No community start suggestion yet.
When does a listener need to answer "amen" after a bracha to be yotzei? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds that when the mevarech makes the bracha for himself, the listener must answer amen to create his own bracha. But when the mevarech acts purely as a shaliach—making the bracha solely for the listener—shomea k'oneh applies and no amen is required. This directly contradicts the Tur's approach.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s view on shomea k'oneh (hearing is like responding) in Hilchos Brachos, revealing a fundamental disagreement with the approach of the Tur and Beis Yosef. The central question is: When must a listener answer "amen" after hearing a bracha in order to be yotzei his obligation? The shiur identifies two fundamentally different approaches. The Tur, citing the Rosh, holds that when the mevarech is mechuyav in the bracha himself (e.g., making kiddush for himself while also being motzi others), the listener does NOT need to answer amen—shomea k'oneh suffices. But when the mevarech is not mechuyav (e.g., already fulfilled the mitzvah (מצוה) and is only making the bracha for others), the listener MUST answer amen. According to this view, shomea k'oneh works through arvus—the mevarech creates words that the listener can convert into a bracha by answering amen.
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!
Sukkah 38a, Rambam Hilchos Brachos 1:10-12
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
