Before you read this start at the beginning of the whole discussion found here.
Section 4: The Explanation of the argument (between Rambam and Rama) by the "GRIZ" (Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik).
There is a third way to explain the argument between the Rambam and the Rama. See the SHUT (Questions and answers) of the Beis Haleivi (Second part siman 47) where he explains the argument between authorities by Bris Milah (circumcision) regarding [parts of skin that were missed by the Moel (circumciser), but are not considered to negate the Mitzva (commandment) if they are missed]. According to the Rambam, whether it is a weekday or Shabbos, once the Mohel removed his hand (finished performing the act of cutting) he is not allowed to go back and cut off these extra pieces of skin which is a hidur( beautification) of the Mitzva (commandment) [to have cut these extra pieces off]. The Beis Halevi explains that the root of the argument is how to view the relationship of the performance of the Mitzva (commandment) and the beautification of the Mitzva. According to the rambam it is impossible to separate the two actions [of the actual Mitzva and the beautification]. Therefore, once the Mohel removes his hand from performing the Mitzva there is no way to connect the cutting of the extra skin that is not preventative of fulfilling the Mitzva to the main part of the Mitzva because the Mitzva was already completed. However, the Tur and the Rama would say as long as the Mitzva is still around (as is the case by Bris Milah) it is possible to perform a beautification of that Mitzva even though it is not in the same action of, and therefore has no connection to, the main part of the Mitzva. Therefore, (according to the Tur and Rama) one would perform the beautification of the Mitzva (aka cutting off the extra skin), during the week [but not on Shabbos] even if the Mohel already performed the main Mitzva but left some extra skin.
According to this explanation given by the Bais Halevi, the GRIZ (The laws of Chanukah) tries to explain the argument [between the Rambam and the Rama] by Ner Chanukah (Chanukah lighting). He says that the Rambam and the Rama are just holding according to their own opinions [spelled out by Bris Milah). The Rambam holds that it is impossible to separate between the performance of the main part of the Mitzva and the performance of the beautification of the Mitzva. So, when it comes to the man of the house lighting the main part of the Mitzva is fulfilled with his lighting. Therefore, he is the one that must be lighting for everyone in order to fulfill the beautification of increasing the number of candles. According to this opinion (Rambam) we see that the main part of the Mitzva and the beautification are performed in one action. This is not the case by the Rama who holds that it is possible to separate between the performance of the Mitzva and the beautification of the Mitva. Therefore, [since the Rama allows for two separate actions] it is possible for every person in the house to light for themselves [to fulfill the beautification of the Mitzva].
Showing posts with label Hanukkah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hanukkah. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Translating My Brother-in-law's Chapter on "The Law of Beautifying [the Mitzva] of Ner Chanukah" Part 2
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
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
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Translating My Brother-in-law's Chapter on "The Law of Beautifying [the Mitzva] of Ner Chanukah" Part 1
UPDATED****** (I changed some wording around in order to make the second part more easily understandable)
My brother-in-law, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (not the PhD in mathematics), was the Rabbi of congregation Shomrei Emunah in Baltimore Maryland. He wrote a book with the title of Ateres Yaakov that deals with various topics in Jewish Law. I decided to translate and comment on the section that has to do with Chanukah. It is separated into 14 sections.
Section 1: The relationship between the laws of Mehadrin (beautifying the Commandment) and Mehardin min Hamihadrin (even more beautifying of the Commandment).
It states in the Gemara in Shabbos (21b) "The Rabbis teach us that the commandment of Chanukah is that every house requires a candle. A beautification of the commandment is that every person in a house requires a candle. An even further beautification is either; as Beis Shammai says, the first day eight candles are lit and every subsequent day one candle is removed; or it is, as Beis Hillel says, the first day one candle is lit and every day an extra candle is added." We follow Beis Hillel (Shulchan Orech, Orech Chaim, 671:2).
There is a relationship between the beautification of the first level of beautification and the beautification of the second level of beautification. Tosfos says (Ibid. heading Mehadrin Min hamihadrin) the law of adding an extra candle every day(Beis Hillel's opinion) is in place of (instead of) a candle for each and every person in the house. To fulfill the commandment of Mihadrin min Hamihadrin (An even further beautification of the commandment) only the man of the house has to light, but he has to light in a manner that he adds an extra candle every day (until there are eight candles).
