Whenever I'm invited to speak, I take advantage of the zechus harabbim to try to get a new perspective on the yom tov on the inyan. You often see in seforim that the mechaber writes אשר חידשתי בזכות הרבים that in the merit of the rabbim who come, that's what allowed me to gain this insight or to formulate this perspective and I often, I guess in the moment of cynicism, I often thought that that was just a melitza, that was just a euphemistic turn of speech. But then when one begins to give shiurim, one really realizes how true it is. That often one wanders, one struggles to prepare, and then immediately beforehand things crystallize as clearly bizchus harabbim. So whenever, whenever asked to speak, I try to take advantage to formulate a new perspective. However, this perspective wasn't exactly what I bargained for here. I'm a little scared of heights, but I'll do my best anyway. The Gemara in Shabbos tells us that אמר חייא בר אשי אמר רב המדליק נר חנוכה צריך לברך
that when a person kindles a ner Chanukah, he makes a bracha. And the Gemara goes on to explain that the first night one makes three brachos, lehadlik ner Chanukah, she'asa nissim and shehecheyanu, and subsequently on the other nights one makes two brachos, omitting of course the shehecheyanu, just the lehadlik ner Chanukah and she'asa nissim. Then the Gemara says that amar, I think amar Yirmiyah, that הרואה נר חנוכה גם צריך לברך. Even the way we interpret this Gemara lahalacha, it's subject to a major dispute amongst the Rishonim, but the way we interpret this Gemara lahalacha, if a person has not yet lit himself, nor will he be lighting tonight, nor for that matter is someone lighting on his behalf in his home, שלא הדליק ואינו עתיד להדליק ואין מדליקין עליו בביתו, so then הרואה נר חנוכה צריך לברך as well. That one who sees a ner Chanukah also makes a bracha. The Gemara then explains that unlike the madlik ner Chanukah, on the first night the roeh ner Chanukah only makes two brachos, only makes two brachos, she'asa nissim and shehecheyanu. And subsequently after the first night, he only makes a she'asa nissim. Now this, these two dimensions of the mitzvah of ner Chanukah distinguish the mitzvah. For instance, if you contrast it with Mikra Megillah, so Mikra Megillah doesn't have these, these two dimensions. Mikra Megillah is a mitzvah for men, the definition of the mitzvah is to read the Megillah. For women, the definition perhaps is to hear the Megillah. But again, you don't have these two elements or these two dimensions of which would parallel the hadlaka by Chanukah, the lighting the ner Chanukah, as well as the re'iyah of the ner Chanukah. So let's try to understand al pi aggadah what the significance of these two elements, these two dimensions within the mitzvah are. We know of course that in terms of the historical background of Chanukah, there are two miracles which form that background: the military victory where the Chashmonaim prevailed against all odds, over against the Syrian-Greek army, and of course the neis shebashamen, the miracle in the Beis Hamikdash where a small quantity of oil lasted for eight days. Now the significance of these two miracles lichora is as follows. There are two types or two expressions or manifestations of emunah, of faith. There's one type of manifestation of emunah... where a person initiates a course of action based upon emuna. A person acts. He's proactive. And that action is rooted in his emuna. Now let's clarify this point. Now undoubtedly, the Torah requires us to be practical. אין סומכין על הנס is both a halachic principle, the Gemara in Pesachim commenting on the Mishnah that the Korban Pesach was supposed to be offered b'shalosh kitos. There were supposed to be three groups in slaughtering the Korban Pesach. Klal Yisrael was supposed to be divided into three groups into shalosh kitos. So the Gemara says that Rava says that the correct girsa in the Mishnah is na'alutnan that they didn't unlike they didn't wait miraculously for the doors of the azara to close, but rather when the azara was filled, so they would close the doors and that would form the first kat, the first group for shechting Korban Pesach and then they would repeat that procedure with the second group and they again pro-actively determined that there would be shalosh kitos, that there would be three groups shechting the Korban Pesach. And the Gemara says because lo somchinan anissa, because we have to be practical. We can't say, well if it's the ratzon Hashem, if the Ribono shel Olam wants that the Korban Pesach should be nishchat b'shalosh kitos, so then miraculously the daltsei ha'azara will be ninalu on their own. No, we can't do that because lo somchinan anissa. The Torah requires us to be practical. To such an extent that the Gemara earlier in Pesachim tells us that even