English translation — חנוכה

1.

Our Rabbis taught¹

The mitzvah of Chanukah: a light for each man and his household; and the meticulous: a light for each and every one; and the meticulous of the meticulous: Beit Shammai say: on the first day one lights eight, from then on decreasing; and Beit Hillel say: on the first day one lights one, from then on increasing...

Two Amoraim disagree about it...

One said: the reason of Beit Shammai is corresponding to the incoming days, and the reason of Beit Hillel is corresponding to the outgoing days; and one said: the reason of Beit Shammai is corresponding to the bulls of the festival, and the reason of Beit Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and do not descend.

The plain language "disagree²

about it two Amoraim" is more inclined,

that the dispute of the two Amoraim is not only in the reasons of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

but it is also a practical difference in halachah.

And so it is indeed explained in several books and poskim<sup>3</sup>,

that the dispute between the Rambam<sup>4</sup>

and Tosafot<sup>5</sup>

— whether

(according to the opinion of Tosafot,

that)

"mehadrin min hamehadrin" is an addition only on the matter of "ner ish uveito"

(one candle for all the members of the household),

that "mehadrin min hamehadrin" kindle on the second night of Chanukah two

light

(for <b>all </b>the members of the household)

; or

(according to the opinion of the Rambam)

that this is an addition also on "and the meticulous ones, a light for each and every one,"

that "meticulous ones from among the meticulous ones" is added to that which one lights "a light for each and every one,"

one "adds and goes"

(or "decreases and goes")

in the number of lights

(for <b>each </b>of the members of the household)

depends on the two opinions of the aforementioned Amoraim:

According to the first opinion that "the reason of Beit Shammai is corresponding to the days that are coming in and the reason of Beit Hillel is corresponding to the days that are going out",

one does not light for each of the household members separately

(but only "a light for each man and his house"),

so that there should be a <b>recognition</b> that the increase of lights is corresponding to the days — coming in or going out

(and not because there are more or fewer household members)⁶

And according to the second opinion that "the reason of Beit Shammai is corresponding to the bulls of the festival and the reason of Beit Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and do not descend",

one does not need to have any recognition of the number of days,

and for this reason the "mehadrin from the mehadrin" add also to "mehadrin a light for each and every one".

One can however say,

that the practical difference between the two reasons is not only how one should learn the law of "mehadrin min hamehadrin"

(according to the Tosafos or the Rambam),

but also according to our custom — as the Rema rules⁷

"and the custom is simple",

that

<b>Each one </b>of the household members lights Chanukah candles and adds and proceeds — there is a practical difference in halacha between the two reasons⁸.

B.

When someone lit on the second night only one candle

(for whatever reason it may be)

— one can ponder,

how many candles should he light on the third night:

According to the first opinion,

that "the reason of the House of Hillel is corresponding to the days that go out",

it is simple,

that he needs to light three lights corresponding to the days that go out; but according to the second opinion that "the reason of the House of Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and do not descend",

it is sufficient that he will light only two lights,

because even then he fulfills the enhancement of "we ascend in holiness and do not descend".

This difference is only in a case of "b'dieved",

when one had not previously fulfilled the mitzvah in a beautified manner; but there is also a difference in a case where on the previous nights he had fulfilled the mitzvah of Ner Chanukah "mehadrin min hamehadrin":

When one has enough oil etc. only for two candles on the third night of Chanukah — how many candles should he light⁹

: According to the first opinion, it would seemingly have to be,

since he cannot fulfill the mitzvah "k'neged hayamim hayotz'in",

it is sufficient¹⁰

that he light one candle to fulfill the main mitzvah "ner ish uveito" because by adding another

Light will not come to hidur mitzvah

(since he does not have candles "corresponding to the outgoing days")¹¹

However, according to the second opinion that "the reason of the House of Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and do not descend",

he must light two lights,

even though he will not thereby fulfill the hidur in completeness — the "ascend in holiness" — he nevertheless fulfills the "do not descend" — he does not light fewer than the number

(two lights)

that he lit on the second night¹².

3.

More deeply, one could say,

that there is a difference between the two opinions in the definition of the connection of “mehadrin min hamehadrin” to the mitzvah of the Chanukah light:

The difference <b>simply</b> between them is: according to the first opinion, the reasons of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are connected to the days of Chanukah — corresponding to the incoming days or corresponding to the outgoing days; unlike according to the second opinion,

the reasons are connected to a “side” matter

(the fruit of the festival,

the conduct of man in holiness).

