A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When flour binds food versus adds taste, does it require its own bracha? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) (ikar v'tafel) and Taz (no bracha on davek). For sick people, the Mishnah (משנה) Berurah's 'tov l'hachmir' reflects that flour provides separate medicinal benefit, creating two distinct obligations requiring separate brachos.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Brachos 36b regarding the proper brachos to recite when eating mixed foods containing one of the five grains. Rabbi Zweig examines a fundamental dispute about whether davek (binding agent) requires a bracha at all, contrasting two approaches: the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that davek has a din of ikar v'tafel (primary and secondary), versus the Taz's view that davek requires no bracha whatsoever since it's not considered a ma'achal (food). The core issue revolves around meisas shkedim (almond mixture) - when flour is added merely for binding, no bracha is made on the flour, but when added for taste enhancement, borei minei mezonos is required. However, the Mishnah (משנה) Berurah introduces the principle of 'tov l'hachmir' (it's good to be stringent) specifically for sick people. Rabbi Zweig explains this is because for a choleh, the flour provides sod halev (heart strengthening), which constitutes a real medical benefit beyond mere binding. This creates a novel situation where the sick person receives two distinct benefits: the primary medicine (shkedim) and secondary medicine (flour for heart strengthening). The analysis reveals that according to Tosafos (תוספות) and the Taz, this requires two separate brachos - borei pri ha'etz on the almonds (the main food being eaten) and borei minei mezonos on the flour (for the stomach benefit). This cannot fall under kol she'yesh bo (the law of mixed species) because one bracha is on the ma'aseh achila (act of eating) and the other is on hanoas me'ah (stomach benefit) - they are two different mechayavim (obligations). The Taz further supports this by stating that even with rov kemach (majority flour), if eaten merely for binding, no bracha is made on the flour, but if there's significant hanoa (benefit), an additional bracha may be required. Rabbi Zweig connects this to a parallel case from the Magen Avrohom regarding croutons in soup, where two separate brachos are required because neither component is batel (nullified) to the other. The practical halacha (הלכה) emerges that healthy people follow the simple rule of davek versus lisod, while sick people who derive medicinal benefit from both components should ideally make both brachos, hence 'tov l'hachmir.'
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.
