Loading...
 

Vol 20.29 - Chanukah       Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page207   Page208   Page209   Page210   Page211  

Talmud-Shabbat

Summary:

(5742) Debate of the Amoraim in the reason for Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel whether one adds Chanukah lights each night or decreases Chanukah lights each night. (Tal Shabb. 21b) and the difference in Halacha  

 

Translation:

1. It states in tractate Shabbat (21b):

“Our Rabbis taught: The Mitzvah of Chanukah is a [single] candle for a man and his household. (נר איש וביתו) (Note: This means that one candle is lit every evening of the eight days for the entire household).

(For) those who are scrupulous (המהדרין): A candle for each and every one [of the household];

(For) the scrupulous among the scrupulous (Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin/ המהדרין מן המהדרין):

  • Beit Shammai says: The first day he lights eight, from here going [forward], he goes on reducing. (יום ראשון מדליק שמנה מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך)
  • But Beit Hillel says: The first day he lights one, from here going [forward], he goes on increasing. (יום ראשון מדליק אחת מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך)

Two Amoraim dispute (פליגי בה תרי אמוראי):

One maintains:

  • The reasoning of Beit Shammai is: to correspond to the days which are entering.
  • And the reasoning of Beit Hillel is: to correspond to the days which are going out.

But another maintains:

  • the reasoning of Beit Shammai is: to correspond to the bulls [offered on Sukkot]
  • And the reasoning of Beit Hillel is that [we] ascend in holiness and [we] do not descend. (מעלין בקדש ואין מורידין)

The plain meaning of “Two Amoraim dispute” makes more sense to say that the dispute of the Two Amoraim is not just in the reasons of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, but that there is also a ramification in the Halacha.

And this is indeed explained in many sefarim and codifiers, namely, that the dispute between Rambam and Tosafot -

  • Whether (like the view of Tosafot) “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin” is an addition just on the aspect of “a single candle for a man and his household” (meaning one candle for all the members of the household). This means that those who are “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin” light on the second night two candles (for all the members of the household).
  • Or whether (like the view of Rambam) “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin” is also an addition in “A candle for each and every one of the household”. This means that “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin” means that in addition to that which one lights “A candle for each and every one of the household”, one is also “increasing each day” (מוסיף והולך)

(Or “decreasing each day” (פוחת והולך))

in the number of the candles (for each of the members of the household) -

(that this dispute) is dependent in the two views of the aforementioned Two Amoraim.

According to the first view, that:

  • The reasoning of Beit Shammai is: to correspond to the days which are entering.
  • And the reasoning of Beit Hillel is: to correspond to the days which are going out,

one does not light for each member of the household separately

(but rather one just lights “a single candle for a man and his household”)

so that there is a recognition (היכר) that the multitude of candles corresponds to the days.

(Notwithstanding if they are) increasing or decreasing (and not because there or more or fewer members of the household).

And according to the second view that:

  • The reasoning of Beit Shammai is: to correspond to the bulls offered on Sukkot
  • And the reasoning of Beit Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and we do not descend

one does not need a recognition for the number of days. Therefore, according to this “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin” adds to the “A candle for each and every one of the household”

One could however say that the difference between the two reasons is not just how we should learn the law of “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin” (whether like the view of Tosafot or the Rambam),

but also (the difference between the two reasons is how it applies) according to our custom – as the Rema rules that “this is the plain custom” (וכן המנהג פשוט), namely that each member of the household lights the Chanukah Neirot and “increases each day” (מוסיף והולך).

In other words, there is a difference in the practical Halacha (הלכה למעשה), (namely how we light today), between the two reasons.

2. If one would light on the second night just one candle (for whatever reason) one could discern how many candles are needed for the third night:

According to the first view, that “the reasoning of Beit Hillel is: to correspond to the days which are going out“, it is simple that one must light three candles according to the days which are going out.

However according to the second view that “the reasoning of Beit Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and we do not descend“, it is sufficient that he will light just two candles. For even then, he fulfills the Hiddur of “ascending in holiness and not descending“.

This difference is just in a case of “bedieved” (after the fact), when one did not previously fulfill the Mitzvah scrupulously (b’Hiddur).

There is however a difference also in a case where in the previous night he did indeed fulfill the Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah in a manner of “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin”:

When one has sufficient oil and so forth, just for the two candles on the third night of Chanukah – how many candles should he light?

According to the first view, it must seemingly come out that, since he can, in any event, not fulfill the Mitzvah “corresponding to the days which are going out“, it is sufficient that he light one candle in order to fulfill the primary Mitzvah (עיקר המצוה) of “a single candle for a man and his household”. For since through adding another candle, it will not come to a scrupulousness (Hiddur) of the Mitzvah (since he does not have the candles “corresponding to the days which are going out“)

Whereas according to the second view that “we ascend in holiness and we do not descend“, one must light two candles, even though, through this, he will not fulfill the scrupulousness (Hiddur) completely - the “ascending in holiness“. Nevertheless he, at least, fulfills the “not descending“ – he does not light less than the number (two candles) which he light on the second night.

3. On a deeper level one could say that there is a difference here between the two viewpoints, in the boundary of the relation of “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin” to the Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah.

