Inaugural KMTT Shiur: Chanuka 2005, Hanerot Halalu Kodesh Hem, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
KMTT - the Torah Podcast
Inaugural KMTT Shiur: Chanuka 2005
- When we like Hanukkah candles, we recite, and we say the candles of Hanukkah are coldish. They have an eight, an eight holiness, and therefore, in line it will shoot the Hishtah and Hishpahim, we have no right to have any benefit from the candles, which is the source for the custom that when we like candles, we add an extra shamash, an extra candle that's not really part of the minala, but is there in order to assume that the benefit that we do use from the candles, that we do guess from the candles, is actually the benefit from the extra candle and not from the candles themselves. However, we really should try to analyze, is there a kadushah in the nalut? The Gammara in one point almost scots at such a suggestion. The Gammara mentions in Shabbat in the same as Sughya of Mirhanukkah. The Gammara asks, first the Gammara actually says that you cannot count your money. You should not use the candles for the mundane purpose of counting your money. The Gammara does not mention that you can't use the candles at all, it just mentions that you cannot use the candles for counting the money. So the Gammara asks, almost in a scotting way, bhihin nya kadushayeshpil, is there any kadushah? Is there any inherent holiness in the candles themselves? The Gammara answer is, that's true, there is no real kadushah in the nalut, however, we have an attitude to treat mitzvah properly. The Gammara gives an example, there is a mitzvah called kiswahadam. Kiswahadam means that after the shaita of certain animals, we have to cover the blood. Covering the blood is a very mundane act and one can do in many ways, you just have to put some dirt, some earth on the blood. Theoretically, we can get dirt on the blood and have the blood covered, kiswahadam can be accomplished in any way. The Gammara says, but it's not proper because shaita of the nalut, the zuyotala, one person should not treat a mitzvah in a disdainful manner in it, manner that does not reflect the proper respect for the mitzvah. So the Gammara says the same thing applies to their kannaka. It really apparently has no kadushah, but we shouldn't count our money, such a mundane act of counting money should not be done by kannaka by kannaka. In order to give it a certain aura, a certain feeling, but not necessarily that of kadushah. Of course, this gammara contradicts what we just said in the piyot, in that poem, in that liturgy that we say when we light the kandals, a nehros-halalu koda-shaym. We say the nehros are kad-duap kadushah, somehow an innate kadushah, which is a diametrically opposed to what the Gammara said here, that the kimmya kadushah, is there any kadushah for the kandals. There's another gammara in shabbat, where it says that near kannaka, a sulish tamaish la ora. The kandal, you cannot get any benefit from the kandals. Now, this gammara, theoretically, could have been referring to the same concept we learned before, that you shouldn't count your money, and where would this gammara is much more encompassing? It might as a sulish tamaish la ora, which means, not just, you can't use it for any purpose, for one specific purpose. It means a suer, there's a general isler lish tamaish la ora, apparently any isler, any use of this light would be totally forbidden. So, it could be there's a contradiction in the gammara, or rather, a maklokha gammara. The one opinion is that really near kannaka does not have kadushah, and therefore, the only reason we should be careful with near kannu ka is to love the yannamatsu, mitzvah doziyotala. In order to see that we do not treat mitzvah in an improper fashion, however there's another gammara. The gammara says that a sulisha meshla that, apparently that gammara thinks that all use of the kannaka, kandals is forbidden, which implies that there's inherent kadushah in the kannals, and apparently we pass, according to that, gammara hane rata lala lukha sashain, which is the source of the tiyot. This idea sounds clearly in the bhalaamma or, when masecha shabbat. The bhalaamma or says, namanda amara, a sulisha meshla ora, according to the personal things that you're not allowed to get any benefit from the kannals, koltas mishpimashma. Using use of the kannals, what's whoever's forbidden, a fiwu tashmishdimitsvah, even if he would use it for a purpose of a mitzvah, the tashmishkadusha, even if he would use it for a holy purpose, mishum dikasada, because this opinion contains, I'm going to skip one line, I'll get back to it, that kol assu, assu gotain bhana ha, kolikha, a fiwu likra, likha, bhzefah, a fiwu lisudatya batusudat mitzvah, any use of forbidden, even to learn Torah, or to have light for the meal of shabbat, or any meal that's based upon a mitzvah, su dat mitzvah. But what's the reason? Why is there this makhlokas nigamara? One opinion really holds that near has no kadusha, but we cannot treat the mitzvahs in an improper fashion. The other opinion of the gimara is that near has kadusha, and what is this predicated? Why would there be kadusham