A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can Kriat Shema be recited from dawn or only from sunrise? The shiur analyzes the machlokes Rishonim, particularly the Baal HaMaor's restrictive view versus the Raavad's innovative distinction between two types of tefilah. This leads to fundamental questions about whether tefillin must be worn during Shema and how semichat geulah l'tefilah shapes the timing.
This shiur provides an extensive analysis of Brachos 9b, focusing on the proper timing for Kriat Shema and tefillin. Rabbi Zweig explores multiple opinions among the Rishonim regarding when one may fulfill the obligation of Kriat Shema, particularly examining whether it can be recited from Amud HaShachar (dawn) or only from Netz HaChamah (sunrise). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses various positions: some hold it's from Meshiah (dawn), others from Netz HaChamah, with Amud HaShachar notably not mentioned in this particular sugya. The shiur analyzes how this relates to the sugya on Daf 26b which states that according to Rabbi Shimon, one can fulfill Kriat Shema from Amud HaShachar. The Baal HaMaor's position is examined - he holds that Kriat Shema can only be recited from Netz HaChamah, bringing proof from a later Gemara about early morning activities. The Raavad's innovative response is discussed - he suggests that the Gemara's discussion of early morning tefilah refers to before Amud HaShachar, not after, introducing the radical concept that Shacharit can be recited before dawn under certain circumstances. This leads to a complex discussion about whether there are two different types of tefilah - one connected to the Temple service (which requires daylight) and another purely for mercy (which can be done earlier). Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary is analyzed regarding why tefillin must be donned before Kriat Shema, with Rabbi Zweig suggesting this reflects a fundamental obligation to wear tefillin during Kriat Shema. The concept of semichat geulah l'tefilah (connecting the blessing after Shema directly to the Amidah) is examined from different perspectives - whether it's primarily for the benefit of tefilah or for Kriat Shema. Tosfos's approach is contrasted with other Rishonim, suggesting that tefilah should immediately follow Shema rather than Shema being timed for tefilah. The shiur concludes with practical halakhic observations about proper pronunciation during Kriat Shema, particularly regarding the phrase 'al tzitzis hakanaf' and common mispronunciations that can affect the meaning of the verses.
Brachos 9b
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.
