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.
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.
