November 27, 2008

This morning, in lieu of a specific teshuva, we studied a page on various topics related to Chanukah appearing in Hamo’adim B’Halacha, by Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin, author of the Encyclopedia Talmudit.

Rav Zevin notes that, in halacha, Chanukah and Purim are generally mentioned in the same breath. Along with Rosh Chodesh, they are days on which we do not have public fasts, and mourning is reduced. The Rambam explicitly links the holidays in the Mishneh Torah, in a section called Hilchot Megillah U’Chanukah. When he speaks of Chanukah, he says that there are no eulogies or fasts, just as on Purim. What is more, the holidays are treated analogously by the tefillah, in that we refer to them in the same location in the Amidah, with the same format of Al Hanisim.

I. The Stringency of Chanukah and the Logic of the Rambam

On the halachic level, both Chanukah and Purim are rabbinic, but they have distinguishing features. Purim, because it is decreed in Megillat Esther, is more obligatory than a standard rabbinic decree. Chanukah is unique among the rabbinic decrees in that its observance is in some ways more stringent than Biblical commandments. A poor person who relies on tzedakah to survive is still obligated to light the menorah, even he must sell or rent his clothing. The only other mitzvah to which this stringency applies is drinking four cups of wine at the seder. Generally, in order to fulfill a positive Biblical commandment, the principle is that we need not spend more than 20% of our net worth. The Rambam derived the requirement of going beyond 20% for Chanukah — even selling one’s clothing — from the law of the four cups. Whereas the Gemara is explicit about this requirement for the four cups, it says nothing to this effect about Chanukah, so it appears that, as the Maggid Mishna concludes, the Rambam is reasoning by analogy, because both laws are designed to publicize a miracle (pirsumei nisa).

The Vilna Gaon argues, however, that the Rambam had a Talmudic source rather than a mere analogy for his ruling. The Vilna Gaon establishes this through a chain of a fortiori arguments:

1. In Pesachim 112a, the Gemara says that for the sake of honoring Shabbat, even with a small item, a poor person may take money from the tamchui (the charitable fund for those in dire need). The Rashbam added that if he cannot obtain funds from the tamchui, he must extend himself by selling or renting his clothing.
2. In Pesachim 105b, the Gemara states that obtaining wine for Kiddush on Friday night (“Kiddush hayom”) takes priority over wine for Shabbat morning (“kevod yom” — honoring the day) or for drinking with dinner on Friday night (“kevod laila” — honoring the evening).
3. In Shabbat 23b, the Gemara rules that Chanukah candles take priority over wine for Kiddush on Friday night.
   

Accordingly, it follows that the there is a Talmudic source for the great extent to which one must sacrifice to obtain Chanukah candles.

II. Hiddur Mitzvah

Whereas the concept of hiddur mitzvah (beautifying the commandments) appears throughout the Torah (Shabbat 133b), Chanukah has an added element, in that we have taken upon ourselves the practice of mehadrin min hamehadrin (a double level of beautification). That is, the Gemara states that the basic mitzvah is one candle per night per household; mehadrin light one candle per person; and mehadrin min hamehadrin light multiple candles, with Beit Shammai ruling that we begin with 8 and conclude with 1, and Beit Hillel ruling that we begin with 1 and conclude with 8 (Shabbat 21b).

The Gemara is not explicit on whether Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, each of whom has its own interpretation of mosif v’holech (adding candles), contemplate one menorah per household or a menorah for each member of the family. The Taz points out a sociological anomaly in contemporary Jewish practice. The Rambam understood the Gemara’s version of mehadrin min hamehadrin to contemplate a menorah for each member of the family. Tosafot, on the other hand, understood it to mean one menorah per household. The Taz notes that this is a unique case in which Ashkenazim follow the Rambam and Sephardim follow Tosafot.

Rav Zevin points out that the Acharonim discuss mosif v’holech from various perspectives:

1. If one forgot to make the initial b’racha before lighting the first candle, may he recite the b’racha before lighting the second, third, or later candle? Or is it too late, because he fulfilled his basic mitzvah when he lit the first candle? Most say it is not too late, because the additional candles are still part of the mitzvah.
2. Is the ban on benefiting from the light of the Chanukah candles applicable to the extra candles? Most say it is.
3. If one had more than one candle available, but not the full complement for a given night, should he light one candle or as many as he has? It was decided that he should light only one.
4. What should an impoverished person do if he can afford only one olive oil light or a full complement of wax candles? The competing considerations are that olive oil is preferable to wax, but a full complement of lights is preferable to only one.
5. May one light some lights from olive oil and others from wax?