A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does kosies hachitah (ground wheat eaten raw) get only Al HaAdamah instead of Hamotzi, and why no bentching? The shiur works through Rabbeinu Tam's position change and shows that the concept 'lo chashiva achilaso' reflects whether foods are eaten in their ideal form for that location - connecting the blessing structure to Eretz Yisrael itself.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Masechta Brachos regarding blessings on kosies hachitah - ground wheat that is eaten but not made into bread. The discussion centers on Rabbeinu Tam's evolving position: initially ruling to make Al HaAdamah, then changing his mind. The core issue is understanding the concept of 'lo chashiva achilaso' (it is not considered a significant way of eating) as the reason for not making the standard blessing. Rabbi Zweig explores what this concept means - is it because there's a better way to prepare the wheat, and if so, why should that affect the blessing requirement? The shiur analyzes the positions of major Rishonim including the Rosh, Rashba, and Rambam (רמב"ם) on whether brachos achronos (concluding blessings) are biblical or rabbinic in origin. A key question emerges: if Rav Hamnuna needs a biblical verse to exclude kosies hachitah from bentching, why don't other authorities need such a verse? The discussion delves into whether the verse 'v'achalta v'savata u'verachta' applies only to bread or also to the seven species. Rabbi Zweig presents two approaches to understanding 'Eretz chitzkenim' - either as distinguishing between the seven species and bread as separate categories, or as creating levels within the seven species themselves. He explores whether the obligation for brachos achronos stems from the inherent importance of these foods or specifically from their connection to Eretz Yisrael. The shiur concludes with practical applications, including a dispute between the Taz and others regarding which foods require brachos achronos to be recited in the place where they were eaten.
Brachos 37a
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.
