A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does fruit soup sometimes get shehakol instead of borei pri ha'etz, while cooked vegetables keep borei pri ha'adama? The shiur distinguishes between borei pri ha'adama as a blessing on the land's produce versus borei pri ha'etz as a special blessing on fruit itself as Hashem (ה׳)'s treat. This explains why cultural cooking practices (derech) affect fruit blessings but not vegetable blessings.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Brachos 38a regarding blessings on cooked produce. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining a dispute about fruit soup - whether it retains the blessing of borei pri ha'etz or becomes shehakol. The Rosh holds that if it's the normal practice (derech) to eat something cooked, it retains its original blessing; otherwise it becomes shehakol. The shiur then explores what determines when something loses its status as a fruit through a detailed analysis of the Gemara in Sukkah regarding disqualified esrogim. Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary reveals that there are different levels of cooking - bishul (regular cooking) versus shalaka (overcooked), with only shalaka disqualifying an esrog. This leads to a fundamental question: what drives the din of borei pri ha'etz versus borei pri ha'adama? Rabbi Zweig proposes that borei pri ha'adama is a blessing on what the land produces, while borei pri ha'etz is a special blessing specifically on the fruit itself - not just on the produce of the tree, but on the concept of fruit as a special treat from Hashem (ה׳). This explains why cultural practices (derech) matter more for fruits than vegetables. The analysis includes a complex discussion of why it's generally not the derech to cook fruits - because fruits often contain juice which is considered a separate 'fruit' that would be ruined by cooking. The shiur concludes by examining apparent contradictions between the laws of esrog and the laws of blessings, showing how something can be considered a fruit for one halacha (הלכה) but not another, since these are fundamentally different dinim with different requirements.
Brachos 38a
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.
