No community start suggestion yet.
How can Torah (תורה) claim divine originality when Hammurabi's Code (1800 BCE) contains similar laws like eye-for-eye and goring ox legislation? The shiur develops the yesod that God used Torah as creation's blueprint, so ancient peoples weren't creating precedents Torah copied but rather sensing universal truths embedded in reality's fabric. This explains both Maimonides' approach to sacrifices and how Avrohom kept all 613 mitzvos before Sinai.
This shiur tackles a fundamental challenge to Torah (תורה)'s originality by examining the relationship between Torah law and pre-existing ancient legal codes, particularly Hammurabi's Code from 1800 BCE. Rabbi Zweig begins with the laws of a master striking his slave's eye or tooth (Mishpatim 21:26-27), explaining the Midrash that connects this to Cham's sin involving his eye and mouth when seeing Noah undressed. The core philosophical problem emerges: if Hammurabi's Code predates the Torah and contains similar laws (eye for eye, goring ox laws, slave legislation), how can Torah claim divine originality? Rabbi Zweig presents his revolutionary thesis: rather than Torah following human legal developments, the opposite is true. God used Torah as the blueprint for creation itself, as Chazal teach that 'God looked into the Torah and created the world.' This means all of reality, including human intuition about justice and law, flows from Torah's eternal principles, not the reverse. When ancient peoples like Hammurabi developed similar laws, they weren't creating precedents that Torah later adopted; they were sensing universal truths embedded in creation's fabric.
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 Hashkafa
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 impose capital punishment on the owner of a habitually dangerous ox that kills? Animals are extensions of their owners' identities rather than independent entities, making the owner spiritually responsible for the animal's actions. This principle explains numerous halachos distinguishing animal damage from other forms of property damage.
Why does Megillas Esther interrupt Torah study for a message the world deemed ridiculous—that every man should rule his home? The shiur develops the yesod that the moon's willingness to "make itself small" doesn't diminish it but creates unified sovereignty. A woman who enables her husband to lead isn't relegated to second class—she is the king-maker, comfortable creating oneness where a man cannot.
Does going to doctors contradict relying on Hashem as our healer? The Ramban holds medicine is a concession for those not on high spiritual levels, while the Rambam views medicine as a science—a domain Hashem established. The shiur resolves this by explaining that illness uniquely separates a person from Hashem, making self-cure through teshuvah impossible and necessitating medical intervention.
Parshas Mishpatim 21:26-27
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 specify liability when an ox kills "a man or a woman" - wouldn't this be obvious? The mystical principle that masculine represents form/spiritual while feminine represents essence/physical creates a dynamic where each gender needs what the other naturally possesses for fulfillment. This explains both the division of mitzvos and why different damages apply when each is killed.
