Transcript

I'd like to just share a few thoughts relating to the Rambam in Hilchos Chanukah this morning. Some of them more on the side of Halacha, others perhaps more a combination of Halacha and Aggadah. If maybe we'll begin with the source number two here, which is actually the beginning of Hilchos Chanukah. The Rambam reviews the background, the historical background, he sketches for us the story and the miracles of Chanukah. בבית שני כשמלכו יון when the Greeks, when the Syrian Greeks ruled, גזרו גזירות על ישראל וביטלו דתם they imposed very harsh decrees and were looking to uproot and to negate religious observance. ולא הניחו אותם לעסוק בתורה ומצוות they didn't let them be preoccupied to observe and learn Torah, fulfill mitzvos ופשטו ידם בממונם ובבנותיהם and they struck against their property, against their daughters. ונכנסו להיכל ופרצו בו פרצות וטימאו הטהרות they entered the Beis HaMikdash, causing all kinds of breaches and defiling the Beis HaMikdash. וצר להם לישראל מאוד מפניהם there was a tremendous distress, tremendous suffering Velachatzum lachatz gadol the pressure was very great, was very intense. עד שריחם עליהם אלוקי אבותינו והושיעם מידם until Hakadosh Baruch Hu had compassion upon us and he saved them. וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום and until ultimately the sons of the Chashmonaim prevailed, they were able to kill the oppressors Vehoshi'u Yisrael miyadam.

והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתיים שנה עד החורבן השני

and they restored monarchy to the Jewish people for better than 200 years until the destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash. Rav Soloveitchik often commented that there's something in this description, in this outline of the story of Chanukah, which we would have expected to be here that's missing. And that is that the Rambam has no mention of Tefilla. There's no mention that in this situation of acute tzarah, of distress, that Klal Yisrael called out to Hakadosh Baruch Hu and then Hakadosh Baruch Hu was responding to Tefilla. The Rambam again, he depicts the tzarah, but he doesn't mention any Tefilla. The Rav correlated this with a Ramban, the way he understood it. It's not really explicit in the Ramban, but the way he understood the Ramban when the Torah in Parshas Shemos tells us ויהי בימים הרבים ההם וימת מלך מצרים when Pharaoh died ויאנחו בני ישראל מן העבודה ויזעקו Bnei Yisrael gave a krechtz, they sighed Vayizaku ותעל שוועתם אל האלוקים מן העבודה and their cry ascended as it were to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The Sforno says this explicitly and reading the Ramban a certain way, so the Ramban suggests this as well, that the Vayizaku wasn't ze'akah as a form of Tefilla. The Vayizaku was just a cry of pain, of anguish, of despair. An instinctive cry when it hurts when a person is rachmana litzlan in great pain, so a person cries. Hakadosh Baruch Hu, one of the one manifestation of rachamei Hashem is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu will take that cry and respond to it as though it were Tefilla. It wasn't intended, it wasn't offered as Tefilla, it was just again a cry of anguish Vayizaku because of the overwhelming oppression but Hakadosh Baruch Hu responds to that tzarah as though it were Tefilla and rachamei shamayim are forthcoming. And he said that what the Rambam is describing here is a siman similar. progression. Okay, the other comment which he would often make with regard to this halacha is that in contrast to the famous Ramban in Parshat Vayichi where the Ramban in Parshat Vayichi indicts the Chashmonaim for having violated tzava'as hazaken for having violated the will of Yaakov Avinu in saying לא יסור שבט מיהודה that melucha is the exclusive province of shevet Yehuda and then subsequently davka of malchus Beis Dovid of the seed of Dovid Hamelech and the Ramban says that's why there are no descendants of the Chashmonaim left today was because despite the fact that they were chasidei elyon in assuming kingship they were violating לא יסור שבט מיהודה so the Rav used to say that the Rambam clearly is presenting this as a very positive accomplishment. The fact that chazra malchus l'Yisrael is part of the happy ending to the story of Chanukah. Question is why what the Rambam's response is to the Ramban's indictment of the Chashmonaim. How would the Rambam defend them against it? So if you take a look in source number three for a minute so the Rambam writes as follows: נביא שהעמיד מלך משאר שבטי ישראל if a navi appoints a king from the other tribes of Bnei Yisrael other than shevet Yehuda

