One Shabbos thought for the famous Braisa, Mai Chanukah. According to Rashi, the question should be translated as, "What miracle is commemorated in the Yom Tov of Chanukah?" דתנו רבנן בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון. The eight days of Chanukah commenced, dela lemispad behon, one does not eulogize during the course of these eight days. And then there's a question how the text should read, udla lehisanos behon, one should not fast. שכשנכנסו יוונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים שבהיכל. When the Greeks, when the Syrian Greeks entered the Heichal, they defiled all the oils in the Heichal. וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום, when ultimately the Chashmonaim prevailed and vanquished them, בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן, they searched and only found one container, one flask of oil שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול, which had the seal of the Kohen Gadol, clearly indicating that it hadn't been touched. ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד. But it only contained a sufficient quantity of oil for one day. נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. A miracle happened and they were able to, using this small quantity of oil, light for eight days. לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים. Subsequently, in future years, Chazal of that generation established the Yom Tov of Chanukah for eight days. What I'd like to explore together this evening briefly is what's the significance of the Nes Hashemen, the miracle of the oil. Specifically, why does the Braisa emphasize the Nes Hashemen and not even highlight the miracle of the military conquest? That's just mentioned parenthetically as historical background to the Nes Hashemen, but what's featured in the marquee is the story of the Nes Hashemen. It's not the story of the milchamah, it's not the story of the battle, but it's rather the story of the miracle with the oil. In Al Hanissim in Shmoneh Esrei, to the contrary, we focus exclusively on the milchamah and don't mention the Nes Hashemen. So why is it that the Braisa here does not do so? Moreover, even leaving aside the omission of the Nes Hamilchamah, the Braisa's puzzling because seemingly the miracle of the oil in the Beis Hamikdash, by standards of the Beis Hamikdash, wasn't too exceptional. Wasn't too exceptional. Whether we look at the Mishna in Pirkei Avos about the ten miracles which were commonplace in the Beis Hamikdash, how the rain was never able to extinguish the fire on the mizbe'ach, or the other miracles listed, or whether it's the Gemara in Yoma which tells us about the miracles associated with the ner ma'aravi, that one candle of the seven lights in the Menorah in the Beis Hamikdash always burnt for 24 hours even though it was only given a sufficient quantity for the night. So this, the miracle of the Nes Hashemen, again, felt a pretty good stretch I mean by our standards, by the standards of the Beis Hamikdash, it wasn't really that exceptional. So why is it that it's this miracle which shapes and molds the Yom Tov of Chanukah? The p'shat of the mitzvos, of course, is hadlakas ner Chanukah, the duration of the Yom Tov eight days. Everything takes its cue from the Nes Hashemen, and yet, by the standards of the Beis Hamikdash, the Nes Hashemen really wasn't all that exceptional. So when one thinks about it a little bit, a very interesting and suggestive symmetry appears. And that is in Al Hanissim, we say מסרת גיבורים ביד חלשים and then rabim beyad me'atim, tme'im beyad tehorim, and then we continue urshaim beyad tzadikim, וזדים ביד עוסקי תורתך. So we describe the battle waged by the Chashmonaim and the miracles involved as rabim beyad me'atim, the many were given into the hands of the few, and tme'im beyad tehorim, and the impure into the hand. of the pure. So the symmetry here is again very suggestive and very telling that in the Milchama there's a symmetry between the miracle on the battlefield and the miracle with the shemen. In each case, it was me'at, a small quantity which was able to prevail against all odds simply due to the fact that it was tahor because its purity was uncompromised. What that would suggest, and I believe that someone once told me after a presentation of this idea on a different occasion that I think the Maharal talks about it as well, is that the nes of the menorah in the Beit HaMikdash was not an independent nes occasioned by the need for such a nes to fulfill the mitzvah of hadlakat haneirot. On the contrary, the Bach raises a very important question. The Bach says that the halacha is after all that tumah is either dechuya or hutra be-tzibbur. Meaning that if you have a korban which is supposed to be offered on behalf of the community as a whole, not a private korban, not