No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly did Chazal establish when they instituted Chanukah (חנוכה)? Rashi (רש"י) holds that lighting candles is separate from the core holiday obligations of Hallel and Al HaNissim, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) sees all three as one unified takana. This machlokes affects everything from women's obligations to whether candle-lighting fulfills the Torah (תורה) concept of pirsum nisa.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Shabbos (שבת) 21b, focusing on the fundamental question of 'Mai Chanukah (חנוכה)' and examining the core disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the nature of Chanukah's mitzvos. The Gemara (גמרא) asks what is Chanukah, referring to the eight days listed in Megillas Taanis when fasting is prohibited due to miracles that occurred. According to Rashi's interpretation, the Gemara's question and answer have nothing to do with lighting candles (hadlakas nerot). Instead, Mai Chanukah refers to establishing these eight days as a time when fasting is forbidden, with the obligations of saying Hallel and reciting Al HaNissim (hodaah). Rashi views lighting Chanukah candles as a completely separate halachic obligation, unconnected to the core holiday discussed in our Gemara. This creates what the Bach calls a significant difficulty - how could the Gemara discuss Chanukah without mentioning the lighting of candles, which seems so central to the holiday? The Rambam, however, interprets the Gemara differently. He understands that when Chazal established Chanukah, they instituted three interconnected obligations: simcha (joy), Hallel, and hadlakas nerot (lighting candles). According to the Rambam, all three elements are part of one unified takana established because of the miracle, making lighting candles an integral part of Mai Chanukah rather than a separate obligation. Rabbi Zweig explores the implications of this debate through analysis of a related Gemara in Rosh Hashanah discussing whether Megillas Taanis was nullified after the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara there states that Chanukah was not nullified because of 'pirsum nisa' (publicizing the miracle). Tosafos (תוספות) argues that this proves lighting candles and the holiday aspects of Chanukah are separate - the holiday could be nullified while the candle-lighting obligation remains. The Rashba strongly disagrees, arguing that the Gemara clearly connects the mitzvah (מצוה) to the holiday. Rabbi Zweig suggests that according to the Rambam's reading, pirsum nisa might refer specifically to the obligation of lighting candles as a fulfillment of the Torah (תורה)-level concept of publicizing miracles, making it too significant to nullify. The shiur also examines the obligation of women in Chanukah mitzvos. The Gemara states that women are obligated in ner Chanukah because 'af hein hayu b'oso hanes' (they too were part of that miracle). According to Rashi's approach, where lighting candles is separate from the core holiday obligations, women would be obligated in lighting but potentially exempt from Hallel (as it would be considered a time-bound positive commandment). According to the Rambam's unified approach, women's obligation in one aspect of Chanukah would extend to all aspects. Throughout the analysis, Rabbi Zweig demonstrates how these different interpretations affect our understanding of fundamental concepts in hilchos Chanukah, including the nature of the miracle being commemorated, the relationship between different Chanukah observances, and the scope of various groups' obligations in the mitzvos of the holiday.
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.
