No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Parshas Mishpatim open with the obscure laws of a Hebrew servant, and why is this parsha part of the Sinai revelation? The shiur argues that theft—unlike robbery or battery—reflects a refusal to take responsibility for one's actions. By forcing immediate restitution through indentured servitude, the Torah (תורה) rehabilitates the thief, teaching him to own his choices and take pride in making amends.
Rabbi Zweig opens by noting that Rashi (רש"י) emphasizes the word "v'eileh" at the beginning of Parshas Mishpatim, indicating that the social justice laws were given at Sinai just as the Ten Commandments were. The question is profound: why did these specific laws need to be part of the Sinai event itself, when other mitzvos were given throughout the forty years in the desert? The shiur argues that the Sinai experience is not complete with the Ten Commandments alone—the mishpatim are integral to understanding that the Torah (תורה) is not about controlling behavior through terror, but about teaching responsibility. The Torah's first social justice law concerns the eved ivri—the Hebrew servant who is sold for six years after committing theft. This seems an odd choice: it's a law that only applies in the Land of Israel, affects very few people, and appears less important than laws of murder, adultery, or assault that follow later. Moreover, the logical order seems backwards—the Torah discusses the sale of the thief before explaining the laws of theft and restitution that appear thirty verses later.
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 Mishpatim, Shemos 21:1-6
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!