A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What blessing does olive oil mixed with vegetables require when consumed for throat pain? Rashi (רש"י) holds that blessings require actual eating (achilah), so harmful substances get reduced blessings even when beneficial. The Rambam (רמב"ם) argues blessings follow benefit (hana'ah) rather than eating, making drinking therapeutically its own category deserving borei pri ha'etz.
This shiur analyzes Brachos 35b-36a discussing the proper blessing on olive oil (shemen zayis) mixed with vegetables (anigrin) when consumed for throat pain (choshesh bigrono). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that pure olive oil is harmful (mazik) and normally wouldn't require a blessing, but when mixed with vegetables for medicinal purposes, it may warrant a borei pri ha'etz blessing. Rashi (רש"י) maintains that all blessings require actual eating (achilah) based on the verse 'v'achalta v'savata' - since harmful substances don't constitute proper eating, they don't require blessings. However, when oil provides benefit despite being harmful, it receives a reduced blessing (shehakol) rather than borei pri ha'etz. The Rambam (רמב"ם) presents a fundamentally different approach, arguing that blessings are based on benefit (hana'ah) rather than eating per se. According to the Rambam, drinking (shtiyah) can have its own blessing requirement separate from the principle that 'drinking is included in eating' (shtiyah b'chlal achilah). When oil is consumed for throat pain, the drinking itself provides therapeutic benefit warranting a borei pri ha'etz blessing. The Tur challenges the Bahag's position: if the determining factor is the large amount of oil (shemen harbeh) making it primary (ikar), then it should warrant a blessing even when not consumed medicinally. The shiur explores practical applications through the dispute between the Magen Avrohom and the Gra regarding vegetable juices. The Magen Avrohom holds that cooked beet juice (mei shelakos) drunk requires a borei pri ha'adamah blessing since drinking falls under eating, while the Gra distinguishes between consumption for eating versus drinking, ruling that when consumed as a beverage it receives shehakol. This fundamental disagreement extends to modern applications like tomato juice, where the method and intent of consumption determines the appropriate blessing. The analysis reveals two competing frameworks: Rashi's eating-based system where blessings require genuine achilah, versus the Rambam's benefit-based system recognizing independent categories of pleasure from drinking.
Brachos 35b-36a
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.
