No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) forbid poor-quality oils for Chanukah (חנוכה) lights that might go out and require relighting? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: is the original lighting invalid unless it burns a half-hour, or is it valid with a separate obligation to maintain burning? This distinction determines whether one may use substandard materials when better oils are unavailable.
This shiur analyzes a complex passage in Masechta Shabbos (שבת) 135b dealing with the halachos of Ner Chanukah (חנוכה) materials and relighting obligations. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses Rav Huna's ruling that oils unsuitable for Shabbos lights due to poor burning quality are also forbidden for Chanukah lights. Rava explains this is because of the principle 'kaf she zakig la' - if a Chanukah light goes out, there is an obligation to relight it. The shiur explores Rashi (רש"י)'s difficult commentary explaining why poor-quality oils are prohibited: since they may go out and require relighting, one must initially use only reliable materials to ensure proper burning for the required half-hour duration. Rabbi Zweig raises a fundamental question about Rashi's language of 'dior ma posha v'lo misaklah' (lest one be negligent and not relight it) - why assume negligence rather than simple absence or unawareness? The analysis distinguishes between two possible understandings of the relighting obligation: either the original lighting is invalid if it doesn't burn a half-hour (making relighting essential to fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה)), or the initial lighting is valid but there's a separate obligation to ensure it burns the full duration. This distinction has practical implications for cases where only poor-quality oils are available. The shiur addresses Tosafos (תוספות)' question about why Erev Shabbos requires a different reason (shema yata - lest one come to fix it on Shabbos) beyond the weekday concern about relighting. The answer relates to whether relighting is possible - during the week one can relight, but on Shabbos this is forbidden, creating different halachic concerns. The Gemara also discusses 'mutar lishtamish la'ora' - whether one may use Chanukah lights for personal benefit. The shiur concludes by examining why Ner Chanukah requires special reasoning for usage restrictions, unlike other mitzvah objects, explaining that light, sound, and smell don't physically detract from the mitzvah object, so we need the special principle of 'she'heini kashu nikkar shu mitzvah' - so it should be recognizable as being for the mitzvah.
Shabbos 135b
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.