והיה אותו המלך הולך בדרך התורה והמצוות ונלחם מלחמות השם

and he is faithfully carrying out the responsibilities of melucha הרי זה מלך וכל מצוות המלכות נוהגות בו he has the status of melech and all the mitzvos pertaining to kingship are relevant אע"פ שעיקר המלכות לדוד even though again malchus has been promised by Hakadosh Baruch Hu to Dovid

שהרי אחיה השילוני העמיד ירבעם ואמר לו והיה אם שמוע תשמע את כל אשר אצוך ובנית לך בית נאמן כאשר בניתי לדוד

because you see that we have precedent for this in Navi that melachim were appointed from other shevatim. Rambam continues in halacha tes: מלכי בית דוד הם העומדים לעולם the only dynasty that can continue forever is that of from the household of Dovid Hamelech שנאמר כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם it will be established forever. אבל אם יעמוד מלך משאר ישראל תפסק המלכות מביתו but if a melech will be appointed will assume the position from one of the other shevatim so even if he does everything right so ultimately tipasek hamalchus mibeiso the line is going to end at a certain point. It can only be indefinite it can only be open-ended if it's from malchus Beis Dovid. Tosfos in Gittin points out a fascinating fascinating Gemara in Masechet Nazir. The context of the Tosfos is Tosfos is commenting on the Gemara's discussion of pruzbul. So the Mishnah tells us that Hillel instituted pruzbul because he saw that those who were in a position to extend loans with the approach of Shemittah year so they didn't want to extend the loans because then Shemittah would cancel the loan hashmatas kesafim and they were therefore guilty of violating a mitzvas lo sa'aseh of

השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל לאמר קרבה שנת השבע שנת השמיטה ורעה עינך באחיך האביון

so Hillel the takana of pruzbul wasn't for the aniyim the takana of pruzbul was for the ashirim it was to protect the ashirim from violating this mitzvas lo sa'aseh so Hillel introduced pruzbul and through the mechanism of pruzbul so then shevi'is then Shemittah doesn't cancel loans. So then the Gemara says how is that possible? The Torah says that Shemittah cancels debts and Hillel comes and says it doesn't cancel debt. So how can you have a din d'rabbanan which overrides a din d'Oraisa? So the Gemara answers because we're talking about that שביעית בזמן הזה דרבנן that the takana of pruzbul is effective because we're dealing with a time when shevi'is is only mid'rabbanan. So if shevi'is... Why is shvi'is only mid'rabbanan? shvi'is is only mid'rabbanan because shvi'is is linked to yovel. So Tosafot unlike Rashi say the following, that historically yovel was operative during Bayis Sheni, in Hillel's lifetime. Hillel the one who instituted pruzbul, in his lifetime yovel was noheg mid'oraisa. There was shmita mid'oraisa, there was hashmatas kesaphim mid'oraisa. Hillel's takkana of pruzbul was intended le-achar hachurban. So what kind of mevaser chorban was Hillel here? Everything is good, the Beis Hamikdash is standing and Hillel is making a takkana for le-achar hachurban. So Tosafot quote a gemara in Nazir where the gemara says that they knew the second Beis Hamikdash was going to be destroyed. Chazal had a tradition, they knew that the second Beis Hamikdash was going to be destroyed. Right, the Ramban writes in the perush al hatorah that the two tochachos in Bechukosai and Ki Savo, so one foreshadows churban bayis rishon, the other foreshadows churban bayis sheni. So Chazal knew. So Hillel was making a takkana, the takkana takeh according to this understanding of pruzbul could only work, could only be effective when hashmatas kesaphim is mid'rabbanan, which it wasn't in his day because the Beis Hamikdash was standing and there was yovel, but Hillel as did the others of Chazal knew that the second Beis Hamikdash was going to be destroyed. It's an extraordinary thing to live with such an awareness. Be that as it may, so perhaps that's the pshat over here. Again we asked how is it that in contrast to the Ramban, the Rambam sees the restoration of malchus through the Chashmonaim as something very positive. Why isn't he bothered with the Ramban's indictment that the Chashmonaim were violating לא יסור שבט מיהודה? So perhaps the explanation is as follows. Since the Chashmonaim knew full well that there was going to be a chorban and that whatever they were doing they had no pretense, they had no hopes that the melucha that they were establishing was something that would continue indefinitely. They knew that it would continue, they hoped that maybe it would continue until the end of Bayis Sheni, but they certainly knew that it wouldn't go any further, they knew that it wouldn't be nachon ad olam and they weren't looking to establish such a dynasty. So yitachen that according to the Rambam if a melech from Yisrael under the circumstances they probably felt that since they were the leaders of the people that the only ones who would be able to consolidate the rule and command the respect were themselves in terms of melucha, so as long as it's not done with any pretense of nachon ad olam, so then it's not a violation of לא יסור שבט מיהודה. Okay let's continue back in the second source with the second halacha, halacha bais. Here too as we read rabosai you'll notice that again there's something missing in the Rambam as it were. ומפני זה התקינו חכמים, excuse me, halacha bais, וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואיבדום when Bnei Yisrael ultimately prevailed over their enemies and destroyed them, וחמישה ועשרים בחודש כסלו היה it was the twenty fifth of Kislev,

ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור במקדש אלא פך אחד

they entered the Beis Hamikdash and they found just one flask, one jug, whatever, of oil ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד it only had a quantity of oil to last one day והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים and then they lit for eight days עד שקצצו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור until they were able to press olives and produce pure oil. That's the Rambam's recapitulation of the miracle of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash. So now I'm going to just read the famous braisa in Megillas Taanis which the Rambam is here reproducing and maybe let's have a sort of at least mentally a split screen, the Rambam's presentation on the one hand alongside the Megillas Taanis.

מאי חנוכה דתנו רבנן בכ"ה בכסלו יומי חנוכה תמניא אינון

shebaheichal דלא למספד ודלא להון ודלא להתענות בהון, not to eulogize, not to fast, שכשנכנסו יוונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים, the Syrian Greeks had defiled all the oil shebaheichal

וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול.

Again, they found this one intact, only one, one, one flask of oil, ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד. It only had enough oil for one day, nasa bo nes והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים, but a miracle happened and they lit successfully for eight days, לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה. So the Rambam edited out the phrase nasa bo nes. Chazal describe what we know, what gives Chanukah its character and its defining mitzvah was the nes of the Menorah. Chazal clearly they highlighted, it's in bold print here in the Megillas Taanis, that nasa bo nes. And the Rambam for whatever reason, the Rambam hit the delete button and he takes out that phrase of nasa bo nes. Rambam just very casually says,

ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים.

So why does the Rambam, and again the Rambam would invite comment just on its own minei u'vei, but certainly when you contrast it to the braisa Megillas Taanis where Chazal said that nasa bo nes, so why does the Rambam omit omit that phrase? Efrem suggested the following. It's a beautiful idea and the Rambam is looking, the Rambam has an additional goal in mind besides the Megillas Taanis. The Megillas Taanis is just telling us the background of what happened. The Rambam is trying to call attention to something else. And that is when you write nasa bo nes as part of the narrative, so the impression you have is that it was just so obvious and so self-evident as though a bas kol came out from Shamayim and said, Look at the nes unfolding in the Beis Hamikdash. And the headline on Yeshiva World News every every hour was nes unfolding in Beis Hamikdash, and they had the update 10 PM candle still going and day one, day two, day three, candle still going, miracle unfolding in Beis Hamikdash. That's when you read nasa bo nes. Rambam says there was no such bas kol. There was no such, there were no such constant updates. It happened and Chazal had the sensitivity to recognize that it was a nes. By omitting the phrase of nasa bo nes from the narrative, so the Rambam says, this is what what they were presented with. When you say nasa bo nes again, so when you read it in the Megillas Taanis, so then you have the impression, well it was so obvious that it was a nes and the only thing Chazal did is they then decided to introduce the yomtov of Chanukah to commemorate the nes. And the Rambam says, No, no, leave out the phrase and you realize that Chazal again had the sensitivity to appreciate and to recognize the nes. You'll say, what sensitivity does it take, what to appreciate, isn't it self-evident? So the truth is that yes, it is self-evident, and m'idach gisa, yes, it requires tremendous sensitivity. Case in point, case in point, how many of us have been sufficiently aware over the course of the past week, week and a half, of mamash nissim every every minute, every hour that were happening in Eretz Yisrael? You take someone and you blindfold them and you let him shoot thousands of rockets. I don't care how imprecise the rockets are, you can mamash you can blindfold them and have him and have him shooting totally randomly. That there shouldn't have been, again, even one fatality, is a destruction of the world. I don't mean rachmana litzlan to downplay four four deaths, I don't mean rachmana litzlan to downplay anything, but mamash על נסיך שבכל יום עמנו. Mamash it was nissim v'niflaos. It's impossible to imagine again. Again they can be bad marksmen, the missiles maybe I don't know whether they're but it's impossible just shooting randomly, shooting randomly. Rachmana Litzlan there should have been horrific horrific casualties which didn't happen. And on those rare occasions when the missile landed in in the middle of a street near a building so it didn't explode. It didn't explode. And even the rasha who threw the threw the bombs into the bus in Tel Aviv, he threw two bombs and one didn't detonate. So isn't it self-evident? Yeah, it's self-evident. On the other hand, it still needed Chazal to recognize. Mistomo one could have come up with some theory as to why the rate of combustion had was slowed down in the Beis Hamikdash for the course of that week and one could have one could have interpreted it differently. And that's why the Rambam here omits the phrase naseh vo'neis. There wasn't a Bas Kol and it wasn't it wasn't announced. The Chazal had the sensitivity to recognize it as such. It's interesting if you if you take a look here in in source number one on the top of the page here the Rambam says, so in

