English translation — זאת חנוכה

A.

The last day of Chanukah is called, according to Jewish custom, "Zos Chanukah"<sup>1</sup>,

And simply, this is because in the Torah reading of that day, one reads "Zos Chanukas HaMizbeiach"<sup>2</sup>.

Since Jewish custom is Torah<sup>3</sup>,

and all matters in the Torah are precise,

it is understood,

that the name "Zos Chanukah" means like the explanation and meaning of the words that one says: "Zos Chanukah" — this is Chanukah.

And since this is said about the last day,

it turns out,

that this means

(as if)

that specifically the eighth day is Chanukah!

At first glance, one could interpret the content of "this is Chanukah" in the sense: with this day Chanukah is <b>completed</b> <b>and</b> <b>concluded</b>; or in another style — now

(on the eighth day)

one already has

(<b>all</b> the days of)

Chanukah.

But this is not smooth,

because it is the opposite of the plain meaning of the name,

that the name

("Zot Chanukah"),

refers to &lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; day; and like the explanation of "Zot Chanukat HaMizbe'ach" in the Torah: the word "Zot"&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

means,

that one points to a

(thing)

special day&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;.

B.

Regarding the days of Chanukah, the question is known,

whether all the days "are one entity or separate"&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;,

and the practical difference in halacha is regarding a convert who converted in the middle of Chanukah or a minor who became an adult — whether they are obligated in the Chanukah lights.

And the Rogatchover&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

makes this dependent on the dispute of the early authorities regarding the Chanukah lights.

Based on this,

taking that the days of Chanukah are a "single entity",

one would seemingly be able to explain why the eighth day is called "Zos Chanukah": because they are a "single entity",

a "single area",

it turns out,

that as long as one does not have all the days of Chanukah,

the entire entity of Chanukah is lacking⁸.

And therefore one can say "Zos Chanukah" only on the eighth day,

since it completes the days of Chanukah and thereby constitutes the entity of Chanukah.

With this one will also understand the connection of "Zos Chanukah" to "Zos Chanukas HaMizbeiach" which is stated <b>after</b> the completion of the offerings of all the twelve princes — because there too it is in this manner: although each prince offered on a separate day,

nevertheless the offerings of all twelve princes are considered

(also)

as a <b>single</b> point of the Chanukas HaMizbeiach —

All twelve positions together [form] a single "Chanukas HaMizbeiach".

And therefore the verse says "&lt;b&gt;Zos&lt;/b&gt; Chanukas HaMizbeiach" specifically after the completion of the offerings of all twelve princes,

that then the single reality of Chanukas HaMizbeiach is revealed,

through the twelve days &lt;b&gt;toge&lt;/b&gt;-&lt;b&gt;ther&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

One must however understand: also on other festivals like the seven days of Sukkos&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

one finds a reasoning and view that all seven days "are a single reality"&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

and nevertheless one does not find that one should emphasize regarding the last day that "Zos" — this is

(the matter of)

the festival of Sukkos and the like.

3.

Also one must understand:

Regarding "Chanukat HaMizbeach" the expression "&lt;b&gt;Zot&lt;/b&gt; Chanukat HaMizbeach" is stated, both regarding the first day of Chanukat HaMizbeach — "Zot Chanukat HaMizbeach &lt;b&gt;beyom&lt;/b&gt] haMashach oto"&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;,

and both regarding the last day

(day 12)

— "Zot Chanukat HaMizbeach &lt;b&gt;acharei&lt;/b&gt; haMashach oto"&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;.

And the reason why one says regarding &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; two days

(specifically)

"Zot

"Chanukas HaMizbeiach" — is understood from Midrash

"Scripture credits them as if <b>all</b> of them brought on the first day and as if <b>all</b> of them brought on the last day",

d.

e.

So the two days

(first day and last day)

include within themselves <b>all</b> twelve days,

and therefore in them there is "Zos Chanukas HaMizbeiach"

(<b>the</b> Chanukah is one point,

as above).

