No community start suggestion yet.
If papalin and zangvil don't require brachos when dried, how can they be forbidden on Yom Kippur? The shiur resolves this through the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction between etz piryo (fruit trees) and etz ma'achal (edible trees). Papalin as etz ma'achal gets borei pri ha'adama, and fresh consumption creates Yom Kippur liability while dried doesn't reach the threshold of halachic 'eating.'
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Brachos 36b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of brachos requirements for papalin (capers) and zangvil (ginger). The Gemara presents a fundamental question: if these items don't require brachos in their dried state, how can they be forbidden on Yom Kippur? The analysis reveals a core principle that anything requiring a bracha in hilchot brachos should also create liability on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Zweig examines the positions of major Rishonim including Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Rambam (רמב"ם), who disagree about whether these items require borei pri ha'etz or borei pri ha'adama. The Rosh argues that since the Torah (תורה) calls papalin a fruit (establishing the obligation of orlah), the bracha must be borei pri ha'etz. However, Tosafot and the Rambam rule borei pri ha'adama. The shiur resolves this dispute by explaining the Rambam's interpretation that the Torah establishes two separate categories in orlah: etz piryo (fruit trees) and etz ma'achal (edible trees). Papalin falls under etz ma'achal - not a fruit tree, but an edible tree, hence borei pri ha'adama. The analysis extends to practical applications in hilchot Yom Kippur, where the Rambam distinguishes between 'eating' (ochel) and 'chewing' (koses) - papalin eaten fresh constitutes normal eating and creates Yom Kippur liability, while zangvil is considered unusual consumption (koses). The shiur concludes by examining how these principles apply to other halachic areas including tumah of foods and ma'aser sheni, demonstrating that something can be edible for an individual without achieving the halachic status of 'food' for broader applications.
Brachos 36b
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.