though we have a klal, even though we have a rule that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין, that when a person undertakes a journey, when a person is traveling on a mission to do a mitzvah, so that gives him an insurance policy that he's protected, that no harm will come his way. But the Gemara says if shechiach hezeka, that means an unusual type of occurrence. But if there's a very great chance of danger, so then a person can't rely on this principle of שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין. And because again the halacha, Torah requires us to be practical, very practical, very pragmatic. And that's true in all realms of life, right? In terms of parnassah. We're not supposed to sit back and say, well since כל מזונותיו של אדם קצובים, since Hakadosh Baruch Hu apportions how much parnassah each of us is going to receive, so I can sit back and just wait for that parnassah. No, אין סומכין על הנס, the ratzon Hashem is that we operate through natural channels. And hence, again, we have to take initiative. Nevertheless, while again this halacha of אין סומכין על הנס certainly is the operative one at 99 percent of occasions, maybe even 99.9 percent of occasions in our personal lives and maybe even in our collective national life, there's also another halacha. במידות שהתורה נדרשת בהם, the Gemara has in Sukkah and elsewhere a notion of אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר. For instance, just to provide the halachic context of that principle, the Gemara discusses whether or not the klei shares, whether or not the utensils, the vessels which they used in the Beis Hamikdash, whether or not they could be made out of wood. Whether asu min ha'etz, whether or not that's fit to be used as a klei shares or no, that's not sufficiently it's not it's not appropriate for the Beis Hamikdash. Now the issue is that we have a precedent that the flute which we have which they had in the Beis Hamikdash from the times of Moshe Rabbeinu was made out of etz, was made out of wood. So the Gemara says, the Gemara says, well why don't we simply deduce from that that since that was used for shira to accompany to accompany the korbanos, to accompany the nesachim, it provided the shira in the Beis Hamikdash, so doesn't that clearly indicate that a klei shares, that the utensils in the Beis Hamikdash can be made out of wood? So the Gemara says, no, there is a different reason because if you would make it out of some metal it wouldn't produce the same sound. That a flute is not going to produce a nice sound if you make it out of copper or out of some other metal. So אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר, that you can't you can't extrapolate from Where there are options, where there are alternatives. And similarly again just to, again, I apologize for some of the technicalities here, but just bear with me one more moment. Similarly just to give another example of where we see this as a halakhic principle playing out, Tosafot explains the Gemara in Yevamos searches for the source for the rule that עשה דוחה לא תעשה, right? That we know that the halakha has a rule that if there's a clash between a mitzvat asei and a mitzvat lo ta'asei and it's impossible to resolve that clash, so then the asei overrides the lo ta'asei. The positive commandment overrides the negative commandment. The Tosafot says, how come the Gemara doesn't prove this from bigdei kehuna? The bigdei kehuna which the kohen used to wear when performing the avoda contained shaatnez, contained shaatnez. So why don't we say that the mitzva of doing avoda here is clearly overriding the lo ta'asei which prohibits us from wearing clothing which has kilayim? So Tosafot answers no, you couldn't extrapolate from kilayim in bigdei kehuna because mitzvaso bekach, because since the Torah specifies that the bigdei kehuna must be made out of shaatnez, so it's impossible to wear bigdei kehuna in any other fashion. What we want to know is when you have an incidental clash between an asei and a lo ta'asei. We want to know when there happens to be a nega tzara'at, when there happens to be a spot on the makom hamila, so that's incidental, right? Nine times out of ten, 99 times out of 100, we're able to perform the brit on the eighth day without having to cut off a spot of tzara'at. It happens once in a blue moon that there will be a little nega tzara'at there. So we want to know when there's an incidental clash or conflict between an asei and a lo ta'asei, we're looking for a source that even in that case the asei overrides the lo ta'asei. So again that's another instance of where we can't extrapolate from a situation where there are no alternatives such as kilayim in bigdei kehuna where the mitzva could never ever be performed without overriding the prohibition of kilayim