Tosfos explains that it must be so (that the Mihadrin min Hamihadrin commandment is performed with the parameters of only one person lights and adds an extra candle every day) because if it wasn't so then there would be no way to recognize what is the current day. For, if every person requires a candle to be lit for them then the observer who sees the candles will think that the number of candles represents the number of men in the house and the observer will not recognize that the candles represent the number of days [of Chanukah].
However, Rambam (Chanukah 4:1) argues on Tosfos and says that the law of adding an extra candle each day is included in the laws of every person requiring a candle be lit for them.(Everyone has an extra candle added each day, not just one person for the whole house) See the Shulchan Orech (Orech Chaim 671:2) where he holds like Tosfos and see the Rama (Ibid) where he argues on the Shulchan Orech and holds like Rambam. Also take a look at the Taz (Ibid) where he points out that this is an exception where the Shulchan Orech follows Tosfos and the Rama follows Rambam.
The position of the Rambam is a little bit of a question. It appears to be that Tosfos is correct that if every person has candles lit for them and the candles represent the number of nights of Chanukah there is no recognition [by an observer] that a person is lighting an extra candle for each day. The beautification of the Mitzva (commandment) requires further investigation because really there is a Tannaic dispute of whether the beautification of the mitzva needs to be recognized. However, it teaches in Tractate Yoma (70a) that the beautification of the mitzva (commandment) is "In order for the masses to see its appearance. (See Rashi there)"
In the GRA's commentary (671 heading viyeish omrim) he explains that the argument (Between Tosfos and Rambam) is dependent on two possible reasons that can be applied to the opinion of Beis Hillel that is found in the Gemara. The first line of reasoning is that [the reason we light an extra candle each night is] to count the amount of days of Chanukah that have gone by. The second line of reasoning is that one always goes upward in holiness and not downward. The GRA explains that the question of [whether or not the candles count] needs to be recognized is dependent on this argument. For, it is only if we say that the main reason [for lighting extra candles] is to count the days of Chanukah that we would need the amount of candles to be recognizable. However, if the main reason is because we always go upward in holiness and not downward, then no recognition of the amount of candles is needed.
It appears from the continuation of the Gemara, where it talks about a happening of two elders, that it explains the main reason (we increase the amount of candles every day) is because we always go upward in holiness and not downward. Therefore, it seems like we can answer according to Rambam's opinion because according to his opinion it doesn't matter if the number of candles are recognized as the amount of days for there is no problem with [them not being recognized]. If this is the case we can imply from the words of the GRA that, essentially, the Rambam agrees that there are reasons one should be careful that the beautification of the Mitzva (commandment) be recognized, but there are also reasons why the beautification being recognized is unnecessary.
See Part 2 here.
My brother-in-law, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (not the PhD in mathematics), was the Rabbi of congregation Shomrei Emunah in Baltimore Maryland. He wrote a book with the title of Ateres Yaakov that deals with various topics in Jewish Law. I decided to translate and comment on the section that has to do with Chanukah. It is separated into 14 sections.
Section 1: The relationship between the laws of Mehadrin (beautifying the Commandment) and Mehardin min Hamihadrin (even more beautifying of the Commandment).
It states in the Gemara in Shabbos (21b) "The Rabbis teach us that the commandment of Chanukah is that every house requires a candle. A beautification of the commandment is that every person in a house requires a candle. An even further beautification is either; as Beis Shammai says, the first day eight candles are lit and every subsequent day one candle is removed; or it is, as Beis Hillel says, the first day one candle is lit and every day an extra candle is added." We follow Beis Hillel (Shulchan Orech, Orech Chaim, 671:2).
There is a relationship between the beautification of the first level of beautification and the beautification of the second level of beautification. Tosfos says (Ibid. heading Mehadrin Min hamihadrin) the law of adding an extra candle every day(Beis Hillel's opinion) is in place of (instead of) a candle for each and every person in the house. To fulfill the commandment of Mihadrin min Hamihadrin (An even further beautification of the commandment) only the man of the house has to light, but he has to light in a manner that he adds an extra candle every day (until there are eight candles).
