A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why do Sephardim say 'Mattisyah' while Ashkenazim say 'Mattisyahu' in Al Hanissim? The difference reflects a machlokes about whether Chanukah (חנוכה) involved one miracle or two. The Tzlach's position that the ner mitzrah miracle from the First Temple was also restored justifies the full divine name ending, while those who hold only the oil miracle occurred maintain the Second Temple context.
This shiur examines a fascinating linguistic and halachic difference in the Al Hanissim prayer, where Sephardim say 'Mattisyah' while Ashkenazim say 'Mattisyahu.' The speaker explains that this dispute extends to practical halacha (הלכה) in Hilchos Gittin regarding how to write names in divorce documents. The fundamental distinction stems from different patterns of divine names between the First and Second Temple periods. In Bayit Rishon (First Temple), names ended with 'Yehu' (like Yirmiyahu, Yeshaya), representing the full divine name yud-hey-vav-hey due to the complete hashraas hashechinah (divine presence). In Bayit Sheni (Second Temple), names ended with 'Yah' (yud-hey only), reflecting a diminished level of divine presence. The speaker then presents the Tzlach's innovative explanation for why Chanukah (חנוכה) is celebrated for eight days rather than seven. The Tzlach explains that in the First Temple, there was a daily miracle where the ner mitzrah (western candle) burned for twenty-four hours while all other candles burned only twelve hours, despite having identical amounts of oil and wicks. This miracle ceased in the Second Temple period. However, during the Chanukah miracle, the Tzlach argues that the ner mitzrah resumed burning for twenty-four hours, creating a second miracle alongside the oil lasting eight days. This restoration of the First Temple's miracle meant the Chanukah menorah possessed the spiritual quality of Bayit Rishon, justifying the Ashkenazi pronunciation 'Mattisyahu' with the full divine name. The Sephardic position, following the Beit Yosef who doesn't accept this explanation, maintains that only the standard oil miracle occurred, keeping the Second Temple context and therefore using 'Mattisyah.' This analysis demonstrates how pronunciation differences in liturgy can reflect deep theological positions about the nature of miracles and divine presence.
Al Hanissim prayer, Hilchos Gittin
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 Holidays
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.
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.