because the Torah describes the bigdei kehuna as containing kilayim, we can't extrapolate from there to other mitzvas. But this rule is not simply a rule in halakha but it's a rule in hashkafa as well. To illustrate that, the Rav zikhrono livrakha often said in droshes, particularly when he'd be talking about chinukh and about the challenges of chinukh in America, if he'd be addressing a parent body or a general group, so the Rav would describe the need, the vital need for a double program. That on the one hand, again as clearly was the Rav's credo, that if we tried to withdraw from society, if we make it an either-or between being able to earn a living within society or remaining loyal to Torah, that ultimately people would assimilate and that retreating into a ghetto wouldn't help. So limudei chol are vital given the historical reality and context in which we live. But obviously, obviously the commitment to limudei kodesh, the perennial, the eternal commitment which we have to limudei kodesh, obviously is also vital. That's what the Rav used to say, that we're committed to this idea of a double program and it's an unwavering commitment. And then the Rav would say ke-darko, he would say if you'll ask me is it possible, is it possible to convince, and again you have to remember that he began giving these droshes back in the forties, back in the fifties, when the landscape was very different than it was, than it is today. He would say if you'll ask me is it possible to achieve this, is it possible to convince parents that they should send their children to such yeshivas, to such day schools? Is it possible to really educate our youth that on the one hand they should be talmidei chakhamim while on the same hand while at the same time they carry the burden of this double program of secular studies? We'll do it and we have to succeed. Whether it's possible I can't tell you, but what I can tell you is that there's no alternative, that there's no choice, that this is the only way Torah is going to survive. And if there's no alternative, so then we must do it. There are certain moments in a person's individual life, in our collective national lives, where we have to suspend the general rule of אין סומכין על הנס. אין סומכין על הנס requires us to calculate: is this reasonable, is it practical, are the chances for success realistic? That's what אין סומכין על הנס requires of us. There are moments in our personal lives, in our history, where there are no alternatives. If there are no alternatives then אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר. So then a person can't ask himself: is it realistic? That's what the Rav said: I don't know if it's realistic, but it's vital. There is no alternative. If there's no alternative, then a person must be committed to it. If we could go back in a time tunnel and meet מתתיהו בן יוחנן כהן גדול and say to him, Ishi Kohein Gadol, this revolt which you're initiating against the Syrian Greek Empire, against the superpower of its day, is it realistic? Is there a chance that it's going to succeed? Do you have a blueprint for how a few disorganized people uprooted from the beis medrash are going to prevail against the superpower of its day? So Mattisyahu would have answered us in the words of the Rav: I don't know how it's possible, but I know that given the gezeiros, given the fact that if we don't resist, if we don't revolt, it's going to result in להשכיחם תורתך ולהעבירם מחוקי רצונך. So what I know is that we have no alternative. Maybe it's not possible, maybe it's not realistic, but there are times when there's no alternative. אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר. A person has to suspend the normal hanhaga, the normal ninety-nine point nine percent of the time practice of calculating: is it realistic, should I do it, shouldn't I do it? Sometimes there is no alternative, there's only one course of action, and that's what Mattisyahu recognized in the neiss of Chanukah. So that's one type of emunah. It's an emunah, a manifestation of emunah where a person realizes that practical or impractical, my emunah in the Ribbono Shel Olam dictates that this is the only course of action. And what's more, my emunah in the Ribbono Shel Olam dictates that somehow or other, possible or impossible, practical or impractical, we can and will prevail. Perhaps homiletically one could attribute this approach to Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa in the famous Gemara in Ta'anis where the Gemara tells us that חד בשבתא חזיא לברתיה דהוות עציבא. That one Shabbos night, one Friday night, Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa observed that his daughter was very downcast. אמר לה בתי אמאי עציבת? My daughter, why are you so sad? Amerah leh, כלי של חומץ נתחלף לי בכלי של שמן והדלקתי ממנו אור לשבת.
