No community start suggestion yet.
Why would the Jewish people accept Egyptian wealth after centuries of slavery? The Midrash on Shemos reveals two stages: first, the Egyptians gave gifts (chanukah (חנוכה)) to restore Jewish dignity—especially clothing to relieve their shame—establishing chen and initiative. Only after this rehabilitation did the Jews feel comfortable borrowing silver and gold for their children, fulfilling the Bris Bein HaBesarim.
This shiur explores a complex Midrash on the pasuk "v'nasati es chen ha'am ha'zeh b'einei Mitzrayim" (Shemos 3:21), addressing why Hashem (ה׳) needed to guarantee that the Jews would leave Egypt with great wealth. The Midrash states that Hashem arranged this wealth so that Avrohom Avinu would have no complaint that while the slavery was fulfilled, the promise of "v'acharei chen yeitzu b'rechush gadol" was not. Rabbi Zweig raises several fundamental questions: Why would Hashem's promise need reinforcement through preventing Avrohom's complaint—shouldn't Hashem's word itself be sufficient? Why does the Midrash emphasize that clothing (s'malos) was the most precious item? Why does Rashi (רש"י) wait until Parshas Bo to explain this, rather than mentioning it in this week's parsha? And most fundamentally, why does the Torah (תורה) need to explain the mechanism (chen leading to borrowing) when it could simply state the result?
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.
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.
Shemos 3:21-22
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!
