Tanach

Spent most of the time just trying to get a little bit of a hakdama to the mitzvah of studying Nach. Of order that it is bechalal mitzvas Talmud Torah doesn't need any kind of raya, and it is inconceivable that Dvar Hashem wouldn't be a mitzvah to learn Dvar Hashem, that there's Dvar Hashem of which we have a record to which we have access, and it isn't a mitzvah to learn Dvar Hashem just seems inconceivable. If אף על פי כן, if one wants a makor, there are, and I don't mean that this is the only makor, but certainly one that comes to mind, Rashi quotes the drashas Chazal on the pasuk of ויתן אל משה ככלתו לדבר אתו that just as a kallah is mekushetas bechof daled kishutin, so too a talmid chacham has to be baki bechof daled sforim. I've heard the question asked that the Gemara in Megillah daf gimmel says that מבטלין תלמוד תורה לשמוע מקרא מגילה. If in fact all of Nevi'im u'Ksuvim is bechalal the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, so why is that a bitul Talmud Torah lishmoa mikra Megillah? It's not a bitul Talmud Torah. So lichora there are many answers. One answer lichora certainly is by Talmud Torah kayadua there's a notion of eichus in Talmud Torah also. The mitzvah of learning Tanach notwithstanding, very few of us are on a madreiga that the eichus in terms of the amkus, in terms of the havanah that we have in the Talmud Torah when we're learning Nach, approaches that of what we have when we're learning a Gemara with a milchamos, with a Tumim, with a R' Akiva Eiger. So in terms of the amkus hadvorim, in terms of the eichus of the Talmud Torah, again, not just mizad our chisaron, so mista'ama for most of us when you're if you're holding in the middle of Shas or Ketzos HaChoshen and then you take out a Megillas Esther, so mizad the eichus hadvorim mizad hamikablim, there's going to be an element of bitul Torah. Another answer which bli neder we'll come back to in a few minutes is that the Kuntres Chanukah u'Megillah quotes from the Rov several rayas that the Rov felt that the mitzvah of kriyas haMegillah is lav davka a kiyum in Talmud Torah. A person does not have to read the Megillah be'ofen that he'll have a kiyum of mikra Megillah. Excuse me, he doesn't have to read the Megillah be'ofen that he'll have a kiyum of Talmud Torah. The Rov has what he thinks are different rayas to establish this, but according to the Rov so then the Gemara is certainly not in the least bit contradictory to what we're discussing about, because מבטלין תלמוד תורה לשמוע מקרא מגילה even if leitzuye that the mikra Megillah for this person will not represent a kiyum Talmud Torah, because lav davka that it has to represent a kiyum Talmud Torah in order for a person to be yotzei the chiyuv Megillah. Okay, so having reviewed that obvious fact, so let's maybe proceed to some of the details of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah with Nach and specifically how does it compare or differ to the mitzvah of Talmud Torah with Chamisha Chumshei Torah. So the Gemara in Berachos daf hey darshens the pasuk Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to Moshe Rabbeinu

עלה אלי ההרה ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם.

So luchos ha'even is elu Aseres Hadibros. Torah zeh mikra. Mitzvah zeh Mishna. Asher kasavti elu Nevi'im u'Ksuvim. Lehorosam zeh Gemara מלמד שכולן ניתנו למשה מסיני. Again, luchos ha'even vehatorah. Torah zeh chumash. So Rashi comments. As opposed to what? As opposed to Nevi'im u'Ketuvim that there is no mitzvah, that's what we just reviewed, that's לא יעלה על הדעת. So what do you mean the Torah refers to Chumash because mitzvah likros batorah, how does that sort of distinguish it from Nevi'im u'Ketuvim which are referred to in the asher kasavti? Right, Rashi says, Rashi says, excuse me, I'm sorry, I'm sorry if the reason doesn't make sense to you and I've just quoted the Gemara, thank you. The lashon ha-Gemara is that Torah ze Mikra. Torah ze Mikra is the lashon ha-Gemara, and Rashi says meaning Mikra means chamisha chumshei Torah. The lashon ha-Gemara is Torah ze Mikra and Rashi says why does Mikra denote chamisha chumshei Torah she-mitzvah likros batorah? So the question is how is that, how does that distinguish it from Nevi'im u'Ketuvim? That's a question which emerges from Rashi. Second question which emerges from the Gemara itself is the sequence is very funny, that

