כג עמוד א. About 9-10 lines before the branch out on כג עמוד א. אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב המדליק נר של חנוכה צריך לברך. ורבי ירמיה אמר הרואה נר של חנוכה צריך לברך. אמר רב יהודה יום ראשון הרואה מברך שתים ומדליק מברך שלש. מכאן ואילך מדליק מברך שתים ורואה מברך אחת. מאי ממעט? ממעט זמן.
Which beracha do we say the first night which is eliminated on subsequent nights? The beracha of Shehecheyanu. And the Gemara refers to that as zman. זמן שהחיינו וקימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה. Venima’ot neis? Why don't we exclude the beracha of She’asa Nissim? נס כל יומי איתיה because there is a neis every night of Chanukah. Okay, I’m not sure that we’re going to get to—there’s a lot to comment on in that line. I’m not sure we’re going to get to that. But let’s discuss this din. So Chanukah is highly unusual in that not only is there a beracha for hadlakas ner Chanukah, but there’s a beracha for re’iyas ner Chanukah also. A very, very unique type of halacha. Now, when exactly does one make the beracha? Again, so the first night, a ro’eh would make two berachos: She’asa Nissim and Shehecheyanu. And on subsequent nights, he would make the one beracha of She’asa Nissim. Now, when halacha lema’aseh would one actually say this beracha of She’asa Nissim? So there are a few opinions in the Rishonim. Now, the Rashba’s opinion, I’ll just read you just a couple of lines from the Rashba here. So the Rashba in the Chiddushim says: מסתברא בשלא הדליק ולא הדליקו עליו בתוך ביתו ואינו עתיד להדליק הלילה.
So the Rashba says that the only time a person would ever make She’asa Nissim as a ro’eh Chanukah is if A, he hasn’t lit ner Chanukah yet; B, he’s not going to be lighting ner Chanukah tonight for whatever reason; and C, no one is lighting on his behalf at home. Right? So even if a person is going to be on an all-night flight—he’s out of town on a business trip, right? And he’s on his way to the airport and it’s going to be an all-night flight, and on the way to the airport he sees—he passes by a house and sees in the window a ner Chanukah. So even then, the Rashba says if his wife is at home and is lighting on his behalf at home, even then he wouldn’t make the She’asa Nissim on seeing the ner Chanukah. The one and only time you make a beracha of She’asa Nissim on seeing the ner Chanukah according to the Rashba is if a person has no—no connection tonight to re’iyas ner Chanukah—to hadlakas ner Chanukah at all. That neither has he lit, nor will he light, nor is anyone lighting on his behalf at home. Oh. That’s the opinion of the Rashba. Now, these Gemara Shabbos—they don’t have the Rif in the back, do they? No. Okay. So then the Rashba then goes on to quote—and if you happen to have a big Gemara Shabbos, you can look in the back and you see that it’s in the Mordechai, that the Mordechai quotes this, that the Mordechai takes issue with the last of these three: ויש מרבותינו ז"ל דאית להו אף על פי שפירשו אף על פי שמדליקין עליו בתוך ביתו צריך לברך על הראייה.
That the Mordechai quotes that there are some opinions that if hidlik or asid lehadlik, so then you wouldn’t make a She’asa Nissim as a ro’eh. If you either lit yourself or you’re going to light, then you certainly would not make She’asa Nissim as a ro’eh Chanukah. But if in the case we gave of the person who’s away on their business trip, so even though his wife is lighting on his behalf at home, מדליקין עליו בתוך ביתו, so then he would make a She’asa Nissim when he sees the ner Chanukah. And the only time we say that he shouldn’t is either if he lit or if he’s going to light, but the fact that they’re lighting on his behalf... so that... Then we don't, then that doesn't relieve him of the chiyuv to make a she'asa nisim when he sees it. Yet a third opinion in the Rishonim, the way we have Rashi. So Rashi seems to have yet a third opinion. If you take a look here in the Rashi dibbur hamatchil Haro'eh, it's on the Gemara which we just looked at, but it's considerably higher up here on the page around 10, a dozen lines down in the Rashi lines after they burned, after they became narrow. הרואה העובר בשוק ורואה באחד החצרות דולק. The person is he's passing by through the marketplace and he sees in one of the courtyards he sees a Chanukah. ומצאתי בשם רבינו יצחק בן יהודה שאמר משם רבינו יעקב דלא הותקנה ברכה זו אלא למי שלא הדליק בביתו עדיין.