פרק ד' הלכה י"ב, מצות נר חנוכה מצוה חביבה היא עד מאד.

It's a mitzvah which is especially dear. וצריך אדם להזהר בה, a person has to be very very scrupulous about fulfilling the Mitzvas Chanukah, k'dei lehodi'a haneis to make the miracle known ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו and to to add praise and thanksgiving to Hakadosh Baruch Hu על הניסים שעשה לנו for the miracles that that he has performed for us. And then the Rambam tells us that the application of this, that Rachmana Litzlan even if a person doesn't have the the the money to buy a Chanukah the oil and wick for Chanukah so he would have to ask from tzedakah Rachmana Litzlan even sell the the shirt off his back. But there is a very very interesting lack of symmetry here. The Rambam begins by saying that Mitzvas Ner Chanukah is lehodi'a haneis, right? In the singular, lashon yachid. And then the Rambam continues ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הניסים שעשה לנו. And then the Rambam switches from the lashon yachid to the lashon rabim. So I don't know whether what we're about to discuss whether it's pshat or drush, yitochein that it's even pshat, but habocheir yivchar is that Mitzvas Ner Chanukah is lehodi'a haneis. It's to recognize the the miracle of Chanukah. But the whole point of recognizing the neis of of Chanukah is that is to sensitize a person to the nissim that surround us and envelop us and and have been omnipresent throughout our history. Hence the Rambam says Mitzvas Ner Chanukah is lehodi'a haneis. But then sensitized by Mitzvas Ner Chanukah a person should then be moved ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הניסים שעשה לנו. And perhaps that's the reason for the Minhag Yisrael of Maoz Tzur after singing Maoz Tzur after lighting Ner Chanukah you could have we could have sung Maoz Tzur at the Seder we could have sung Maoz Tzur at the Purim Seudah. It's equally they get equal time. The Seder and Purim get get equal time in Maoz Tzur just as much as Chanukah gets. So maybe that reflects this idea of k'dei lehodi'a haneis. But then sensitized by the mitzvah of Chanukah, there was no Bas Kol, it was just הדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים and Chazal recognized and we're reliving that by being modei'a haneis, ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הניסים שעשה לנו. Let's continue perhaps in the second source Halacha Gimmel, back to פרק ג' הלכה ג' here. מפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור. Because of of of this background, because of of what the Rambam has just sketched for us, the chachamim in that generation introduced she'yihyu shmonas hayomim. האלו that these eight days

שתחילתם מליל חמישה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות.

So they're days of simcha, rejoicing, hallel, and of hadlakas neiros.

וימים אלו הן הנקראין חנוכה והן אסורין בהספד ותענית כימי הפורים והדלקת הנרות בהן מצוה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה.

