No community start suggestion yet.
Does the Chanukah (חנוכה) lighting requirement focus on how long candles burn or on proper timing of hadlakah itself? The shiur argues that the Rambam (רמב"ם) requires sufficient oil not for extended burning time, but to ensure valid lighting during the proper window from shkiah until people leave the streets.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of fundamental Chanukah (חנוכה) lighting halachos based on Gemara (גמרא) Shabbos (שבת) 21b and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s codification. Rabbi Zweig begins by discussing contemporary practices of extending lighting times based on modern lifestyle patterns. The Brisker Rav held that if people stay out later due to movie theaters or other activities, the menorah should remain lit accordingly - sometimes until 11 PM in urban areas. This follows the principle that lighting must continue 'ad shetichleh regel min hashuk' (until people finish walking in the marketplace). The shiur then examines a fundamental disagreement about the Rambam's position. The Brisker Rav interpreted the Rambam as requiring extended lighting times when people remain active later, similar to contemporary urban environments. However, Rabbi Zweig presents a different reading of the Rambam's halacha (הלכה). He argues that the Rambam is not discussing how long candles must burn, but rather when hadlakah (the act of lighting) may be performed. The Rambam establishes three time periods: before shkiah (sunset) when lighting is invalid, the proper time for lighting (from shkiah until people leave the streets), and after that window when lighting is again invalid. The analysis reveals that the Rambam never actually states how long candles must burn - only when the mitzvah (מצוה) act of lighting may be performed. This resolves a fundamental question in the Gemara about the requirement for sufficient oil. The Gemara asks how we can require oil to burn for a specific duration when 'kavah ein zachuk l'hadlik' (if it goes out, one need not relight). Rabbi Zweig explains that the Rambam understood the Gemara's answer as establishing that the mitzvah is having proper hadlakah with sufficient oil, not maintaining continuous burning. The shiur concludes with discussion of when one may extinguish the candles after fulfilling the mitzvah, examining whether this depends on the half-hour minimum or actual street activity.
Shabbos 21b
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.
