A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is Chanukah (חנוכה) lighting an individual mitzvah (מצוה) or a household obligation? The machlokes between Tosafot and the Rambam (רמב"ם) over mehadrin min hamehadrin reflects this fundamental chakira. The Rambam's household model explains why mehadrin expresses gratitude for each soul saved from the Greeks through one unified lighting.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Shabbos (שבת) 21b regarding the three levels of Chanukah (חנוכה) lighting: the basic mitzvah (מצוה) (ner ish ubeiso), mehadrin, and mehadrin min hamehadrin. Rabbi Zweig examines the fundamental disagreement between Tosafot and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding how to understand these categories. Tosafot argues that mehadrin min hamehadrin refers to the standard practice of lighting 1-8 candles corresponding to the nights, while mehadrin refers to lighting one candle per person each night. This avoids the problem of ambiguity - if you light 80 candles on the eighth night, observers wouldn't know if it represents eight nights with ten people or one night with 80 people. The Rambam, however, interprets mehadrin min hamehadrin as building upon mehadrin, requiring progressively more candles (10, 20, 30... up to 80 on the eighth night for a ten-person household). Rabbi Zweig explores whether the mitzvah is fundamentally an individual obligation (like Rashi (רש"י) suggests) or a household obligation (like the Rambam implies, comparing it to mezuzah). According to Rashi's interpretation, each person has their own obligation, and the mehadrin represents ten separate mitzvos being performed. According to the Rambam, there's one household obligation, and the mehadrin beautifies this single mitzvah by expressing gratitude for each soul saved in the war against the Greeks. The shiur addresses the Lekach Mishneh's criticism that the widespread Sephardic custom (lighting 1-8 candles regardless of household size) doesn't correspond to either the basic mitzvah, mehadrin, or mehadrin min hamehadrin according to the Rambam's understanding. Rabbi Zweig suggests that this custom can be understood as multiple people jointly participating in one lighting, which accomplishes the same spiritual purpose as the Rambam's interpretation but in a more practical manner.
Shabbos 21b
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.
