The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Yesterday we looked at the various customs as to when the obligation of lighting Chanukah candles set in. Today we will discuss the situation of one who, for whatever reason, did not light at that moment (either sunset or nightfall, as discussed yesterday). Until what point may he light with a berakha?

A myriad of positions exist; we will mention the more common ones.

The Vilna Gaon maintained the most stringent view. Once a half-hour period has passed from the onset of the obligation (either sunset or nightfall; recall that the Gaon maintained the former view), one may no longer light candles with a berakha; he lights without a berakha. The Beit Yosef seems to uphold this view, as well.

At the opposite end, the most lenient position allows lighting with a berakha throughout the night, until daybreak. As the Magen Avraham notes, this appears to be the implication of the Shulchan Arukh, who writes, "If this period [of a half-hour] has passed and one has not lit, he may light throughout the night." Although, as mentioned, in the Beit Yosef the Mechaber (author of the Shulchan Arukh) seems to rule that one should not recite a berakha past the half-hour period, here he makes no mention of omitting the berakha. As we will see, however, later Acharonim restrict this leniency to specific conditions. In any event, the Chemed Moshe is cited as allowing candle lighting with a berakha throughout the night. The Chafetz Chayim (in Sha'ar Ha-tziyun) writes that one who follows this view should not be reprimanded, implying that one should preferably not rely on this position. By contrast, Rav Ovadya Yosef observes that the common practice among Sefaradim is to permit lighting with a berakha throughout the night.

In between these two extreme positions is the view of the Maharshal, cited by the Magen Avraham, who allows lighting with a berakha only until chatzot (midnight as defined by halakha, as listed in many calendars).

Other authorities maintain that the halakha in this regard depends on one's location. If one lives on a busy thoroughfare in an urban area, he may light with a berakha throughout the night, as his candles are exposed to public view. On side streets or in small towns and the like, one must estimate when people are around to see the candles. Past that point, he may not recite a berakha over his lighting.

Yet other authorities allow lighting candles with a berkha even late at night so long as some family members are still awake to see the candles. Whereas the Magen Avraham appears to require the presence of two other family members, Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu, based on earlier sources, applies this provision even when only a single family member besides the one lighting is present.

We emphasize that this entire discussion applies on the level of "be-di'avad," if one did not light at the proper time. Clearly, however, one must make an effort to light promptly at either sunset or nightfall, as discussed yesterday. Bear in mind that Chanukah falls during the darkest time of the year, when the sun sets quite early in the afternoon.

In conclusion, we should note that the authorities debate as to what one should do if he knows in advance that he will be unable to light during the proper time. Some rule that one should preferably light before sunset (though after "pelag ha-mincha"), as we do on Erev Shabbat, placing enough oil for the fire to burn for a half-hour after sunset (or nightfall, depending on which view one accepts), rather than lighting after the half-hour period. Other authorities, however, prefer lighting later rather than before sundown.

Please consult a competent halakhic authority for guidance.

*****

As everyone knows, on Chanukah we add an additional candle each night. This practice is referred to by the Gemara (Masekhet Shabbat 21) as "mehadrin min ha-mehadrin," the highest standard of performance of this mitzva. The Gemara mentions as well two lower levels of performance. The minimum requirement is the lighting of a single candle each night. The next level, "mehadrin," involves lighting the number of candles corresponding to the number of family members in the home. Needless to say, normative halakha has adopted the highest standard, of "mehadrin min ha-mehadrin," as the required procedure for lighting the Chanukah candles.

The Rishonim argue as to whether the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin lighting includes the mehadrin method. In other words, do we combine both these procedures, such that everyone in the household lights one candle on the first night, two on the second, and so on, or does the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin level ignore the mehadrin? This second option, accepted by Tosafot, would result in the single lighting in each home of one candle the first night, two the second, etc., rather than the individual lighting of every family member. By and large, Sefaradim, who generally follow the rulings of the Mechaber (Rav Yosef Karo), adopt this second position, that only one person lights. Ashkenazim adopt the Rema's position, that everyone lights their own candles. (Among the Ashkenazim, most married women do not light Chanukah candles; they rather fulfill their obligation through their husbands' lighting. However, the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein shlit"a, rules that married women should light their own candles.)

