No community start suggestion yet.
Why do we make blessings on Chanukah (חנוכה) candles but not on separating demai? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction between divrei sofer (rabbinic applications of Torah (תורה) principles) and pure takanos. Only observances rooted in Torah concepts through Sages' interpretation warrant blessings, explaining why Chanukah's gratitude and miracle-recognition elements get berachos.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Shabbos (שבת) 23a, focusing on the fundamental question of why we make blessings on certain mitzvos derabbanan but not others. The Gemara asks why we make a blessing on lighting Chanukah (חנוכה) candles but not on separating demai (doubtful tithes). Rabbi Zweig examines the dispute between major Rishonim on this issue. The Rabbeinu Yonah and Raavad understand that the Gemara establishes a principle: on a definitive rabbinic obligation (vadai derabbanan) one makes a blessing, but on a doubtful rabbinic obligation (safek derabbanan) one does not. They extend this to say that on a doubtful Torah (תורה) obligation (safek de'oraysa), one would make a blessing. The Rosh disagrees, arguing that the entire discussion concerns rabbinic ordinances and has no bearing on Torah-level doubts. Rabbi Zweig presents the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s unique approach, which introduces an important distinction. The Rambam discusses both the lighting of Chanukah candles and reciting Hallel, categorizing both as mitzvos midivrei sofer rather than simple rabbinic enactments. Rabbi Zweig explains that divrei sofer refers to the Sages' authoritative interpretation and application of Torah principles, which differs from pure rabbinic legislation. According to this reading, blessings are only made on observances that have some connection to Torah obligations through the Sages' interpretation (divrei sofer), not on pure rabbinic enactments (takanos). The shiur explores the deeper implications of this distinction, particularly regarding the nature of Chanukah itself. Rabbi Zweig suggests that Chanukah contains two elements: a festival aspect established by communal acceptance (like a minhag), and specific mitzvos that embody Torah principles of gratitude and recognition of divine miracles. Only the latter, being divrei sofer, warrant blessings. This analysis resolves several textual difficulties in the Rambam and provides a framework for understanding when blessings are appropriate on rabbinic observances. The shiur concludes by examining practical applications of this principle to various aspects of Chanukah observance.
Shabbos 23a
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.