a korban yachid, but rather a korban tzibbur, so even if all the kohanim are tmei'ei meit, have all incurred tumah because of coming in contact with a dead body, so אף על פי כן the korban is to be offered on schedule. Whether that's dechuya or hutra, exactly what the nature of this override is, is a dispute. But everyone agrees that the korban is to be offered. The Toras Kohanim says in Parshat Emor that the same din applies to hadlakat neirot. So the truth is, this is the question raised by the Bach, that there wasn't even any halachic need seemingly for the miracle of the shemen, that they could have, and if they timu kol hashamanim, and so what? So all the shmanim, all the oils had been defiled. So what? Nevertheless they could have, even though there was tumat meit involved here, they could have used this to fulfill the mitzvah anyway. That's the kasha which the Bach raises. And the Bach gives a complicated answer which the Chacham Tzvi and others don't agree with, they don't endorse. And the Chacham Tzvi says the truth is there was no halachic need for the miracle. As far as the mitzvah of hadlakat neirot in the Mikdash, so there was no need for the miracle, and they could have lit and fulfilled the mitzvah even with those shmanim, even with those oils which had been defiled by the Syrian Greeks. So what then was the need for the miracle? So again, it's the symmetry, that the nes hashemen was intended to illuminate the nes nistar, the hidden miracle on the battlefield. That's what the thrust or the purpose of the miracle was. And it's for that reason that it's so significant. Again, had it simply been a way of fulfilling the mitzvah of hadlakat neirot, number one, it was unnecessary. Number two, it wasn't all that exceptional by the standards of the Beit HaMikdash where miracles were commonplace. But it's rather that symmetry, if anyone had failed to decipher the true meaning of what had occurred on the battlefield, if anyone failed to understand the miraculous nature of rabbim bi-yad me'atim, tmei'im bi-yad tehorim, so Hakadosh Baruch Hu orchestrated that there would be a nes nigla, that there would be an open revealed miracle which would clearly interpret what had happened previously on the battlefield. So the lesson then, the first lesson of the nes haneirot in the Beit HaMikdash is that me'atim tehorim can prevail, but provided that that me'at and those tehorim are energized by mesirut nefesh. Now mesirut nefesh takes upon itself, it has different forms in different eras. There's no one standard form in which mesirut nefesh is manifest. And even within one historical era, mesirut nefesh will be manifest in different forms. Today, obviously acheinu Bnei Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael demonstrate a literal form of mesirut nefesh in protecting Eretz Yisrael. But there's another type of mesirut nefesh, and that too was very prominently featured in the nes of Hanukkah. Let's review a little bit of the... bit of the history of the clash between Greek culture and lehavdil Torah. Within Greek culture, there are two seemingly antithetical strands. On the one hand, Greek culture was marked by its pursuit of pleasure. Not only the word but also the concept of hedonism comes from ancient Greece. Not only a Greek word, but it's also a Greek concept. On the other hand, we also correctly associate with ancient Greece rationalism. Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western culture, is the cradle of Western rationalism. So how did those two, how were they combined within one culture? They seem to be antithetical: on the one hand pursuit of pleasure, on the other hand rationalism. But in fact, there's no intellectual schizophrenia here, but there was a common denominator to the hedonistic side of Greek culture and to its rational side, and that is that Greek culture was anthropocentric, i.e., it was centered around man. The Ramban in a very stunning and stinging characterization in Parshas Acharei Mos in context of talking about the sa'ir l'azazel, so at the end of his comment there, the Ramban says that he doesn't want to have to begin refuting the views of Aristotle and his disciples. He says היינו צריכים לחסום פי המתחכמים בטבע הנמשכים אחרי היווני. He says if I were to elaborate more, I would have to begin to literally stifle those who think that they're wise, who are drawn after the, who are drawn after the Greek, i.e., Aristotle. And now here comes the Ramban's characterization of Aristotle and by extrapolation of Greek rationalism, אשר הכחיש כל דבר זולתו המורגש לו. He denied anything which wasn't either tangible or perceptible to him. Vehigis da'ato lachshov, and he arrogantly, presumptuously thought, hu v'talmidav ha'rasha'im, he and his wicked disciples, כי כל ענין שלא השיג אליו הוא בסברתו איננו אמת,
