A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If grapes are included in the shivas haminim requiring brachos acharonos, why does the Gemara (גמרא) need a separate derivation from neta revai? The shiur resolves this through a machlokes Rishonim: Rashbam holds that shivas haminim covers wine while neta revai teaches about grapes, while Rashi (רש"י) reverses this. This distinction affects whether brachos on grapes versus wine are Torah (תורה) or rabbinic obligations.
This shiur provides a detailed examination of Brachos 35a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s derivation of the obligation to make after-blessings (brachos acharonos) on grapes from the biblical laws of neta revai (fourth-year fruit plantings). The analysis begins with the Mishna's teaching about making brachos on vegetables and legumes, establishing two categories: kitniyos (legumes) and yerakos (greens). Rabbi Zweig explores the fundamental question of how we derive the obligation for brachos from the Torah (תורה), noting that while logic might dictate a bracha rishona (before eating), the requirement for bracha achrona (after eating) requires explicit textual derivation. The Gemara derives brachos acharonos from the Torah's discussion of neta revai, where the word 'hilulim' appears twice, interpreted as 'kodesh hilulim.' One instance teaches the procedural requirement to redeem the fruit before eating it (podin v'achar kach ochlin), while the second teaches the obligation for brachos. However, this creates a fundamental difficulty: if we already know from the shivas haminim passage ('v'achalta v'savata u'verachta') that there's a Torah obligation for brachos acharonos on grapes (as part of the seven species), why do we need an additional derivation from neta revai?
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!
Brachos 35a
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.