Tosfos explains that it must be so (that the Mihadrin min Hamihadrin commandment is performed with the parameters of only one person lights and adds an extra candle every day) because if it wasn't so then there would be no way to recognize what is the current day. For, if every person requires a candle to be lit for them then the observer who sees the candles will think that the number of candles represents the number of men in the house and the observer will not recognize that the candles represent the number of days [of Chanukah].
However, Rambam (Chanukah 4:1) argues on Tosfos and says that the law of adding an extra candle each day is included in the laws of every person requiring a candle be lit for them.(Everyone has an extra candle added each day, not just one person for the whole house) See the Shulchan Orech (Orech Chaim 671:2) where he holds like Tosfos and see the Rama (Ibid) where he argues on the Shulchan Orech and holds like Rambam. Also take a look at the Taz (Ibid) where he points out that this is an exception where the Shulchan Orech follows Tosfos and the Rama follows Rambam.
The position of the Rambam is a little bit of a question. It appears to be that Tosfos is correct that if every person has candles lit for them and the candles represent the number of nights of Chanukah there is no recognition [by an observer] that a person is lighting an extra candle for each day. The beautification of the Mitzva (commandment) requires further investigation because really there is a Tannaic dispute of whether the beautification of the mitzva needs to be recognized. However, it teaches in Tractate Yoma (70a) that the beautification of the mitzva (commandment) is "In order for the masses to see its appearance. (See Rashi there)"
In the GRA's commentary (671 heading viyeish omrim) he explains that the argument (Between Tosfos and Rambam) is dependent on two possible reasons that can be applied to the opinion of Beis Hillel that is found in the Gemara. The first line of reasoning is that [the reason we light an extra candle each night is] to count the amount of days of Chanukah that have gone by. The second line of reasoning is that one always goes upward in holiness and not downward. The GRA explains that the question of [whether or not the candles count] needs to be recognized is dependent on this argument. For, it is only if we say that the main reason [for lighting extra candles] is to count the days of Chanukah that we would need the amount of candles to be recognizable. However, if the main reason is because we always go upward in holiness and not downward, then no recognition of the amount of candles is needed.
It appears from the continuation of the Gemara, where it talks about a happening of two elders, that it explains the main reason (we increase the amount of candles every day) is because we always go upward in holiness and not downward. Therefore, it seems like we can answer according to Rambam's opinion because according to his opinion it doesn't matter if the number of candles are recognized as the amount of days for there is no problem with [them not being recognized]. If this is the case we can imply from the words of the GRA that, essentially, the Rambam agrees that there are reasons one should be careful that the beautification of the Mitzva (commandment) be recognized, but there are also reasons why the beautification being recognized is unnecessary.
See Part 2 here.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Why is Chanuka (Hanukkah) Eight Days Long?
There is the view that I will call the Gemara's view and there is the view that I will call the Josephus view. In order to discuss this idea in detail I must first give some background by discussing each view in detail.
The Gemara's view is the more popular view that is told to every Jewish child (Shabbos 21b):
What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew[commence] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving.
This idea is fairly simple, we are celebrating a miracle that occurred. Sure, it was the re-dedication of the temple, but the main reason the holiday exists, especially for eight days, is because of the OPEN miracle, of the oil lasting longer than physics allows, that occurred. This is why we celebrate this specific victory over the "Greeks" (Seleucid Syrians) and not our other victories of war.
Jospehus' view is a little different. Josephus tells us a story that is a little more detailed than the Gemara's account (Antiquities 12:7):
6. When therefore the generals of Antiochus's armies had been beaten so often, Judas assembled the people together, and told them, that after these many victories which God had given them, they ought to go up to Jerusalem, and purify the temple, and offer the appointed sacrifices. But as soon as he, with the whole multitude, was come to Jerusalem, and found the temple deserted, and its gates burnt down, and plants growing in the temple of their own accord, on account of its desertion, he and those that were with him began to lament, and were quite confounded at the sight of the temple; so he chose out some of his soldiers, and gave them order to fight against those guards that were in the citadel, until he should have purified the temple. When therefore he had carefully purged it, and had brought in new vessels, the candlestick, the table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of incense], which were made of gold, he hung up the veils at the gates, and added doors to them. He also took down the altar [of burnt-offering], and built a new one of stones that he gathered together, and not of such as were hewn with iron tools. So on the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, which the Macedonians call Apeliens, they lighted the lamps that were on the candlestick, and offered incense upon the altar [of incense], and laid the loaves upon the table [of shew-bread], and offered burnt-offerings upon the new altar [of burnt-offering]. Now it so fell out, that these things were done on the very same day on which their Divine worship had fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use, after three years' time; for so it was, that the temple was made desolate by Antiochus, and so continued for three years. This desolation happened to the temple in the hundred forty and fifth year (of the Seleucid era 168/7 BCE), on the twenty-fifth day of the month Apeliens, and on the hundred fifty and third olympiad: but it was dedicated anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the month Apeliens, on the hundred and forty-eighth year (165/4 BCE), and on the hundred and fifty-fourth olympiad. And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some time].
