A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) prohibit certain oils for Chanukah (חנוכה) lighting based on whether you must relight if they go out? The shiur uses the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction between hadlakah (instantaneous lighting like the Temple) and pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle) as two separate mitzvos. This dual framework resolves the apparent contradictions about oil requirements and Erev Shabbos (שבת) timing.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Shabbos (שבת) 21a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of which oils may be used for Chanukah (חנוכה) lighting. The central question revolves around the principle of 'kaf se zakuk la' (if it goes out, you must relight it) versus 'kaf se ein zakuk la' (if it goes out, you don't relight it), and how this affects the permissibility of using oils that may extinguish quickly. Rabbi Zweig examines Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the concern is 'shema yifsha' (lest one become negligent), questioning how negligence applies when someone has just carefully lit the menorah. The shiur explores Tosfos' challenge: how does the Gemara know that Rav Huna's position about Erev Shabbos is based on concerns about not being able to relight, rather than the general prohibition that applies during the week? The Gemara's resolution involves the principle of 'lashiyur' - that there is a requirement for sufficient oil to burn for the prescribed time. Rabbi Zweig presents the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s historical introduction to Chanukah laws as establishing two separate mitzvos: hadlakah (lighting) which mimics the Temple menorah, and pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle) which requires lighting outside at night. According to this understanding, the mitzvah (מצוה) of hadlakah is fulfilled instantaneously upon lighting, while pirsumei nisa creates additional requirements for timing and location. This framework helps resolve the apparent contradictions in the Gemara's positions. The shiur examines various Rishonim's approaches to whether Chanukah lighting on Erev Shabbos follows the same rules as during the week, with some holding that the instantaneous nature of hadlakah allows for earlier lighting before Shabbos. The analysis concludes with practical implications for understanding when brachos may be recited and how the dual nature of Chanukah obligations affects the technical requirements for proper fulfillment of the mitzvah.
Shabbos 21a
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.