in there? So the balamur explained, because haim dizayha nirot un ashemen shalikha. The candles are a memory, a reminder to us, of the candles of the beta mikadash. Apparently the makhlokas between these two gimaras is explained by the balamur, to say that the whole nature of writing candles is the source of this controversy. One opinion holds that rabbana made up a new law, rabbana have the right to make up a new mitzvah rabbana. And they made up a new mitzvah rabbana, namely, writing hanaka candles on hanaka is a new mitzvah that was completely made up by Hazal, and has nothing to do with any prior source. However, the opinion of things that nir does have kadusha, the opinion that holds, that we cannot use hanaka candles for any purpose, that opinion apparently holds that the takkana or the mitzvah of lighting hanaka candles is not a new mitzvah rabbana, but it's an extension of a certain mitzvah of the Torah. The Torah told us that we should light a manorah of the beta mikdash. When hanaka, we remember the miracle of hanaka, the miracle of the lighting the candles, putting them in the beta mikdash, by relighting the candles of the mikdash, as it were, in our own homes. One opinion, therefore, is hane rata la lukkoda sheng, these nirat du arkidusha, because basically they are the nirat of mikdash, which we are lighting on hanaka. This idea can be found in the ramban unkhunesh, and a few other sources, which I will try to explain. The ramban unkhunesh, in the beginning of parashat dahalokcha, explains the relationship between the end of parashat nesso, and the beginning of parashat dahalokcha. Arashat nesso deals with the carbonote, brought by the nessi in, of all the shfatiim. Every shavat, had its nessi, it's prince, it's leader, bring a carbon, a khanukha tannus beyach, the time of the dedication of the ness beyach. The marriage explains that the next parashat, which begins with bihalokcha tannerot, where airona kowang is given the commandment of putting up nirat, putting up and lighting, the nirat, are related. And the marriage explains that airon felt, what we would call khalisotadat, he felt a certain weakness, a certain depression, when he found that every shavat was given the privilege of putting, giving a khavaam in the bihalokcha, khanukha tannus beyach. No small matter, dedicating the mikdas, dedicating the mikdas, in the mikdas, was given to every shavat, who brought a carbon and took place to part in the khanukha tannus beyach. And Arun felt, my shir is not there, I was not given a shir in the khanukha tannus beyach. The marriage goes on to saying that akaris barikhu, as it were, comforted airon. Akaris barikhu said to airon, "Don't be concerned. I will give you a mitzvah, instead of the mitzvah of khanukha tannus beyach, of bringing the khavaam, I will give you a different mitzvah, namely I will give you the mitzvah of setting, of bliding the mitzvah on the bhaitamiktas." But the marriage adds that the rampan quotes, shoshad ga do misha lahm, "Your shir is actually greater than their shir, because their shir is only when there is a bhaitamiktas. When the temple is in existence, the khanukha tannus beyach is applicable. However, when there is no bhaitamiktas, there is no nothing but a memory of what the mitzvah did. We have no bhaitamiktas. Their work is actually not continued in the present time. However, airon, you like the minora, your minora will be for all eternity. There was a minora will be for all eternity, when you like the candles, when all people like the candles of khanukha. The bhaitamiktas is not in existence. However, the minora that we like, as a memory of the bhaitamiktas, the memory that the balamur alluded to, that today we ask him, "Hanilat halalu kotashin," that memory is done every year. When the khanukha, when we like the minora, innovatamiktas, our home becomes the bhaitamiktas. The gimara has another discussion. What is the nature of the mitzvah of lightning handed candles? The famous controversy in the gimara had lakau samitzvah, or hanahau samitzvah, does the lighting of the candle itself, for so the mitzvah, or hanahau samitzvah, where the minora is placed and lit, continues to be lit, continues to light, that is the mitzvah. The gimara doesn't mention this, but the shoshunara puts it together. This seems to be the same makhlokas as katazakukla, or katazakukla. The idea being that if the minora does go out, you light candles, and the candles for champs are extinguished. Did you fulfill the mitzvah or not? If you have all that had lakau samitzvah, the lighting of the candle creates the mitzvah. So then even if the minora goes out, even if the fire is extinguished, you do fulfill the mitzvah, and you do not have to rely the minora at all. But lakau samitzvah, you fulfilled your mitzvah, perhaps we would pass gim hanahau samitzvah. Having the candle lit is itself the mitzvah, a candle must light a certain amount of time, and therefore the corollary that I mentioned in the shoshunara would exist, therefore we would pass gim katazakukla, if the fire goes out, then you would pass gim katazakukla, you pass gim, that you would have to re-light the candles