A free account is required to play videos and download files.
Where exactly should Chanukah (חנוכה) candles be lit - in one's courtyard, in the public domain, or at the specific entrance? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Rambam (רמב"ם) to reveal a deeper chakira: is Chanukah lighting a personal obligation (chiyuv gavra) to publicize the miracle, or a house-based obligation (din bayis) like mezuzah that sanctifies the dwelling itself?
This shiur provides an extensive analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Shabbos (שבת) 21b, focusing on the machlokes between major Rishonim regarding the proper location for lighting Chanukah (חנוכה) candles. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara's statement that the Chanukah light should be placed 'al pesach (פסח) beiso mibachutz' (at the entrance of his house, outside). Rashi (רש"י) interprets this to mean lighting in one's chatzer (courtyard), not in the reshus harabim (public domain), while Tosafos (תוספות) maintains that one should always light in the reshus harabim for maximum pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). The shiur identifies an apparent contradiction in Rashi between two different passages - on 21b Rashi says not to light in reshus harabim, while on 22a he permits lighting either in the chatzer or reshus harabim. Rabbi Zweig resolves this by explaining that Rashi distinguishes between two cases: when there's no tzuras pesach (doorway structure), one can light anywhere in the chatzer; when there is a tzuras pesach, one must light tefach hasamuch (within a handbreadth) of the entrance. The Rambam (רמב"ם) presents a third position, always requiring lighting tefach hasamuch lapesach regardless of circumstances. The shiur then explores the case of someone living on an upper floor (aliyah). According to Rashi, if the upstairs resident has a designated entrance (pesach) in the courtyard, he lights downstairs; if he only has access via a ladder without a proper entrance, he lights upstairs in his window. The Rambam, however, rules that anyone living upstairs lights upstairs regardless of whether they have a downstairs entrance. This leads to Rabbi Zweig's fundamental insight about the nature of the mitzvah (מצוה) itself. He argues that the Rambam views Chanukah lighting as a din bayis (obligation on the house) similar to mezuzah, rather than a personal obligation. Just as mezuzah makes the house into a Jewish home, Chanukah lighting makes the house into a 'house of pirsumei nisa.' This explains why the Rambam always requires lighting tefach hasamuch lapesach - like mezuzah, it must be affixed to the house structure itself. According to other Rishonim, the mitzvah is personal (chiyuv gavra), focusing on the individual's obligation to publicize the miracle. The shiur concludes by noting that this fundamental dispute affects practical halacha (הלכה), particularly regarding multiple residents in one dwelling and the exact location requirements for the lights.
Shabbos 21b-22a
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.