Interestingly, another dispute exists as to the precise definition of the mehadrin method of lighting. As stated, the Rema writes that every family member should light his or her own candles. The Rambam (Hilkhot Chanukah 4:1), however, who represents the view that the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin includes the mehadrin, explains the mehadrin procedure differently. In his view, only one member of the household lights, but he lights the number of candles corresponding to the number of members of the household. Therefore, a family of five will have five menorahs, and the head of the household lights all of them. According to the Rema, by contrast, each family member will light his own menorah.

The Rambam's position in this regard reflects a perhaps counterintuitive approach to the mehadrin requirement. It does not place an obligation upon every individual; it rather obligates each household as its own entity. The mehadrin standard requires not every individual to light candles, but rather determines the number of candles required in every home.

This approach may yield another practical ramification, relevant to one traveling during Chanukah. The Terumat Ha-deshen cites one authority who maintains that if one travels during Chanukah and his wife lights back home, he may not light in his place of lodging to fulfill the mehadrin requirement; his wife's lighting satisfies his obligation. (The Terumat Ha-deshen disagrees.) In light of the Rambam's approach, this position becomes clear. Were the mehadrin standard to place a personal obligation upon each individual, then we would not accept such a ruling; what difference would it make where the individual is or whether or not someone lights on his behalf at home? However, if the obligation falls upon each household, then once candles are lit in one's home, the mehadrin requirement does not call for his personal lighting in his place of lodging.

(Based on an article by Rav Eliyahu Shulman)

*****

Yesterday we encountered the Rambam's position concerning the procedure for lighting Chanukah candles. The Gemara notes that although, strictly speaking, one must merely light a single candle in his home each of the eight nights of Chanukah, higher standards have been accepted. One level, called mehadrin, has a candle lit each night for every member of the household; a family of five will thus have five candles lit every night. The highest level, which we have accepted as normative practice, lights an additional candle each night. According to the Rambam, this third level subsumesthe middle level. That is, for each family me, the number of candles are lit corresponding to the day of Chnaukah. Thus, on the fifth night, a family of five will have twenty-five candles lit.

As we saw, the Rambam does not view the mehadrin obligation as requiring every individual to personally light. Rather, it has the head of the household light the number of candles corresponding to the number of people in his household. (The Rema rules otherwise, that every family member lights.) Returning to our example of the family of five, the head of the household will himself personally light twenty-five candles on the fifth night.

Rav Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik (Reb Velvele, also known as the "Brisker Rav") offers an insightful explanation as to why the Rambam felt compelled to view the mehadrin obligation as requiring only one individual in the household to light. In so doing, Reb Velvele relates this ruling of the Rambam to another, somewhat controversial position taken by the Rambam in Hilkhot Mila. The essential obligation of circumcision requires the removal of the foreskin itself. The Gemara, however, notes that a level of hiddur mitzva - beautification of the mitzva - is involved in the removal as well of the "tzitzin," threads of skin left behind after the removal of the foreskin. Some of these threads must be removed for the essential mitzva to be fulfilled, while others constitute only a higher level of performance. The Rambam, in Hilkhot Mila 2:4, rules that if, for whatever reason, the mohel had to stop his work prior to the removal of all the "tzitzin," then so long as all the required threads have been removed, he does not continue to perform the higher level of the mitzva. Only if the mohel worked continuously does he remove all the threads; if he stopped after removing those whose removal is indispensable for the fulfillment of the mitzva, he does not go back to remove them. Why?