And accordingly, explanation is needed regarding Chanukah: Also by Chanukah we find that the first day of Chanukah "includes the 7 days"

and this is seemingly "the main miracle",

since this gave the possibility for the lighting on all those days.

It turns out,

that the lighting of all 7 subsequent days is included in

(the miracle of)

the first day when they found the flask of oil].

And according to this: just as by the dedication of the altar it says "&lt;b&gt;This&lt;/b&gt; was the dedication of the altar"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

both regarding the first day and regarding the last day — so too apparently it should have been by Chanukah&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;,

that also the &lt;b&gt;first&lt;/b&gt; day

of Chanukah should have been called "This is Chanukah"&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;.

4.

And one can say the point of the explanation in this:

There is a difference between how the first day of Chanukah includes all the days of Chanukah and how the last day includes all the days of Chanukah

: In the first day all the days are included <b>in potential</b>; in the last day all the days are <b>in actuality²¹</b>

And based on this we can say: Even though regarding the dedication of the altar one can say "this"

(this is the dedication of the altar)

also regarding the first day, because all days are included in it potentially — but regarding Chanukah it is different: Since the definition of Chanukah is,

its function is <b>in actuality</b>

(as will be explained below),

therefore, that which the first day includes all days <b>potentially</b>,

does not apply

(and consequently it cannot be called)

"this is Chanukah".

And the concept — that Chanukah is connected specifically with actuality — is also hinted in the <b>name</b> "Chanukah"

(and it is known that the name "which they shall call it in the holy tongue" of every thing hints at its content²²)

: it is brought in the poskim²³

So "Chanukah" is an acronym: Ch[af] N[eiros] V[Halacha] K[Beis] H[Hillel] — so in the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel,

whether "pocheis ve'holeich" or "mosif ve'holeich",

the halacha is like Beis Hillel that it must be "mosif ve'holeich".

And it is known

the reasoning in their dispute,

that what Beis Shammai hold "pocheis ve'holeich" because the number of lights is "corresponding to the days that are entering" — according to the days that will come — is because according to Beis Shammai "we follow the potential"; and therefore one lights on the first day eight lights,

because the first day itself includes potentially all eight days,

and afterwards one decreases and goes and on the second day one lights only seven,

because on the second day only seven days are included,

a.

a.

b.

B"H but holding "we follow the actual",

and therefore the number of candles is according to the days that are &lt;b&gt;actually&lt;/b&gt; present: on the first day one lights one candle,

because then there is actually only one day,

and from there onward one adds and proceeds.

And from that which in the "Holy Tongue name" "Chanukah" itself is emphasized

(in the manner of acronym)

that "the law is like Beit Hillel",

it is understood,

that the name says that the definition of Chanukah is actual.

5.

The matter,

that Chanukah is connected with the “in actuality”,

will be understood by prefacing the explanation in the general principle of the opinion of Beis Shammai,

that “we follow the potential” — and the explanation of this is not only that that which the thing exists “in potential” is sufficient as if it already exists in actuality,

but even more: according to Beis Shammai

the existence of a thing is determined &lt;b&gt;specifically&lt;/b&gt; by the “potential”

that according to their opinion the number of lights is established “corresponding to the days that are entering” and &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; “corresponding to the days that are leaving”&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;]

At first glance it is not understood: what is the logic to say,

that it should compel specifically the "potential" of a thing — when the thing is

(still)

<b>not</b> present in its actuality?

while he "sees" in actuality

(no more than)

one day²⁷

The explanation in this is: That which the essential existence of a thing is the "actual" — is regarding the created being,

and the reason — by him it is applicable that the thing should remain "in potential" and not come out into actuality and null &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;the thing&lt;/b&gt;; and therefore,

as long as he does not have the thing in actuality,

he lacks the essence;

And therefore when it speaks about the object

(and the commandment in it)

&lt;b&gt;from the perspective&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of itself&lt;/b&gt; — a "in potential" regarding which it is not applicable

(an impediment)

that it should not come "into actuality" — then as soon as the thing exists "in potential"

has already been accomplished the main &lt;b&gt;that from its side&lt;/b&gt;; there are missing only matters that are outside of it