Right? So sounds like that according to this opinion in in Rashi that even if the person is on his way home to light Chanukah, if he happens to see a Chanukah on his way home, so then that would he would make the she'asa nisim at the first possible opportunity instead of delaying the she'asa nisim until he gets home to light, so then he would make the she'asa nisim on someone else's Chanukah on the way home. So we have those three views in the Rishonim of when the Ro'eh makes the beracha. According to this first opinion in Rashi, it's if he happens to encounter a Chanukah before he has a chance to light. The fact even though he's going to light, nevertheless he'll say she'asa nisim when he sees the Chanukah. According to the Mordechai, according to the Mordechai, it's only if if he's going to light, he wouldn't say she'asa nisim. But if he's not going to light, even though they're going to light in his behalf, he would say the she'asa nisim on seeing a Chanukah. And according to the Rashba, no, the only time you make she'asa nisim is you're not lighting, you're not going to light, and no one's lighting on your behalf. Those are the three views in the in the Rishon. So now let's try to understand a little bit, what about, what do we do is the first night shehecheyanu? I'm sorry? According to Rashi, we learned that he's going home to light, he sees Chanukah on the first night, would he make a shehecheyanu then or would he wait until he lights at home? That's a good question. I think presumably according to Rashi that he would say the shehecheyanu then also. I think the shehecheyanu since since the Ro'eh is can say a shehecheyanu and Rashi says that that you would again Rashi as we have it. The Mordechai had a different different version of Rashi, but as we have it, so I think you'd make the shehecheyanu at the time of re'iya as well. And then shehecheyanu at home? No, then he wouldn't say a he wouldn't say a second shehecheyanu at home. I don't think so. Okay. So now let's try to understand these these three opinions. Now the question of whether or not, let's say the difference between Rashi and the Mordechai, whether or not you'd make the she'asa nisim when you're on your way home to light or whether or not you hold off till you get home, so we're not going to talk about that too much, there the issue seems to be that Rashi says that basically מצוה הבאה לידך אל תחמיצנה. That if there are two occasions and maybe we'll try to analyze this a little bit more fully later, but if there are two possible occasions or opportunities to say she'asa nisim, you have the opportunity of re'iya, you have the opportunity of hadlaka, so take the first one that comes to hand. If you have the possibility of of re'iya comes to your come comes by first then take advantage of that and say the she'asa nisim. What are you what are you postponing the beracha for? And the Mordechai says no. Mordechai says just like limashal on Kiddush, right? So when we we say shehecheyanu, so when we say shehecheyanu in Yom Tov, the Rishonim give this analogy. When we say shehecheyanu in Yom Tov, so the shehecheyanu's not really a part of Kiddush, right? For instance on Yom Kippur when there's no Kiddush we still say shehecheyanu, right? So we just say shehecheyanu alone. You can say what the Gemara calls you can say it bashuk, meaning it doesn't need the context of of Kiddush. So why is it that in every other Yom Tov we associate it with Kiddush? That since the the we sort of we're mesader all the berachos together. That mesader all the berachos together. So some Rishonim give that analogy and say the same way that when we make Kiddush, so we're mesader the shehecheyanu again, which really can stand alone, and again haraya Yom HaKippurim it does stand alone. But nevertheless we're mesader it al hakos alongside the beracha of Kiddush, so too it's optimal to be mesader the she'asa nisim alongside the birkas hadlaka. The birkas hadlaka, which is why we will bypass the first opportunity of re'iya and we'll wait until and we'll wait until until the sha'as hadlaka. The same way we could right away at tzeit hakochavim in shul before we get home and before we make Kiddush we could already say Shehecheyanu but we hold off and we're mesader it together al hakos. Fine. But let's talk about the the the other question which divides the Rishonim, which is the fact that מדליקין עליו בתוך ביתו. Again, the person's on on a business trip so he's he's going to be on an overnight flight. He's not going to be at home so his wife is lighting at home. So if on the way to the airport one sees the Ner Chanukah the Rashba says don't make a She'asa Nissim and the Mordechai says you do make a She'asa Nissim. So the Bach says the Bach discusses this machlokes in the Rishonim and the Bach says he doesn't understand that opinion of the Rashba. Here in סימן תרע"ו so the Bach says תימה דמאי שמדליקין עליו בביתו אינו בא אלא לפטרו מחיוב אינו בא אלא לפטרו מחיוב להדליק נרות לפרסם הנס ברבים אבל ההודאה על הנס וברכת שהחיינו הוא בחיוב על גופו ומזה לא נפטר כשמדליקין עליו אם לא שעמד שם בשעת ברכה וענה אמן.
