No community start suggestion yet.
Was the Nile actually blood that became water for Jews, or water that became blood for Egyptians? The shiur analyzes the unusual detail in Vaeira—the fish dying, the river stinking—to argue for a two-makah structure: water became blood to Egyptians, while fish died separately to intensify the plague. This reading explains why the Torah (תורה) elaborates on consequences and why the chartumim could replicate the miracle.
Rabbi Zweig opens with a textual difficulty in Parshas Vaeira (Shemos 7:17-21): why does the Torah (תורה) provide such a detailed, seemingly redundant description of Makas Dam's consequences—the fish dying, the river stinking, the Egyptians wearying of finding a solution? These outcomes are obvious; if water turns to blood, no one can drink it and fish will die. The Torah's elaboration suggests something deeper is being communicated. The shiur proposes a fundamental chakira: Was the Nile actually blood (requiring a second miracle to make it water for Jews), or was it water (that only appeared/became blood to Egyptians)? The answer has ramifications for understanding the entire makah. Rabbi Zweig argues for the latter: the water remained water, but Egyptians experienced it as blood. This explains why Jews could drink it without requiring a separate miracle—it was simply water that selectively became blood for the oppressors.
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.
Shemos 7:17-21 (Parshas Vaeira)
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!
