No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Torah (תורה) present hashavas aveida twice—once in Mishpatim (minimal loss, minimal effort) and again in Ki Seitzei (minimal loss, maximum effort)? Mishpatim addresses the monetary obligation; Ki Seitzei, placed right after the prohibition of hanging a corpse overnight (kila s'lukim), addresses the deeper obligation to restore a person's emotional dignity. Losing property triggers frustration and self-doubt—the fear of being a shoteh (fool) who cannot control his possessions. Returning a lost object rectifies not just the financial loss but the person's sense of being a bar da'as, and we owe that restoration not to the person himself but to the tzelem Elokim.
The shiur examines the apparent duplication of the mitzvah (מצוה) of hashavas aveida (returning lost objects), which appears both in Parshas Mishpatim and Parshas Ki Seitzei. Ramban (רמב"ן) notes two differences: in Mishpatim the object is described as to'eh (minimally lost), while in Ki Seitzei it is nidacham (far away); Mishpatim emphasizes animals (major loss), while Ki Seitzei includes clothing (minor loss). The question is fundamental: if Ki Seitzei establishes the obligation even for minimal loss requiring maximum effort, why did the Torah (תורה) give a misleading, narrower formulation in Mishpatim? Rabbi Zweig develops a profound distinction. Mishpatim addresses hashavas aveida as a din in mishpatim—a monetary obligation, restoring financial loss. Ki Seitzei, however, addresses a completely different dimension: the emotional and psychological devastation a person experiences when he loses something. Beyond the financial loss, a person who loses an object feels foolish, irresponsible, disconnected from his possessions. The Gemara (גמרא)'s definition of a shoteh is "ma'avid mah she'nosnin lo"—one who cannot hold onto what is given to him. Even before reaching that legal status, anyone who loses something tastes that humiliation. The frustration of "where did I put it?" often drives a person to search for a minimally valuable item far longer than economically rational, because what he's trying to recover is not the money but his self-respect, his sense of being a bar da'as (responsible person with control over his property).
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 seeing a sotah inspire one to become a nazir? The nazir's abstention creates a pre-sin state where body and soul exist in perfect harmony. This 30-day period corrects the internal contradiction that led to his original transgression.
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.
Ki Seitzei 22:1-3, Mishpatim 23:4
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!
What is the primary purpose of the cities of refuge - protecting the accidental killer or something else? The shiur argues that creating respect for law takes precedence over providing sanctuary. True deterrence comes from recognizing the gravity of murder itself, not fear of punishment.
