A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why were Jerusalem and other Jewish centers destroyed despite their righteousness? The Talmud (תלמוד)'s explanation about not being "ro'eh es hanolad" reveals a profound moral principle: even when making correct decisions, we must consider and mitigate negative consequences for others.
This shiur explores the Talmudic explanation for why Jerusalem, Tur Malka, and Betar were destroyed, focusing on the principle of "ro'eh es hanolad" (seeing what will come to pass). The Talmud (תלמוד) states that Rabbi Yochanan attributed these destructions to the violation of "Ashrei adam mefached tamid" - people should remain constantly in fear and not harden their hearts. Rashi (רש"י) explains this through three stories: Bar Kamtza's eviction from a party in Jerusalem, attacks on Roman soldiers over stolen chickens in Tur Malka, and confrontations over uprooted trees in Betar. According to Rashi, these cities were destroyed because the people were not "ro'eh es hanolad" - they didn't foresee the consequences of their actions. The speaker initially struggles with this explanation, questioning how political naivety could justify such theological devastation, especially given that Jews are not typically accused of lacking intelligence. However, he develops a profound interpretation: "ro'eh es hanolad" doesn't mean failing to see adverse consequences, but rather being insensitive to the negative fallout that others experience from our correct decisions.
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!
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 Holidays
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 did Potiphar's wife pursue Yosef, and what does Rashi mean when he calls her actions "leshem shamayim"? The shiur argues she correctly saw in astrology that she and Yosef would have a child—an unchangeable decree for most people. But as a descendant of Avrohom, whom Hashem lifted above the stars, Yosef possessed the unique power to bend astrological fate, transforming the prediction into fulfillment through her daughter (Osnas) instead.
Why did Hashem cure all the sick, blind, deaf, and lame before Matan Torah? The Rambam teaches that miracles require purpose. This shiur argues that the mass healing demonstrated that Torah is not meant for the downtrodden seeking comfort, but for healthy people who can fully channel their energies toward mitzvos and serve as proper examples to their communities.
Why does the Aramaic word for "accept" (Kabbalah) also mean "complain"? The shiur develops a profound insight: genuine acceptance only emerges from overcoming resistance. Without internal challenge, an idea merely passes through us—true commitment is born only when we wrestle with, resist, and ultimately decide to embrace a principle.
Why don't the last eight verses of the Torah require a minyan to read? The shiur develops a fundamental chiddush in the Rambam: Simchas Torah has two distinct takanos of Kriat HaTorah — Zot HaBracha is read from the din of Yom Tov (inyan hayom), while VaYom Moshe is read from the din of Shabbos (siyum haTorah). This explains why a new minyan is required for the last eight verses, and why the Raavad's minhag of having the oleh read (not the baal koreh) signals that the final aliyah is purely Talmud Torah, not shemiat dvar Hashem.
May a man who has already fulfilled his shofar obligation blow shofar for a woman on Rosh Hashanah? The Baal Itur forbids it while Rav Yehuda permits it. The shiur develops that the core dispute is not about violating shvus for another's benefit, but whether a man's blowing creates a "tekiah shel mitzvah" that enables the woman to be yotzei.
When must one interrupt eating or other activities to perform a mitzvah? The Gemara distinguishes between yesh shos (time remains) and ein shos (no time left), and between d'Oraisa and d'Rabbanan obligations. The Rambam's view—that one need not interrupt unless the mitzvah cannot be done later—contrasts sharply with the Rosh and Ran, who hold that mitzvah bo'liyos al tachmitzena requires immediate action even when time remains.
Does answering "amen" add anything when one is already yotzei through shomeia k'oneh? The shiur examines the Rambam's presentation in Hilchos Brachos perek 1, halachos 10-12, questioning why the Rambam states that one who answers amen is "k'mevorach" when earlier he ruled one is yotzei even without answering amen. The shiur explores whether amen provides an additional ma'alah beyond basic yotzei status and analyzes several seemingly contradictory Rambam passages.