(time etc.)

that this should come down into actuality&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;.

and therefore is the view of Beit Shammai that &lt;b&gt;in matters of&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;Torah&lt;/b&gt; one reckons with the “in potential” — because Torah has the &lt;b&gt;dominion&lt;/b&gt; over the existence of the world; and as our sages of blessed memory said&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

on the verse&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

“God finishes on my behalf”,

that just as the Torah rules,

so is it actually brought about in the world.

and therefore,

when the Torah speaks about matters of the world — i.

e.

as they are in the “world” of Torah and from the perspective of Torah — the main thing is as they are “in potential” which then creates their existence,

The object must however become a reality in

(the category and object of)

<![CDATA[<b>the world</b> — therefore the lighting of the candle must be.]]>

6.

And furthermore one may say,

that that which according to Beit Shammai a thing is determined according to its "potential",

is it not only because from the Torah's perspective the "potential" is the essence of a thing,

but even more,

that in this "potential" <![CDATA[<b>is present</b>]]> the "actual".

Because Torah is indeed the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and by the Supreme One there is indeed "no potential lacking actuality"³¹.

It is not as by

A created being,

where potential and actual are separate things and therefore the potential lacks actuality; but by the Creator, as soon as the thing exists "in potential" immediately the "in actuality" is actualized

(in that "in potential")³².

And therefore Beit Shammai hold that

(in matters of Torah)

"We follow the potential" — because from the perspective of &lt;b&gt;the Torah&lt;/b&gt;

(the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He)

is "there is no potential lacking action."

And based on this, one can say,

that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel whether "we follow the potential" or "we follow the actual" is a disagreement in the general definition of Torah

(and its commandments)

Torah and mitzvos were given from the Above to Jews

(as they are below)

— "He gave <b>to us</b> His Tor<b>ah</b>" — and therefore there are in Torah two matters³³

: boundaries in which is expressed the aspect of the Giver and boundaries that are relative,

in the qualities of the receiver.

And as one finds in Torah two extremes: "Words of Torah do not receive impurity"

(even when they are learned by an impure person),

because they are "<b>words of</b>

(fire)

words of G-d; and on the other hand — "A rav who forgives his honor, his honor is forgiven" because "Torah is <b>mine</b>"³⁵.

And therefore in matters of Torah in the world,

it can be in two ways: a)

As it comes out from the boundaries of <b>the Giver</b>

(of

the Torah)

; b)

as this is from the side of the definitions of &lt;b&gt;the recipients&lt;/b&gt;

Jews.

And this is the explanation in the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: Beit Shammai hold that the primary intention of the giving of the Torah is to bring it about that in the recipients of the Torah

("to us"),

("to us")

it should be heard,

they should be the definitions of &lt;b&gt;the Giver&lt;/b&gt; of the Torah and Commander of the commandments; and therefore,

even though the Torah is not in heaven&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;,

it was given below to Jews,

nevertheless the Torah remains as it is from the side of &lt;b&gt;the Giver&lt;/b&gt;,

and therefore "we follow the potential."

But according to the method of Beit Hillel, the main intention is,

that Torah and mitzvot should have an effect upon the Jews as they are here below in <b>their</b> boundaries.

And therefore they hold that the laws of the Torah are determined according to the boundaries of the recipient — we follow the actual³⁷.

7.

With this one will also understand why specifically by Chanukah it is emphasized

(until — in the name)

that "the halacha is like Beit Hillel" — even though this is a principle in the entire Torah,

until that Beit Shammai in the place of Beit Hillel is not a mishnah³⁸

— because Chanukah is in a special way connected with the boundary of <b>the recipient</b>:

The festival of Chanukah

(and its commandments)

is different from the Festivals

(and their commandments)

in that this is a festival &lt;b&gt;of Rabbinic origin&lt;/b&gt;,

from the words of the Scribes,

the Sages,

which Jews had &lt;b&gt;instituted&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;.