ואת התורה זה מקרא. ואת המצוה זה משנה, אשר כתבתי נביאים וכתובים,

lehorosam ze Gemara. So instead of Nevi'im u'Ketuvim following on the heels of Mikra, of chamisha chumshei Torah, first comes Mishnah, then comes the Nevi'im u'Ketuvim, then comes Gemara. So the pasuk inserts the Nevi'im u'Ketuvim in between Mishnah and Gemara. Ha-lo davar. The Baal HaTanya has, those are the two questions which according to some opinions with some assumptions we'll try to come back and answer. The Baal HaTanya has in his Hilchos Talmud Torah the following yesod, again basically the yesod ha-dvarim is in the Magen Avraham. The Rav talks about it in one of his yortzeit shiurim as well. That by Torah she-b'chsav one is m'kayem a mitzvah even if he read without any comprehension. Person reads the pasuk בראשית ברא אלקים את השמים ואת הארץ, is m'kayem a mitzvah even if he doesn't understand what he read. מה שאין כן a person says מאימתי קורין את שמע בערבין and he doesn't understand what it means, so then he's not, he's not m'kayem a mitzvah. What's the din by Nach? ויהי אחרי מות משה עבד ה'. Person reads a pasuk in Nach without understanding what the words mean, does he m'kayem a mitzvah or not? So l'ma'aseh it's actually a machlokes between the Rav and Rav Velvel. They both react to the Gemara Megillah where the Gemara Megillah says that הלועז ששמע אשורית יצא. Even someone who doesn't understand lashon hakodesh is yotzei if he hears the Megillah in lashon hakodesh. Because the Gemara says don't, don't look down at such a person that אטו אנן ידעינן מאי אחשתרנים בני הרמכים? We don't know pshat in everything we're listening to either. That's what it says in the Gemara. Ella mai you have kriya u'pirsumei nisa? So the same way we have kriya u'pirsumei nisa by ha'achashteranim bnei haramachim, so too the loez she-shama Ashuris yatza. So what do you see from this Gemara? So the Rav says you see from this Gemara that the Baal HaTanya's yesod that you yotzei Talmud Torah, Torah she-b'chsav, even without havana is true not only for Chumash but even for Nach. Why? Because for the Rav it was pashut, he doesn't tell you this, he's taking this for granted, but mikra Megillah has to be a kiyum of Talmud Torah. That when Chazal were mesakein krias ha-Megillah, it's not coincidentally well we already have a good text for it so we don't need to write our own. No, the krias Megillah has to be mekuyam through Talmud Torah. Ah where's the Talmud Torah going to be if we don't know pshat in ha'achashteranim bnei haramachim? Says the Rav, so you see that this yesod that by Torah she-b'chsav you m'kayem the mitzvah even if you don't understand is true for Nach as well. Rav Velvel, Rav Velvel learns the same Gemara and Rav Velvel says, ah, you see from this Gemara that's what I was telling you before, right, what Rav Velvel would say, what we just quoted from him before, you see that krias ha-Megillah isn't a kiyum in Talmud Torah. U-re'ayah? We don't know pshat in ha'achashteranim bnei haramachim, we're still m'kayem mitzvas krias ha-Megillah. Dehainu Rav Velvel is taking for granted that by Nach you have to have havana, right? So the Rav was taking for granted that krias ha-Megillah has to be Talmud Torah, so m'meila so you see that even by Nach you see from this Gemara that even by Nach you don't have to understand. The Rav was underst- the the Rav Velvel was was was assuming. So l'mayseh in terms of what's of interest to us, so this question that we're clarifying halacha l'mayseh is a person accomplishing anything, let's say al talmud torah, right, when you say Tehillim? So al talmud torah and so halevai this shouldn't happen, but lu yitzuyar there's a word or two there that we'not quite sure what it means. So are we still being mikayem a mitzvah? So the Rov would say affirmative and Rebbe Volve would say negative. Now what does this question depend on? What's the yesod hadvorim whether or not you have a kiyum hamitzvah even without—I mean mashma n'polei and it's better to understand what בראשית ברא אלקים את השמים ואת הארץ means than not to understand it. But is there a kiyum hamitzvah without comprehension? What does that depend on? So Yaakov Kamenetsky has in the Emes L'Yaakov dvorim yesodiyim and he raises a very, very fundamental question. Chazal describe Moshe Rabbeinu בכל חמשה חומשי תורה as a stenographer. Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave dictation. Hakadosh Baruch Hu said ready, Moshe said ready. בראשית ברא אלקים את השמים ואת הארץ. Moshe Rabbeinu wrote that. That's how Chazal as a sofer, as a scribe taking dictation. Dehainu that every word in Chumash is Hakadosh Baruch Hu's word. Those are the actual words שיצאו מפי הגבורה. What about navi? By navi, are the actual words d'var Hashem or the tochan is 100% d'var Hashem, כל כולו דבר השם, kodesh kodoshim? However, the actual formulation was מנוסח על ידי הנביא. Al yedei hanavi. Al yedei hanavi. Possibly, possibly there's a posuk in Yirmiyahu and we'll see actually maybe there's even a posuk in this week's parsha about it. But possibly—let's go backwards. Possibly there's a posuk in Yirmiyahu about this. When Hakadosh Baruch Hu is sending Yirmiyahu, is charging Yirmiyahu with his mission,

