A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When do we make borei pri ha'etz on unripe fruit - immediately when it emerges or only at one-third ripeness? The machlokes between the Shulchan Aruch and Vilna Gaon reflects whether blessings acknowledge what Hashem (ה׳) gave us originally, or what we actually receive as edible food.
This shiur examines a fundamental machlokes between the Shulchan Aruch and the Vilna Gaon regarding when one makes a borei pri ha'etz blessing on unripe fruit. The Shulchan Aruch holds that one makes this blessing mishiyetzi'u (as soon as the fruit emerges), while the Gaon argues that one only makes it when the fruit reaches heviya shlish (one-third ripeness). Rabbi Zweig explains that the Gaon distinguishes between the laws of shevi'it (sabbatical year) and the laws of blessings. The concept of mishiyetzi'u applies to shevi'it - once fruit begins to emerge, one cannot cut down the tree because it would destroy potential peiros shevi'is. However, for blessings, the Gaon maintains that the shiur follows the laws of ma'aser - one gives ma'aser when one has actual fruit, which occurs at heviya shlish. This reflects a deeper philosophical question: are blessings determined by what we receive and consume (the Gaon's position), or by what Hashem (ה׳) gave us regardless of when we use it (the Shulchan Aruch's position)? Rabbi Zweig illustrates this with the case of boser (unripe grapes) according to the Rashba, who says one makes borei pri ha'etz because it is 'the thing itself.' He presents two ways to understand this: either boser is already considered fruit (what we're taking now), or we make borei pri ha'etz because Hashem is giving us what will become a pri ha'etz (what was given to us). The shiur then examines the reverse case through the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling on chametz (fermented wine). While other Rishonim like the Rosh and Rabbeinu Yonah debate whether one makes any blessing on chametz due to its poor taste, the Rambam maintains that since it was originally food (grapes), one makes a blessing - specifically shehakol rather than borei pri ha'gafen due to its current liquid form. This demonstrates the Rambam's principle that the obligation for blessings is based on what Hashem originally gave us (food), even if we consume it in a degraded state. The machlokes extends to practical applications: according to the Gaon's approach, blessings follow the principle of ma'aser - we thank for what we actually receive as food. According to the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam's approach, we thank for what was given to us, reflecting the relationship aspect of blessings rather than just the immediate benefit. Rabbi Zweig contrasts this with the laws of Yom Kippur, where the Rambam holds that chametz consumption doesn't violate the prohibition because it's not k'derech achilah (normal eating), even though it requires a blessing. This shows that hilchos brachos and hilchos Yom Kippur operate on different principles - blessings focus on acknowledging what was given, while Yom Kippur restrictions focus on the manner of consumption.
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.
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.