No community start suggestion yet.
Why did Amalek attack knowing they would be destroyed, and how did this "cool off" Israel's reputation? Rashi (רש"י)'s scalding-water analogy seems backward—their defeat should have deterred others. The shiur argues Amalek's self-destruction delivered a chilling message: Jews are evil incarnate, and death is preferable to living in their world. This redefined Israel not as militarily powerful but as morally repugnant—a devastating philosophical attack.
The shiur examines the perplexing obligation to remember what Amalek did to Israel, specifically the concept of "asher korcha baderech"—that Amalek "cooled off" the Jewish people's reputation. Rashi (רש"י) compares this to someone jumping into scalding water: though the person gets burned, the water cools down. Yet the shiur challenges this interpretation with a fundamental question: if someone attacks and gets utterly devastated, doesn't that enhance rather than diminish the victor's reputation? Amalek was nearly obliterated—Rashi explains that Yehoshua left survivors only by divine command—which should have served as a powerful deterrent to others, following the Torah (תורה)'s principle of "lemaan yishme'u veyira'u" (that others should hear and fear). Rabbi Zweig asks why any rational nation would choose self-destruction by attacking Israel when the outcome was predictable. The answer reveals Amalek's true strategy: they were willing to die because they deemed Jewish existence intolerable. Their message to the world was not about Israel's military might but about Jewish morality—that Jews represent evil incarnate, and death is preferable to coexistence with them. This constituted the real "cooling off": transforming Israel's image from a nation of divine values and potential positive impact into the source of evil itself.
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 Rashi give conflicting descriptions of Israel's leaders in Egypt? The shiur explores how two different leadership styles emerged: those who pushed people to work harder while taking beatings, versus those who simply absorbed punishment to spare their people. The Torah prioritizes the first type - leaders who accomplish things even when unpopular.
Why does the Torah repeat that Rivka came from a family of manipulators and wicked people? The shiur argues that this is not "despite" her background but rather her yichus—she inherited their extraordinary sensitivity to others' needs but channeled it toward chesed rather than manipulation. True kindness requires understanding what the recipient actually needs, not just what the giver wants to give.
Why did Avrohom ask for visible signs of old age when people were already growing old? The shiur develops the principle that Avrohom requested that aging reflect not just physical decline but accumulated wisdom and compassion. This dignity of age is the foundation for transmitting values across generations—and its absence explains both the sin of the spies and the breakdown of contemporary families.
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 didn't Noach daven for his generation while Avrohom advocated for Sedom? Noach viewed each person as an independent island responsible only for their own teshuvah. Avrohom understood that all humanity is interconnected through shared perspective and values, making prayer for others both possible and necessary.
