A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When uncertain whether a blessing was properly recited, should one be stringent and make another blessing, or be lenient and eat without one? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rav Kivneger (safek brachos l'chumra) and the Mechaber (safek brachos l'hakeil), exploring whether eating without a blessing violates Torah (תורה) or Rabbinic law.
This shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Berachos 35a, focusing on the fundamental machlokes (dispute) between Rav Kivneger and the Mechaber regarding the principle of safek brachos (doubtful blessings). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone intended to make a blessing on wine but mistakenly said the blessing for beer, or vice versa, creating uncertainty about the validity of the blessing. Rav Kivneger holds safek brachos l'chumra (be stringent in doubtful blessing cases), meaning if there's uncertainty whether a blessing was properly recited, one cannot eat without making another blessing. This is based on the principle that eating without a blessing violates the prohibition of "lo sisah" (taking God's name in vain) and constitutes me'ilah (improper benefit from sacred property). The Mechaber and Ramah, however, hold safek brachos l'hakeil (be lenient), allowing one to eat without making another blessing in cases of doubt. The shiur examines several practical applications in Shulchan Aruch where this principle applies, including cases of tasting small amounts, eating in a different location, and drinking wine after havdalah. A key discussion centers on the Marshal's position that the principle "koach de-heter adif" (the power of permitting is stronger) supports requiring blessings, since making a blessing permits the otherwise forbidden act of eating. The analysis explores whether the prohibition of eating without a blessing is d'Oraita (Torah (תורה)-level) or d'Rabanan (Rabbinic), examining cases where someone already made a blessing (such as kiddush) but uncertainty exists about subsequent eating. The shiur questions whether certain requirements, like proper intention (kavana) or avoiding interruptions between blessing and eating, are Torah-level or Rabbinic obligations. The discussion concludes by examining the Mariel's position that requires making blessings on multiple cups during Pesach (פסח) due to the stringent approach to safek brachos, and the Kochav Yaakov's counter-argument that when someone cannot make a blessing due to halachic restrictions, this doesn't constitute the prohibition of eating without a blessing.
Berachos 35a
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.