7. Now Judas celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days, and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon; but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices; and he honored God, and delighted them by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs, when, after a long time of intermission, they unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their worship, that they made it a law for their posterity, that they should keep a festival, on account of the restoration of their temple worship, for eight days. And from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and call it Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and that thence was the name given to that festival. Judas also rebuilt the walls round about the city, and reared towers of great height against the incursions of enemies, and set guards therein. He also fortified the city Bethsura, that it might serve as a citadel against any distresses that might come from our enemies.
Josephus, living about 200 years after these events, says that he THOUGHT the reason we celebrated this holiday was because of the amazing victory granted. The ability for the Jewish people to regain their independence in the face of overwhelming odds. He does not mention a miracle of the light lasting eight days even though it was only physically able to last for one. Why is this? Josephus, as we are told time and again, was part of the Pharisee camp. If he had this tradition, that the Gemara mentions, why doesn't he mention it? Why does he have to suppose that the reason for the holiday was because of the overwhelming victories of war? Josephus seems to think that the reason we celebrate eight days is, simply put, because that was the allotted time for the original festival when Judah HaMaccabe re-dedicated the temple. He rebuilt the altar, the Menorah and all the other vessels of worship since the Temple had been desolate for three years.
Also, if one looks at the prayer Al-Hanissim, we are thanking G-D for everything that Josephus describes without a single mention of the miracle of one day of oil lasting eight days. Why is that?
So, apparently there are two theories as to why we celebrate eight days of Chanukah. The first is the Gemara theory, the miracle of one day of oil lasting eight. The second theory is because Judah proclaimed a feast of eight days and they decided to celebrate this amazing victory which had reversed three years of desolation in the Temple.
I also think it is necessary to explain why Judah would have proclaimed a feast of eight days when rededicating the Temple. The Temple had been desolate for three years and none of the holidays had been observed for these three years. The first thing done by Judah was to rebuild all of the vessels of the Temple and put them to use. What holiday had just been missed? Succos, the festival of booths. How long is this holiday? 8 days! Judah was most probably celebrating the festival of Succos (Sukkot) and this would be why we celebrate eight days of Chanukah, according to this theory.
It is also noteworthy to mention that the Josephus version is also verified by the version In Maccabees 1 (Chapter 4):
Could it be that the Rabbis, when saying one day of oil lasted eight days, were really telling us something much deeper? Perhaps they were hinting at the idea that the Jewish people had a spiritual revolution at that time. Up until the victory of Judah and the re-dedication of the Temple the people were not observing the commandments. The Seleucid Greeks had outlawed circumcision and other laws of the Torah. Perhaps the Rabbis were telling us of the miracle that Mattisyahu and his sons were able to uplift the Jewish people from non-observant and transformed them into people that had complete faith in G-D. Perhaps this is why, during the time of Hasmonean rule, the Pharisees controled the will of the masses. Everyone, except for the aristocracy, believed the Rabbis led the true form of Judaism. This was not true in the time of the Seleucid Greeks, most people were not observant and followed the ban on circumcision and other anti-Torah rules.
