A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can some brachos be made after performing the mitzvah (מצוה) while others must be made beforehand? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: brachos have both a chiyuv (obligation) aspect and an issur (prohibition) aspect. When someone else performs the mitzvah, the prohibition doesn't apply, allowing post-mitzvah brachos.
This shiur examines a fundamental question in hilchos brachos through the lens of Kesubos 7 and related sources: why can certain brachos be recited after the mitzvah (מצוה) is performed, seemingly violating the principle of "over la'asyosa" (before performing the action)? Rabbi Zweig analyzes the positions of the Rosh, Rabbeinu Tam, Rambam (רמב"ם), and Ra'avad regarding brachos on kiddushin, bris milah, and other mitzvos. The Rosh holds that brachos recited after the mitzvah are "birchas shevach v'hodaya" (blessings of praise and thanksgiving) rather than "birchas hamitzvah" (mitzvah blessings), and therefore don't require "over la'asyosa." Rabbeinu Tam agrees but adds a second reason: when someone other than the person performing the mitzvah recites the blessing, different rules apply.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Kesubos 7
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.
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.