ויאמר אהה השם אלקים הנה לא ידעתי דבר כי נער אנכי.

Yirmiyahu Hanavi says I haven't taken S-A-R yet, I don't know anything about public speaking, so how am I going to be a navi? That's what Yirmiyahu tainehs to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So what does Hakadosh Baruch Hu tell him? So Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells him

אל תאמר נער אנכי כי על כל אשר אשלחך תלך ואת כל אשר אצוך תדבר.

Then Hakadosh Baruch Hu says subsequently, the posuk says

וישלח השם את ידו ויגע על פי ויאמר השם אלי הנה נתתי דברי בפיך.

So Yirmiyahu said I'm not a darshan. I'm not the—I'm not the man for the job. So what does Hakadosh Baruch Hu answer? So one of two. If you say that by Neviim u'Ksuvim the actual words are mi pi hagevurah the same way they are in Chumash, Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells him you don't have to be a darshan. You don't have to have a way of formulating ideas because you're just going to repeat what I tell you. All you have to do is repeat what I'm saying. You don't need chochmas hadibur for that. Or no, Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells him everything in life is siyata d'shmaya. I'll give you siyata d'shmaya to be able to do it. Everything else, מי שם פה לאדם? With everything else in life, what do you do? You do with siyata d'shmaya. I'm telling you, you'll have siyata d'shmaya. Where's the posuk in this week's parsha which perhaps talks about this question? Again, depending from how you understand it.

נביא אקים להם מקרב אחיהם כמוך ונתתי דברי בפיו ודבר אליהם את כל אשר אצונו.

