No community start suggestion yet.
Why didn't Hashem (ה׳) respond to Yaakov's request for parnasa when He promised protection and return? The shiur explores two interpretations: either parnasa is Hashem's universal gift outside the earned relationship framework, or tzadikim uniquely earn even their sustenance. The analysis reveals fundamental questions about what aspects of Divine providence must be earned versus freely given.
Rabbi Zweig analyzes a Midrash on Parshas Vayeitzei that examines the dialogue between Hashem (ה׳) and Yaakov at Beis El. The Midrash states that Hashem answered Yaakov regarding everything he requested except for parnasa (livelihood). The question emerges: why would Hashem withhold a response specifically about parnasa, which seems more basic than the other promises of protection, Divine presence, and safe return? The shiur begins by noting a textual anomaly: in the actual pesukim, Hashem makes His promises first ("Hinei anochi imach, u'shmarticha bechol asher teilech...ki lo ezovcha"), and only afterward does Yaakov make his conditional commitment. This creates a fundamental question about the Midrash's framing, which presents it as if Yaakov asked and Hashem responded. Additionally, if Hashem already promised to be with Yaakov, guard him, and return him home, doesn't that inherently include providing sustenance?
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.
Up Next in this Series
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.
Parshas Vayeitzei, Bereishis 28:15-20
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!