Even more: Chanukah is different in nature from Purim — for although the nature of Purim is of Rabbinic origin,

it came, however, through "the enactment of &lt;b&gt;the Prophets"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

whose essence is to transmit and reveal &lt;b&gt;the word&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of the L-rd&lt;/b&gt; — "He reveals His secret to His servants the Prophets"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

until that Purim and the Scroll of Esther, the Jews effected that it became &lt;b&gt;written&lt;/b&gt; for generations&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;,

they are among the twenty-four sacred books.

But not so Chanukah⁴³

is a holiday that "the Sages instituted"⁴⁴

in the time of the Second Temple⁴⁵

after prophecy had ceased⁴⁶.

And for this reason, the principle of "the law is like Beit Hillel"

(that we follow the practical,

because the Torah judges according to the limits of the recipient)

is especially emphasized by Chanukah⁴⁷

— because in the

The general concept of Chanukah

(That Jews have the power to <b>establish</b> a holiday)

Is expressed that — "And He gave <b>to us</b> His Torah",

The establishment of Torah in

(The boundaries of the)

receiver".

Ch.

So the unique concept in the holiday of the days of Chanukah

(That it came about from Jews,

"The Sages instituted")

Is also connected with the content of the general event and miracle of Chanukah:

It is known the difference between the decree upon the Jews in the days of Purim

(as it is told simply in the Megillah)

and the situation of Jews in the decree in the days of Chanukah: the main decree of Purim was upon the &lt;b&gt;bodies&lt;/b&gt; of Jews,

and in the language of the Levush&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

"that the decree was to kill and destroy the bodies ..

and not the souls"&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

; i.

e.

by Jews was apparent air in body openly that they are a "one nation" which is connected with the Supreme,

that "their laws are different from every nation".

But in the days of Chanukah there was a situation that primarily

(in the language of the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;)

"they decreed decrees upon Israel &lt;b&gt;and nullified&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;their religion&lt;/b&gt; and did not allow them to engage in Torah and commandments".

There was a situation of spiritual darkness,

when the light of Torah

(a candle is a commandment and Torah is light)

did not shine openly,

"the exile of Torah"&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;,

they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

; Jews strengthened themselves against the darkness of the world of the Greeks,

sacrificed themselves for their religion,

Torah and commandments.

And since the mesiras nefesh was entirely on the part of the "recipient"⁵⁴

But by Purim — when there were prophets,

galus Yechonyoh etc. Mordechai and Esther etc. — therefore also the Yom Tov

(Chanukah)

came from the enactment of <b>Chachamim</b>,

as above.

9.

As in the totality of the festival of the days of Chanukah the aspect of the recipient is emphasized,

similarly one finds regarding the primary commandment of Chanukah — the lighting of the Chanukah light:

In general one finds two modes in the fulfillment of a commandment — fulfillment of the commandment

(simple)

and fulfillment of the commandment in a beautified manner; by Chanukah lights one finds a novelty: in addition to fulfillment in the manner of "mehadrin",

there is — "mehadrin min hamehadrin"⁵³.

Another difference in practice: hiddur mitzvah regarding mitzvos is preserved by a certain type

(and even not by the majority)

of Jews,

by Chanukah lights, however, the conduct of mehadrin min hamehadrin became the <b>simple</b> <b>custom⁵⁵</b>

among all Jews.

And one can say the reason for this⁵⁶

— because the matter of hiddur mitzvah indicates an additional effort in the fulfillment of the mitzvah on the part of the Jew who fulfills the mitzvah — that he does it not only in order to fulfill his obligation in the fulfillment of the command

(from Above),

but he adds hiddur from his own⁵⁷.

And since in Chanukah is especially emphasized the virtue of the receiver of the Torah

And fulfiller of the commandment — therefore comes an elevation and addition also in this matter of beautification of the commandment itself

(Regarding this beautification by other commandments),

The manner of the mehadrin from the mehadrin.