The Sha'agat Aryeh (50) explains that the Rambam views "hiddur mitzva" as relevant only during the actual performance of the mitzva itself. Only while one performs a given mitzva does he have a requirement to try to adhere to the highest aesthetic standards. Outside the immediate context of mitzva performance, however, no requirement of hiddur applies. Therefore, once the mohel stopped his work, any further removal threads is considered as taking place outside the context of mitzva performance, and thus loses its value.

Reb Velvele applies this same principle to Chanukah candles. The level of mehadrin, as discussed, requires the lighting of additional candles. However, since the basic mitzva requires only a single candle for the entire household, every family member fulfills his obligation through the first lighting of the head of the household. If he lights his candle and then the other family members proceed to light, their lighting has no value; once the mitzva act has been completed, no further beautification of the mitzva is possible. Therefore, the mehadrin level can only be understood, according to the Rambam, as requiring additional lighting by the same person. He does a single act of candle lighting, lighting the first candle to fulfill the basic obligation; he then lights the others to fulfill the requirement of "hiddur mitzva," beautifying the mitzva.

*****

Over the last two days we have discussed the different levels of performance regarding the lighting of Chanukah candles. Whereas the narrow, strict letter of the law requires only a single candle each night in every home, the higher level of mehadrin calls for a candle for each member of the household every night. Our practice, the highest level, is to light the number of candles corresponding to the number day of the festival. As we saw, some authorities maintain that this final level includes as well the middle level, such that on the sixth night, for example, six candles will be lit for every member of the household. Within this position, however, there exists another difference of opinion. The Rambam, as we discussed at length (by S.A.L.T. standards) yesterday, holds that the mehadrin level calls for a single individual to light the number of candles corresponding to the number of family members. Thus, the family representative of a family of seven would personally light forty-two candles on the sixth night of Chanukah. The Rema, by contrast, maintains that each family member (except for the wife, who, according to most opinions, fulfills her obligation through her husband's lighting) light his or her own candles. Yesterday we focused on the Rambam's view; today we will discuss the position of the Rema.

The Rema's view raises a problem of sorts (particularly in light of yesterday's discussion). As mentioned, the basic obligation of Chanukah candles is a single candle in every household. This would imply that this mitzva is not required upon each individual, but rather on every household. Meaning, a Jew is not personally obligated to light Chanukah candles; instead, every household, as a household, bears a collective requirement to light. If so, then once one family member lights, how can any other family member fulfill a "hiddur mitzva," an added level of performance? If they have no personal obligation at all, how can they even talk about performing a hiddur on that obligation?!

Evidently, according to the Rema we must redefine the concept of mehadrin in this context. Mehadrin does not refer (as it does for the Rambam) to the standard halakha of hiddur mitzva, requiring the maintenance of high aesthetic standards when performing mitzvot. Rather, the level of mehadrin introduces an entirely new obligation of candle lighting, one that rests upon each and every individual. The mehadrin standard transforms the mitzva from an obligation on the household to a personal requirement.

If so, then this institution of mehadrin may reflect an important message related to Chanukah, that of personal initiative and zeal with regard to mitzvot. Although a single candle in front of every home sufficiently publicizes the miracle, halakha calls upon the individual to take an active role in this endeavor, rather than relying on the lighting of someone else. During the days of Greek occupation and oppression, many Jews shook themselves free of religious responsibility to conform to the Greeks' lifestyle. The victory of Chanukah came about through the efforts of the "me'atim" ("the few," as we say in "al ha-nissim"). The institution of mehadrin perhaps reminds us that in the end, total religious victory can be secured only through the active, personal involvement of every individual.

Therefore, even when we can achieve the desired goal of "pirsumei nisa" through a single lighting per home, the mehadrin urge every individual to light himself, to personally publicize the miracle and take part in the performance of the mitzva.

*****

The Midrash in Bereishit Rabba 2:4 likens the period of Greek rule over the Jews as "darkness": ""Darkness - this alludes to the exile imposed by the Greeks, who darkened the eyes of Benei Yisrael with their decrees." Why did Chazal specifically choose this image as a fitting description of Greek rule? Why does "darkness" symbolize this period of oppression as opposed to the many other forms of religious oppression suffered by Benei Yisrael?

