No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Torah (תורה) describe Rivka's pregnancy with unusual anatomical terms (kirba, me'ayim, beten) rather than rechem, and why doesn't it say "vayiftach Hashem (ה׳) es rachma" as it does with Leah and Rochel? The shiur develops a striking chiddush: Rivka conceived miraculously without normal reproductive organs—like Chava before the sin—carrying fully developed children from day one. This explains why the fetuses "ran" (had consciousness), why they fought to be born immediately, and how they possessed yetzer tov and yetzer hara in utero.
Rabbi Zweig presents a profound and original analysis of the narrative of Rivka's pregnancy with Yaakov and Eisav, focusing on the unusual linguistic and conceptual features of the pesukim in Parshas Toldos. The shiur begins by examining several textual anomalies that demand explanation. First, the Torah (תורה) describes the fetuses as "vayisrotzu habanim bekirba"—they "ran" inside her. Rashi (רש"י) explains that one would run toward places of Torah study and the other toward places of avodah zarah. But why use the term "running"? The Torah could have described her pain or discomfort in more conventional terms. Additionally, the phrase "b'kirba" (in her body cavity) is peculiar; later the pasuk shifts to "bevitnech" (in your belly) and "mime'ayich" (from your intestines). These are not standard terms for pregnancy—the proper word would be "rechem" (womb), which the Torah uses elsewhere.
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.
Bereishis 25:21-24
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!