The most moving part about this whole story seems like something straight out of a movie. The speech given by Judah Hamaccabee preceding one of the final battles before the re-dedication of the Temple. Josepus tells us (Antiquities 12:7):
3. Upon this Lysias chose Ptolemy, the son of Dorymenes, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, very potent men among the king's friends, and delivered to them forty thousand foot soldiers, and seven thousand horsemen, and sent them against Judea, who came as far as the city Emmaus, and pitched their camp in the plain country. There came also to them auxiliaries out of Syria, and the country round about; as also many of the runagate Jews. And besides these came some merchants to buy those that should be carried captives, (having bonds with them to bind those that should be made prisoners,) with that silver and gold which they were to pay for their price. And when Judas saw their camp, and how numerous their enemies were, he persuaded his own soldiers to be of good courage, and exhorted them to place their hopes of victory in God, and to make supplication to him, according to the custom of their country, clothed in sackcloth; and to show what was their usual habit of supplication in the greatest dangers, and thereby to prevail with God to grant you the victory over your enemies. So he set them in their ancient order of battle used by their forefathers, under their captains of thousands, and other officers, and dismissed such as were newly married, as well as those that had newly gained possessions, that they might not fight in a cowardly manner, out of an inordinate love of life, in order to enjoy those blessings. When he had thus disposed his soldiers, he encouraged them to fight by the following speech, which he made to them: "O my fellow soldiers, no other time remains more opportune than the present for courage and contempt of dangers; for if you now fight manfully, you may recover your liberty, which, as it is a thing of itself agreeable to all men, so it proves to be to us much more desirable, by its affording us the liberty of worshipping God. Since therefore you are in such circumstances at present, you must either recover that liberty, and so regain a happy and blessed way of living, which is that according to our laws, and the customs of our country, or to submit to the most opprobrious sufferings; nor will any seed of your nation remain if you be beat in this battle. Fight therefore manfully; and suppose that you must die, though you do not fight; but believe, that besides such glorious rewards as those of the liberty of your country, of your laws, of your religion, you shall then obtain everlasting glory. Prepare yourselves, therefore, and put yourselves into such an agreeable posture, that you may be ready to fight with the enemy as soon as it is day tomorrow morning."
Judah tells his men that they are fighting for freedom to worship G-D. It is Judah's ultimate passion for G-D and desire to serve Him that allows Judah to give courage to his army. This speech from Judah can shine light on what the Gemara could be trying to tell us when it says that the miracle was the light that was supposed to last for one day lasted for eight. The Rabbis are talking about the Jewish people's spiritual level. In Judaism the number eight signifies a holy and spiritual existence. The world was made in seven days, seven signifying physicality as the Maharal and others tell us in several places. However, eight represents a spiritual level. The miracle of Chanukah is that the Jewish people, despite having their laws outlawed and worshiping their G-D being punishable, came back to strict observance of their religion. One man and his family were able to conduct this spiritual revival.
Whether the miracle of the one day becoming eight happened or not is not for me to say. The Rabbis might be talking literally or not. For this, one needs to look up Rav Avraham Ben Harambam's discussion on the matter. What is important is the underlying reality of the holiday. The Jewish people were thought to have been lost. Their temple defiled and desolate, their people were not keeping the laws and all seemed hopeless. However, looks may be deceiving and through this tragedy an even stronger Jewish people were re-born.
I hope the message of Chanukah and the eight days length is clear. The idea here is hope and optimism. Judah never gave up hope and he was able to bring back the Jewish people from the brink of destruction. His faith in G-D brought the masses back to the worship of G-D. His army, however small, was able to fight off an enormous adversary because of their beliefs. A Jew must never give up hope or faith. A hopeless situation may lead to an extraordinary turn of events. This was true of Purim and it is definitely true of Chanukah.
UPDATE********
This idea is talked about in the Aruch Hashulchan Orech Chaim 670:5. I did not make it up and he says it.
The Gemara's view is the more popular view that is told to every Jewish child (Shabbos 21b):
What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew[commence] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving.
This idea is fairly simple, we are celebrating a miracle that occurred. Sure, it was the re-dedication of the temple, but the main reason the holiday exists, especially for eight days, is because of the OPEN miracle, of the oil lasting longer than physics allows, that occurred. This is why we celebrate this specific victory over the "Greeks" (Seleucid Syrians) and not our other victories of war.
