No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Torah (תורה) sometimes introduce Moshe's words with "zeh hadavar" (these are the words) and sometimes with "ko amar Hashem (ה׳)" (so said God)? The shiur develops the idea that zeh hadavar represents God speaking directly through Moshe to create an unmediated relationship between God and Israel, while ko amar Hashem indicates Moshe speaking in his own words—used when addressing non-Jews or after the golden calf. The parsha's juxtaposition of the Midian war with the laws of vows teaches that controlling one's speech is the prerequisite for controlling physical desires.
The shiur begins with a foundational question from Rashi (רש"י) on Parshas Matos: why does the Torah (תורה) introduce Moshe's prophecy with two different formulations—"zeh hadavar" (these are the words) and "ko amar Hashem (ה׳)" (so said God)? Rashi explains that all prophets used ko amar Hashem, but Moshe had the additional level of zeh hadavar. The Mizrachi interprets this as representing two levels of prophecy: ko amar Hashem means the prophet conveys God's message in his own words (approximation), while zeh hadavar means the actual words of God emerge from the prophet's mouth—the highest level of prophecy, unique to Moshe. The Maharal challenges this interpretation with a fundamental question: if these represent two levels of prophecy, and Moshe always prophesied at the highest level (aspaklaria hameira—clear lens, versus other prophets' aspaklaria she'eina meira—hazy lens), why would Moshe ever speak with the lower formulation of ko amar Hashem? The Maharal therefore rejects the Mizrachi's interpretation and offers an alternative: the distinction is not about prophecy levels but about content—ko amar Hashem is used for temporary, practical matters, while zeh hadavar is used for eternal Torah laws.
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
Why does the Torah emphasize Rivka's Aramean ancestry when describing her marriage to Yitzchok? The shiur reveals that Arameans were master manipulators with extraordinary sensitivity to others' psychology. Rivka inherited this keen insight but channeled it into genuine chesed, which requires understanding what recipients actually need rather than what givers want to provide.
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 Matos 30:2-3
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 does the Torah separate Avrohom's eulogy for Sarah from his crying for her? The shiur shows that Sarah required a public eulogy focused on the communal loss of a leader, not Avrohom's private grief. This teaches that we must view Jewish tragedies through a national lens first, seeing attacks on Am Yisrael as collective losses that dwarf personal concerns.
