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.
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.
