A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why did On Ben Peles spend his entire life in aninus after being miraculously saved from Korach's rebellion? The shiur explores how his wife's wisdom revealed his self-delusion about deserving to be Kohen Gadol. When someone is saved from tragedy through recognizing their delusions, they can never fully trust their perception of reality again.
This shiur analyzes the Midrash about On Ben Peles, who was saved from joining Korach's rebellion by his wife's intervention. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the puzzling aspects of the story: if On Ben Peles was convinced by his wife's logical argument that he had nothing to gain from the rebellion (since either Moshe or Korach would be the leader, not him), why did she need to get him drunk and prevent the conspirators from reaching him? The shiur develops a profound psychological insight about the nature of self-delusion and miraculous salvation. On Ben Peles's wife pointed out that he was deluding himself by thinking he was worthy of being Kohen Gadol like Aharon or Korach. While he might have been technically capable of the role, there were others more worthy, and his desire for the position revealed a fundamental self-delusion about his own stature. Even after understanding this intellectually, he remained emotionally attached to the group and would have joined them out of camaraderie. The shiur explains that the term 'miraculous salvation' (peles) refers not just to being saved, but to the profound psychological aftermath. When someone realizes the depth of their delusions - first about deserving honors, then about the righteousness of their cause - they lose trust in their own perception of reality. The word 'aninus' describes this state of psychological shock where one cannot define their identity or trust their judgment. This explains why On Ben Peles lived his entire life 'ba'aninus' - in a state of bewilderment about reality itself. The shiur draws parallels to Holocaust survivors and others who experience miraculous salvation, noting how such experiences can leave people permanently altered in their relationship to reality and permanence. Rabbi Zweig suggests that this Midrash reveals deep truths about how self-interest can blind us to reality, how leadership positions can foster dangerous self-delusions, and how the recognition of our delusions, while necessary, can leave us perpetually uncertain about our grasp on truth.
Midrash on On Ben Peles
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!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
