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.
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.
