No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Torah (תורה) use "if" (im) when commanding us to lend money, build a mizbe'ach, and bring the omer offering—three clear obligations? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod: Torah, avodah, and gemilus chasadim must ultimately be performed because we *want* to do them, not merely out of obligation. This transforms mitzvos from sources of stress into vehicles of personal fulfillment and connection.
Rabbi Zweig addresses a fundamental question in Parshas Mishpatim: Why does the Torah (תורה) use conditional language ("im kesef talveh"—"if you lend money") when lending to the poor is clearly obligatory? The Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin identifies three places where "im" appears to mean "when" rather than "if": lending money (Mishpatim), building a mizbe'ach (altar), and bringing the mincha of the omer offering. The shiur develops a profound answer: The Torah deliberately uses "im" to teach us *how* these mitzvos should be performed—not as burdensome obligations, but as acts we genuinely desire to do. This applies specifically to the three pillars upon which the world stands: Torah, avodah (divine service), and gemilus chasadim (acts of kindness). When performing bein adam l'chavero mitzvos, we must give the recipient the feeling that we truly *want* to help them, not that we're merely fulfilling a religious duty. This is why we don't make brachos on mitzvos like tzedakah or hashavas aveidah—the bracha would undermine the very essence of the mitzvah (מצוה) by emphasizing obligation over genuine care.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Parsha
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why does the Midrash connect Pharaoh's expulsion of the Jews to the mitzvah of shiluach hakan? The shiur develops a chiddush that Pharaoh's sin wasn't only drowning the children, but the insensitivity of expelling the parents afterward. The deeper analysis reveals that Pharaoh may have valued the Jews greatly and wanted to control them—making his expulsion an act of tremendous cruelty, not liberation.
Why does Moshe respond to the splitting of the sea with shirah rather than praise or thanksgiving? Rashi's use of "al libo" reveals that shirah is an emotional expression—a response of love to love. When Hashem shows personal care, the only adequate response is "I love You too," not mere gratitude or praise, and this principle applies to all relationships.
Shemos 22:24 (Parshas Mishpatim)
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