I confused a flask of vinegar with a flask of oil and instead of putting oil and lighting that for the Shabbos licht, I lit vinegar. So אמר לה בתי מאי איכפת לך? What do you care? What difference does it make? מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק. Whoever the Ribbono Shel Olam who ordained that oil should burn and should be a source of illumination, when we find ourselves without alternative, it's Shabbos, there's nothing else we can do, we find ourselves without any alternatives, without any other options, so the Ribbono Shel Olam who ordained that ordinarily oil burns and ordinarily we have to make every effort possible to obtain oil to light for Shabbos, He will ordain that the vinegar burns. And the Gemara records... word that in fact היה דולק והולך כל היום כולו עד שהביאו ממנו אור להבדלה
that not only did it last the normal three or four hours which the Shabbos candles ordinarily last, but it lasted the entire day until they used it for the ner for Havdalah as well. So there's a halacha and there's a hashkafa in Al HaNissim, again, which is the operative halacha 99% of the time, but then there's also a halacha, a hashkafa of מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק יאמר לחומץ וידלוק, that in the 1% of the time, so we have no alternatives, we have no options, and when we find ourselves either individually, personally, or collectively, nationally, in such a situation, so then the operative principle becomes מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק יאמר לחומץ וידלוק. Is it possible? No, it's impossible. But the Ribono Shel Olam will somehow see us through. This, this manifestation of emunah was present in the revolt of the Chashmonaim. There is another, less dramatic, less heroic manifestation of emunah, and that is where one doesn't initiate action based upon one's emunah, but rather one reacts. Instead of being proactive, one is reactive. One recognizes Yad Hashem, one recognizes miracles which happen in the world and one gives shevach vehoda'ah, one thanks Hakadosh Baruch Hu for those miracles. One's not proactive in the sense that Mattisyahu u-vanav were proactive in manifesting their emunah in the Beis HaMikdash, but rather one is reactive. One recognizes, appreciates, and thanks Hakadosh Baruch Hu for the miracles. This was what happened with the second miracle of Chanukah. The first miracle was a miracle again of מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק where they again undertook something which was impractical. It made no sense whatsoever, but there was no alternative. They had to do it. The oil in the Beis HaMikdash, especially according to those views that they used the entire quantity of oil the first night, so they were lighting what they had the first night. The Ribono Shel Olam made a miracle. Here their emunah consisted in recognizing the miracle. It wasn't that they had initiated a course of action which then precipitated, which evoked the miracle. It wasn't that heroic mesiras nefesh, but it was rather an appreciation, a sensitivity, that manifestation of emunah of recognizing the miracle when it happens, not being insensitive, not dismissing it. And this was what the nes she-bashemen represented, was this second type of emunah. Interestingly, the Rambam tells us in Hilchos Chanukah that Mitzvas Chanukah מצוה חביבה היא עד מאד. That the mitzvah of Chanukah is an especially precious mitzvah. וצריך אדם להזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה לנו.
That a person has to be especially meticulous about observing the mitzvah of Chanukah. Now, let's note very carefully here: kedei lehodia ha-nes, in order to publicize the miracle, right, in the singular, lashon yachid, ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו and to give praise to Hashem על הנסים שעשה לנו. The Rambam begins in the singular, that the mitzvah of Chanukah is a mitzvah to publicize the miracle in the singular of Chanukah, and then says that as a result of this mitzvah we should give shevach vehoda'ah to Hakadosh Baruch Hu al ha-nissim in the plural she-asah lanu. So why this shift? So what the Rambam here is telling us is that through the sensitivity which a person gains in recognizing, again, the reactive type of emunah, the appreciation of miracles, through that sensitivity that a person has in recognizing the nes of Chanukah, that should then allow him to recognize countless other miracles, again, personally and nationally, and it should result in his giving a shevach vehoda'ah not only for the nes of Chanukah, but for all the myriad nissim which al nissecha. נסיך שבכל יום עמנו. That's why parenthetically in the Maoz Tzur, if you look at the pizmon, at the song of Maoz Tzur, so it's really equally appropriate for Pesach, for Purim, for Chanukah. There's one stanza devoted to each. So why is it that that on Chanukah we review all the other Yamim Tovim, all the other nissim? But that's exactly the idea which the Rambam is presenting, that the whole idea