The answer might stem from the very fact that the Greeks considered themselves "enLIGHTened." The Greeks felt pride over their impressive accomplishments in the academic arena, their significant contributions in the fields of science, philosophy, art, architecture and athletics, among others. They sought to impose their culture and lifestyle on the Jews because, quite simply, they saw their culture as superior and worthy of filling the earth. They considered their way of life the light that must illuminate the path for the future of mankind. To counter this notion, which, as we know, was accepted by many Jews, as well, Chazal specifically associated the Greek tradition with darkness. As impressive and meaningful as their contributions may have been, there is no substitute for th"light" of the Torah. For a Jew, only the lifestyle mandated by the Torah, a life of mitzva ob, Torah study and loving kindness, provides spiritual light. When compared with Torah, any other culture is sheer darkness.

The Greek "darkness" may involve an additional, more specific element, as well, namely, the unique quality of the Torah she-be'al peh - the oral law. The Midrash Tanchuma (Noach 3) describes the grueling study of the oral law as "darkness." However, "God enlightens their [the sages'] eyes in matters of ritual law… " "Light" in this context refers to the ability granted to scholars who exert themselves in the difficult study of halakha to properly understand and extrapolate Jewish law. Many "darshanim" have explained that the Greeks sought specifically to eradicate the academic tradition of the oral law. The written Torah did not trouble them; a fixed, immutable text will, with time, become extinct. But the vibrant scholarly tradition of halakha, where scholars apply their powers of analysis, innovation and creativity, posed a considerable threat to the Greeks, who deemed their academic culture far superior. As we say in the "al ha-nissim" paragraph added to our prayers and birkat ha-mazon on Chanukah, the Greeks sought "le-hashkicham Toratekha" - to make Benei Yisrael forget the Torah. Some have noted that this refers to the oral tradition which, until the Talmudic period, was transmitted orally and never written down. The Greeks tried to extinguish the light of Jewish scholarship, of halakhic discourse and debate, of Talmudic "pilpul" and thorough analysis.

For this reason, the menorah emerges as such a primary symbol of the Hasmoneans' defeat over the Greeks. The Mikdash contained two representative symbols of the Torah, as explained by the sages - the aron, which contained the luchot (tablets), and the menorah. Many have explained that the aron symbolizes the written Torah, while the menorah represents the oral tradition. The tablets were given at Mount Sinai, where Benei Yisrael received the Torah passively from God. This Torah lies behind a curtain, in the "kodesh ha-kodashim," in the sacred chamber of the Almighty that remains off-limits to the human being. The written Torah is never tampered with; no human innovation can ever affect it in any way. The menorah, however, lies outside, together with the shulchan and the mizbei'ach, its candles lit by the kohen. This body of scholarship is handed over to the minds of the scholars, who must apply their intellects and reasoning to fully comprehend ritual law and arrive at decisive conclusions. The sages themselves kindle the light of the oral law.

The victory over the Greek darkness thus meant the triumph of our scholarly tradition over the forces that attempted to destroy it. Chanukah must therefore be a time of renewed commitment to in-depth and intensive Torah study, and a revitalization of our efforts to perpetuate the golden tradition of the light of Jewish learning.

*****

Among the most commonly asked questions regarding Chanukah is the seeming discrepancy in focus between the Gemara's description of the festival and that recited in the special "al ha-nissim" insert added to our prayers and birkat ha-mazon during Chanukah. The Gemara in Masekhet Shabbat (21) asks, "What is Chanukah?" and briefly tells the story of the Hasmonean defeat over the Greeks. It then describes the miracle of the oil in the menorah and says that for this reason it was decreed that we light candles on this festival. The al ha-nissim prayer, by contrast, makes no mention of the miracle of the oil. It speaks only of the improbable victory, with a most subtle allusion to the miracle of the oil: "Afterwards, Your children came to the sanctuary of Your home, they cleared Your palace, purified your Mikdash, and lit candles in Your sacred courtyards… " Why does the al ha-nissim prayer focus exclusively on the military victory, while the Gemara in Shabbat seems to stress the miracle of the oil?

