No community start suggestion yet.
How can destroying the Temples constitute God taking back security rather than collecting a debt? The Midrash's insight that Israel creates God's crown reveals that the Mishkan represents the harmony Israel achieves by bringing Divine presence into the physical world. When destroyed, God reclaims this relationship itself as His security deposit.
This shiur examines the profound relationship between Shabbos (שבת) and Mishkan, beginning with Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on Parshas Pekudei regarding the double usage of "Mishkan" - referring to it as a security deposit (mashkan) that God took back through the destruction of both Temples. The Rav questions this interpretation: how can destroying something constitute taking security rather than collecting the debt? The analysis then turns to a remarkable Midrash that interprets the verse "Go out daughters of Zion and gaze upon King Shlomo with the crown his mother made for him" as referring not to Shlomo but to God, with Israel serving as His 'mother' who created His crown - the Mishkan. This parallels the ambiguous reading of "Bereishis" which can mean either "In the beginning God created" or "The beginning created God."
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.
Up Next in this Series
What revolutionary shift occurred in understanding Shabbos after the Chet HaEgel? The new conception revealed that Shabbos isn't about resting in our world to testify to creation, but about living in His world of Ein Od Milvado. This explains why the entire community must gather together - only a complete entity can exist in Hashem's reality.
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 Pekudei
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!
Why did Yehuda respond angrily when Yosef offered to free all the brothers except Binyamin, after Yehuda himself had just offered that all become slaves? Yosef was engineering conditions for true malchus to emerge - not Reuven's leadership through control, but Yehuda's malchus through total responsibility for others. This difference explains why Yaakov rejected Reuven's guarantee but accepted Yehuda's seemingly worse offer.