that what he couldn't intellectually grasp couldn't be true, that there couldn't be any truth beyond his understanding, that his understanding was the measure of everything. That's the Ramban's characterization of Aristotle and again clearly by extension of Greek philosophy. And it's exactly that bent of Greek rationalism, the fact that it was centered around man, that it was anthropocentric, which was the common denominator that it shared with the Greek hedonism. It was all the same thing. It was focused on man. It was focused, man, man's taivos and man's yeitzer hara were at the center of the universe. And for that matter, man's mind was at the center of the universe. And anything which man could not grasp, so it couldn't be true and man was the measure of everything. And again, this strange coupling, what seems to us superficially to be a coupling of opposites, is something which you find again in history, again, most notably at the period of the Renaissance. Again, you have that convergence: on the one hand, there's a flowering of intellectual activity and yet it's very, very pleasure-oriented. Again, the common denominator is this anthropocentrism. The Avnei Nezer points out, again, just calling attention to words which we say in the Al HaNissim, that the thrust of the Greek attack against Torah was l'ha'aviram michukei ritzonecha. Right? L'ha'aviram, to force the Jewish people to abandon not Torah, not the mishpatim, not the rational side of Torah, the Avnei Nezer says, but rather l'ha'aviram michukei ritzonecha. And again, because that's what Greek culture represented. Greek culture represented if there's anything which we can't grasp, if there's anything which we can't intellectually assimilate. so then it can't be true. It's wrong. It shouldn't be binding on us. There can't be any morality which is higher than human understanding. And that was the thrust of the again of the intellectual of the cultural clash between Greek culture and le'havdil Torah was le'haaviram mechukei retzonecha. So what the Chashmonaim displayed was not only heroism on the battlefield, it was not only the heroism again which we see in acheinu Bnei Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael today as we talk, but also an intellectual mesirus nefesh. And the mesirus nefesh that a person strives to understand as much as possibly can be understood within Torah and then a willingness to submissively bow one's head and say, and what we don't understand, so we accept the ratzon Hashem even though we can't understand it. We don't accept that again, we don't have that attitude of that what we can't attain, that what we can't grasp, sevara deinu with our logic, with our understanding, can't be emes. The Rov from the Bronx used to discuss from time to time the need that we have bazman hazeh in our generation for intellectual mesirus nefesh. For simply with devotion unquestioningly without questioning accepting ratzon Hashem even when it defies our understanding. In fact, he used to tell a story which I think the typescripts of this drasha that circulate the story has become famous about a case which he actually had halacha l'maaseh about an assimilated young Jewish man who had a gentile girlfriend. The boy's family insisted that she be converted. They weren't religious but they didn't want their son, they didn't want the father as we'll see in a minute was not alive, they didn't want the son intermarried. So the woman was very sincere and she said if I'm gonna convert so it has to be something authentic, it can't just be a charade, it has to be authentic. So she went and she studied about Yahadus and she became a giyorus tzedek and she influenced him that he should be chozer betshuva. After this long arduous sincere process, so then they were ready to get married. So the boy's father was not alive, so he was told that there's a custom which some people have that if one of the parents is not alive you go out to the cemetery and as it were whatever the custom means you invite the deceased parent to come to the wedding. So he goes to the cemetery and he sees by the way with great ease he finds the grave, but he sees this strange inscription on the top of the matzeiva, on the top of the tombstone. He sees a picture like this on top of the tombstone. He doesn't know this strange-looking inscription but anyway so he invites to the wedding and then he goes and he mentions to someone, you know, I went to the cemetery and I saw this really strange inscription. I wonder what that's all about. So they told him that it's customary to put that inscription on the tombstone of a kohen. Okay, so again he doesn't think twice. And then someone tells him and you know a kohen can't marry a giyorus. So they came to the Rov to ask what do we do, is there any heter. So the Rov described very movingly how