Jospehus' view is a little different. Josephus tells us a story that is a little more detailed than the Gemara's account (Antiquities 12:7):
6. When therefore the generals of Antiochus's armies had been beaten so often, Judas assembled the people together, and told them, that after these many victories which God had given them, they ought to go up to Jerusalem, and purify the temple, and offer the appointed sacrifices. But as soon as he, with the whole multitude, was come to Jerusalem, and found the temple deserted, and its gates burnt down, and plants growing in the temple of their own accord, on account of its desertion, he and those that were with him began to lament, and were quite confounded at the sight of the temple; so he chose out some of his soldiers, and gave them order to fight against those guards that were in the citadel, until he should have purified the temple. When therefore he had carefully purged it, and had brought in new vessels, the candlestick, the table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of incense], which were made of gold, he hung up the veils at the gates, and added doors to them. He also took down the altar [of burnt-offering], and built a new one of stones that he gathered together, and not of such as were hewn with iron tools. So on the five and twentieth day of the month Casleu, which the Macedonians call Apeliens, they lighted the lamps that were on the candlestick, and offered incense upon the altar [of incense], and laid the loaves upon the table [of shew-bread], and offered burnt-offerings upon the new altar [of burnt-offering]. Now it so fell out, that these things were done on the very same day on which their Divine worship had fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use, after three years' time; for so it was, that the temple was made desolate by Antiochus, and so continued for three years. This desolation happened to the temple in the hundred forty and fifth year (of the Seleucid era 168/7 BCE), on the twenty-fifth day of the month Apeliens, and on the hundred fifty and third olympiad: but it was dedicated anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the month Apeliens, on the hundred and forty-eighth year (165/4 BCE), and on the hundred and fifty-fourth olympiad. And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some time].
7. Now Judas celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days, and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon; but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices; and he honored God, and delighted them by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs, when, after a long time of intermission, they unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their worship, that they made it a law for their posterity, that they should keep a festival, on account of the restoration of their temple worship, for eight days. And from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and call it Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and that thence was the name given to that festival. Judas also rebuilt the walls round about the city, and reared towers of great height against the incursions of enemies, and set guards therein. He also fortified the city Bethsura, that it might serve as a citadel against any distresses that might come from our enemies.
Josephus, living about 200 years after these events, says that he THOUGHT the reason we celebrated this holiday was because of the amazing victory granted. The ability for the Jewish people to regain their independence in the face of overwhelming odds. He does not mention a miracle of the light lasting eight days even though it was only physically able to last for one. Why is this? Josephus, as we are told time and again, was part of the Pharisee camp. If he had this tradition, that the Gemara mentions, why doesn't he mention it? Why does he have to suppose that the reason for the holiday was because of the overwhelming victories of war? Josephus seems to think that the reason we celebrate eight days is, simply put, because that was the allotted time for the original festival when Judah HaMaccabe re-dedicated the temple. He rebuilt the altar, the Menorah and all the other vessels of worship since the Temple had been desolate for three years.
Also, if one looks at the prayer Al-Hanissim, we are thanking G-D for everything that Josephus describes without a single mention of the miracle of one day of oil lasting eight days. Why is that?
So, apparently there are two theories as to why we celebrate eight days of Chanukah. The first is the Gemara theory, the miracle of one day of oil lasting eight. The second theory is because Judah proclaimed a feast of eight days and they decided to celebrate this amazing victory which had reversed three years of desolation in the Temple.
I also think it is necessary to explain why Judah would have proclaimed a feast of eight days when rededicating the Temple. The Temple had been desolate for three years and none of the holidays had been observed for these three years. The first thing done by Judah was to rebuild all of the vessels of the Temple and put them to use. What holiday had just been missed? Succos, the festival of booths. How long is this holiday? 8 days! Judah was most probably celebrating the festival of Succos (Sukkot) and this would be why we celebrate eight days of Chanukah, according to this theory.
It is also noteworthy to mention that the Josephus version is also verified by the version In Maccabees 1 (Chapter 4):
Could it be that the Rabbis, when saying one day of oil lasted eight days, were really telling us something much deeper? Perhaps they were hinting at the idea that the Jewish people had a spiritual revolution at that time. Up until the victory of Judah and the re-dedication of the Temple the people were not observing the commandments. The Seleucid Greeks had outlawed circumcision and other laws of the Torah. Perhaps the Rabbis were telling us of the miracle that Mattisyahu and his sons were able to uplift the Jewish people from non-observant and transformed them into people that had complete faith in G-D. Perhaps this is why, during the time of Hasmonean rule, the Pharisees controled the will of the masses. Everyone, except for the aristocracy, believed the Rabbis led the true form of Judaism. This was not true in the time of the Seleucid Greeks, most people were not observant and followed the ban on circumcision and other anti-Torah rules.
