't write them in those word units. That's the Gaon's pshat in the Gemara Baba Basra that the last eight pesukim were written bedema. And and that's what the Ramban says. Okay so you can still like you have to declare but again you know שניתנה למשה רבנו על דרך חילוק קריאת המצווה ונמצא לו על פה קריאתו בשמות.
Okay but al kol panim that's the Gaon's pshat. Did the Rambam leave out spaces in his manuscript because he wanted to erase an hakdamah that he wanted to like replace the Torah with the with the? Possibly because parchment's so expensive I've heard that also. We're just not used to doing it but the same way right the same way when when you know to learn to read Lashon Hakodesh. The same way when when you learn to read Lashon HaKodesh without nekudos, so when you see the word, you have to recognize what nekudos go with it and and you you you recognize that, so so too, you know, if if that's the way everything was written, so then our eye would be trained to recognize the word units even without the without the break. If it wasn't given to us, you know, on a silver platter, then it it wouldn't seem so it wouldn't seem so so so so so unreal. And then mimmeila that's what it means כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא means that that the letters, again, sequenced as they are, but rearranged differently into units. Obviously it means that there are other shemos other than the shivim shemos with which we are familiar, mem beys osiyos, etc. So then according to a certain reading, so then a certain breakdown into word units, so then all of the Torah is שמותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא and he says that's reflected in the halacha that that a ספר תורה שטעה בו באות אחת במלא או בחסר פסול.