Archive for the ‘00. Chanuka’ Category

מקום הנחת נר חנוכה פתח הבית מבחוץ

(גמרה שבת כא:ב)

The Gemara says that the actual מצוה of lighting candles is to light them in the entrance of the house – the doorway.

Rashi says that even in a house with a courtyard one lights at the front door of his house, not the courtyard. Tosfos comments that a courtyard with two gates needs two menorahs. One at each gate – seemingly not at the ‘front doorway’ at all.

But the Gemara said ‘פתח’ – door, so although Tosfos say that the mitzva has nothing to do with a door, he also says that only in a house with no courtyard would one light at the door.

What’s is the basic logic that led Rashi and Tosfos to such opposite ideas?
They were arguing what the focal point of the statement in the Gemara was: Was itחוץ  (outside), to accomplish the mitzvah of publicising the miracle as the key goal or בית (the house) to accomplish להדליק as the key goal.

So according to Rashi you should light inside a house as the primary mitzva, but lighting at the door satisfies the secondary mitzva of publicising the event.
Tosfos is of the opposite opinion in both aspects. The primary function of lighting a menora is to publicise the event – and as such Tosfos says that one should light as close to the public as possible, and the בית aspect is secondary.

The Beis Halevi asks: According to the respective views regarding the meaning of ‘פתח’ – do you light inside of door, or outside?
Again Rashi and Tosfos have opposite opinions:
Tosfos says that it means inside of the courtyard door while Rashi says it means outside of the front door.
Their reasoning being as follows:

Rashi says that lighting inside a house is not public at all, thereby serving a house’s primary function, but if so then there is no Pirsumei Nisa; to achieve this, lighting must be done outside.
Tosfos says that it needs to be inside the courtyard, as an outside courtyard is the public domain. It also needs to be connected in some way to the בית the Gemara referenced, and be lit on private property.

The Pri Chadash asks a new question: What if a house has a door and a window, and the house has no courtyard – where would one light their menora?
Yet again Rashi and Tosfos have converse opinions. According to Tosfos you do it at the window which is following the idea of Pirsumei Nisa as a window is more public than at the door. However, Rashi uses the idea of בית and says it should be by the door.

Next question: What would happen if one lit in the courtyard of their house? – Tosfos says that one has fulfilled the mitzva l’chatchila (the way it’s meant to be), whereas Rashi says one would not be fulfilling the mitzva at all.

There are 2 ברכות – להדליק נר (the Bracha on the mitzva to light), and שעשה ניסים לאבותינו (the Bracha commemorating the miracle).
In conclusion there are two concepts: First, lighting like they lit. With the lighting, we commemorate the chanukas habayis (re-inauguration event) of removing the impure foreign elements from the Beis Hamikdash, Second, is remembering the great miracle.
The miracle is a symbol of the Yom Tov’s historical re-inauguration event, but the main goal was lighting the Menora itself.

The question is asked: Was it, in fact, the lighting or was lighting the Menora special because of the miracle that occurred, demonstrating G-D’s valuation of our actions?

If we follow Rashi’s reasoning, the primary mitzva is commemorating the re-inauguration, and the main goal is ‘להדליק נר של חנוכה’ in your house and to light inside. Publicizing the miracle and the miracle itself is only a symbol of the main event of inauguration and as such Pirsumei Nisa is secondary to the mitzvah of actually lighting the Menorah.

If we follow Tosfos’s reasoning, the miracle was the main event of Chanuka – the re-inauguration – so publicising is essential, and done as closely as possible to the public domain. There was a secondary part that the miracle itself came about through the lighting of the menora, so we satisfy that aspect of it and light a menora too.

Geshmack!

There is a concept called hidur mitzva, which means that we enhance mitzvos we do to make them beautiful. Examples of this principle include using beautiful esrogim on Succos, using larger tefillin and arranging for a megillah to be written by the best scribe.

The basic mitzvah of Chanukah is that the householder will light one candle each night on behalf for all the residents. The next stage is where another candle is progressively lit as the holiday progresses. The ideal method of performance is where each resident lights progressively

The Brisker Rav quotes the Rambam as codifying the act of lighting in the singular, indicating his view that there is no such step as the final one mentioned above, and that therefore the best mitzvah one can do is for the householder (but not each member of the house) to light progressively, which Sefardi Jews do.

This is at odds with the Rema, whom Ashkenazi Jews tend to follow, who maintains that each person lighting is ideal. What is the disagreement over?

The Gemara in Shabbos discusses a Bris Milah, where the Mohel realises afterwards that he has left a small piece of skin. There are two types of this skin, one that leaves the baby considered uncircumcised, and the other does not matter; and therefore the mitzvah has been fulfilled. The Gemara concludes that there is no need for the Mohel to repeat the Bris if it is the type which does not matter.

Rashi explains that it is only when the circumcision takes place on Shabbos that the Mohel does not return, but that on weekdays he would. The Rambam disagrees, and says the Mohel would not perform the operation again even on a weekday.

The Brisker Rav sheds light on the issue: after the time of the mitzvah has gone, the mitzvah cannot be improved. There is no doubt that this is the case on Shabbos, where there is universal agreement that one does not break it for the hidur, but the Rambam says that once the Mohel has finished the Bris, he cannot make it any more beautiful than it was, as the mitzvah has been completed and therefore gone.

The Rema and Rashi disagree, and say that yes, you can! This is the difference with regard to lighting menorahs. The Rambam says that once the householder has lit, there is no further possibility for the rest of the household to perform a hidur, as the basic mitzva was already completed when the householder had lit the first light, so the hidur stops once he has lit additional lights. Any further attempts at beautification by doing more, eg everyone else lighting, are after the mitzva has passed, so are redundant.

Ashkenazim follow the opinion the Rema and Rashi, that we can enhance something after the main mitzvah has been completed, which is why each of us lights our own menorah.

The Beis Yosef questions why we celebrate 8 days of Chanuka and not 7, seeing as there was enough oil for a day, meaning the extra benefit from the miracle was 7 days worth.

R’ Yaakov Hillel quotes Rashi on the pasuk where Leah gave birth to her fourth child, (29:35) that is based on a Midrash: הפעם אודה: שנטלתי יותר מחלקי, מעתה יש לי להודות – This time, I will thank: since I have taken more than my share. Consequently, I must offer up thanks.
The basic understanding of this would indicate that her rationale was that each woman would be mother to 3 of the tribes, and now that she had exceeded her fair share, she was grateful for the extra good G-d had done to her. R’ Hillel tells us this is not so.

The beauty of the Hebrew language is that it is hard to accurately translate as we don’t know always what the writer’s intent was. But we can interpret Rashi differently – I’ve exceeded my portion (3), now I realise I ought to have been thankful before, i.e. she realised that she was wrong to calculate at all; we can’t second-guess G-d. She realised she was wrong to have assumed that 3 was her “fair share”, that even what is natural and makes sense is a miracle.

This is a hard hitting idea.

Each breath we take – who says that all the mechanisms that enable us to breathe should in fact enable us to breathe? Why do we expect to be able to walk tomorrow, to see, to live? These may seem to be absurd examples, but that is exactly the point – we are so familiar with things we consider “normal” that we view the incredible as simply “natural”.

There is an amazing Gemara (Taanis 25a) about the righteousness of R’ Chanina ben Dosa that illustrates this point. He came home one Shabbos and saw his daughter weeping, and he asked why. She informed him that she had lit a lamp for Shabbos, that she had thought was filled with oil, but was in fact filled with vinegar, and she was weeping that they would have no light for Shabbos when the wick reached the vinegar, at which point it would extinguish. The reply: מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק” תנא היה דולק והולך כל היום כולו עד שהביאו ממנו אור להבדלה – “He who said that oil should burn will also say to vinegar to burn.” And the lamp burned the entire (night and following) day until they lit a Havdala candle with it. This story speaks volumes about how skewed our perceptions are: nature is not natural.

R’ Hillel explains that we celebrate the “extra” day of Chanuka to teach us something that seems so obvious that we don’t see it – that we must be thankful for every single thing we have and do.

The way of a Jew is “modeh ani” – to be thankful. The first thing a Jew is meant to do in the morning is thank Hashem that they woke up. Some people don’t wake up. Thank you Hashem. Some people can’t walk; paralysed suddenly, after a lifetime of mobility. Thank you Hashem. When we realise that not only are the “miracles” miracles, but everything in between – “nifle’osecha v’tovosecha sheb’chol es, erev v’voker, v’tzohoroyim” – then we’re really on our way to true praise of HaShem, and a better understanding of Hashem as the constant Creator.

R’ Chaim Brisker wonders how the jug of oil the Hasmoneans found in the Chanukah story was suitable for use beyond the first day, seeing as it wasn’t olive oil after the first day – it was miraculous, and therefore unnatural – and the commandment to light the Menorah was with natural olive oil specifically. It might physically have had the properties of olive oil, but this miraculous substance had not come from an olive! What was the point of using it after the first day? And secondly, there is a Gemara in Taanis 24 that states that one shouldn’t benefit from a miracle:

“…מהא לא תזבנון, דמעשה נסים הוא…”

An example of this may be found in the stories of rabbis of old in Eastern Europe who didn’t have food for Shabbos, and when the Rebbetzin found something for them to eat, the Rabbi would refuse it on the grounds that it would diminish from his Olam Habah, perhaps with this Gemara in mind.

At the construction of the Mishkan, in Shemos 35:27, the Torah describes how the princes, הַנְּשִׂאִם, brought oil and spices, but it spells הַנְּשִׂאִם without the letter י. Rashi explains to mean that their intentions were good, but their actions were lacking, in that they underestimated the will of the Jewish people to donate materials for the construction of the Mishkan, and so their name was shortened here to teach us to act wholeheartedly. R’ Yonasan ben Uziel explains differently, reading Nesiim as Neshaim, Aramaic for clouds.

(כז) וענני שמיא אזלין לפישון ודליין מתמן ית אבני בורלות חילא וית אבני אשלמותא לשקעא באיפודא ובחושנא ומחתן יתהון באנפי מדברא אזלין רברבני ישראל ומייתן יתהון לצרוך עיבידתא

(כח) ותיבין ענני שמיא ואזלין לגן עדן ונסבין מתמן ית בושמא בחירא וית משחא דזיתא לאנהרותא וית אפרסמא דכיא למשח רבותא ולקטורת בוסמיא

Essentially, clouds came to the princes, with stones, oil and spices from Heaven!

R’ Chaim Zevin asks R’ Chaim Brisker’s question; how could the princes use these for the Mishkan? They might have physically been olive oil/stones/spices, but again, they were unnatural. And again, the Gemara in Taanis.

We can answer this by looking at how Noach left the Ark.

וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב, וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה-זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ – the bird came back in the evening with an olive branch in its mouth. (8:11)

The Ramban explains that the olive branch was from Gan Eden

Knowing this,R’ Tzvi Pesach Franck concludes that we can differentiate between miracles. The cases we are discussing were not Yesh Meayin – something from nothing. These were Yesh MeYesh, something from something that they were in Heaven! They were then moved to Earth. They were thus completely permissible, much like the Manna, which was not a new “thing”, rather, it is what the angels grind to make their bread (Tractate Yuma). He draws the conclusion that nothing new was created, which was what the issur by Taanis was referring to. That is to say that the miracle was not their creation, which one would be forbidden to benefit from according to Taanis 24, but rather, their miraculous manipulation to be somewhere else at the relevant times.

This can be proven from when Yakov brings a feast to his father, Yitzchak:

“וַיֹּאמֶר, הַגִּשָׁה לִּי וְאֹכְלָה מִצֵּיד בְּנִי–לְמַעַן תְּבָרֶכְךָ, נַפְשִׁי; וַיַּגֶּשׁ-לוֹ, וַיֹּאכַל, וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן, וַיֵּשְׁתְּ” – “And he said: ‘Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless thee.’ And he brought it near to him, and he did eat; and he brought him wine, and he drank.”

At no point did his mother prepare wine, and R’ Yonason ben Uziel again points out the previous idea of things existing in Heaven and says

ואמר קריב לי ואיכול מצידא דברי בגין תברכינך נפשי וקריב ליה ואכל ולא הוה חמרא גביה ואזדמן ליה מלאכא ואייתי מן חמרא דאצטנע בעינבויי מן יומי שירוי עלמא ויהביה ביד יעקב ויעקב אמטי ליה לאבוי ושתי

“…….an angel brought wine made from grapes that were in heaven since Creation……”

It would seem that this too would be unnatural, and therefore forbidden to benefit from, and the answer is in the quote. They were in Heaven from creation. No problems! But what a phenomenal Yesod about the nature of Heaven…

ראש חודש ניסן

Categories