Same question, what does it mean v'nosati dvarai b'fiv? Does it mean mamash verbatim, Hakadosh Baruch Hu says when Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, Yechezkel, when they'll be talking to you, it will be venatati devarai befiv? You're going to be hearing my words, or no? It doesn't mean it that verbatim way. It means the tochen. I'm going to communicate with you via the nevi'im. The tochen is going to be mine, but the signon is going to be the nevi'im, hence אין שני נביאים מתנבאים בסגנון אחד. So Rav Yaakov himself is inclined to the position that by every navi, the tochen is devar Hashem, but the formulation is that of the navi. Does it make a difference whether the navi actually spoke to the Bnei Yisrael or then subsequently writes it down, or does the Rambam mean even speaking to the Bnei Yisrael, the signon when he writes it down then that's when he says it? But I think the comment, I mean double check this in the Hakdamat Emes L'Yaakov, but I think the comment of Chazal אין שני נביאים מתנבאים בסגנון אחד is what we have written down. I think they comment right on האזינו השמים ואדברה ותשמע הארץ אמרי פי as opposed to שמעו שמים והאזיני ארץ כי ה' דבר of Yeshayahu, and I think Rav Yaakov quotes that. So I think he means it as we, as we actually, as we actually have that. Lemayse, Rav Yaakov thinks that the pshat here is that by Nevi'im u'Kesuvim the tochen is devar Hashem, but the signon is that of the navi. Again, less on the pshat by Chumash, the actual words are MiPi HaGevurah. על פי דרכו של רב יעקב, lo nimna, he doesn't say this, but if you go to the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim of the Rambam, so you see that the Rambam makes a point of saying that Moshe Rabbeinu was taking dictation. Moshe Rabbeinu was taking dictation in what when he received Chumash. על פי דרכו של משה could be that the Rambam is even highlighting this difference. Over the summer we were in Moshav Beis Meir, so there's a kollel there. So one of the talmidei chachamim who learns there in the kollel had the following he'ara. He says in the nusach of the Ani Ma'amin, right, where we summarize the Rambam's Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim, is אני מאמין באמונה שלמה שכל דברי נביאים אמת. That's number six. Number seven is

אני מאמין באמונה שלמה שנבואת משה רבנו עליו השלום הייתה אמיתית ושהוא היה אבי הנביאים לקודמים לפניו ולבאים אחריו.

So lichora שנבואת משה רבנו עליו השלום הייתה אמיתית is lichora superfluous. I mean Moshe Rabbeinu was a navi. He's a gazra from שכל דברי נביאים אמת. So the Ani Ma'amin just should have said that

אני מאמין באמונה שלמה שמשה רבנו עליו השלום היה אבי הנביאים לקודמים לפניו ולבאים אחריו.