And this itself became the &lt;b&gt;custom&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;simple&lt;/b&gt; among all Jews — Jews &lt;b&gt;accepted&lt;/b&gt; upon themselves the conduct — custom — from their own side,

not from the command of the Shulchan Aruch — to be mehadrin min hamehadrin,

this came about only from Jews&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;,

because this is the essence of the lights of Chanukah — it comes from the &lt;b&gt;recipient&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

&lt;b&gt;He&lt;/b&gt; does in illuminating the darkness*&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;.

Yud.

According to all the above one will also understand why specifically the eighth

(last)

day of Chanukah is called "Zos Chanukah"&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

(and not the

First day of Chanukah)

; and so too — that one does not find this by other festivals

(even not by those where there is a rationale that all the days of the festival are "one point")

that the essence of the festival is on the last day:

festivals and appointed times,

although that also by them is

(regarding the matter that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree)

"the halacha is like Beit Hillel" — but one hears the "superiority" "His Torah"

(commandments of Hashem)⁶¹,

not within the boundaries of the world.

And this is also the reason why we find by the dedication of the altar that also the first day is "this is the dedication of the altar" — because the Mishkan

(and the same applies — the First Temple)

is its essence the revelation of G‑dliness from above⁶²

; and therefore,

also in the "potential" of the first day of the dedication of the altar there is already the "actual" and consequently one can and one says about it "this is the dedication of the altar."

But by Chanukah which is entirely connected with the limitations of the recipient,

one cannot say "this is Chanukah" on the first day because of the virtue of the "potential",

but specifically on the last day of Chanukah,

when there is the "actual",

one has all the days in actuality,

one says "this is Chanukah" — <b>this</b> is Chanukah.

11.

Just as the general enactment of the days of Chanukah is connected with the measure of the recipient, because there was a situation of "they nullified their religion" and Jews had to strengthen themselves over the spiritual darkness

(as above

Section 8)

— similarly, regarding the &lt;b&gt;lights&lt;/b&gt; of Chanukah,

that the emphasis in the measure of the recipient regarding the Chanukah lights

(as above Section 9)

is connected with that the matter of the lights is — to illuminate the darkness specifically.

As is emphasized in the condition of the commandment — both in the &lt;b&gt;place&lt;/b&gt; of the lighting: at the entrance of his house &lt;b&gt;outside&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

and also in the &lt;b&gt;time&lt;/b&gt; of the lighting and its measure "&lt;b&gt;from sunset&lt;/b&gt; until the foot &lt;b&gt;from&lt;/b&gt; the &lt;b&gt;market&lt;/b&gt; ceases ..

until the foot of &lt;b&gt;the Tarmodite ceases"&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

Because the matter of the Chanukah lights is — to illuminate the &lt;b&gt;outside&lt;/b&gt;

(darkness),

the darkness of the public domain,

the mountains of separation,

so that it should become "and God will be &lt;b&gt;my light"&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

until that the darkness itself should be light&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore one needs the "&lt;b&gt;in actuality&lt;/b&gt;",

and the "in actuality" as it is from the side of the definition &lt;b&gt;lower&lt;/b&gt; — and as known&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

that the "in actuality" that is from the side of His power, may He be blessed, is in the level of potential; specifically when one has the "actualizer"

as it is from the side of the definition &lt;b&gt;lower&lt;/b&gt; — it transforms the darkness itself.

And this is also the superiority of "Zos Chanukah",

that then one has the <b>multitude</b> of candles of mitzvah <b>in actuality</b>,

and consequently it is understood,

that the "light" of "Zos Chanukah" has the power to illuminate and transform a greater and deeper darkness.

From this one also has the instruction for our days,

in the double and multiplied darkness of the time of exile,

and especially in the heels of Mashiach⁶⁷

— that the way to transform the darkness is,

by increasing in a candle of mitzvah and Torah light,

a <b>multitude</b> of light <b>in actuality</b>,

and to shine in,

to bring in the multitude of light into the place of darkness itself,

into the public domain,

And this brings down the "and G-d will light up my darkness",

in the fulfillment of the promise "and night like day will shine"⁶⁸,

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Miketz 5733,

5740)