No community start suggestion yet.
May one light a Chanukah (חנוכה) candle from another Chanukah candle? The Gemara (גמרא) in Shabbos (שבת) 22a prohibits lighting 'ner laner' but permits 'mishragah leshragah,' raising questions about when using one mitzvah (מצוה) object for another constitutes bizui mitzvah versus proper hiddur.
This shiur provides an extensive analysis of Masechta Shabbos (שבת) 22a, focusing on the fundamental question of whether one may light one Chanukah (חנוכה) candle from another candle. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement 'ein madlikin ner laner' (we do not light from candle to candle) and the reasoning behind this prohibition. The shiur explores two primary rationales offered by the Gemara: bizui mitzvah (מצוה) (disgracing the mitzvah) and the concept of osur leshamesh leora (forbidden to use for light). Rabbi Zweig delves into Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the prohibition stems from the appearance of taking away light and oil from the mitzvah candle, which diminishes its status as a ner mitzvah. He contrasts this with Rabbeinu Chananel's understanding, examining whether the issue is one of immediately fulfilling the mitzvah versus lighting something that will eventually become a mitzvah candle. The shiur addresses the practical distinction between using a kesum (wood chip) versus mishragah leshragah (candle to candle), with the Gemara permitting the latter while prohibiting the former. Rabbi Zweig analyzes whether this applies only between different people's menorahs or even within one's own menorah when adding additional candles. The discussion extends to the fundamental nature of the prohibition - whether it's an issur (prohibition) of leshamesh leora or specifically a din of bizui mitzvah, and how these concepts interact with the requirement to have a shamash (helper candle) to maintain the heker (recognition) that the menorah is for mitzvah purposes. The shiur concludes by examining how this halacha (הלכה) relates to broader principles of kavod hamitzvah (honoring the mitzvah) and the tension between using mitzvah objects for additional mitzvah purposes.
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.