The plain difference between them is:

According to the first view, the reasons of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are connected to the days of Chanukah - (whether it is) “corresponding to the days which are entering“ or “corresponding to the days which are going out“.

However according to the second view, the reasons are connected with a “secondary” (זייטיקן) aspect (the fruits of the festival, the conduct of a person in matter of holiness).

In a different perspective:

1. This is law in the “person” (Gavra/ גברא). Through increasing the number of candles (or decreasing like the view of Beit Shammai) on each night, it results in a Hiddur in his (the person’s) fulfillment of the Mitzvah, the candles (which he adds) are, however, in the realm of “permissibility” (רשות).

2. This is a law in the Mitzvah itself, the candles are the chef of the Mitzvah (the Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah)

[The commentators say that there is a difference in Halacha between the two: If one brings the additional candles after blessing on the first night – there is a question whether one blesses on the candles of Hiddur (as it known the, dispute of the Acharonim in this)]

And this is the difference between the two views:

According to the first view, that: “The reasoning of Beit Shammai is to correspond to the days which are entering and the reasoning of Beit Hillel is to correspond to the days which are going out“- which is a reason that is connected with the days of Chanukah and with the miracle of Chanukah,

(For which it was enacted that we light the Chanukah candles) –

in this view, the candles that we add each day are a part of the Chanukah and the Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah. The candles are the candles of the Mitzvah of Chanukah (and as this is also plain, that through the increase in the candles, it is also publicized that each day is increased (צוגעקומען) in the miracle of the candles).

However according to the second view, that “the reasoning of Beit Shammai is to correspond to the bulls offered on Sukkot and the reasoning of Beit Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and we do not descend“ – reasons that do not have a connection, in their subject matter, to the days and miracle of Chanukah – in this view, the “Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin” is just an addition and Hiddur in the conduct, in general, of the person ( he should advance in holiness etc.) However, not in the object (Cheftza) of the Mitzvah.

4. According to this, the emphasis and lengthiness of Rashi, in his explanation of the section (סוגיא) of the Talmud, fits nicely (תומתק):

Rashi’s states:

       “The fruits of the festival: Gradually decreasing in the Korbanot of Sukkot (as it states) in Parshat Pinchas.

       “Ascending in holiness and not descending: Derived from the Scripture, as is learned in tractate Menachot, in Perek Shtei           HaLechem (Daf 91a)

. מתמעטים והולכים בקרבנות דפרשת פנחספרי החג

(.דף צט) . מקרא ילפינן לה במנחות בפרק שתי הלחםמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין

Seemingly, the elaboration of “the Korbanot of Parshat Pinchas” it is not straightforward.

And what difference does it make that “Ascending in holiness etc.”

  1. Is learned from the “verse in Scripture” (מקרא)?
  2. That it is learned from “tractate Menachot in Perek Shtei HaLechem”?

Yet, one could say that Rashi is emphasizing that according to that view, the reasons of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are not connected with the detail of Chanukah and the miracle of Chanukah:

“Gradually decreasing in the Korbanot of Sukkot (as it states) in Parshat Pinchas“ has no connection with Chanukah:

“Ascending in holiness and not descending: Derived from the Scripture, as is learned in tractate Menachot, in Perek Shtei HaLechem” is:

 1. A teaching and lesson in the Written Torah (and Chanukah is completely from the Divrei Sofrim (Rabbinical)).

2. A thing that is learned from “learned from tractate Menachot in Perek Shtei HaLechem” which is a general lesson regarding aspects which are spoken about in Menachot etc. (which is not related to Chanukah).

5. According to this reasoning, the reasoning in dispute is understood, namely that the second aforementioned difference (in Par. two) - when one has just two candles on the third night of Chanukah, whether he should light one candle or two candles – is not proven (מוכרח).

Also according the view that “the reasoning of Beit Hillel is to correspond to the days which are going out“, should he light on the third night, two candles (if he does not have enough oil for three) – since although he does not have the completeness of the Hiddur, the way it should be on the third night, should he nevertheless light, at least, corresponding to a part of the days that go out, since that through this, he adds in the essential Mitzvah (עצם המצוה). The candles are for him more complete, and they publicize (not just the main miracle of the Chanukah, but) also the addition in the miracle as opposed to the first day.

But there will be a difference in a case when he does not have enough oil even to do the Hiddur from the previous day. For example, when on the eighth night, he has less than seven candles.

A difference which is in a manner that is opposite from the above:

According to the first view “corresponding to the days which are going out“, since this is a part of the body of the Mitzvah (גוף המצוה) of Neirot Chanukah, he must light as much as he has, in order to add as much as he can in the Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah, as aforementioned.

According to the second view that “the reasoning of Beit Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and we do not descend“- Where the candles that one adds do not have a relation to the essential Mitzvah of Neirot Chanukah- it is probable that he should light just “a single candle for a man and his household”, the essential Mitzvah (עיקר המצוה).

If he adds to the essential Mitzvah (עיקר המצוה), it will come out that he transgresses on “do not descend”; However if on this day he fulfills the essential Mitzvah correctly – “a single candle for a man and his household”.

MSichas Motzai Shabbat Kodesh Parshat Miketz 5739

 

Links:
 
 
 
 Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: