Before reading this see part 1 here.
Section 2: Concerning Mihadrin Min Hamihadrin (Beautification of the beautification; the level of adding an extra candle for each night) does the man of the house light for everyone in the house or does each individual light for themselves?
The Rambam (4:1) writes "And a greater beautification than this and a way to fulfill the Mitzva (commandment) in the best way is for every person in the house to have a candle lit for them and add an extra candle each night." We can imply from this that, according to the Rambam, the way to perform the Mitzva according to the idea of beautification is that the man of the house should light numerous candles with regards to all the people in his household (and not that every person should light their own candle). In light of this, if we look at the Rama (671:2) where he writes, "There are those that say every person in the household should light their own candles," [the Rama is, seemingly, not even holding like the Rambam]. In fact, there are Achronim(Commentators that lived after the 16th century) that say it appears that the Rama doesn't hold like either opinion (Rambam or Tosfos). In fact, we already saw that the Rama does not hold like Tosfos because of how he relates the Mitzva of Mihadrin and Mihadrin Min hamihadrin, but now we see the Rama does not even hold like Rambam because, according to the Rambam, only the man of the house lights whereas, according to the Rama, everyone lights for themselves. If this is true, then the Rama's opinion needs further investigation.
There are those who get rid of this question by claiming that the Rambam's position was dealing with a situation where Jews lit the Menorah outside by the doorpost and the Rama's position was dealing with a situation where Jews lit their candles inside the house. However, [this does not seem like a good reconciliation because] their words do not imply this. Rather, it appears to be that, really, the Rambam and the Rama argue and we need to explain what they are arguing on.
Section 3: Explanations that Achronim (16th century and later commentators) offer regarding the argument between the Rambam and the Rama that we just discussed in section 2.
First, in order to explain the argument, we must ask what are the parameters of every person in the household lights for themselves (the opinion of the Rama). The SHUT (Questions and answers) of Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Siman 13) explains that the people of the household should have in mind not to fulfill their Mitzva (commandment) on account of the lighting of the man of the house and then they are able to light for themselves with a blessing, because (when they light for themselves) they are fulfilling their main obligation. Also, there are those that say this IS the way to fulfill the beautification of a candle being lit for every person in the household, because every person is fulfilling their own Mitzva (commandment) for themselves and they are not fulfilling their Mitzva through the man of the house. For further information see SHUT (Questions and answers) of the Ksav Sofer (Shulchan Orech, Orech Chaim Chapters 133-134) for he also holds like this.
(E-man: Just to add my own two cents here, this idea most probably comes from the idea in the Gemara that tells us in the second chapter of Kiddushin (41a), that it is always better for a person to do a Mitzva himself or herself rather than use a messenger to fulfill the Mitzva.)
On these words Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik zt'l explained (Kozeitz Mesorah part 4 page 9) the argument between the Rambam and the Rama. We can say the Rambam argues on [the Rama's understanding] of how to perform the beautification of every person in the household requires their own candle by admitting that the Rambam holds that, in truth, the people of the house do fulfill their Mitzva with the lighting of the man of the house, but the reason we light extra candles for each person in the household is because that IS the beautification of the Mitzva (commandment), to increase the number of candles. This is the language of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik:
"According to the Rama the decree of beautification was not only that a person should not be in doubt of whether he or she fulfilled their obligation with the candle of the house, rather it was instituted because every person has a personal obligation (Chovos Gavra) and therefore they should fulfill their obligation through their own lighting. However, according to Rambam, a person fulfills their obligation, even Mehadrin, with the candle of the house, but there was a decree of Mehdrin solely with regard to increasing the number of candles that were to be lit... However, [accord to Rambam] there is no personal obligation (Chovos Gavra) that was created."
Rav Turtzin in his book Kuntres Chanukah and Megilah (Chanukah Siman 8) also explains [the Rambam and the Rama's argument] in this manner. Also, Rav Soloveichik says that the practical difference between [the Rambam and Rama] is in a situation with children that have not yet reached the age of being taught (Chinuch). According to the Rama they do not light, but the Rambam would say the man of the house lights for them as well. On a similar note, Rav Turtzin says there is another difference, women. See the Mishna Berurah (671:9) that according to the Rama a man's wife does not light because Ishto Kigufo (His wife is like part of his body), but according to the Rambam there are those that say the man of the house would light for them as well.
Furthermore, we can say that the root of the argument between the Rambam and the Rama is dependent on the differentiation made in the Achronim with regards to the parameters of the main obligation of a candle for every man in his house. (See the Pnei Yehoshua and Sefas Emes on Tractate Shabbos 21b) On one side there are those that say there is a personal obligation (Chovos Gavra) on every person, but they are able to fulfill their obligation with the lighting of the man of the house. On the other side we can say there is an obligation on every household, like the Mitzva of Mezuzah, and the basic law is that every house only needs one candle. According to this we can explain that the Rama holds that there is a personal obligation (Chovos Gavra) and that the parameters of Hidur (beautifying) Mitzva (commandment) is that every single person must fulfill the obligation of lighting. However, the Rambam would not say like this. He would say that the foundation of the Mitzva (commandment) is that it is an obligation on the house and the parameters of Hidur (beautifying) is that the man of the house lights candles for all the people in the household and the Mitzva with the beautification is done through the increased number of candles.
It is possible to connect this second explanation with the first. We could propose that Rabbi Akiva Eiger's opinion (explaning the Rama) goes on the placing [of the candle] as being the main obligation, the personal obligation (Chovos Hagavra), and it is at this time a person would have in mind not to fulfill their obligation [with the man of the house]. However, according to the Rambam, who says it is an obligation on the house, it would be impossible to have intent not to fulfill your obligation [with the man of the house] because everyone in the house fulfills their obligation once the man of the house lights [the candles]. This is why the Rambam is forced to say that the parameters of Mehadrin (beautifying) are the increased number of candles for every person in the house.
(I did not see this coming. I mean, a Chakira of Cheftza vs Gavra, from Rav Soloveichik?? That was unpredictable. Hameivin Yavin)
See Part 3 Here
No comments:
Post a Comment