So the Bach says if your wife lights so fine so that satisfies your obligation to light Ner Chanukah. But your obligation to express hoda'ah to Hakadosh Baruch Hu about the nes and to say Shehecheyanu so you can't you're not fulfilling that vicariously. The Ner Chanukah okay so the Ner Chanukah is your obligated to have a Ner Chanukah in your home fine so you're not home your wife is home so she's lighting the Ner Chanukah so you can fulfill that mitzvah through her hadlaka. But the the chiyuv which you have to give hoda'ah שעשה נסים לאבותינו בימים ההם בזמן הזה to give hoda'ah and to say Shehecheyanu so if you're there and you hear the brachos and you answer amen fine so you're yotzei the chiyuv. But if you're not hearing the brachos you're not answering amen so you're not being yotzei any chiyuv so why wouldn't you make the She'asa Nissim and the Shehecheyanu on the occasion of seeing the Ner Chanukah? And in fact the Bach thinks that's how we should pasken. The Bach thinks that that how we should pasken that this person on the business trip according to the Bach would make the She'asa Nissim upon seeing the the Ner Chanukah. So the question is what's the answer to that ta'ana of the Bach? Lichora it's a very very cogent argument. So let's take a look earlier in in the Gemara on כ"א עמוד ב מאי חנוכה דתנו רבנן. Yeah what the Bach basically is saying is similar to that he he's saying that the the chiyuv of of saying She'asa Nissim of giving hoda'ah is a type of chiyuv she-bagufo which you can't cannot be yotzei al yedei acher. Yeah I think the Bach would the would agree with those Rishonim. Why can't you say he's yotzei the She'asa Nissim by saying Al HaNissim in the Shmoneh Esrei or in the Birkas HaMazon? That's essentially what he's doing. He's giving he's giving hoda'ah to Hakadosh Baruch Hu for all the nissim of Chanukah. Right so that's a good question. I guess what the Bach would say to that is that apparently since Chazal did introduce that in addition to Al HaNissim in in Shmoneh Esrei in benching that we're supposed to say She'asa Nissim so apparently saying it as a self-contained bracha is is a special chiyuv that we have. Fine that's if you light the candles but if you're not lighting candles so you still have not neglected giving hoda'ah. It's still there you don't have to see the menorah to say Al HaNissim. That's a question. Shehecheyanu I understand. Shehecheyanu I can understand you see the candles. But but according to that argument so even if ein madlikin even according according to that then a ro'eh should never make a bracha and yet the Gemara says that a ro'eh does make a bracha of Al HaNissim of She'asa Nissim of She'asa Nissim right the Gemara says that a ro'eh does make the does does have a bracha of She'asa Nissim but according to this argument then then you would do away with it entirely. So apparently that's not the case. So apparently I'm trying to find find out why what is the what's the difference why do we why do we have a separate hoda'ah in the form of Al HaNeros? That we push it that even if the person... So I think the answer to that is that seeing the Ner Chanukkah is its own mechayav in hoda'ah. Seeing the Ner Chanukkah is mechayav. Shehecheyanu also? Is mechayav in hoda'ah. And the fact that, oh, I gave at the office, the fact that, well, I davened Ma'ariv early tonight, or I'm going to go home and have a seuda, that doesn't, no, the seeing the Ner Chanukkah is mechayav in hoda'ah. Shehecheyanu also, is mechayav is the neros, or mechayav is the Chanukkah hayom? That's a question. What happens, the poskim talk about that. What happens if you wouldn't even see a Ner Chanukkah? So can you say Shehecheyanu bashuk? Like Yom Kippur? Right, that's the, can you say Shehecheyanu? In the question of is there Kedushas hayom? Right, that's the din. The poskim do talk about that. Let's see the famous braisa here in כ"א עמוד ב, three lines before the wide lines at the left. Okay, this is the famous braisa of Mai Chanukkah. So Mai Chanukkah, detanu rabanan, this is a braisa from Megillas Taanis. Detanu rabanan, בכ"ה בכסלו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון. On beginning on the 25th of Kislev, there are eight days of Chanukkah, דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון, right? No eulogies, no fasting. שכשנכנסו יוונים להיכל, when the Syrian Greeks entered the Heichal, טמאו כל השמנים שבהיכל, וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום, and when the Chashmonaim prevailed, בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול.