So he, I don't know whether whether he's familiar with with Rav Yaakov's hakdama or not, but he was more or less mechaven along the same same line of thought. So he wanted to say as follows. There's another difference. Number six is שכל דברי נביאים אמת, right? שכל דברי נביאים אמת, whereas Moshe Rabbeinu doesn't say דברי נבואת משה רבנו אמיתי, it says נבואת משה רבנו אמיתית. What's the pshat? So he says like this. Again, it's mamash, it's oleh bakoneh echad with what Rav Yaakov says in the hakdama to Emes L'Yaakov. He wanted to teina like this. שכל דברי נביאים אמת means the Rambam says one of the differences between nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu, says it in a few places amongst others right there in the Hakdama L'Perek Chelek, one of the differences between nevuas Moshe Rabbeinu and all other nevi'im is that Moshe Rabbeinu didn't need the, didn't need any koach hadimyon, he didn't need any, any meshalim, any metaphors, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicated directly with Moshe Rabbeinu. Mah she'ein kein all other nevi'im, they saw some kind of vision which was a metaphor and and through that metaphor that's how they received the nevuah, right? The pshat being obvious, right? When we deal with dvarim dakim, dvarim ruchniyim, so very often we're not able, if not all the time, we're not able to grasp them directly. First someone has to give us a moshal. Someone has to give us a moshal from something which is more known to us from the physical, concrete world. Then extrapolating from that moshal, so we're able to grasp something which is more dakus'dik, more more ruchani. So l'havdil, l'havdil, so Moshe... The neviim needed some kind of mashal and Moshe Rabbeinu did this. So he ta'aned it like this. כל דברי נביאים אמת, meaning Yeshayahu saw, please listen carefully, please, please don't misunderstand. Yeshayahu sees Hakadosh Baruch Hu sitting on a throne. That's emes. It's emes that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave him such a mar'eh. It's not emes that Hakadosh Baruch Hu sits on a throne, right? Hakadosh Baruch Hu is אינו גוף ולא ישיגוהו משיגי הגוף. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not sitting on a throne. It's zicher emes that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave such a nevuah to Yeshayahu that he saw Hakadosh Baruch Hu sitting on a throne, but it's not emes that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is sitting on a throne. So the devarim shel Yeshayahu are amittiyim. Again, Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave them such a vision and in that sense avada avada it's אמת אמת צרופה אמת מוחלטת, but in terms of does that correspond to a reality that Hakadosh Baruch Hu sits on a throne? Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't sit on a throne. Right, that's it. Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't sit on the throne. So divrei neviim emes. Ma she'ein kein Moshe Rabbeinu wasn't operating with these kinds of visions and metaphors, so it's not only divrei neviim emes, it's נבואת משה רבנו היתה אמיתית. So ad kan devarav. Al kol panim. So we raise the question again, by learning Chamishah Chumshei Torah a person is mekayem a mitzvah. The Baal HaTanya says, the Rav says even if he doesn't understand, is that true or not? So we said that that's a machlokes between the Volozhiner and the Rav in terms of what the inference is from the Gemara d'ishtarbavu bnei haMakom. Rav Yaakov tells us conceptually that shaylah hinges on whether or not the tochen of the divrei neviim is mi-pi ha-Gevurah but the signon is their own. Meaning let's just spell it out. Why is there a mitzvah even if I don't understand Bereishis Bara Elokim? Why am I mekayem mitzvas talmud Torah? I'm saying Devar Hashem. You're saying Devar Hashem. You're mekayem mitzvas talmud Torah. But if the signon by navi is the signon of the neviim whereas Devar Hashem is the tochen, so then the same way מאימתי קורין את שמע, I'm not mekayem a mitzvah because what's Torah is the content. That's what the Torah is, the content. So the same would be true for navi. But if you'll say let's say like the Netziv says v'nasati devarai b'fiv. This week's parsha means when you'll hear from the navi you're going to be hearing my words, capital M. So then the same rationale that says Bereishis Bara Elokim is kiyum hamitzvah, so too ויהי אחרי מות משה is going to be a mitzvah also. But then how would you say that Hashem actually spoke His words to navi? Sometimes the navi says I don't understand the mar'eh that Hashem showed to me in Zechariah and in Yechezkel and the idea would be how would you see that as Hashem speaking directly to navi seeing that it's much more of a vision and Zechariah is now interpreting the vision and telling the story he saw? Right, but I'm saying but eventually when eventually when he understands and eventually when he says, so then those are again Hakadosh Baruch Hu is giving him the words or Hakadosh Baruch Hu is just giving him a siyata d'shmaya but the same way let's say when we talk, so if we're saying something emesdik right on those rare occasions if we say something emesdik so avada we ascribe it to siyata d'shmaya but we're not such megalomaniacs to think that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave me that every word I'm saying was no Hakadosh Baruch Hu sort of gave me the siyata d'shmaya to now use my the koachos that he gave me to formulate something but I can't claim that the sentence I'm saying is a verbatim quote. The content can be totally faithful but the actual and