No community start suggestion yet.
Why aren't women obligated in Hallel on Chanukah (חנוכה) if they're obligated in lighting based on 'af heim hayu b'oso hanes'? The Rambam (רמב"ם) identifies two distinct Chanukah miracles: the military victory (Hashem (ה׳)'s war through the Kohanim) and the Temple rededication with lasting oil. Women participated in the rededication like the original Mishkan, obligating them in ner Chanukah, but not in Hallel commemorating the divine military victory.
Rabbi Zweig begins with a longstanding question about the Al Hanissim prayer - why do we praise Hashem (ה׳) for 'reshaim biyad tzaddikim' and 'zeidim biyad oskei Toratecha'? The answer emerges from understanding the true nature of the Chanukah (חנוכה) miracle and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s complex presentation of the laws. The lecture analyzes a famous question on the Rambam: why doesn't he rule that women are obligated in Hallel on Chanukah if they are obligated in ner Chanukah based on 'af heim hayu b'oso hanes'? Through careful examination of Hilchos Chanukah and Hilchos Brachos, Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that the Rambam identifies two distinct miracles and corresponding obligations. The first miracle was the military victory, where the Chashmonaim (as Hashem's direct agents from Shevet Levi) overcame the Greeks - this was Hashem fighting the war directly, not a human victory. This generates obligations of Hallel, simcha, and pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle) through lighting outside. The second miracle occurred when Klal Yisrael established a malchus and rededicated the Mishkan, discovering oil that lasted eight days instead of one. This generates the core obligation of ner Chanukah. Women are obligated in ner Chanukah because they participated in the rededication of the Mishkan (similar to their role in building the original Mishkan), making this 'af eim hayu b'oso hanes.' However, women are not obligated in Hallel because the military victory was Hashem's war fought through His special legion (the Kohanim), not something in which women participated. The Rambam's language reveals this distinction: he calls ner Chanukah a 'chovah' (obligation) but describes Hallel as merely 'gomer es haHallel' (completing the Hallel) - a mitzvah (מצוה) but not an obligation. The bracha on Hallel is compared to eruv and the second reading of Megillah, both of which are mitzvos but not chovos. This understanding resolves the apparent contradictions in the Rambam's presentation and explains why he discusses the bracha question for Hallel separately from ner Chanukah, even though both are d'rabbanan.
Shabbos 21a-23a
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.
