A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) say that greater people have greater evil inclinations? A midrash about Moshe Rabbeinu reveals that Torah (תורה) can only transform someone who recognizes their internal struggles and moral shortcomings. This explains why angels couldn't receive Torah and why Na'aseh v'Nishma represents commitment to experiential growth rather than blind obedience.
Rabbi Zweig presents a profound analysis of spiritual growth centered on the Talmudic statement 'Kol hagadol m'chavero yitzro gadol mimenu' - whoever is greater than his friend, his evil inclination is greater. He begins by examining three puzzling elements from the Matan Torah (תורה) narrative: the angels' argument against giving Torah to humans, God's threat to return the world to Tohu vaBohu if the Torah is rejected, and the significance of Na'aseh v'Nishma over simple acceptance. The shiur's central thesis emerges through a midrashic story about Moshe Rabbeinu. When an Arab king had Moshe's portrait analyzed by physiognomists, they concluded he possessed terrible character traits. When confronted, Moshe confirmed this assessment, explaining that his greatness lay precisely in overcoming these natural tendencies through tremendous effort. This illustrates that Torah growth requires internal struggle against one's inclinations.
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 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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