that's what Rav Yaakov thinks is pshat. The Netziv thinks otherwise. Okay. If I'm understanding right the chilluk between the neviim and the as opposed to Moshe is that there might have been a t'munah but the t'munah doesn't necessarily correspond with reality whereas for Moshe everything that he again it doesn't correspond with reality because it's intended as a mashal. So then what about the וראית את אחרי ופני לא יראו? Did what is that was that actually I mean I guess that's open for some interpretation but if we're going with that pshat then that has to be figurative it can't be literal. No so that's a mashal too that's a mashal. Yeshayahu sees Hakadosh Baruch Hu directly. Vayeri, Yeshayahu says he sees Hakadosh Baruch Hu directly. Moshe Rabbeinu does not see Hakadosh Baruch Hu's back as opposed to its front. Whatever hasaga sichlis Moshe Rabbeinu had of Hakadosh Baruch Hu is something that is so beyond our comprehension that the only way the Torah can communicate that to us is with a mashal. So the Torah is giving us a mashal for what Moshe Rabbeinu's hasaga sichlis was. When Moshe Rabbeinu's hasaga sichlis was just that, without any kind of vision or metaphor. It sounds, I obviously needless to say, I'm not at such a level, but that at least to me in my mind sounds a little bit like this. משל למה הדבר דומה. משל למה הדבר דומה. You overhear a conversation between two big talmidei chachamim. Fine, and they're going back and forth. Sure. Do you know, if you'll just tell me verbatim what they were discussing, that I'm not going to understand a word. So you elaborate things for me and you amplify things for me. So the way you communicate to me what they were saying was different than what they were saying. So the Torah uses the imagery of panai and achorai to as a metaphor for us to understand what Moshe Rabbeinu was, was understanding, was seeing b'ein hasechel directly, without a metaphor. Okay. Now, if you go with, with Reb Yaakov's Mahaloch, that the words of navi are the words of the navi, the tochen is b'ratzon Hashem. And based on that you say that there's no kiyum Talmud Torah by neviim u'kesuvim without comprehension, so now if we come back to the kasha we had on Rashi in Brachos daf hey. So Rashi says Toras Amichra. So the Gemara describes or labels Chamisha Chumshei Torah as distinct from Nach as Mikra. Rashi is prompted by that. Rashi says mitzvah likros baTorah. So we said, so what's Rashi saying? The implication can't be that there's no mitzvah by Nach. Oh, so now mitzvah likros baTorah means that by Chamisha Chumshei Torah there's a mitzvah even likros, even kriya alone, which isn't informed or accompanied by understanding, that that's also a mitzvah and that's what distinguishes Chumash from Nach. We're running out of time here so let's just let's try to hit on a couple of more things. The deos in Tosafos, Tosafos in באבא קמא דף ג, Tosafos in תמורה דף י"ד. We actually talked about this in באבא קמא דף ג, whether or not the issur of the Gemara in Gittin דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בעל פה applies to Nach as well. Tosafos in תמורה דף י"ד asks the kasha how do we say Mizmorim b'al peh? Mishnah Berurah quotes it's a Teshuvah miChavas Yair. Chavas Yair is meikel that you can, you're allowed to say גאנץ ספר תהלים בעל פה. Those are the sheilas the Jews had once upon a time, those were their pikpukim, those were the issurim efes that they came close to, they used to say גאנץ ספר תהלים בעל פה. Chavas Yair says it's okay. You can be meikel on that. So Tosafos in תמורה דף י"ד says there's no issur דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בעל פה by Nach. Tosafos in באבא קמא דף ג takes for granted that there is. Tosafos quotes Yeshayahu that the reason Rav Yosef was a baki in Targum of Nach was because he was a sagi nahor, so when everyone else was learning Nach, he was learning Targum on Nach. And Tosafos doesn't object on these grounds, Tosafos just says no, it would have been an eis la'asos for him to study Nach b'al peh, but Tosafos takes for granted that the issur dvarim shebechsav applies to Nach as well. What's that machlokes about? Again, there are two havanos in this. Reb Velvel in the stencils in Temurah says that the Torah says כתב לך את הדברים האלה, which is the pasuk from which we darshen the issur דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בעל פה. It says hadvarim ha'eileh. Gzeiras hakasuv of דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בעל פה by Chamisha Chumshei Torah. Misubam mimilei. You don't have to add anything to that. Reb Hutner thinks that the pshat is in the view in Tosafos that there's no issur דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרם בעל פה. Nach is because Nach basically is a cheftza Torah she'baal peh. The chidush of Nach is that it's a cheftza Torah she'baal peh which is nitma hakosef, but b'emes Nach, Nach is a cheftza of Torah she'baal peh. If you go with the here in this with this volume of the ספר זכרון שרגא פייבל וונסופסקי alav hashalom, Ksenos Yosef on the two very, very edifying maamarim; one's from Rav Zelig Epstein shlit"a and then there's a maamar which then elaborates and has he'oros on his maamar. Both very, very rich maamarim touch upon the inyanim that we've been talking about as well. Rav Hutner is quoted there amongst other things. If you go with the mahalach of Rav Hutner, Rav Zelig thinks that the definitely Rishonim, he thinks that the Ritva said the Rishonim hold like that. If you go with with Rav Hutner's mahalach, so come back to the other question we had in the Gemara in Berachos:

