No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a non-Jew understand Torah (תורה) even in areas of law (mishpatim) common to all mankind? The shiur develops the principle that gentile law focuses on societal order (kiyum habriah), while Torah law focuses on what's right for each individual (kiyum hayachid). Bris milah creates a personal covenant that enables this individual-focused perspective, distinguishing Jewish mishpatim from the parallel seven Noahide laws.
Rabbi Zweig explores a puzzling Midrash in Parshas Mishpatim. When a Roman ruler (Andrinus Caesar) wishes to convert to Judaism, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi tells him he may learn Torah (תורה) but should not undergo bris milah or complete conversion. The Midrash states that even the wisest hundred-year-old sage among the gentiles cannot truly understand Torah without bris milah. This seems to contradict the Gemara (גמרא)'s teaching that a gentile who engages in the seven Noahide commandments is "like a Kohen Gadol" (k'Kohen Gadol), and those laws are largely mishpatim—civil and interpersonal laws. The shiur addresses a fundamental question: Why would mishpatim be inaccessible to gentiles when they have parallel laws in the Noahide code? The Gemara in Sanhedrin teaches that one may not teach Torah to a gentile, and violating this is considered a disgrace to Torah (zilzul haTorah). But the Midrash seems to go further—it's not merely forbidden to teach a gentile; rather, a gentile structurally cannot understand Torah even in areas where his own legal obligations overlap with Jewish law.
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.
Parshas Mishpatim
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!