of Chanukah is, again, the second type of emunah is also present in the miracle of Chanukah. The emunah which a person recognizes nissim and through that sensitivity which a person gains from the nes of Chanukah, he's supposed to recognize, again, the whole range of miracles which are with us. Coming back then to our original question which we posed, of why is it that the mitzvah of Ner Chanukah contains these two elements? Both the mitzvas hadlakah as well as re'iyah. That the mitzvah is not merely to light the Ner Chanukah, but there's also a mitzvah simply in seeing the Ner Chanukah, so we can now understand that the hadlakah and the re'iyah reflect these two types of emunah which were present in the nes of Ner Chanukah. In hadlakah, a person creates the light. A person has to be proactive. He has to initiate. He has to create. So this, again, reflects this this symbolizes, again, that manifestation of emunah of where a person embarks upon a course of action where that course of action is only possible and is only justified because of of one's emunah in the Ribbono Shel Olam. That's the mitzvas hadlakah. But Ner Chanukah also, there was also the nes shebeshemen. The nes shebeshemen wasn't a nes which we initiated. It wasn't like the revolt on the battlefield against all practical odds. In the nes shebeshemen we didn't do anything. The nes shebeshemen, our role was, again, was passive, was to appreciate, was to acknowledge, to recognize and be inspired by the miracle which Hakadosh Baruch Hu performed for us. That ledoros is perpetuated in the mitzvah of re'iyah of Ner Chanukah, to see the Ner Chanukah as well. So we have a mitzvas hadlakah, again, where one initiates based on one's emunah, where even though it's impossible, even though it's totally and thoroughly impractical, but אף על פי כן. That was the midah of Matisyahu uvanav. But then in Chanukah, the yom tov of Chanukah also also teaches us a second manifestation of emunah, that of the passive reactive one, where a person recognizes the miracle, not that he initiated it through his through his own course of action, but the Ribbono Shel Olam initiated it. And then it's our job, it's our assignment to recognize it and appreciate it. This is what the two dimensions of hadlakah and re'iyah within Ner Chanukah capture. There's a very obvious question here though, and that is, if in fact this analysis is correct, that the miracle on the battlefield, גברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום, that their prevailing on the battlefield was a manifestation of the first type of emunah, the heroic type of emunah, where a person undertakes a course of action which practically speaking has no chance whatsoever to succeed. What need does such a person have for the second type of nes? The second type of nes would seem to be for one who doesn't have the emunah necessarily to initiate a course of action. One who's perhaps not quite on that heroic level of emunah to initiate a course of action against all odds. So then one perhaps is only capable of this this second lower level of emunah, of reactive emunah, a passive emunah. But if one has the emunah of the Chashmonaim, if one has the mesirus nefesh and the emunah of the Chashmonaim to initiate, to revolt and to say, well, there is no other alternative, so it doesn't make a difference, practical or impractical, possible or impossible, so what need does one have for that first second neis, for the neis shebashamen? So the Maharal comments that the neis shebashamen was to clarify that what happened on the battlefield was indeed a miracle. Lest one attribute it to superior intelligence and superior military strategy, make no such mistake, the Ribono Shel Olam clarified for us and that's what the neis shebashamen clarified. But that doesn't really answer our question because that should have been abundantly clear. The entire course of action initially was initiated only because of their emuna. If Mattisyahu u-banov and everyone who joined the revolt didn't have this profound emuna of מי כמכה באלים ה' of לא בחיל ולא בכח כי אם ברוחי אמר ה' צבאות
if they hadn't had that emuna, they never would have undertaken the revolt. Why did they need, why did they need the second miracle, the neis shebashamen? They shouldn't have had any doubts. So clearly one answer could be that maybe that miracle had a different audience, maybe there was a different audience that was being targeted and maybe in fact someone who's capable of displaying the mesirus nefesh and emuna of Mattisyahu u-banov doesn't need a neis shebashamen because if one can manifest an active emuna, so one doesn't need to be tested whether or not one can display a reactive emuna. Now but while that's certainly true, there is another answer as well and that is that human nature is such, I'm not speaking about Mattisyahu as an individual anymore but as a typology that we all aspire to. Human nature is such that even if one initially displays the mesirus nefesh emuna