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.
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.