obviously he had again after everything was corroborated that these in fact that these were the facts that the young man the baal teshuvah was a kohen and that the giyorus tzedek who had influenced him to be chozer betshuva therefore they could not get married. So he told them, he told them I'm sorry there is no heter. There is no heter. And he described how they didn't press him, how there was no but what if, they said we accept it and they left. And they went their separate ways. The Rov said that's an example of intellectual mesirus nefesh. That's the mesirus nefesh which the Chashmonaim displayed against the Greek onslaught of le'haaviram mechukei retzonecha and it's the mesirus nefesh that we have to aspire to. Much of the internal religious problems that we have within our own circles of orthodoxy can be traced back to two factors. Number one that what can be understood we don't sufficiently understand. And number two what perhaps can't be understood either because intrinsically it can't be understood or because of our cultural biases which we have by osmosis assimilated makes it impossible for us to understand so we don't have that willingness that intellectual mesirus nefesh to act as this young couple did when they came to the Rav and were told that there is no heter for them. So that's clearly one dimension of the nes hashemen that illuminated the nes hamilchama thereby teaching the lesson of rabim beyad me'atim, tmei'im beyad tehorim provided the tehorim and the me'atim are energized by mesirus nefesh. Let's just take a few more moments to explore a second dimension of the nes hashemen. And again to do this we have to again delve a little bit into another one of the areas of conflict in the cultural war between Greek ideals Hellenic culture and mahavdil בין הטומאה לבין הטהרה and between Torah. Greek culture was very physical very very physically oriented. It celebrated the human body. The art of human sculpture flourished in ancient Greece. Physical prowess and athleticism were practically maybe even word practically can be dropped were semi-deified. The Olympics in ancient Greece wasn't merely a sporting event wasn't merely a way of getting your picture on the Wheaties box and making a lot of money with your pictures on the Wheaties box but it was a religious event. It was a religious event physical activity races was a religious event in ancient Greece. Ancient Greece celebrated to the point of again virtual deification the human body. Now obviously Yahadus rejects such coarse and crude materialism. And yet Yahadus on the does not go to the extreme of negating the physical doesn't see the physical as evil. There is a very beautiful Midrash in Bereishis Rabbah first shown to me by my father zichrono livracha. The Midrash says here kavyachol after sheishes yimei bereishis kavyachol hakadosh baruch hu misga'eh be'olamo. As it were hakadosh baruch hu takes pride in what he created in the physical world that he created. Ve'omer he says ראו בריה שבראתי וצורה שצרתי. Look at this creation which is my handiwork look at this form which I molded. אמר רבי יצחק בר נחמיה כתיב אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם.
Bar'am meshabcham. Hakadosh baruch hu praises creation u'mi megamnam. So who can then speak pejoratively about hakadosh baruch hu's creation. Bar'am mekalsam. Hakadosh baruch hu lauds the physical world that he created ומי נותן בהם דופי. So who can disparage the creation. אלא גאין הן ומשובחין הן. But they are a source of pride they are praiseworthy שנאמר אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות השם אלוקים ארץ ושמים.
Similarly the Rav he wrote about this among other places in his essay bikashtem misham underscores the fact that kiyum hamitzvos just living a complete total life requires physical involvement. If anything the Torah rather than minimize physical involvement the Torah demands physical involvement. Whether it's in the form of mitzvas onah whether it's in the form of different mitzvos achilah but the Torah again far from encouraging any kind of ascetic regimen it actually requires involvement in the physical world. Yahadus teaches that physicality, disciplined and refined, not only can but should be employed in our avodas Hashem. In other words, I think the phrase which we can use to encapsulate it, and then I'll explain it, is that Yahadus teaches, and again, obviously this stands in stark contrast to the deification of the physical and the material of Greek culture, Yahadus teaches the eternity of temporality. What does that phrase mean? That if the physical and finite are channeled towards Hakadosh Baruch Hu, even an act as simple as eating can also serve as a bridge to eternity. Now when you think about it, so what was the neis shaman? So what was the neis shaman? neis shaman was a small quantity, something