No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Torah (תורה) mandate a fivefold payment for stealing an ox but only fourfold for a sheep? The shiur develops a fundamental insight from the Gemara (גמרא)'s phrase "gadol koach ha-shelo melachah"—that work itself has absolute value beyond mere financial loss. This principle reveals that people are measured not by accomplishments or talents, but solely by the intelligent effort they invest.
Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Torah (תורה)'s law in Parshas Mishpatim that a thief who slaughters or sells a stolen ox must pay five times its value, while a stolen sheep requires only fourfold payment. Rashi (רש"י) quotes the Gemara (גמרא)'s explanation: the ox is valued higher because stealing it prevents the animal from working, whereas the sheep doesn't perform labor. The Gemara adds that the thief carrying a sheep on his shoulders already experiences embarrassment (bizayon), so the Torah reduces the penalty. The Maharsha raises a fundamental question: what about a young calf that cannot yet work? If the reason for the fivefold payment is loss of labor, a calf should only require fourfold payment like a sheep. The Ibn Ezra cites Rav Saadya Gaon, who explains that oxen are harder to hide, so only professional thieves steal them, warranting a harsher penalty. He also mentions that the ox owner suffers greater financial loss due to the animal's work capacity. But this appears to simply repeat the Gemara's reasoning—raising the question of why the Rishonim would present it as a novel explanation.
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.
Mishpatim (Shemos 21:37)
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!