No community start suggestion yet.
What does it mean to be "good to God and bad to people"? The shiur develops a chiddush from Kiddushin 40a: it's not the religious hypocrite who steals—that's evil to both God and people. Rather, it's someone who does all the right mitzvos but only because God commanded them, without genuine feeling for the recipient. Parshas Mishpatim's mitzvah (מצוה) of lending money illustrates this: the Torah (תורה) uses the ambiguous word "im" to teach that we must lend in a way that preserves the borrower's dignity and reflects true care, not mere religious compliance.
The shiur opens with a close reading of Shemos 22:24, the mitzvah (מצוה) to lend money to a fellow Jew. The verse uses the word "im kesef talveh," which typically means "if" or "when" you lend money—suggesting a voluntary act. Rashi (רש"י), citing Rabbi Yishmael in the Mechilta, explains that this is one of only three exceptions in the Torah (תורה) where "im" means "you must," making lending an obligation, not optional. But Rabbi Zweig asks a fundamental textual question: if the Torah wants to convey obligation, why use an ambiguous word that usually means "if"? Why not simply say "kesef talveh" (money you must lend) and eliminate the confusing word entirely? To answer this, Rabbi Zweig develops a profound insight about interpersonal mitzvos through an analysis of Kiddushin 40a. The Gemara (גמרא) asks: the verse says "the righteous who is good" will be rewarded—but is there a righteous person who is not good? The Gemara answers: a righteous person who is good to God and good to people versus one who is good to God but not good to people. Most people assume the latter refers to the religious hypocrite—someone who prays and keeps kosher in shul but cheats in business. But the Gemara immediately refutes this understanding: when discussing the wicked, it defines "evil to God and evil to people" as a thief or robber. Rashi clarifies: stealing is evil to God because God forbade it, and evil to people because they are harmed. Therefore, a religious person who cheats is not "good to God"—he is evil on both counts.
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.
Shemos 22:24 (Parshas Mishpatim)
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.