Something very interesting which is here indicated in the Rambam's style of presentation. To begin with, it's generally we correctly according to most understandings contrast the Rambam's depiction of the Yom Tov of Chanukah with that of the Maharam. The Tur in the beginning Hilchos Chanukah of course quotes the Maharam who says that all the Chanukah parties are just seudos reshus because להלל ולהודות נתקנו ולא לשמחה. That there is no mitzvas simcha on Chanukah and therefore the Chanukah parties are just reshus. And the Rambam here certainly does mention simcha as one of the aspects of Chanukah. The Kuntres Chanukah u'Megilla says that Rav Velvel understood that yemei simcha in the Rambam means yemei simcha in the sense of Yamim Tovim of Megillas Taanis. That the Yamim Tovim of Megillas Taanis, Megillas Taanis had a list of many many Yamim Tovim which were observed bi'mei Bayis Sheni. Amongst them the Megillas Taanis talks about Chanukah and Purim as well. Then the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah tells us that with the churban Bayis Sheni so the only thing that remained from the Yamim Tovim of Megillas Taanis were Chanukah and Purim. But all the other minor Yamim Tovim so those were battel. So Chanukah is a Yom Tov of Megillas Taanis. So what it means to be a Yom Tov in Megillas Taanis Rav Velvel says is only in a passive sense. It only means that there's an issur hesped v'taanis. So he understood that yemei simcha in the Rambam didn't mean that there's any mitzvah to proactively be some'ach on Chanukah but just that there is an issur hesped v'taanis. So according to that reading of the Rambam the truth is there isn't any difference really between the Rambam and the Maharam in terms of whether or not there's any mitzvas simcha on Chanukah. More conventionally the Rambam is understood as meaning simcha in a proactive sense. But even so there's a very interesting nuance here in the Rambam. Again let's re-read it rabosai and with the following observation.

מפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחילתם מליל חמישה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים.

Okay fast forward to the end of the halacha. הדלקת הנרות בהן מצוה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה. So apparently that wasn't yet clear to us right? When the Rambam said that hiskinu chachamim that these are ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות so the Rambam feels that unless he clarifies, unless he reinforces at the end of the halacha that hadlakas neiros is again an absolute categorical chiyuv, it wasn't yet clear. So apparently when the Rambam said that the original takkana is ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות none of that reflects that there's a chiyuv. And hence the Rambam says well let me come back and add that hadlakas neiros it's not only that it's a time that it's yamim for simcha, hallel, and hadlakas neiros, but hadlakas neiros is an absolute chiyuv. He does the same in Halacha Hey for krias hahallel. He tells us that krias hahallel is also again unequivocally a mitzvah mi'divrei sofrim. He never comes back as far as I know to simcha. He never reinforces what he said initially about simcha. So the truth is that what the Rambam really is mashma kemiduma is that Chazal even if one doesn't say like Rav Velvel's reading of the Rambam is that Chazal introduced that the days of Chanukah are yemei simcha, it's a time of simcha but lav davka that... Does that mean that there's an absolute chiyuv again to engage in those expressions of simcha? Itachen that there would be a kiyum in doing so, but lav davka there's a chiyuv. Just to sort of reinforce and sharpen the point, if you look at the formulation here and you contrast it with how the Rambam writes the mitzvas simcha on the Yomim Tovim. So the Rambam writes as follows: In Perek Vav of Hilchos Yom Tov, I'm sorry you don't have this in front of you, in Perek Vav of Hilchos Yom Tov, the Rambam writes as follows:

שבעת ימי הפסח ושמונת ימי החג שהם ימים טובים כולם אסורים בהספד ותענית וחייב אדם וחייב אדם להיות בהן שמח וטוב לב הוא ובניו ואשתו ובני ביתו

