No community start suggestion yet.
How can deception be a vehicle for truth? The Ramchal's principle that Yaakov embodies the tikkun of the nachash—not by negating sheker but by utilizing it to reveal emes—explains Yaakov's use of "mirmah" with Yitzchok and Lavan. This yesod distinguishes between the middah of Yaakov (using ra for tov) and the middah of Yisrael (complete srurah), and clarifies why Leah is Yaakov's wife while Rochel is Yisrael's.
This shiur develops a fundamental hashkafic principle about the nature of tikkun and the middah of Yaakov Avinu. The central question addressed is how Yaakov's seeming deception—taking the brachos from Yitzchok, deceiving Lavan—can be understood not merely as justified means to an end, but as the essence of his spiritual mission. The shiur opens with a discussion of semichas haparshiyos and the principle that Mishneh Torah (תורה) has some aspect of Torah she'baal peh, referencing Gemara (גמרא) Megillah daf lamed. This sets up a framework for understanding how the structure of Torah itself reveals deeper meanings.
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!
Yevamos 5a
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!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