In a different style: A)

This is a law in the "person": by the fact that he adds and goes on each night in the number of candles

(or decreases and goes on according to the opinion of Beit Shammai),

comes to a beautification in <b>his</b>

(the person's)

fulfillment of the commandment,

the candles

(which he adds)

are however in the category of "optional"¹³.

b)

This is a law in the mitzvah itself¹⁴,

the candles become an object of the mitzvah¹⁵

(of the mitzvah of the Chanukah candle)¹⁶.

(as is known the dispute of the later authorities about this¹⁷)].

And this is the difference between the two opinions:

According to the first opinion that "the reason of Beit Shammai is corresponding to the days that are entering and the reason of Beit Hillel is corresponding to the days that are going out" — a reason connected with

The days of Chanukah and the miracle of Chanukah

(on which they instituted the commandment of the Chanukah light)

— are the lights that we add each day a part of Chanukah and the commandment of the Chanukah light,

the lights are lights of commandment of Chanukah

(and as this is also simply,

that through the addition in lights is also publicized how each day <b>was added </b>in the <b>miracle </b>of the lights)¹⁸

But not according to the second opinion,

that "the reason of Beit Shammai is corresponding to the bulls of the festival and the reason of Beit Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and do not descend" — reasons that have no connection in content to the days and miracle of Chanukah¹⁹

— is the "mehadrin from the mehadrin" only an addition and beautification in the conduct in general of the person

(<b>He </b>should be ascending in holiness etc.)²⁰,

but not in the object of the commandment.

4.

Based on this, the emphasis and lengthiness of Rashi in his commentary in the sugya is sweetened,

and his language is: "The fruits of the festival,

diminish and go in the offerings of Parshat Pinchas.

We ascend in holiness and do not descend,

from a verse we learn it in Menachot in the chapter Two Loaves"²¹.

At first glance, the lengthiness "in the offerings of Parshat Pinchas"²² is not smooth,

and what is the practical difference that "We ascend in holiness etc."

(a)

we learn "from a verse"²³,

and

(b)

the study is "in Menachot in the chapter Two Loaves"?

And it can be said — Rashi emphasizes that according to the opinion that the reasons of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are not connected with the detail of Chanukah and the miracle of Chanukah;

"The fruits of the festival diminish and go &lt;b&gt;in the offerings of Parshat Pinchas&lt;/b&gt;" — this has no connection to Chanukah; "We ascend in holiness and do not descend,

we learn it from a verse in Menachot in the chapter Two Loaves" — this is

(a)

a study and instruction in the Written Torah

(and Chanukah entirely is from the words of the Scribes),

(b)

which one learns out "in Menachot in the chapter Two Loaves" — a general instruction regarding matters that are discussed in Menachot etc.

(not a connection to Chanukah).

5.

According to the explanation in the dispute it is understood,

that the second practical difference

(that in section b)

above — when one has only two candles on the third night of Chanukah,

whether he should light one candle or two — is not necessary.

Also according to the opinion that "the reason of the House of Hillel is corresponding to the days that go out",

he should light on the third night two lights

(if he does not have enough oil for three)

— because although he does not have the &lt;b&gt;completeness&lt;/b&gt; of the hiddur as much as one needs to have on the third night,

he should nevertheless light at least corresponding to &lt;b&gt;a part&lt;/b&gt; of the days that go out,

since that thereby he adds in the &lt;b&gt;essence of the commandment&lt;/b&gt;,

the Chanukah lights are by him more complete,

and they publicize

(not only the main miracle of the lights,

but)

also the &lt;b&gt;addition&lt;/b&gt; in the miracle regarding the first day²⁴

But it will be a difference in a case when he does not have enough oil even to do the hiddur of the previous day — for example,

when on the eighth night he has fewer than seven lights —

A difference in the opposite manner from the above:

According to the first opinion "corresponding to the days that go out",

since this is a part of the body of the commandment of the Chanukah lights,

he must kindle however many he has,

in order to add however many he can in the commandment of the Chanukah light,

as above;

According to the second opinion,

that "the reason of the House of Hillel is that we ascend in holiness and do not descend" — that the lights that are added have no connection to the essence of the commandment of the Chanukah lights — is

It is logical,

that he should light only "a light for each man and his household",

the <b>main</b> part of the commandment.

If he adds to the main part of the commandment,

it will turn out,

that he transgresses

"ואין מורידין"; but if on this day he fulfills the main mitzvah properly — "נר איש וביתו".

(From the sicha of Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz 5739)