No community start suggestion yet.
What obligation exists for a child born circumcised to undergo hatafat dam brit? The Midrash establishes this as a covenant requirement distinct from removing the foreskin. This raises whether one may cause minor harm for religious enhancement when the core obligation is fulfilled.
The shiur analyzes a complex halachic question from Midrash Rabbah on Parshas Ki Seitzei regarding a child born circumcised (tinok shenolad mohel). The initial question appears to be whether one is permitted to perform circumcision on such a child, given that he is already considered circumcised and any cutting would constitute chabalah (wounding) without clear obligation. Rabbi Zweig explores the precise nature of the requirement for hatafat dam brit (drawing ritual blood) for one born circumcised. The Midrash establishes this as an obligation derived from "himol yimol" - the doubled language indicating that even one born circumcised requires this ritual. However, the shiur distinguishes between different types of circumcision situations, referencing the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that once the essential mitzvah (מצוה) of milah is complete, one cannot return to remove remaining skin (tzitzin she'einam me'akvin) even during the week, not just on Shabbos (שבת) as the Tur holds.
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.
Parshas Ki Seitzei 22:2
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!