עלי אלי ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם.

HaTorah zeh Mikra, haMitzvah zeh Mishnah, אשר כתבתי אלו נביאים וכתובים, l'horosam zeh Gemara. So we asked, what's Nevi'im u'Kesuvim doing in the middle of Mishnah and Gemara? It should have been after the Chumash. So according to according to this mahalach, it's gevaldig because that's gufeh what the what the Torah, what the Gemara is coming to tell us is, if you would have put Nevi'im u'Kesuvim after the Chumash, pshat would be Torah she'b'ksav. You put Nevi'im u'Kesuvim between Mishnah and Gemara, so even though Nevi'im u'Kesuvim agam that it's asher kasavti, agam that it was nitma hakosef, it's really to be classified together with Mishnah and Gemara; it's really a cheftza of Torah she'baal peh. Okay, there were some other inyanim klolim I would have liked to touch on, but let's come again a little bit more directly and just a couple more minutes of vort to limud of Navi. L'maiseh, what does limud of Navi entail? So I'm not I'm not qualified to talk about this. It never stopped me in the past; I see no reason why it should stop me any more now than in other occasions. So just to mention, lichoira, what the limud involves, again on one level, it involves a pshat just to understand the flow of the pesukim, to understand the pesukim, the flow of the pesukim. There are certainly inyanei halacha, directly or indirectly, which surface in the divrei nevi'im. Obviously very, very important to limud of Navi is the divrei mussar which arises from it. And then also, not commenting now on what... and then also there are certain historical yedios which we gain from Navi as well. In terms of what as it were occasioned Nevi'im u'Kesuvim in the first place, of these it would seem to be the third of the four that we mentioned, the divrei mussar she'bo. And the Gemara in Nedarim chaf-beis tells us that ilmalei chatu Yisrael, if we hadn't sinned, so then we would have Chamisha Chumshei Torah, Sefer Yehoshua, and nothing else. So it seems clear that agam that once we have Nach, so we have dinim which until Yechezkel were just הלכה למשה מסיני, קבלה איש מפי איש, and then also Yechezkel and asmachtos min ha'kra. So once that we have Navi, it's not only mussar, there are other elements and aspects to the limud of Navi, but it certainly seems that what occasioned the Navi in the first place were the divrei mussar, which as the Gemara says and only a nevuah she'hutzrecha l'doros is nichteva. And clearly that has to loom large in any limud of Navi to not to force it out, but just to see how it sort of emerges naturally from the pesukim. So just to give one or two very quick examples from this week's limud, neither is with any claim to originality. The pasuk says in the beginning of Melachim Aleph that referring to Adoniyahu ben Chaggis that ולא עצבו אביו מימיו. That his father never gave him occasion to be sad. His father never, sounds like his father never disciplined him. That's what the pasuk seems to be indicating. indicting David Hamelech for. So the divrei mussar sheba, and again, there's nothing, one doesn't have to kvetch here, divrei mussar urge that parents don't discipline the children, so the children grow up being spoiled. And there is a Midrash in Kohelet Rabbah where the Sefer Mussar Hanevi'im quotes, in Kohelet Rabbah Chazal say, tov ka'as mis'chok. אמר שלמה אילו כעס אבא על אדוניה קמעא, if father, if David Hamelech would have expressed a little bit of anger against Adoniyah, טוב היה לו משחוק ששחקה עליו מדת הדין. Maybe he would have, not maybe, it says that he would have saved, if Adoniyah hadn't been spoiled, so he wouldn't have ended up as a mored be'malchut, ultimately being killed by Shlomo Hamelech. Then the Malbim, if you had a chance to take a look at the Malbim on the pesukim, Malbim's always required whenever you have a chance, mamash hifli la'asot, the Malbim. So Malbim says what really spurred Adoniyah's revolt, and what's more, didn't he have the common sense to realize that David Hamelech would hear about it? Right, so he sort of tried to delude himself into thinking David Hamelech wouldn't hear about it. But what, what sort of encouraged or invited that self-delusion that David Hamelech wouldn't hear about the rebellion and wouldn't caution? So he says that's why the Navi is ma'arich to tell us how beautiful Avishag was. And says, and also to make a point of telling us how David Hamelech hadn't married her and that therefore she would still be muteres to Adoniyah. And the Malbim says that what really spawned his revolt was because he, he had this this very, very strong taiva that he wanted to marry her. Just going quickly to find it.

