No community start suggestion yet.
Why did the Torah (תורה) originally assign fathers full responsibility for their children's Torah education? The Gemara (גמרא)'s account of Yehoshua ben Gamla's educational reforms reveals that shared responsibility often leads to diminished accountability. When parents can blame schools and schools can blame parents, nobody takes complete ownership of a child's chinuch.
This shiur examines the fundamental tension between the Torah (תורה)'s original vision of parental responsibility for chinuch and the practical reality of modern Jewish education. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing that the Ribono shel Olam designed the Torah system with fathers bearing complete responsibility for their children's education - both Torah learning and derech eretz. This total responsibility was intentional because when someone has full accountability, they cannot shift blame and must ensure success. The discussion centers on the Gemara (גמרא)'s account of Yehoshua ben Gamla's educational reforms, which Rabbi Zweig characterizes as both necessary and tragic. While these reforms solved the immediate problem of orphaned children having no Torah education, they created an unintended consequence: the division of educational responsibility between parents and schools. This division, though practically necessary, represents a departure from the Torah's optimal system.
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!
Discussion of Yehoshua ben Gamla's educational reforms
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.
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 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.