physical, right? And what did the, and the shaman just kept on burning and burning and burning, right? Just kept on going, couldn't be extinguished, a small, small physical quantity. So what did that represent? That too was intended to highlight a dimension of the miracle of Chanukah. Again, what had the clash been? The clash had been between the celebration of the physical as an end unto itself, which is what Greek culture preached, versus not the negation of physical, that's not what Yahadus teaches, but rather Yahadus says that the physical has to be used, again, has to be channeled, has to be refined, has to be disciplined, but with all that, it's then used and integrated into one's avodas Hashem. What's temporal, what's physical, what's, what's here today, gone tomorrow, it's only temporal, but according to Yahadus, again, if that's integrated into one's avodas Hashem, that too can be a bridge to eternity. That's what the neis shaman represented, this little bit of oil, so it should have only lasted an hour, a few hours. The same thing, a physical act which we do in olam hazeh shouldn't reverberate, it shouldn't reverberate, either reject it or celebrate it as an end unto itself, as the Greeks did. And Yahadus says no, the physical again can also reverberate spiritually if only a person channels that towards Hakadosh Baruch Hu. If a person integrates that into his avodas Hashem, so then the physical, the temporal, is also a bridge to eternity. And that's what the neis shaman represented. In fact, this is the teaching which the Rambam quotes, it's a pasuk in Mishlei, a Mishna in Pirkei Avos, of bechol derachecha da'ehu and וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים, in the פרק ג הלכות דעות, how a person is supposed to contextualize through the motivation that he brings to all of his endeavors, to all of his actions. When a person goes to the office, when a person exercises to stay fit, when a person eats and drinks, engages in physical activity, the Rambam says all of this is supposed to be elevated to a level of avodas Hashem by attaching the correct goals and intentions to these, again, physical, seemingly only physical, only mundane activities. And then, again, was part of the clash between Greek culture and, lehavdil, and Torah. Too often, not only do we, sort of, lulled into a type of spiritual sleep, not only don't we take the time to reflect upon all our mundane activities and commitments and try to infuse them with this notion of bechol derachecha da'ehu, too often we get up in the morning, we go to work just out of routine, without stopping to think, without trying to create this broader context for what we do. And not only that, not only do we too often not take advantage of the opportunity of building a bridge from temporality. Too often we tend to temporalize the eternal. Not only do we not elevate our actions בכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים our going to work, our eating, our drinking, our keeping fit, not only don't we infuse that with a kavannah le-shem shamayim but too often we bring our כוונות שלא לשם שמים into the shul, into the beis medrash whether it's shul politics, whether it's talking in shul, whatever form it takes, so that's the antithesis of what the ner Chanukah represents. The ner Chanukah represents on the contrary infusing spirituality into the physical, into the material, using that as a bridge to eternity and not rachmana litzlan that we should do the exact opposite of temporalizing, of lowering, again Torah, Tefillah, Yahadus by bringing to bear our own agendas, our own biases, that's the exact opposite of what the Yom Tov of Chanukah represents. Because there's a minhag that during the time that the Chanukah licht are burning, to spend at least some of the time to look at the neros Chanukah, to look at the neros Chanukah. No, it's not mandatory in terms of fulfilling the mitzvah of ner Chanukah, but there's a minhag, a minhag. Even Reb Velvel used to interrupt his learning to go in and spend some time looking at the neros Chanukah. So what exactly is the person supposed to see when he sees the neros Chanukah burning? What is he supposed to be thinking about? So a person is supposed to be thinking about רבים ביד מעטים טמאים ביד טהורים about the power, the potency of a little bit of purity energized by mesiras nefesh and a person is supposed to see how a little bit even of our physical finite involvement, going to work, a person goes to work to be neheneh mi-yegia kapecha because Hakadosh Baruch Hu says that we should exert ourselves to make a living, to make a Kiddush Hashem in the world, so these physical, finite, this little pach shemen it burns and burns and burns and doesn't stop to burn, it continues to reverberate and all that is contained in the flame of the ner Chanukah.