No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) call moving a boundary marker "theft" in Ki Savo but "robbery" in Devarim? The shiur resolves this apparent contradiction by showing Rashi distinguishes between sins that can be discovered (robbery) and sins that can be completely hidden (theft). The curse in Ki Savo targets those who hide crimes entirely—revealing that concern for image rather than morality is the most insidious corruption.
Rabbi Zweig conducts a detailed textual analysis of Rashi (רש"י)'s commentaries on the prohibition and curse relating to moving boundary markers between properties. The shiur begins by noting that in Parshas Ki Savo (Devarim 27:17), when the Torah (תורה) lists the curses that the Jewish people accepted upon themselves, Rashi describes moving a boundary as "theft" (geneivah). Yet earlier in Devarim 19:14, where the actual prohibition appears, Rashi explicitly states this constitutes "robbery" (gezelah), explaining that one violates both "do not rob" and "do not move boundaries" in Israel, but only robbery outside Israel. This presents a fundamental contradiction, as theft and robbery are two distinct biblical prohibitions with different legal consequences—a thief pays double restitution while a robber pays only principal. The difference between these two sins lies in how they are committed. Robbery (gezelah) is done openly or in a manner where the victim knows or will discover who took from him—such as mugging someone or taking property brazenly. Theft (geneivah) is done clandestinely, when the perpetrator believes no one will know about the act. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Geneivah rules that if you move a boundary marker openly, you are a robber; if done secretly, you are a thief. This raises the question: why does Rashi change terminology between the two verses?
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 Torah emphasize Rivka's Aramean ancestry when describing her marriage to Yitzchok? The shiur reveals that Arameans were master manipulators with extraordinary sensitivity to others' psychology. Rivka inherited this keen insight but channeled it into genuine chesed, which requires understanding what recipients actually need rather than what givers want to provide.
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.
Devarim 27:17, Devarim 19:14
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!
Why does the Torah separate Avrohom's eulogy for Sarah from his crying for her? The shiur shows that Sarah required a public eulogy focused on the communal loss of a leader, not Avrohom's private grief. This teaches that we must view Jewish tragedies through a national lens first, seeing attacks on Am Yisrael as collective losses that dwarf personal concerns.