etc. So here the Rambam says the seven days of Pesach, the eight days of Sukkos, etc., חייב אדם להיות בהן שמח. So what the Rambam should have said is that בימי החנוכה האלו חייבים לשמוח להלל ולהדליק נרות. So apparently the original takana the Rambam is telling about is that Chazal introduced that the eight days of Chanukah are a time of simcha. Now, the zman simcha, zman hallel, zman hadlakas neiros. Of those three, the Rambam subsequently tells us that hallel and hadlakas neiros is a chiyuv, is a mitzvah. He never says it by Chanukah. So lechora the difference that remains between the Rambam and the Maharam is not as dramatic. Maharam says the whole thing is reshus. The seudos she'osim is reshus. The Rambam lechora, it's not that the Rambam's at the other end of the spectrum and thinks that there's an obligation to do so, the Rambam would hold again it's a time for simcha. So if tonight I have basar veyayin, I have meat and wine or some other manifestation of simcha, so that's purely neutral. There's no positive religious value to it, there's no kiyum associated with it. Ma she'ein kein on Chanukah, because they're yemei simcha, so then arguably there would be some kiyum associated with it. Seems to be what you said before, what I tried to capture before. It says there's the rabbanan? Did Chazal recognize the sensitivity to the simcha? It appears that it's implying that the people may not have recognized the miracle as much, perhaps similar to what happens today with what you said in Eretz Yisrael. In other words, well, it's missed, they didn't know what they were doing, so there is no recognition of the nes by most people, perhaps, I'm not saying it is, and it's only the Chachamim today, the frum olam or part of the frum olam that recognize it. As you mentioned before, nissim veniflaos, because of all those things randomly going out and not killing as many as they theoretically could have. So it's basically up to us to recognize it. Maybe that's the difference of the simcha that's similar to Chanukah perhaps, it's implying that the Chachamim had to have the sensitivity to recognize the yemei simcha, and the people perhaps didn't, they thought maybe it was kochi ve'otzem yadi, I don't know, similar to what happened today or what happened this past week. The similarity that if we don't recognize the nissim veniflaos, only a minority recognizes it, and the others who don't perhaps the same thing equivalent back then in the time of Chanukah. So thank you for the question. I didn't mean to imply, I mean, who recognized and who didn't recognize bimei Chazal? I mean, it was happening in the Beis Hamikdash, I'm not sure how many people were actually eyewitnesses to it. But I didn't mean to imply that Chazal recognized and others didn't. I don't know on what scale it was recognized or not. So I didn't mean to imply that. And in terms of today, you know, how many of us was the royal first person and the indictment for not appreciating the nissim was only intended for myself, it wasn't intended for anyone else chas veshalom. I'm not in a position to know or anything beyond that. Actually, though, there's something else going on here, and perhaps that explains the focus on the miracle of the Chanukah light, because other than that miracle, it was a civil war. It was Jew versus Jew. There wasn't much to celebrate. The Chashmonaim killed the Kohen Gadol and a bunch of Kohanim who were Hellenizers. There was a terrible massacre of Jews and that's not something to celebrate. And that, hence I think the refocusing from the overcoming of Hellenizers on something else because we don't celebrate killing each other. We look at the text of the Rambam himself when he talks about killing it's Jew versus Jew. Where is that? The language is וגברו בני חשמנאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום. Who'd they kill? It was Jew versus Jew. What, where, where do you see that? It's where's the antecedent? Bnei Chashmonayim when they went up, not the Kohanim Gedolim? They overcame the Kohanim Gedolim. No, no. Ve'hoshia Yisrael mi'yadam, ve'hatzilam. Now it's a new thought. No, no, no, no. No, no. You have two, you have two statements. The first statement is about the Goyim. Velachatzum lachatz gadol. It was never a question of extermination, it was they were trying to make us into Goyim, right? But the second part talks about Vegavru Bnei Chashmonai who we know were not Kohanim Gedolim. בימי מתתיהו בן יוחנן כהן גדול חשמונאי ובניו. There's an argument. The argument is that the Chashmonayim, the first sin they made was to become Kohen Gadol when they weren't from the right family, because they committed a lot of sins before Malchut and they did kill fellow Jews. Okay, that was the problem. I find that I have a full-time job keeping track of my own sins, I can't really go around cataloging other people's sins and certainly not those of the Chashmonayim whom the Ramban describes as Chasidei Elyon. I'm not in a position to be able to discern what... and just in terms of... it's not something to celebrate. You don't celebrate killing Jews. Okay, in terms of, just in terms of Hebrew language, when the object of gavru, if Kohanim Gedolim were intended as the object of gavru, it's lehitgaber al. It's quite clear... but factually they weren't the Kohanim Gedolim, the Bnei Chashmonayim. It's quite clear that what the words in the Rambam mean, what they mean when translated accurately from Lashon HaKodesh into English, the translation is that וגברו בני חשמנאי הכהנים הגדולים, the Chashmonayim, comma, apposition, Kohanim Gedolim, comma, gavru, prevailed, and horgum them, those whom the Rambam has been talking about who were the subject, who the only antecedent on the horizon, on the radar screen here: Keshe'malchu Yavan gazru, who are they? מלכו יון גזרו ובטלו דתם. והושיע השם מידם והצילם. Now it's a new thought. Vegavru. And it's not so clear, is it? It's not so clear. It all depends on... it all depends on one's lenses. We know factually, that's what happened. We know factually it was Jew versus Jew. Perhaps there's another approach to the same questions we asked before about why the Rambam leaves out the crisis point about the neis katan of the oil and also the dichotomy of the first eight days, of Perek Gimel, Halacha Gimel-Dalet where Hallel and Hoda'ah... and that is that there is a dichotomy in the shevach in terms of the halachos haneiros and milchamah. What were Chazal sensitive to? Not just general nissim of what the Ramban said, everything in life is a nes, the fact that the menorah stayed lit for eight days testified to the battle. Maharal says that. Maharal says that. The Maharal says and... I don't remember whether he says this also, could be he adds this point also, I don't remember, and that's why there was a certain symmetry as it were of רבים ביד מעטים טמאים ביד טהורים and the פח אחד של שמן is one little one, me'at and tahor, that the miracle of the menorah was intended as it were as a commentary, as a perspective on what had happened on the battlefield. Yeah, and that explains another point, that the Rambam says that Hakadosh Baruch Hu was moshia them and then the Rambam states that the Maccabees fought against their enemies and won. What does it mean that Hakadosh Baruch Hu moshia them first and then the Yevanim won? Didn't... so it's saying that once Hakadosh Baruch Hu... Maybe we'll just conclude with with one or two one or two quick it's beginning to get late. The Kuntres Chanukah Megillah has a very beautiful idea he presents as to again why Chazal chose again focused on the on the neis of the neiros to give the Chanukah its its character. So again what the Maharal says is is one beautiful explanation. He suggests the following. And actually among other things he ties it in with Parshas Hashavua. So Yaakov Avinu has a dream. So what does Hakadosh Baruch Hu tell him in the dream?