because the mitzvah isn't having the candle lit, and if for any reason the candles aren't lit, then you didn't ask for the mitzvah, so you have to re-light them. So the gim marah has the mahlokut, if had lakau samitzvah, or on the hau samitzvah, does the lighting of the candle create the mitzvah, or does the having the candle lit for the minimum time require the fulfill the mitzvah, and if you don't do that, you have to re-light the candle, or even according to the person that says, lakau samitzvah, we should be careful, it's not just lighting a candle that will go out, it means to light a candle that should last the proper time, you should have a candle that will last the shear, or whatever the shear may be, but you should have a candle that will last a certain amount of time, you can light a match, and say, well it goes out, I fulfill the mitzvah, lakau samitzvah, we have to light a candle, which should theoretically last for the necessary time, but then if for any reason it went out, you don't have to re-light it, that seems to be the way the shear can now explain the mahlokut, had lakau samitzvah, and the hau samitzvah is connected inherently to the mitzvah of castaza, kukla, to the halakhav, castaza, kukla, casta insa kukla, now if we would try to analyze this mahlokut, casta insa kukla, if the fire goes out we have to re-light it, and the mahlokut had lakau samitzvah, or hanakhau samitzvah, which is the actual fulfillment of the mitzvah, lighting the candle, or having the candle lit, and we were asked by ourselves, to ourselves, the question would be posed to us, which one is the mitzvah, had lakah, or hanakhah, I would have assumed that it's inconceivable to imagine that had lakau samitzvah, it's not possible that lighting the candle should fulfill the mitzvah, because what is the essence of the mitzvah of nirhanukah, the gemari says there are a few mitzvahs whose purpose is pilsuminisah, there are three mitzvahs through a bonan at least, whose purpose has now introduced those mitzvahs not just as an action, but as a way of publicizing the miracle of pilsuminis, those three mitzvahs, of course, are reading the migilon for him, arbakasot, reading the arbakasot of the mitzvah, the rabbana, and pithak, and the third is lighting the minara and hanakhah, now pilsuminisah, for hanakhah means we have to publicize the miracle, we want people to see the candles, we want people to be aware of the candles in order that they should remember the miracle of hanakhah, if the minara would go out after 10 seconds, by mistake, by accident, but so no one would see it, the minara went out, it's true I did a mitzvah of nirhanukah, I did the technical act of lighting the minara, but once it's gone out, the people don't see it, and that's the whole purpose of the mitzvah, the mitzvah is pilsuminisah, so how could anybody think that hanakhah is hadlakah, how could anybody possibly think that the mitzvah is to light the candles, it's true that we have three examples of lighting candles in hanakhah, we have one example of habakat shabbat, mihat shabbat, when shabbat we have a mitzvah to light candles, there it would seem to be that for a technical reason, we would say habakah kalasam itzvah, the technical reason would be that when shabbat, once I lit the candles according to the way many people think, maybe nalakhah is that way, but at least that's what many women think, many people think, when you light the candles you accept shabbas, so that is true when the candles go out, it's irrelevant whether you should relight them or not, you can't relight them because of shabbat, so in shabbat it would seem logical that we would say sort of habakah, mitzvah, because you can't light them, when the other hand by shabbat, the purpose also is not just to do the mahbakah, the purpose of shabbat is not just to light the candles, the purpose of shabbat is to have candles lit, the gamut explained, that is because of kavut shabbat, onyx shabbat, shalom baite, it's either for the concept of kavut shabbat, if I am explained to kavut shabbat means preparing for shabbat and fighting, onyx shabbat would mean to have the benefit of the light and shabbat, shalom baite means to have a happier home, a more serene home, because we have candles lit in the house, it's not dark, if you would hold the real reason is only because of kavut shabbat, if the reason to light shabbat is only because of honor and respect to shabbat, which I demonstrate by performing act on friday, then one could conceivably say that habakah samitzvah, theoretically habakah would fulfill the mitzvah of lighting on friday, I've shown my respect and my attitude toward preparing for shabbat, and if it went out, I still did my responsibility, however the other two reasons of the gamara, which are, as I said, explain where I'm crying, that onyx shabbat means to enjoy shabbat, they have the benefit of shabbat, and you sit, for example, at meals with candlelight, and have therefore a much more meaningful meal, experiential meal of the kudu shabbat, then you would certainly have to say that habakah samitzvah, if you hold the reasons because of shalom baite, if you want light in