A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Are the brachos of Kriat Shema birkas hamitzvah or birkas shevach v'hodaya? Rashi (רש"י) holds they are praise blessings based on "sheva b'yom halaticha," not mitzvah (מצוה) blessings, which explains why they can be recited hours before actually reading Shema. This resolves the apparent lack of "over la'asiyasa" and suggests mitzvos requiring kavannah may not need standard birkas hamitzvah.
This shiur explores the fundamental nature of the brachos recited before and after Kriat Shema through analysis of Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on Masechta Brachos 11a. The central question is whether these brachos function as birkas hamitzvah (blessings on the performance of commandments) or as birkas shevach v'hodaya (blessings of praise and thanksgiving). Rashi's position is that these brachos were instituted not as birkas hamitzvah but as general praise of Hashem (ה׳), based on the principle of praising God seven times daily ("sheva b'yom halaticha"). This interpretation explains why one can recite these brachos throughout the day, regardless of the timing of the actual mitzvah (מצוה) of Kriat Shema. The shiur examines the implications of Rashi's view, contrasting it with the position of the Rambam (רמב"ם) who appears to view these as birkas hamitzvah. A key practical difference emerges regarding the requirement of "over la'asiyasa" (reciting the blessing immediately before performing the mitzvah). According to Rashi, since these are birkas shevach v'hodaya, there is no requirement for over la'asiyasa, allowing one to fulfill the blessing obligation even if recited hours before actually reading Shema. The discussion extends to related halachic questions, including why Tosfos maintains there is no contradiction in starting with Shacharis rather than Maariv, and the position of Rabbeinu Tam who requires a separate bracha when reading Shema at non-standard times. The shiur also addresses a broader question of why Kriat Shema appears to lack a standard birkas hamitzvah, suggesting that perhaps mitzvos requiring kavannah (intention) by their very nature do not require separate birkas hamitzvah, since the mitzvah cannot be performed without proper intention.
Brachos 11a
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.