הנה אנכי עמך ושמרתיך בכל אשר תלך והשבתיך אל האדמה הזאת כי לא אעזבך עד אשר אם עשיתי את אשר דברתי לך.

Okay. If if I had that dream, I woke up in the morning and I remembered the dream, so what what what would my reaction be? I'd be euphoric. Here I went to sleep running away from from my twin brother who's who's doing his best to try to try to kill me. And now Hakadosh Baruch Hu has has promised me not only that I'm gonna be safe from Eisav HaRasha but such a brilliant future. What's Yaakov Avinu's what's Yaakov Avinu's reaction?

ויקץ יעקב משנתו ויאמר אכן יש ה' במקום הזה ואנכי לא ידעתי ויירא ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה.

And Rashi elaborates from Chazal that what what's Yaakov's reaction? Gevalt! This is a place of the Shechina. I shouldn't have slept here. The Kuntres Chanukah he says so beautifully. He says for Yaakov Avinu he says all the haftacha he says it wasn't worth it. He wouldn't have knowingly trespassed on a din of Mora Mikdash, he says even even if in so doing he would be able to receive all all these incredible haftachos, all these incredible guarantees about the future, but Yaakov Avinu says but not at the expense of of doing ritzon Hashem. Amazing, amazing. He says the same thing with Tamar. What why was Tamar so so determined to have to have children from from Yehuda? She knew she understood she sensed beruach hakodesh that that Malchus Beis David was supposed to come from that union. And nevertheless when it's a choice between מלבין פני חבירו ברבים and between making that that destiny happen, so she's ready

מוטב שיפיל אדם עצמו לכבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים.

But not at the expense of of trespassing on a halacha, on ritzon Hashem. Says the Kuntres Chanukah Megillah, he says that he says yes the being saved in in the war and in the revolt was incredible. But the real simcha is the culmination that it allowed, that it allowed the Chashmonaim to come back to the Beis HaMikdash and to be mikayem mitzvos. And that's what Chazal that's the message which which Chazal are sending when Chazal focus on the neis of the Menorah. There is in by association a similar idea I think, I think quoted from Rav Yitzchak Elchanan on the bracha of המעביר שינה מעיני ותנומה מעפעפי. So there's usually when you have a bracha arucha there's a certain thematic continuity, a certain thematic development. Here it seems to be a total non-sequitur. We're thanking Hashem for keeping us alive, המעביר שינה מעיני ותנומה מעפעפי, that a person a person is asleep, so he's again echad meshishim of. of misa and now we thank HaKadosh Baruch Hu for restoring us to life. And then, so how does the berachah continue? שתגילנו בתורתך ודבקנו במצותיך etc. So how does that, so Rav Yitzchak Elchanan says no, we're thanking HaKadosh Baruch Hu, we want to wake up to real life. We don't want to wake up just to some physical vegetative existence. We're thanking HaKadosh Baruch Hu for restoring us to life, bringing us back to life. So then there is, there's no gap here. There is that thematic continuity שתגילנו בתורתך ודבקנו במצותיך. One last thought: this is at best the kernel of a thought, needs to be needs to be developed. Take a look in the first source, the very last halachah here, Rabbosai:

היה לפניו נר ביתו ונר חנוכה ונר ביתו וקידוש היום נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו.