the house, you want a well-lit house because of harmony in the home, then it seems obvious that habakah samitzvah should have the candles in shabbat, it would be very difficult to explain why habakah samitzvah, if you look in the shalom baite, you'll see that the shalom baite raises the issue of habak, the shalom baite raises the issue that the whole question is moot because you can't light the candles after shabbat, however they explain that somebody else could light the candles, let's say a wife, woman, light candles in their house, but her husband is not expected shabbat, he didn't go to shul, yet he didn't go to the nuclear, so theoretically, if the lights did go out, he could re-light them. So there in the shalom baite, there is a discussion of how we really passed in, when shabbat had like habakah samitzvah and habakah samitzvah, and as I said before, it's very likely that we would pass them on a habakah samitzvah because that's the purpose of having candles. In the baite samitzvah, we also have an interesting issue, habakah samitzvah or habakah samitzvah. In the baite samitzvah, it's the third time when we have a mitzvah of lighting candles, and that mitzvah is performed by the coanim, or the ramam says not like a kshar, but the ramam thinks that the actual lighting can be done by non-coane, but the makhlokas ramam arise about that issue is not our topic now and I won't go into it, nevertheless, in the baite samitzvah, we would have to study carefully whether habakah samitzvah or habakah samitzvah. Rashi assumes that in the baite samitzvah, we pass him habakah samitzvah. In the baite samitzvah, I can somehow understand it. The question is not just, should candle be lit. The question is to do it master habakah, and the Torah told us to light them in order of the baite samitzvah. There I could understand, there is no concept of kshar, the concept of shalom, baite samitzvah samitzvah. Therefore the mitzvah really could be light them in order, and you fulfill the mitzvah once you light them in order. But I don't understand how that could work by nihahannaka. By nihahannaka, the mitzvah is to light the candle and to have the candle lit in order to create prisa manisa. How could anybody think that for shavat, I can understand. Maybe habakah, maybe habakah, I prefer habakah, but shavat because of shalom baite and because of onyxhavat. Baite samitzvah, I could argue both ways, but habakah, how could anybody think that habakah samitzvah. Rashi in shavat explained the opinion of the person who thinks habakah samitzvah, kidda ashkahandamiktash, as we found the baite samiktash. The person who thinks habakah samitzvah is completely understood. He thinks that since the mitzvah is pursuing me, so I need the candles to be lit. At certain amount of time, in order to publicize this miracle, however the person who holds habakah samitzvah, he is definitely aware that the mitzvah is prisa manisa. However, he thinks since the prototype of lighting the manorah on hanaka is the manorah of the baite samiktash, namely the khachamim instituted lighting the candles on hanaka zeha lemiktash as the commemoration of the miktash like we saw in the rambhan, like we saw in the balamor, therefore we can somehow understand the opinion that on the khachamitzvah, logic of pure samiktash certainly does apply. However, the idea of lighting the manorah is based on the tarkana of the lighting of the baite samiktash. If in the baite samiktash, indeed, we will pass to the nahvakah samiktash, so therefore we can also pass to the nahvakah samiktash by the rambhanaka zeha lemiktash, even though in that case, samiktash samiktash is lost. Another source to explain the same issue would be found in the text of the baite samiktash samiktash. If you put the word in shell, if the word shell is independent, or if the word shell is connected to shelllahhanaka, one word. Whatever the baite samiktash is, the rambhan in parachid ala tahil-hud-barah-hud gives rules for the text of the hud. The general topic of giving the text, of explaining the different text of sambrahat, why they are mentioned, sambrahat-ar-al-lih, and sambrahat-ar-al, for example, the baite is, the arid-barah-al-lih, and the baite is, the arid-barah-al-lih, and why sometimes we say "learn". Sometimes we say "al", it's the famous sill-gyan first-parak-ap-tash. And there is a matter of fact of those things that I cannot make up a rule which will cover all the cases. We try to make up different rules, we show them they have dealt with it, to try to explain the rules when we say "learn, 'al", some of them have gone to great lengths to try to explain everyone. And like that also says, I can't find the general rule for all the cases. But the rambhan in parachid ala tahil-hud-barah-al does give his rules. The rahid-barah-al-lih, raises the issue of nirhanaka. Since nirhanaka is the mitzvah of the rabhanan, the rahid-barah-al, the rahid-barah-al-lih, said in the mitzvah of the rabhanan, generally would make a brahahah-al. Not leh, but al, therefore he would think that generally we should have said a brahah-al-had-la-kattne-hah-an-ukah, and not lehad-mik. The rahid-barah there explains