No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) define Chanukah (חנוכה) lighting obligations by comparing them to Megillah reading rather than stating the law directly? The shiur uses this formulation to develop the principle of "ner ish u'beiso" - that the head of household's lighting encompasses the entire family. This explains why there's no chinuch obligation for children and resolves questions about blessings when away from home.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s Hilchos Chanukah (חנוכה), focusing on two primary areas: the obligations of different people in Chanukah lighting and the laws of the blessings. The shiur begins by examining the Rambam's ruling that "whoever is obligated in Megillah reading is obligated in Chanukah lighting," questioning why the Rambam uses this comparative formulation rather than stating the law directly. The Magid Mishneh's commentary is analyzed, which brings proof from Hilchos Megillah that a minor (katan) is exempt from Chanukah lighting because he is exempt from Megillah. However, this creates a contradiction since other sources indicate there is a mitzvah (מצוה) of chinuch (educating children) regarding Megillah. The shiur resolves this by explaining that according to the Kesef Mishneh, the obligation of chinuch falls on the father, not the child directly. Therefore, when the Rambam says the katan is exempt, he means there is no direct obligation on the child himself. This leads to a broader discussion of why there might be no chinuch obligation for Chanukah lighting. The shiur proposes that since Chanukah is a din of "ner ish u'beiso" (a candle for a man and his household), when the father lights, it automatically includes the entire household, making separate chinuch unnecessary. The shiur then examines the three blessings for Chanukah: l'hadlik ner Chanukah, she'asah nisim, and shehecheyanu. The Rambam's statement that shehecheyanu is only recited on the first night is analyzed, with discussion of whether this applies only to the literal first night or the first time one lights each year. Finally, the shiur explores complex halachic questions about the nature of "ner ish u'beiso" - whether it means the household members are actually fulfilling their obligation when the head of household lights, or whether it simply removes their obligation to light separately. This distinction has practical implications for someone who sees Chanukah lights while away from home and the question of whether they need to make their own blessing.
Rambam Hilchos Chanukah
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.