of Mattisyahu of undertaking a course of action that's totally impossible, seems futile, but one says there is no alternative, this is necessary for Torah, there is no alternative. Even someone who has that strength and those wellsprings of emuna to draw from, there's still a danger that in retrospect, after having succeeded, there's still a danger that one now can reinterpret what happened and despite the fact that initially one was energized by this again active initiative emuna, but nevertheless in retrospect the danger exists that one will reinterpret and say you know what, maybe we really did succeed because of superior strategizing and because we were more prepared and we were more devoted and we were more dedicated and maybe that's what allowed us to overcome the seemingly overwhelming odds. Even one who initially has that again profound emuna and an emuna which is rooted in mesirus nefesh, even such a person is prone in retrospect, after having tasted the sweetness of success, that person is also prone to reinterpreting what happened and to perhaps making the mistake of attributing it to you know what happened, it was our savvy and it was our devotion and it was our dedication which allowed us to prevail. And hence it's not enough, it wasn't enough in the time of Chanukah to have a miracle on the battlefield, it wasn't enough that they should be tested to initiate the revolt against Antiyochos, against the Syrian Greeks, that they should demonstrate that heroic type of emuna. It was also necessary that they be tested whether or not they would recognize after the fact, ex post facto, that it was yad Hashem, that they had not been spoiled by success. In reflecting on contemporary Jewish history, one can't help but be struck by the fact that in the years leading up to 1948 and perhaps afterwards, Klal Yisrael collectively fulfilled the mitzvas hadlo. One can't help but be struck by the fact that in the years leading up to 1948 and perhaps afterwards Klal Yisrael collectively fulfilled the mitzvah hadlaka. Klal Yisrael demonstrated an unswerving an unyielding emunah in pursuing a dream which was not only impractical but positively impossible. That Klal Yisrael should regain sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael, that in 1948, that before 1948, that England, then one of the superpowers of the world, one of the large empires, that somehow or other a band of dreamers and idealists could drive out the English was not practical, it wasn't possible. In 1948, when the English withdrew, that this same band of unarmed, basically almost unarmed dreamers and survivors could somehow or other band together and survive the incursion from all sides of Arab armies was also not practical, it wasn't possible, absolutely impossible. And yet Klal Yisrael fulfilled the mitzvah hadlaka. Again, the mitzvah hadlaka of Chanukah representing, initiating that course of action, of saying I don't know if it's possible but there's no alternative. We have to go forward. Possible or impossible, there is no alternative. And Klal Yisrael was mekayem that mitzvah hadlaka, not only the basic mitzvah, not only mehadrin, mehadrin min hamehadrin. But at some point the wisdom of Chazal that even if a person has been mekayem the mitzvah hadlaka, a person also has to be sensitive and also has to be capable of fulfilling the mitzvah re'iyah, the wisdom of Chazal became all too painfully evident. At some point what originally had been a mission driven and energized, certainly for the religious minority in the group and maybe even the irreligious without really recognizing it and subconsciously, what had been driven by emunah, what had been a manifestation of the emunat hachashmonaim, but then when it came to the re'iyah, when it came to standing back after 48, after 67 and looking at the miraculous success, so we faltered. We faltered. And somehow or other, somehow or other, somehow or other the notion that it was our savvy and that it was our preparedness and the fact that the Arabs were ill-prepared, that maybe that's what really had made possible the miracle of 67 or the miracle of 1948. So if the mitzvah hadlaka was fulfilled, there came a time at which we began to fail to fulfill the mitzvah re'iyah of Chanukah. The mitzvah re'iyah of Chanukah demands that we recognize that it doesn't matter how savvy, it doesn't matter how devoted, it doesn't matter how dedicated. That combination can't account for the success in 1948, that combination can't account for the success of 1967, it can't account for Uganda. The only thing that can account for Uganda is מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק. The Ribbono Shel Olam who said that generally according to darchei hateva if you have an army of millions against a small band of dreamers and idealists, that generally the millions will prevail, so מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק. Now, in the crisis which engulfs Klal Yisrael... We're challenged this Chanukah