עתה יגיד הסיבה העצמית אשר נכסף אל הדבר שלא בעתו, כי חשק בה מאד.

Right, you see from the fact that later he takes his life in hand to ask Batsheva that she should intervene with Shlomo that he should be allowed to marry Avishag, just crazy, which is, which was suicidal, as Shlomo Hamelech says, and he took his life in hand to make that request. So the Malbim says you see that the whole revolt, everything was driven by this taiva. The mussar haskel is also a very, very, very scary one. You know, in Parshat Korach, so if you sort of juxtapose two Rashis, something amazing emerges. On the one hand, Rashi says, so Moshe Rabbeinu tells them אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, that only one, there's only going to be one Kohen Gadol, everyone else is going to die. So מה ראה קרח שהיה פיקח לשטות זו to stick his neck out like that? So Rashi tells us from Chazal that Korach was a ba'al ruach hakodesh. He saw that

שמואל יוצא ממנו ושקול כנגד משה ואהרן משה ואהרן בכהניו ושמואל בקוראי שמו.

And says אפשר כל הגדולה הזאת יוצא ממני, so obviously I'm the one who's going to prevail. Okay, but his ruach hakodesh was missing something. He didn't know that בני קרח לא מתו, that they were going to do teshuvah on pichah shel Geihinnom. Kitzur ma'aseh, Korach was a ba'al ruach hakodesh. Lav milsa zuta, ba'al ruach hakodesh. That's one, one Rashi beshem Chazal. Another Rashi beshem Chazal, Rashi quotes elsewhere, so apparently he didn't think these were de'os chalukos necessarily, is that mah ra'ah, what, what was, what got under Korach's skin? נתקנא על נשיאותו של אליצפן. So Korach, Korach, who was such a grosse mentch, such a grosse mentch that he was a ba'al ruach hakodesh, but this chisaron be'middos, the middah of kinah was his undoing. So it means that a person can have tremendous gavlus, and yet if underlying it all there's a very basic flaw in terms of middos, it can be a person's undoing. That a person is so susceptible to the influence that the middah mushcheses, the middah meguna shebo has on him, it can lead to his undoing. Undoing of a great person. That's the same thing which the Malbim is basically telling us by Adoniyahu ben Chagit. Okay, those were I think things I wanted to discuss, but we're way over time. We'll see if maybe we can get into it a little more next time. The main point I wanted to get out of it, though, was that very often in Tanach and very often in life, when we look at the aveira, we look at what happened. But we have to look deeper into the character of the person and what allowed it to happen.