A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can Kriat Shema be recited in any language yet still fulfill the biblical obligation? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s position that 'b'chol lashon' doesn't permit independent foreign languages but requires them to function as pirush of Hebrew. This creates a fundamental distinction between Torah (תורה)-text recitation and interpersonal halachic acts like kiddushin.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental debate in Berachos 13a regarding the requirement to recite Kriat Shema in any language (b'chol lashon sh'atah shomeia). Rabbi Zweig examines the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that one needs kavana (intention) and explores the Bach's view that this is only a din d'rabbanan versus the Mishnah (משנה) Berurah's position that it's d'oraita. A central question emerges: if it's d'rabbanan, how can one fulfill the biblical obligation of Kriat Shema? The shiur presents an innovative interpretation of Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement 'tarti shma mina' - that from the pasuk of Shema we derive both that it can be said in any language and that one must hear oneself speak (shmia l'aznav). Rabbi Zweig suggests that Rashi understands 'b'chol lashon sh'atah shomeia' not as permitting independent foreign languages, but rather as teaching that other languages work only as explanations (pirush) of Hebrew. This differs from the Tosafos (תוספות) view that limits it to the seventy languages in which the Torah (תורה) was given. The analysis extends to practical applications, such as whether one can recite Shema in Spanish while in France. The shiur contrasts this with the laws of kiddushin (marriage), where the Gemara requires the language to be understood in that specific locale. Rabbi Zweig proposes that there are two different types of 'b'chol lashon' - one for Torah texts (like Kriat Shema) where other languages serve as pirush of Hebrew, and another for interpersonal halachic acts (like nedarim or kiddushin) where true linguistic communication is required. This distinction resolves apparent contradictions between different areas of halacha (הלכה) regarding language requirements.
Berachos 13a
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.
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.
