No community start suggestion yet.
Is lighting Chanukah (חנוכה) candles a personal obligation or a household one? The shiur develops the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) (personal obligation - each person must light) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) (household obligation - each house requires lighting). This dispute determines crucial practical questions like whether travelers, hotel guests, or wedding attendees can light where they are.
Rabbi Zweig presents a detailed analysis of Masechta Shabbos (שבת) regarding the laws of Chanukah (חנוכה) candle lighting, focusing on the fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) about the nature of the obligation. The shiur begins with the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement 'ner ish u'beiso' (a candle for a man and his household) and examines how Rashi and the Rambam interpret this phrase differently. According to Rashi, 'beiso' refers to the man's family, making it a personal obligation where each person has a duty to light. According to the Rambam, 'bayis' refers to the physical house, making it a household obligation where the house itself requires lighting. Rabbi Zweig explores the extensive practical ramifications of this dispute. If it's a personal obligation (Rashi), then someone camping outside, staying in a hotel, or attending a wedding can light wherever they are. If it's a household obligation (Rambam), then only houses require lighting, and someone without a house cannot fulfill the mitzvah (מצוה). The shiur examines scenarios like guests in someone else's home, people traveling, and those attending simchas during Chanukah. Rabbi Zweig also discusses the concept of mehadrin (beautifying the mitzvah) and how Rashi and the Rambam understand this differently. Rashi views mehadrin as 'those who chase after mitzvos,' implying multiple acts of gratitude, while the Rambam sees it as hiddur mitzvah - beautifying a single mitzvah. The analysis extends to whether the obligation requires shlichus (agency) and how it compares to other household mitzvos like mezuzah. Rabbi Zweig cites the Rambam's formulation that lighting Chanukah candles serves 'to publicize the miracle and to add praise and thanksgiving to Hashem (ה׳) for the miracles He performed for us.' This leads to a discussion of whether lighting multiple candles represents multiple thank-yous or a single beautified expression of gratitude. The shiur concludes by addressing a question from Rabbeinu Chananel about the limits of hiddur mitzvah spending, showing how the different understandings of mehadrin affect this halachic principle.
Shabbos 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.
