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.
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.
