No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) prohibit lighting one Chanukah (חנוכה) candle from another? The machloket between Rav and Shmuel centers on whether this stems from bizui mitzvah (מצוה) or asur l'hishtameish l'orah. The shiur shows how this distinction affects practical applications like using a shammash and whether the prohibition applies differently when lighting within the same menorah versus between different ones.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Shabbos (שבת) 22a, focusing on the Talmudic principle 'Ein madlikin min ner l'ner' - the prohibition against lighting from one candle to another. Rabbi Zweig explores the fundamental machloket between Rav and Shmuel regarding the underlying reason for this prohibition. The Gemara (גמרא) presents two possible rationales: bizui mitzvah (מצוה) (disgracing the mitzvah) and asur l'hishtameish l'orah (forbidden to use for light). The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the prohibition stems from the appearance of diminishing the oil and light, which makes it seem like the candle is not designated for the mitzvah. A key distinction emerges between using a kisum (wood chip) versus mishrag l'shrag (candle to candle). The analysis includes Rabbeinu Chananel's position that when lighting from one Chanukah (חנוכה) candle to another, there is no bizui mitzvah since both serve the same mitzvah purpose. The shiur explores whether this applies only to different menorahs or even within the same menorah when lighting multiple candles. The concept of making something muktzeh l'mitzvah (designated for the mitzvah) is central to understanding why certain uses are prohibited. The discussion extends to practical applications, such as whether one may use a shammash (helper candle) to provide the necessary heker (distinction) that allows other uses. The shiur concludes with broader implications for the nature of mitzvah objects and the balance between honoring the mitzvah and practical necessity.
Shabbos 22a
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.
