A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What blessing do you make on fruit juice - borei pri ha'etz like the original fruit, or shehakol? Rashi (רש"י) holds that liquids categorically cannot have fruit status regardless of their source, creating a paradox where juice should warrant borei pri ha'etz as a tree product but cannot receive it because it's liquid. This explains why only wine and oil get special blessings - they're made from produce specifically planted for liquid extraction.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Brachos 38a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of blessings made on fruit juices and extracts. The central question addressed is whether one makes a blessing on squeezed fruit juice (like orange juice or date honey) and what type of blessing is appropriate. Rabbi Zweig presents multiple approaches to understanding the sugya, with particular emphasis on Rashi (רש"י)'s unique perspective. According to the initial approach discussed, when juice is extracted from fruit, it represents only a qualitative part of the fruit rather than a quantitative portion, lacking the substantial 'gush' component that defines a complete fruit. This would explain why such extracts receive only a shehakol blessing rather than borei pri ha'etz. However, Rashi's approach is presented as fundamentally different and more radical. Rashi holds that liquids categorically cannot be considered fruits (ain pri) - not because they lack part of the original fruit, but because liquid substances inherently lack the status of 'pri' regardless of their source. This creates a fascinating framework where fruit juices should theoretically warrant their own borei pri ha'etz blessing as independent liquid fruits produced by the tree, but they cannot receive this blessing precisely because they are liquids. The shiur explores how this principle applies to wine and oil, where special blessings (borei pri hagefen, etc.) are made not on the liquid itself but on the original grape or olive that was intentionally planted for liquid extraction (pri hanikta l'mashkeh). The Gemara's case of unripe grapes used for vinegar (chomet s'funas) is analyzed to support Rashi's position that even liquefied solids do not receive fruit blessings. Rabbi Zweig contrasts this with the Rosh's discussion of vegetable soups, where blessings are made on the vegetables themselves when they are used in their intended manner. The shiur demonstrates how these fundamental questions about the nature of blessings, the definition of fruits, and the relationship between solids and liquids have practical ramifications for contemporary halachic decisions regarding fruit juices, smoothies, and processed foods.
Brachos 38a
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!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
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 saying Ashrei three times daily guarantee a share in the World to Come? The verse 'umasbia l'chol chai ratzon' reveals that God provides not just sustenance but pleasure to all creation out of pure love. This recognition teaches us that even basic needs are expressions of divine chesed, creating the foundation for love-motivated service through both major and minor mitzvos.
Should one learn Torah full-time trusting in Divine providence, or combine learning with work? The shiur distinguishes between Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's approach of complete separation from worldly concerns versus Rabbi Shmuel's view that proper work itself becomes part of Torah. The key insight: true emunah means learning without demanding sustenance from either Hashem or community, unlike having a 'contract' expecting payment for learning.
Should one combine Torah study with work, or rely entirely on Divine providence through exclusive learning? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, explaining that 'Bnei Aliyah' live above natural law where Torah itself becomes their reality. This connects to the difference between tzaddik gamor and tzaddik she'eino gamor regarding transcending physical limitations.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
