No community start suggestion yet.
Why do the same wicks prohibited for Shabbos (שבת) candles also apply to Chanukah (חנוכה) candles, when Shabbos candles are lit for personal benefit while Chanukah candles are not? The shiur develops the possibility that 'ein madlikin' indicates preference rather than outright prohibition, making the parallel between contexts clearer than the standard reading suggests.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Shabbos (שבת) 21a-b, focusing on the statement 'kavsa zakuk lah' (if it goes out, he is obligated to it) and the complex laws regarding defective wicks and oils. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the fundamental question: why are certain wicks and oils prohibited for use on both Shabbos and Chanukah (חנוכה), given that these contexts seem entirely different? On Shabbos, candles are lit for oneg Shabbos - to derive pleasure and benefit from the light during meals and activities. The concern is 'shema yateh' - that if the light flickers or burns poorly, one might adjust or rekindle it, violating the biblical prohibition of lighting fire on Shabbos. However, Chanukah candles are lit outside, not for personal benefit or enjoyment, making the parallel prohibition puzzling. The Gemara presents three positions: Rav Huna prohibits these wicks both on weekdays and Shabbos, Rav Chisda permits them on weekdays but prohibits them on Shabbos, and Rav permits them in both contexts. Rabbi Zweig questions how the Chachamim can extend the Mishna's concern about Shabbos candles (which are meant for hana'ah) to Chanukah candles (which are not meant for hana'ah). He suggests that 'ein madlikin' (we do not light) may not mean a complete prohibition but rather indicates that it's not preferable - a distinction that would apply equally to both Shabbos and Chanukah contexts.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Shabbos 21a-b
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.