So if a person only has enough money he can either have a candle inside the house for to bench licht for Shabbos on the Friday night of Chanukah, or he can have a candle outside the house where medina d'Gemara one lights ner Chanukah. That's the way the Rambam presents it, the medina d'Gemara. Or a person can have a candle outside the house for Chanukah, or lav davka that it's Friday night of Chanukah, it could be a different Friday night. And again, Rachmana litzlan, a person is so so pressed, נר ביתו וקידוש היום. He can choose between buying wine for kiddush or to have a ner in the house. So then the Gemara in Shabbos, the Rambam quotes, says that נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו. Because of Shalom Bayis, better to allocate the money to the Shabbos licht, Shabbos שהרי השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו. And then the Rambam continues, as as he sometimes allows himself to to conclude either a sefer in the Yad HaChazakah or a set of halachos with a little bit of divrei aggada:

גדול השלום שכל התורה ניתנה לעשות שלום בעולם שנאמר דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום.

This is the Gemara in Gittin, makes such a statement at the end of the fifth perek also, associating it with this pasuk that all of Torah is to lead to the result of shalom. So the question is: what does that mean? It's a very beautiful idea and sentiment, but but what does it mean? All of Torah is is for shalom. So l'chora, again this is תן לחכם ויחכם עוד, l'chora as follows: there is a Gemara in Rosh Hashanah, very well-known Gemara in Rosh Hashanah. The Gemara is interpreting the psukim in Zecharia. Zecharia HaNavi asked during Bayis Sheni, he asked HaKadosh Baruch Hu whether or not the ta'aniyos, the ta'aneisim which commemorated Churban Bayis Rishon should be observed during during Bayis Sheni. And the psukim are not clear. So the Gemara explains that what the psukim mean is that yeish shalom, at a time when there's shalom ba'olam, so then yiyu lesasson ulesimcha. So then Tisha B'Av, Shivah Asar B'Tammuz, Asara B'Teves, those ta'aniyos become yamim tovim. If there's gzeiras hamalchus, Rachmana litzlan, so then they're tzom. And if it's neither shalom nor gzeiras hamalchus, so the Gemara says רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין. In theory, it would be optional. Okay, fine. So what about so l'maise? So so after that sort of elaborate answer, l'maise, what was HaKadosh Baruch Hu by what was he telling Zecharia HaNavi? What was the din during Bayis Sheni? You were supposed to fast? You were not supposed to fast? So the so the simple pshat would seem to be, and this is the way the Ramban has it, is that Bayis Sheni is yeish shalom. So during Bayis Sheni, so Tisha B'Av was Tisha B'Av was a yom tov. The Rambam writes in Peirush HaMishnayos that that during Bayis Sheni, that Bayis Sheni was was not classified as yeish shalom, that Bayis Sheni was אין שלום ואין גזירת המלכות. And then as the Gemara mentions, I forgot to mention this, that on Tisha B'Av since huchplu bo tzaros, so then then you should fast. According to the Rambam, they used to sit on the on the on the ground during Bayis Sheni and they used to observe Tisha B'Av and they used to fast for Churban Bayis Rishon. Why? Because even though the Navi said yeish shalom, so it should be the sasson u'simcha, the yimei Bayis Sheni wasn't wasn't shalom. What do you mean it wasn't shalom? So the pshat is that you see that shalom... Again, no, no d'vorim m'chudashim here, that shalom again in its more common understanding and usage, it means peace, but obviously the shoresh of shaleim, it means completeness, it means wholesomeness, it means perfection. And lechorah when the Chazal say, when the Gemara say that when the pasuk says v'chol nesivoseha shalom, it doesn't mean shalom even though that's the Rambam's point of departure for quoting the Gemara. It doesn't mean shalom only in its narrower sense of peace, understood politically, geopolitically. No, but it rather means shalom again the same way the Rambam says in Bayis Sheini it wasn't shalom. It wasn't shalom because shalom, peace, is part of a larger package again of wholesomeness, of completion, of perfection, of things being as they should be. Part of things being as they should be is shalom in its narrower understanding as well. And yitachen that the Aggadic finale here in the Rambam, that Gemara in Gittin is going beyond what shalom means in its narrower sense of shalom meaning peace, but rather as the Rambam there in the Peirush HaMishnayos in Rosh Hashanah understands it, in the sense of completion, of wholesomeness, of perfection. Oh, that's the case takeh v'chol nesivoseha shalom. All of Torah is geared towards that. Thank you very much.