that the reason that we make the brahah in the form that we do, namely, lehad-mik, is because since in the mitzvah of the Torah of the lighting candles that would make a brahah-al lehad-mik, the mitzvah of lighting-hannaka candles is based upon the manorah of the miksh. And therefore we formulated the brahah in accordance with the mitzvah-dal-haitah, with the biblical law, even though nirhanaka is the rabhanan. But since its prototype is the rahid-barah, we use the brahah to form that's found in the rahid-barah. So we have seen many sources to explain why we really do say nirat-halalu-kattne-hah. The nirat-barah-anaka are indeed holy. They have an innate holiness, but we have to explain why. If it would be a new mitzvah-dir-barah-an, it would be like lighting candles on shabbat, where it's very important to light the candles, but there's no kadusha to the candle. We are allowed to use nir-shabbat. We only have to be careful not to adjust the nir-shabbat, but we're allowed to use them except for the problem of hashash, at some sort of a fear, that we might use them and tilt them or adjust them, but we're certainly allowed to use nir-shabbat, there's no kadusha. So we try to explain that there is an opinion in the nirat that nir does have kadusha, and we found a number of ramifications of this concept. One, we saw that this is the source for the reason of a foolish tamesh-lulman. The personal world that you cannot use the candles for any purpose. It's the ifler, the prohibition, is not just related to counting money, but all prohibitions are there, even through that shabbat, even through the purpose of a mitzvah, like eating the shabbat's meal, or learning Torah, forbidden by kamakic candles. That opinion is based on the fact that nir-shaddu-shah like the balamarsah. We also saw the rambhanu kumish, that the rambhan says that the mitzvah of writing kamakic candles is based on the nir of the miktash. We knew that source of rashi to explain that the mitzvah of hadlakal-sa-mitzvah, the concept of hadlakal-sa-mitzvah, that we light candles. And we fulfill the mitzvah actually by lighting them, and not by having them lit, is because that's the source that we found in the mitzvah miktash, and our mitzvah conforms to the lighting of the candles in the mitzvah miktash. We also saw the rabhanu kumishgah, that the rabhanu says that the text of saying the brachah, on the hadlaknir, really is not the appropriate text for brachah du rabhanan. But in this case, it would be fine because the brachah was instituted based on the idea of writing candles of the miktash, which is a mitzvah dolayah, and we formulate the same brachah because the pamakal, we also think that the near of hanaka is basically the near shabamiktash. The mitzvah of lighting candles is actually to light the candles of the ditzvah miktash in our home. On the hanaka, our goal is to make our home into a beta miktash. It's not just a new mitzvah of lighting hanaka candles and celebrating the holiday, but we should remember the concept of the candles of the beta miktash and try in some small fashion to make our own home into a beta miktash. In general, there's a difference between the customs, and they're only customs. They're only Minhajian, that we found in Israel as opposed to what I remember we were done in America. Generally, in America, people light the candles inside their home, on the table, in the window. And as you saw, many people are able to light the candles outside their home. They take this glass contraption, something like a fishbowl, and put them in their own sight and light it outside. Now, this is probably based upon the concept that in Israel you're not so afraid to put your manure outside. You're not nervous about people taking it or breaking it or being angry at you. Well, as in general, of course, maybe the custom was developed that people light it inside because that's actually based on the gamara, that Minhajian can put the manure on your table. And that's sufficient when you're nervous, when you're afraid of what happens to the minara to yourself, for your family, so you're allowed to light the minara inside. However, symbolically what it means is that in ancient Israel, we put the minara outside our home. We want the light of our house, the beta mikdash, that we built in our house to be spread outside. We hope to influence these surroundings all over from our outside going out. Whereas in the Chifler, the goal is not as much to influence the environs outside, but we try very much to protect our own homes. Keep the manure in our own homes that we can have our own homes insulated from the outside elements, from the culture that we find outside, but to protect our inside and build the beta mikdash in our house. To summarize, the mitzv of their Hanukkah is not just a new mitzv of the rabbana of letting candles. The mitzvah is to make our house to the beta mikdash. We hope that we protect our own homes from outside influences. We try to have our home influence felt over the entire world, specifically from Eritrea. Tarat-seon should be the source of the light of the whole world. Himit-seon te-se-to-ra with varashamilos-alayim.