The most moving part about this whole story seems like something straight out of a movie. The speech given by Judah Hamaccabee preceding one of the final battles before the re-dedication of the Temple. Josepus tells us (Antiquities 12:7):
3. Upon this Lysias chose Ptolemy, the son of Dorymenes, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, very potent men among the king's friends, and delivered to them forty thousand foot soldiers, and seven thousand horsemen, and sent them against Judea, who came as far as the city Emmaus, and pitched their camp in the plain country. There came also to them auxiliaries out of Syria, and the country round about; as also many of the runagate Jews. And besides these came some merchants to buy those that should be carried captives, (having bonds with them to bind those that should be made prisoners,) with that silver and gold which they were to pay for their price. And when Judas saw their camp, and how numerous their enemies were, he persuaded his own soldiers to be of good courage, and exhorted them to place their hopes of victory in God, and to make supplication to him, according to the custom of their country, clothed in sackcloth; and to show what was their usual habit of supplication in the greatest dangers, and thereby to prevail with God to grant you the victory over your enemies. So he set them in their ancient order of battle used by their forefathers, under their captains of thousands, and other officers, and dismissed such as were newly married, as well as those that had newly gained possessions, that they might not fight in a cowardly manner, out of an inordinate love of life, in order to enjoy those blessings. When he had thus disposed his soldiers, he encouraged them to fight by the following speech, which he made to them: "O my fellow soldiers, no other time remains more opportune than the present for courage and contempt of dangers; for if you now fight manfully, you may recover your liberty, which, as it is a thing of itself agreeable to all men, so it proves to be to us much more desirable, by its affording us the liberty of worshipping God. Since therefore you are in such circumstances at present, you must either recover that liberty, and so regain a happy and blessed way of living, which is that according to our laws, and the customs of our country, or to submit to the most opprobrious sufferings; nor will any seed of your nation remain if you be beat in this battle. Fight therefore manfully; and suppose that you must die, though you do not fight; but believe, that besides such glorious rewards as those of the liberty of your country, of your laws, of your religion, you shall then obtain everlasting glory. Prepare yourselves, therefore, and put yourselves into such an agreeable posture, that you may be ready to fight with the enemy as soon as it is day tomorrow morning."
Judah tells his men that they are fighting for freedom to worship G-D. It is Judah's ultimate passion for G-D and desire to serve Him that allows Judah to give courage to his army. This speech from Judah can shine light on what the Gemara could be trying to tell us when it says that the miracle was the light that was supposed to last for one day lasted for eight. The Rabbis are talking about the Jewish people's spiritual level. In Judaism the number eight signifies a holy and spiritual existence. The world was made in seven days, seven signifying physicality as the Maharal and others tell us in several places. However, eight represents a spiritual level. The miracle of Chanukah is that the Jewish people, despite having their laws outlawed and worshiping their G-D being punishable, came back to strict observance of their religion. One man and his family were able to conduct this spiritual revival.
Whether the miracle of the one day becoming eight happened or not is not for me to say. The Rabbis might be talking literally or not. For this, one needs to look up Rav Avraham Ben Harambam's discussion on the matter. What is important is the underlying reality of the holiday. The Jewish people were thought to have been lost. Their temple defiled and desolate, their people were not keeping the laws and all seemed hopeless. However, looks may be deceiving and through this tragedy an even stronger Jewish people were re-born.
I hope the message of Chanukah and the eight days length is clear. The idea here is hope and optimism. Judah never gave up hope and he was able to bring back the Jewish people from the brink of destruction. His faith in G-D brought the masses back to the worship of G-D. His army, however small, was able to fight off an enormous adversary because of their beliefs. A Jew must never give up hope or faith. A hopeless situation may lead to an extraordinary turn of events. This was true of Purim and it is definitely true of Chanukah.
UPDATE********
This idea is talked about in the Aruch Hashulchan Orech Chaim 670:5. I did not make it up and he says it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)