No community start suggestion yet.
Why can Chanukah (חנוכה)'s mahadrin require spending 100% more when hiddur mitzvah (מצוה) is usually limited to a third? The shiur distinguishes between cosmetic beautification and adding meaningful dimensions to a mitzvah. Chanukah's additional candles aren't mere decoration but expand pirsumei nisa itself, which explains why one can make brachos on extra candles even after fulfilling the basic obligation.
This shiur explores the fundamental nature of hiddur mitzvah (מצוה) (beautifying a mitzvah) specifically regarding Chanukah (חנוכה) candle lighting, building on previous discussions of the Rashi (רש"י)-Rambam (רמב"ם) dispute about ner ish u'beiso. The speaker examines Rabbeinu Chananel's question in Bava Kamma about why Chanukah hiddur requires spending 100% more (lighting multiple candles) when generally hiddur mitzvah is limited to a third (shlish) of the original cost. The analysis distinguishes between two types of hiddur mitzvah: one that merely adds physical beauty, and another that adds meaningful dimensions to the mitzvah itself. According to the speaker's understanding of the Rambam, Chanukah's mahadrin is not about beautification but about adding dimensions of pirsumei nisa - publicizing how many people were saved and incorporating both the military victory and the oil miracle. This explains why one can make a bracha on additional candles even after fulfilling the basic obligation, unlike typical cases where hiddur cannot be performed after completing the mitzvah (citing a principle from the Beis HaLevi). The shiur applies this framework to other mitzvos like shofar (where a bent shofar adds the dimension of tefillah) and lulav (where a fresh lulav enables nanuim for praise). The speaker concludes that this represents a fundamental Jewish approach to beauty - not mere physical aesthetics like the Greeks, but adding depth, meaning and dimensions to enhance understanding and connection to the mitzvah.
Shabbos 21b (Chanukah lighting), Bava Kamma (hiddur mitzvah shlish)
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 Aggadita
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 don't the last eight verses of the Torah require a minyan to read? The shiur develops a fundamental chiddush in the Rambam: Simchas Torah has two distinct takanos of Kriat HaTorah — Zot HaBracha is read from the din of Yom Tov (inyan hayom), while VaYom Moshe is read from the din of Shabbos (siyum haTorah). This explains why a new minyan is required for the last eight verses, and why the Raavad's minhag of having the oleh read (not the baal koreh) signals that the final aliyah is purely Talmud Torah, not shemiat dvar Hashem.
May a man who has already fulfilled his shofar obligation blow shofar for a woman on Rosh Hashanah? The Baal Itur forbids it while Rav Yehuda permits it. The shiur develops that the core dispute is not about violating shvus for another's benefit, but whether a man's blowing creates a "tekiah shel mitzvah" that enables the woman to be yotzei.
When must one interrupt eating or other activities to perform a mitzvah? The Gemara distinguishes between yesh shos (time remains) and ein shos (no time left), and between d'Oraisa and d'Rabbanan obligations. The Rambam's view—that one need not interrupt unless the mitzvah cannot be done later—contrasts sharply with the Rosh and Ran, who hold that mitzvah bo'liyos al tachmitzena requires immediate action even when time remains.
Does answering "amen" add anything when one is already yotzei through shomeia k'oneh? The shiur examines the Rambam's presentation in Hilchos Brachos perek 1, halachos 10-12, questioning why the Rambam states that one who answers amen is "k'mevorach" when earlier he ruled one is yotzei even without answering amen. The shiur explores whether amen provides an additional ma'alah beyond basic yotzei status and analyzes several seemingly contradictory Rambam passages.
