2 Bible

It was not misspelled, but written in abbreviation – 2Mt and T = 2 Mikra and 1 Targum

Well, I would be happy if they didn't send me riddles here. Sorry, I don't have time to look into their interpretation.
It is accepted that this is a matter of law, but I am really not at all sure about it.

For the sake of the law, it is part of the regulation of reading the Torah in public. (A person should never complete his parshas with the public.) This is public Torah study. And the entire regulation is an obligation that is part of the mitzvot of studying Torah, of course.

The early ones, for the most part, used obligatory language.
Such as the Maimonides: “Even though a person hears the entire Torah every Sabbath in congregation, he must read to himself every week the Seder of that Sabbath, two readings and one translation”.
The Rabbi”s unique method is that the law of the name is for those who do not have a minyan to read on Sabbath.

Indeed, I wrote that it is common to think that this is a law.

Rabbi,
What makes a rabbi insecure about his name?
Isn't reading the Torah in public also Halacha (it is better to study Gemara at this time)?

I thought about this and a few thoughts came to mind:
Apparently, two readings and one translation are all an extension of reading the Torah in public. A synagogue is called a sanctuary because it fulfills two boundaries (functions) of a sanctuary: a house of prayer for the public and a house of testimony for the revelation of the Lord of the world (the Tablets of Testimony, Torah scroll). Reading the Torah has a boundary of testimony for revelation for the public. Therefore, one cannot be satisfied with the oral Torah (Gemara or Halacha) but must read from the original itself. The Rabbi gave two boundaries for studying the Torah: poetry and learning. But perhaps a third boundary can be given - testimony. The Torah testifies to us of its giver and therefore turns the synagogue into a place of prayer. Two from the Bible and one from the translation is a kind of objective assurance on the part of the Sages that we will truly go through the text and understand it, and therefore it is not just a good measure but a law.

First of all - know, y.d., that the rabbi generally thinks that there is no need to study Torah today. This confirmation of purpose could be halachically equivalent to reading the Torah without the translation. Why do we need a translation? Nowadays, it is really unnecessary. It is better to invest this time in delving into the Hebrew language.

Moshe,
Forgive me, how much you love the Rabbi that you can't stop following him. In the end, you will be like Rav Kahana and Rav Berachot Sab, p. 1.

1.D., the style of wording in the Gemara, which did not employ mandatory language, but rather “a person should always complete his parshas”, opens the door to wondering whether this is indeed a mandatory statement, since the language “a person should always” appears in many cases as an opening to good advice: “a person should never consider the blessing of a layman light in your eyes”, “a person should always be in the place of his master”, “a person should always strive to meet the face of kings”, “a person should always be naked in fear”, “a person should always make themselves like scholars”, “a person should never dismiss his companion not out of conversation but out of a matter of halakhic law” And so on and so forth.
And so it would be fitting to say here if it were not for the tradition of the early ones, which sees this as an obligation for everything.

D.G.
That's what I thought, but I wanted the rabbi to confirm the explanation. I also wanted to see what he had to say about the evidence side of reading the Torah.

In cases where the Gemara says "forever", sometimes it seems that the Amoraim truly understand it as an obligation (if not an outright command, then at least something that clearly needs to be done and everyone does). Sometimes they also make it difficult for actions that have happened. The most blatant example is about honoring kings: it seems like a recommendation ("in the time of the Messiah we will see the difference between him and them". Well, okay..), but it turns out that it rejects the prohibitions of the rabbis.

Indeed, the language of the Gemara seems like a recommendation or matter rather than a halakhic verse.
Regarding the testimony, it is of course possible, even for a rabbi, to see the reading as a reenactment of the giving of the Torah in the small. Either way, this is not a relevant argument on the question of whether it is a halakhic or recommendation.

I just saw that the rabbi was asked on the website about the obligation of two readings and one translation -
The rabbi wrote that it seemed like a recommendation.

I would like to reinforce the rabbi's words from the following sources -
Shibuli HaLekt wrote (Ein Shabbat, siman Īv) “And it is fitting for every person to arrange his parashas, as in ”.
And in the response of the rabbi (si’ Pah) he wrote that the words of Chazal are said to be “Dbyyed Hadar in the volume of Meiri who does not have ten to read in the Torah”.
And the language of the column is “And one should be careful to complete the parasha”, and he did not use the language of obligation.

Chen Chen. The Rabbi was mentioned on the site. All of these follow the language of the Gemara, which already indicates that there is no absolute obligation here. But the poskim seem to have assumed that in the raids it is obligatory, and so on.

By the way, I read a few things on the rabbi's website about the prayer and its length, and I really, really agree.

On my website (link to the site: http://www.dnoam.022.co.il/BRPortal/br/P100.jsp) in the prayer category – "Sidduran shel Ichidim" – attached is a siddur I compiled, shortened according to the Ge'onim's version – the name of the sacrifices, the song of the sea, the confession, the supplication are shortened, and the prayer ends with "Ain Elokinu".

That's just how I myself pray according to this version, usually.

I did indeed call the siddur "Sidduran shel Ichidim" In order not to stir up a commotion, but according to the words of the Maimonides in his responsa, which speaks of the length of the prayer making it difficult for the elderly and the sick, it would be appropriate to call this siddur "the siddur of many," and the siddur that exists today in synagogues should become the siddur of individuals.

Very wonderful. Thank you for taking the trouble to arrange things in Toto”d for the benefit of the public. Blessed is the one who says and does.
I quickly went through the verses and did not pay attention. But from Kufya it seems that I would have downloaded more hymns from the verses of Dzimra.

Thank you.

A. Indeed, I had to shorten the psalms 7 and put them in accordance with the opinion of Rashi (Shabbat 118 2 D.5 verses of Zimra) who wrote that they are two psalms (Kamchat 188 and Kmchat 108). Apparently I did not shorten them in practice because I subordinated myself to the text of the Geonim.
B. I wrote by mistake that I ended the Shacharit prayer with the Siddur B'Ain Kal'Elkino, and not that I ended with B'Va Le'Zion (and even its text was shortened).
C. The blessing of the moon was reduced to almost the minimum, as was the Shema on the bed and the blessing of food.
D. We innovated by actually bringing in a shortened prayer of 18, as well as the prayer of understanding.

D,
The blessing of the Creator of the Lights in the Siddur is longer than the text in the Siddur Ras”g.

Simply put, sacrifices are obligatory because our lips have been purified. (And so is the Rabbi's opinion here
https://mikyab.net/שות/חלקים-בטפילה-שאינם-חובה/

Forgive me, but on what basis do you arrange and make arrangements?

Yitzhak- Wen Shlomah, our lips, this does not at all speak of obligatory sacrifices, on the contrary - it speaks of alms and thanksgiving sacrifices that we vowed to offer at a certain time. And the proof is that he said Wen Shlomah that when a person vows, he must pay, as the wise saying goes - it is better not to vow – it is transmitted and you will not pay. Check and argue!