No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) describe different reactions to chukim in different places—sometimes "mocking" and sometimes "challenging"? The distinction reveals two fundamentally different types of divine decrees. One type has unknown reasons but no logical contradiction; the other defies logic entirely, like parah adumah making pure impure and impure pure.
This shiur explores a fascinating discrepancy in Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the concept of chukim (divine decrees). In Parshas Chukas, Rashi states that Satan and the nations "mock" Israel regarding parah adumah, while in Parshas Toldos, he says the yetzer hara and nations "challenge" other chukim like eating pig and wearing shatnez. Rabbi Zweig identifies this as revealing two fundamentally different categories of chukim. The first type consists of mitzvos whose reasons are unknown to us but which contain no logical contradictions. Examples include the prohibitions against eating pig or wearing shatnez. We simply don't know why these are forbidden—perhaps pig causes trichinosis, or shatnez creates skin problems—but there's no inherent logical impossibility. When people question these mitzvos, they "challenge" them through discussion and argument, suggesting alternative explanations or questioning the necessity of observing laws without known reasons.
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.
How does the covenant of Arvot Moav differ from earlier obligations? The shiur develops the yesod that this covenant created a new level of unity — not just working for the same Master, but collectively becoming a reflection of Hashem's presence. When Klal Yisrael embraces yichud Hashem as a shared vision rather than individual service, future generations become bound, teshuvah becomes natural, and mutual responsibility reaches the depth of "kol Yisrael areivim zeh bazeh."
Why was Miriam punished with tzaraas when her criticism of Moshe seemed justified? The shiur develops a yesod based on a Midrash that Miriam's error wasn't lashon hara in the conventional sense — she actually intended to help with a shalom bayis issue — but rather her failure to search out Moshe's unique madrega and recognize that his separation from his wife was a halachic requirement for his level of nevuah, not just a chumra. This reframes the entire mitzvah of "zachor es asher asah Hashem" as an obligation to actively seek out people's hidden ma'alos.
Parshas Chukas 19:2, Parshas Toldos 26:5
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!
