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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