They only found one little flask of oil, which was still tahor, with the seal of the Kohen Gadol intact. ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד, and it only had a sufficient quantity to light for one day. And which where they had to go to access zeisim and to press it and to come back and bring it back to the Mikdash was going to take them a full eight days. נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. hashana acheres keva'um. These days were established, right? The tman, the יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון, that's the antecedent of keva'um, ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה. So these days were established as yamim tovim in hallel and hoda'ah. What is hallel and hoda'ah refer to? So Rashi says, hachi garsinan, around ten lines up in the Rashi lines, hachi garsinan ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה, lo she'asurun be-melacha. Chanukkah is not a yom tov in the sense of issur melacha, ella likros hallel, to say hallel. The eight days of Chanukkah we say hallel, ולומר על הנסים בהודאה, and we add Al Hanisim in the bracha of hoda'ah. So that's Rashi's pshat in the braisa. So the famous, famous difficulty in Rashi is that עיקר חסר מן הסיפא. Right? Here's this braisa telling us what Chanukkah is all about, and it just happens to neglect to mention one small detail, that there's a mitzvah of Ner Chanukkah. Braisa doesn't say anything about the mitzvah of Ner Chanukkah. So we'll come back to talk about that bli neder. The Rav zechrono livracha used to say that he thought that the Rambam understood this braisa differently than Rashi, because the Rambam in פרק ג' חנוכה הלכה ג', so after the Rambam begins in הלכות א' וב' and also he tells us the story of, tells us the story of Chanukkah. So the Rav used to comment just parenthetically, how is it that in hilchos Chanukkah the Rambam tells us the story, tells us the history, בבית שני כשמלכו יון, when the Greek empire spread, גזרו גזירות על ישראל, the Rambam gives us the whole historical background. In hilchos Megilla, the Rambam doesn't offer any historical background to the nes of Purim. He doesn't tell us. So the Rav said that the answer is very simple, that the Rambam says in the hakdama to the Yad, he says that from Mishneh Torah, so you'll know everything you need to know about the conclusions, everything about Torah she-ba'al peh. But the Rambam never said that you study Mishneh Torah, you're going to know Tanakh. The Rambam never said that this is going to be a shortcut to knowing chaf-dalas sefarim. He says, no, this is a summary of Torah she-ba'al peh. So Chanukkah, so there is no Torah she-bichtav on Chanukkah, right? The story The story of Chanukah as part of Torah she-be'al peh, so the Rambam owes us, owes us the account, he owes us the story. Purim has its account in Torah she-bichtav, so the Rambam is, the Rambam never promised us that he was going to summarize the Torah she-bichtav. Fine. So that's why the Rambam in Halachos Alef and Beis gives us the historical background for Chanukah, which he doesn't do for Purim. Then after sketching that background, in פרק ג הלכה ג the Rambam writes מפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור. Right, it wasn't done right away the same year as the Braisa indicates, but it was done subsequently but in the same generation, שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחילתם מליל חמישה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל.
That's another maybe sometime we'll discuss that also bli neder. The Rambam thinks there's a mitzvah simchah on Chanukah; the other Rishonim, the Maharam disagrees and says no, there is no mitzvah simchah on Chanukah. Now, ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס,
that on each of the eight nights of Chanukah we light the ner Chanukah להראות ולגלות הנס to show and to reveal the nes. That's how he sort of defines the mitzvah of hadlakas ner Chanukah here in פרק ג הלכה ג. But later in פרק ד הלכה יב, so the Rambam, the Rambam emphasizes another element: מצוות נר חנוכה מצווה חביבה היא עד מאוד. It's an especially precious mitzvah וצריך אדם להזהר בה. A person has to be especially careful about fulfilling it. Why? כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח הקל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה לנו.