The answer perhaps lies in the distinction between the obligation of thanksgiving, expressed by the al ha-nissim prayer, and the educational, religious message which the Gemara seeks to convey. Clearly, our debt of gratitude to the Almighty on Chanukah stems primarily - though certainly not exclusively - from the military miracle, the victory of a small, poorly trained and inexperienced militia over the Greek Empire. Undoubtedly, the long-term ramifications and inherent significance of this miracle far overshadow that of the miracle of the oil. This victory, which restored Jewish independence in Eretz Yisrael, freed the Jews of Greek control over their lives, particularly their religious lives. When we express our feelings of thanksgiving on this festival, we do so primarily for God's assistance on the battlefield.

The Sages, however, wished to put this victory into a broader, spiritual context. In their infinite wisdom, they understood that people would relate to this victory with a sense of nationalistic pride, rather than focusing on its religious significance. The true miracle of Chanukah is not limited to the Macabees' success at battle, but rather the immense power of a small remnant of "pure oil." While most of the Jewish population of Eretz Yisrael fell prey to the Greeks' efforts at Hellenization, a small "jug of pure oil," a few small pockets of faithful Jews, had remained. The Hasmoneans' victory was a victory for the Jewish religion, the triumph of purity over spiritual contamination. The miracle of the oil thus became, in the eyes of Chazal, the focal point of this festival, as it shed light (pun intended) on the military victory and everything that had transpired.

Thus, though we thank the Almighty primarily for restoring Jewish independence and religious freedom, we must also reflect on the broader significance of this victory. Even when we feel drowned by the tidal wave of assimilation and secularization, so long as we can hold tight to that single jug of pure oil, the light of Torah will shine far brighter and for far longer then we could have ever imagined.

*****

Yesterday we addressed the relationship between the two miracles commemorated on Chanukah: the stirring military victory over the Greeks and the miracle of the oil in the Temple. As we explained, we celebrate Chanukah primarily over the defeat of the Greeks and the end of their occupation over the Jews in Eretz Yisrael. The miracle of the oil came to "shed light'' on the military victory, putting it into a broader, spiritual context of the victory of the faithful over the forces that sought to bring an end to the Jewish religion. As it turns out, then, these are not two separate miracles that occurred, but rather a single miracle that "comes to light" through the supernatural supply of oil that burned for eight days.

It is easy to bring halakhic proof to this effect, that these two miracles are, essentially, one and the same. Generally speaking, halakha exempts women from time-bound mitzvot ("mitzvot asei she-hazeman gerama"). The Gemara in Masekhet Shabbat 23a notes that the mitzva of Chanukah candles marks an exception. Women must light candles just as men do because "they, too, were included in the miracle." The Rishonim debate as to what this means: either because the victory was achieved through the efforts of a Jewish woman (Yehudit, who killed the Greek general), or because the Greeks' legislation affected men and women alike. Either way, the "miracle" to which the Gemara refers has nothing at all to do with the miracle of the oil. (After all, the kohanim who administered in the Temple were all men.) The question thus arises, of what relevance is women's inclusion in the nation's triumph over oppression to candle lighting, which commemorates the miracle of the oil? Clearly, there are no two miracles, but rather a single miracle of victory, its nature and character brought out by the jug of oil.

The Rambam writes (in Hilkhot Chanukah 3:3) that we light Chanukah candles "to show and reveal the miracle." Rav David Cohen of Brooklyn, NY, in his work, "Birkat Yaabe," explains this clause in light of this relationship between the two miracles, as discussed. The candle lighting serves to "show," or publicize, the miracle of the oil. This then "reveals" the true nature of the military victory, the miracle of the power of the few to overthrow the many.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il