No community start suggestion yet.
How can the Torah (תורה) command the destruction of Amalek when genocide is considered a crime against humanity? The shiur develops that Amalek represents self-destructive evil—a nation existing solely to destroy others, willing to risk their own annihilation to harm the Jewish people. Such a nation forfeits its right to exist and cannot be controlled through normal deterrents.
This shiur confronts a fundamental moral challenge: how the Torah (תורה) can mandate the complete destruction of Amalek when modern ethics considers genocide a crime against humanity. Rabbi Zweig begins by noting that post-WWII international law established genocide as so fundamentally wrong that soldiers cannot claim they were "following orders" when committing such acts. Yet the Torah explicitly commands the eradication of Amalek—seemingly the very definition of genocide. The shiur explores two approaches to resolving this difficulty. According to the Rambam (רמב"ם), even Amalek must first be offered peace terms and the opportunity to accept the Seven Noahide Laws. Only if they refuse peaceful coexistence do we wage war against them. This transforms the mitzvah (מצוה) from destroying people to destroying evil—if Amalek accepts moral behavior, there is no obligation to destroy them. However, the Ravad disagrees, maintaining that Amalek alone among all nations is not offered this option, reinstating the original difficulty.
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 Ki Seitzei 25:17-19
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.