So the Rambam says that lighting the ner Chanukah is an instrument of hodaya. Right, that why do we light the ner Chanukah? What's accomplished through lighting the ner Chanukah? Le-hodi'a ha-nes, to inform people, to publicize the nes, ולהוסיף בשבח הקל והודיה לו, and to increase praise and thanks to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That the Rambam here establishes an equation between ner Chanukah and hodaya. So the Rav suggested that maybe that's how the Rambam read the Braisa. קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל is as Rashi says, that we actually say hallel eight days of Chanukah. But hodaya doesn't mean al hanisim; hodaya rather means ner Chanukah which is the instrument of hodaya. Semuchim le-kach, that that's the Rambam's reading of the Braisa that the Rav added is that the Rambam doesn't mention in Hilchos Chanukah that you say al hanisim. You don't have that in Hilchos Chanukah. The Rambam only mentions that in Hilchos Tefillah. Why? So the Rav explained as part of this mahalach that you don't need a separate takkanah to say al hanisim on Chanukah. Rather, the Gemara in Berachos has a din of ברוך ה' יום יום. That's a pasuk. And then the Gemara has a din based on the pasuk that בכל יום ויום תן לו מעין ברכותיו, that on every day we're supposed to sort of tailor the Tefillah to that specific day. So if it's Shabbos, there has to be a hazkarah of Shabbos. If it's Rosh Chodesh, there has to be a hazkarah of Rosh Chodesh. So mi-meilah, if you introduce a Yom Tov of Chanukah, you don't need to stipulate explicitly, "Ay, and you have to mention Chanukah, you have to talk about it in the Shmonei Esrei." No, that will simply follow mi-meilah. Once you, once you put this on the books, once you have the mitzvah of ner Chanukah, the mitzvah of Chanukah, the Yom Tov of Chanukah, so then mi-meilah it follows that you have to mention, just Hilchos Tefillah then dictate that you have to mention al hanisim. So that's what the Rav said on the one hand. The Rambam's equation between ner Chanukah and hodaya on the one hand, and the absence, the fact that the Rambam doesn't mention that you say al hanisim in Hilchos Chanukah, he only says that in Hilchos Tefillah, so those are two sides of the same coin and maybe the pshat of the Rambam here in the Braisa is be-hallel ve-hoda'ah. Now, how's that, how's that relevant to what we're discussing? So let's extrapolate from, from that the following idea. That Chanukah itself, and the truth is that we could have said this even without the Braisa, even without the Rav's pshat in the Rambam, it stands on its own, that the Chanukah itself, the hadlakas ner Chanukah is itself a form of hodaya. Right? That the Rambam clearly says כדי להוסיף בשבח הקל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה לנו.
So hadlakas ner Chanukah is itself a form of hodaya. So now in light of that, so let's think about the Bach's kasha. What does the Bach say? I don't understand the Rashba. So what that my wife is lighting on my behalf at home? But I have, I didn't say she'asa nissim, I didn't hear her say she'asa nissim. So how am I fulfilling my chiyuv of hoda'ah? How am I fulfilling my chiyuv of hoda'ah? So what the Bach seems to be drawing a line here between this חיוב הדלקת נר חנוכה and this chiyuv hoda'ah. He says meila the chiyuv hadlaka, so that a person can be yotzei al yedei acher, he can be yotzei through his wife, he can be yotzei al yedei shaliach, but the chiyuv of hoda'ah, so that's a chiyuv shebagufo, and if he's neither said nor heard the brachos and answered amen, so then when he sees the ner Chanukah he should be doing it, right? He says מה שמדליקין עליו בביתו אינו בא אלא לפטרו מהחיוב להדליק נרות לפרסם הנס אבל ההודאה על הנס הוא בחיוב על גופו ומזה לא נפטר כשמדליקין עליו אם לא עמד שם בשעת הברכה.
