No community start suggestion yet.
Is Chanukah (חנוכה) lighting a personal obligation or a household one? The machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) on when one can make a bracha as a "ro'eh" reflects deeper disagreement about Chanukah's essential nature. Their dispute extends to whether "Al Hanisim" belongs to Chanukah's core takanah or simply to general prayer obligations.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Shabbos (שבת) 21b-23a, focusing on the famous "Mai Chanukah (חנוכה)" passage and the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the nature of Chanukah observance. The discussion begins with examining when one makes a bracha on Chanukah candles - specifically the difference between "madlik" (one who lights) and "ro'eh" (one who sees). According to the Gemara on daf 23, if someone lights candles, they make the bracha "l'hadlik" and "she'asa nisim" with "shehecheyanu" on the first day. However, someone who doesn't light makes only the "she'asa nisim" bracha as a "ro'eh." Rashi explains this depends on whether one fulfills the mitzvah (מצוה) personally - if you're yotzei the mitzvah through someone else lighting in your house, you cannot make a ro'eh bracha because there's no din of ro'eh for someone already yotzei the mitzvah. The Rambam (Hilchot Chanukah 3:4) disagrees, arguing it depends on whether you already made a bracha, not on fulfilling the mitzvah. This reflects a fundamental dispute about whether Chanukah lighting is a chovat gavra (personal obligation) or chovat habayit (household obligation). According to Rashi's approach, it's primarily a personal mitzvah, so once fulfilled through household lighting, no additional bracha is needed. The Rambam views it as a household obligation - only the actual lighter fulfills a mitzvah, while others merely live in a properly lit house and maintain their status as potential ro'eh. The shiur explores practical ramifications: what happens if someone comes home after lighting occurred, or if a homeless person has no house to light in. The analysis then turns to the fundamental "Mai Chanukah" passage, examining how Rashi and Rambam interpret the Gemara's statement that Chanukah was established for "yamim tovim b'hallel u'b'hoda'ah." Rashi explains "yamim tovim" doesn't mean days when work is forbidden, but rather days designated for hallel and hoda'ah, suggesting these are intrinsic obligations of the holiday itself. The Rambam reads this differently - "simcha" refers to the joy of yom tov, "hallel" is a separate obligation (codified in Hilchot Chanukah), and "hoda'ah" refers specifically to the act of lighting candles with its accompanying declaration (like "Hanerot Halalu" from Masechet Soferim). This creates a striking difference: according to Rashi, saying "Al Hanisim" in prayer is part of Chanukah's essential takanah; according to the Rambam, it belongs to hilchot tefillah as a general prayer obligation, not specifically to Chanukah. The shiur concludes by noting how the Gemara's structure supports the Rambam's reading - after discussing the lighting obligations, it separately addresses prayer and bentching requirements, suggesting these are distinct categories of obligation rather than unified aspects of a single yom tov framework.
Shabbos 21b-23a
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
How can Shabbos observance atone for the idolatry of Enosh's generation? The Rambam's reading shows that generation sought God through physical intermediaries rather than direct connection. Proper Shabbos observance creates authentic divine experience that naturally displaces attraction to spiritual substitutes - like tasting real coffee exposes ersatz as meaningless.
Why does the Gemara say one Shabbos protects from Amalek while two Shabboses bring redemption? The shiur applies a principle from Kiddushin about repetition changing psychology: the first time doing anything is experimental, but the second demonstrates genuine desire. True Shabbos connection with Hashem requires moving beyond spiritual curiosity to authentic internalization.
Why does the Gemara pray to be 'among those who eat three meals on Shabbos' rather than simply to fulfill the mitzvah? The shiur develops that Shabbos eating means 'tasting the day itself' - mindful appreciation that connects us to Shabbos's spiritual quality. This requires discipline and community support, with three meals corresponding to distinct phases of Shabbos time.
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.