to fulfill both a mitzvah hadlaka as well as a mitzvah reiyah. A mitzvah hadlaka means that there is no practical solution. There is no practical solution. Every practical solution across the political spectrum has failed. The attitude has to be, the attitude has to be the same attitude which Matisyahu had, of that clearly, that clearly what's needed here is a course of action which is energized by emuna. Recognizing that Klal Yisrael is alone in the world, that Klal Yisrael has no natural solutions bederech hateva to its crisis, but neither did Matisyahu. We didn't have it two millennia ago either. There was no practical solution then either, but there was a course of action which was driven, which was energized by emuna, which is: we have no choice, we have no one else, we have no one to look to. מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק. How do we as bnei Chutz La'aretz participate in that? We don't, we don't serve in the army, we don't vote to elect a government that can adopt such a course of action. But we also have to strengthen our tie to Eretz Yisrael. We also have to strengthen our tie to Eretz Yisrael. If our claim and our right to Eretz Yisrael is being threatened, is being denied, so our response is that we have to, we have to strengthen it. How do we strengthen it? The Torah says, ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה. Chazal in the Midrash are prompted by the question, why does the Torah emphasize Yaakov's port of departure? It might not even have been directly Be'er Sheva. According to some views in the Midrash, at that point Yitzchak and Rivka and therefore Yaakov as well were living in Chevron and he left initially from Chevron and went via Be'er Sheva. Why is the Torah emphasizing that he left from Be'er Sheva? So one, one approach in the Midrash is that ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע is not describing his geographical port of departure, but rather his spiritual port of departure. That when Yaakov left, he left taking Be'er Sheva with him. He left with the notion, with the conviction that even though he had to go to Lavan, he had to go to Chutz La'aretz, but he went with Be'er Sheva. His orientation, his essence remained, remained in Eretz Yisrael. That's who he was. His home was Eretz Yisrael despite the fact that circumstances dictated that he live in Chutz La'aretz. And we see this in an even more remarkable fashion later. We know it from the Haggadah, right? מלמד שלא ירד יעקב אבינו להשתקע במצרים אלא לגור שם.
That Yaakov Avinu when he goes down to join Yosef in Mitzrayim, he doesn't go to settle there, he only goes to visit there. What do you mean that he only goes to visit there? Yaakov knows binvuah that he's gonna die in Mitzrayim. What do you mean he's visiting there? If a person moves into a retirement residence, it's not a temporary move. A person knows that, that he's moving there. He's moving there for the rest of his life. What do you mean that Yaakov Avinu only went to visit in Mitzrayim? He didn't go to settle there. The answer is that regardless of one's physical geographical location, there's also one's orientation. Axiologically, Yaakov always remained in Eretz Yisrael. Eretz Yisrael, kedushas Eretz Yisrael, what Eretz Yisrael represented, that was his home even when he knew full well that circumstances dictated that he would never return home in Olam Hazeh. He would never return to Eretz Yisrael and אף על פי כן מלמד שלא ירד יעקב אבינו להשתקע במצרים אלא לגור שם,
he just went to visit there. He felt he was transient there, that this was temporary because who am I, Yaakov Avinu? I'm an Eretz Yisrael'dike Yid. I belong to Eretz Yisrael. Kedushas Eretz Yisrael, that's what expresses my values. The fact that sham hashchina shora, that's, that's what my life is all about. The fact that circumstances dictate that I'm in Chutz La'aretz, Chutz La'aretz, but that doesn't mean that this is my home. My home is Eretz Yisrael. So in this Chanukah, when in a way, which I don't know if it's been paralleled in recent years, we're challenged to be mikayem both mitzvas hadlaka and mitzvas re'iya, certainly as we sit and we look as we light the ner Chanukah, as we look at the ner Chanukah, it would behoove us to reflect on our connection to Eretz Yisrael and whether we, in the footsteps of Yaakov Avinu, even if circumstances presently dictate that we live in Chutz La'aretz, whether it's lagur be'chutz la'aretz or whether it's lehishtake'a, and what we can contribute, and don't underestimate the importance or the value or the repercussiveness of this contribution, what we can contribute is if our stay in Chutz La'aretz is lagur, regardless of how long it is, regardless of how long circumstances legitimately dictate that it will be, but if our tenure in Chutz La'aretz is lagur, not lehishtake'a, Eretz Yisrael is our home, so that will be our, one of, part of our contribution to being mikayem this Chanukah the mitzva of both hadlaka and of re'iya.