Right? So the Bach is clearly contrasting, right? The Bach is delineating here that Chanukah is lefarsem hanes, the hadlaka is lefarsem to publicize the nes, the she'asa nissim is lehodos al hanes. So what sense does it make that because מדליקין עליו בתוך ביתו that he shouldn't take advantage of the opportunity, that he shouldn't be chayiv to give hoda'ah in seeing the ner Chanukah? But ela mai, if you say as the Rambam says no, that distinction is not the case. The hadlakas ner Chanukah itself is a form of hoda'ah. By publicizing you can't really contrast pirsumei nisa with hoda'ah. Pirsumei nisa and hoda'ah again they're two sides of the same thing. Lighting the ner Chanukah is itself a form of hoda'ah, so then what the Rashba says we understand very well. The Rashba says so by having the hadlaka relate to you, so that's the ikkar hoda'ah. You can't say she'asa nissim, you can't separate the she'asa nissim from the ner Chanukah. If the ner Chanukah is being credited to you, that מדליקין עליו בתוך ביתו, so you have that main form, the primary form of hoda'ah. You can't say the she'asa nissim separately, you can't have it disjointed, disconnected from that. It would only be where you weren't mekayem the chiyuv of hoda'ah at all because neither hidlik nor is he asid lehadlik nor are they מדליקין עליו בתוך ביתו, only then would we say okay so now we'll make provisions for you to say the she'asa nissim just based on re'iyah. Is that clear rabosai? Okay. Good. So that's halacha lema'aseh I think the Mishnah Berurah says because it's a machlokes and safek brachos lehakeil, so I think the Mishnah Berurah is machriya not like the Bach that this person on the business trip would not make the bracha. That the only time, the only time you'd have it is if for some reason it's not even מדליקין עליו בתוך ביתו. Either a person is single and he lives alone and he's on this business trip or maybe it's a whole family who are traveling to Eretz Yisrael, they left home before it was too early to light and they see a ner Chanukah on the way or something, but it would only be in such a situation the Mishnah Berurah says that we would make it. But in the language of the Rambam it doesn't seem that you have to say that there's a kiyum of hoda'ah when you light the candle. What he says is that it's lehodiya es hanes and that will lead to an increase in hoda'ah, but I mean it doesn't have to be through the action, it's just that it's an indirect consequence. Possibly. I mean but not in the sense of sort of coincidental. Right. And then people will know that this is a night when the nes. Possibly, possibly. Again in terms of the pshat in the Rashba so you don't need the Rambam for it. You can just say it in the Rashba on its own. I think the Rav did understand the Rambam that way, but again the truth is that just in terms of understanding the Rashba it really stands on its own. That apparently what the Rashba is saying is that the hadlakas ner Chanukah is itself a form of hoda'ah. But you have the problem though how can if it's really a kiyum. Well no, but that's only if you're mixing and matching. The one who insisted that it was a chiyuv shebagufa was the Bach, because the Bach was contrasting—the Bach is sort of distinguishing the hadlaka which is pirsumei nisa from the bracha of She'asah Nissim which is hoda'ah. So given that distinction, so then it follows that the hoda'ah is a type of mitzvah shebagufa. But the minute you say no, that that distinction doesn't exist, that the pirsumei nisa is itself a form of hoda'ah, that recognition and that publicizing is itself a form of hoda'ah, so then it follows that this definition isn't true, that it's not the case that the hoda'ah can only be accomplished begufo, because the hoda'ah, the primary channel or avenue for the hoda'ah is through the hadlaka. Okay, let's come back to the Rashi for a minute. So Rashi again, the glaring and obvious difficulty in Rashi, back in כ"א עמוד ב, is that according to Rashi, Hallel again means that we say Hallel eight days of Chanukah, but hoda'ah is refers to Al HaNissim. So the braisa doesn't mention ner Chanukah. Braisa doesn't mention ner Chanukah. Again, it's the a glaring, glaring difficulty in Rashi. So I once heard a very, very interesting teretz for Rashi from Rav Gershon Zakz zichrono livracha. The teretz is a little bit technical, but I think it sort of underlying it there's a very, very fundamental insight into Chanukah and ner Chanukah. I think we've had occasion to mention the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah daf yud ches has the following ibaya: והא איכא מגילת תענית? This braisa is quoted from Megillas Taanis. What was Megillas Taanis? Megillas Taanis was a list of various sort of quasi yamim tovim which were observed during Bayis Sheni because of all kinds of miracles that happened, commemorating different miracles that happened. So they were quasi yamim tovim again, with no which there was no hespedim, no taanis, etc. So the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah has a machlokes Amora'im whether with churban habayis, with churban Bayis Sheni, whether batla or lo batla Megillas Taanis. That's what the Gemara has in ibaya. So the Gemara asks a kasha and says mosiv Rav Kahana in Rosh Hashanah on דף י"ח עמוד ב, so the Gemara has Rav Kahana ask a kasha, he quotes a braisa. He quotes a braisa that once in the time of the Tannaim after the churban habayis, some people would gozer a taanis on Chanukah. And Rabi Eliezer and Rabi Yehoshua very publicly defied that gzeiras taanis and what's more, they told the people who fasted, צאו והתענו על מה שהתעניתם. That you had no business fasting on Chanukah. It's assur to fast on Chanukah. So says the Gemara, don't you see that Megillas Taanis lo batla? Don't you see that Megillas Taanis is still in effect because after all Chanukah is from Megillas Taanis? It's one of the yamim tovim from Megillas Taanis. So in as a result of this kasha, so the Gemara sort of concedes, well, even if Megillas Taanis is batla, with regard to Chanukah it's not batla. That Chanukah would remain even if the rest of Megillas Taanis is batla. And in fact, ultimately the Gemara's maskana on י"ט עמוד ב is that Megillas Taanis is batla, but with the exception of Chanukah and Purim. And that's ultimately the conclusion of the sugya here on י"ט עמוד ב. But Tosfos has a kasha, it's a little technical, but let's try to see it through. Tosfos has a kasha, if the Gemara wants to prove from the observance of Chanukah that Megillas Taanis is lo batla, so why did Rav Kahana have to use his bekius and pull a braisa out of the memory bank? Why didn't he just quote the mishna? The mishna here in י"ח עמוד א says that Beis Din would dispatch shluchim to inform Jews throughout the Gola of which day was Rosh Chodesh for six months. There were six months when we needed to know which day was Rosh Chodesh. על ששה חדשים השלוחים יוצאים: על ניסן מפני הפסח—we needed to know when Nissan was to know when to observe Pesach—על אב מפני התענית for Tisha B'Av, al Elul... על אלול מפני ראש השנה. על תשרי מפני תקנת המועדות. על כסלו מפני חנוכה.
So ועל אדר מפני הפורים. So one of the six months and the Mishna here is talking about Le'achar Churban HaBayit because the next line in the Mishna is וכשהיה בית המקדש קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן.
So the Mishna says even Le'achar Churban HaBayit, the Shluchim were dispatched to let people know which day was Rosh Chodesh Kislev, right? We needed to know was Cheshvan the previous month, was it a 29-day month or was it a 30-day month, so we'll know the correct count of Kislev is. Why? So in the, so we'll know which day's the 25th, so we can observe Chanukah. So you see from the Mishna, if you can settle the Gemara, if you can resolve this Ibayah as to whether or not Megillat Taanit was Batla or Lo Batla from Chanukah by invoking Chanukah, so what do you have to pick a Baraita, just quote this Mishna? Quote this Mishna, right? That's Tosafot's Kushya. Tosafot gives a very interesting Teretz. Tosafot answers ממתניתין דעל כסלו מפני חנוכה לא הוה ליה לאקשויי דלעולם לא חשיב יום טוב ואפילו הכי מדליקין נרות זכר לנס.
Tosafot says something very interesting. Again, at first it just seems very technical, but when you think about it, it's very interesting. Tosafot says even if, right, we generally think of Chanukah as a package, right? So what comes in the package of Chanukah? So you you light Chanukah Licht and we say Al HaNissim and and we say Hallel and we play dreidel and we eat latkes, right? That comes in the package of Chanukah, right? Says Tosafot, that's not the case. Even if the Yom Tov of Chanukah would have been Battel, even if when Megillat Taanit was Batla, that would have meant that Chanukah was Battel as well, and we wouldn't have said Al HaNissim, and we could have fasted these days, we could have made Hespedim these days, we still would have lit Ner Chanukah. And that's why you couldn't prove anything from the Mishna, because you would still need to have dispatched Shluchim so people would know when to light Ner Chanukah. But from Rav Kahana's Baraita, that is a proof, because in Rav Kahana's Baraita, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua were objecting to fasting on Chanukah. So that already was a proof that Megillat Taanit is Lo Batla. But the Mishna is no proof because maybe the only need for the Shluchim is for Ner Chanukah. So Tosafot says something very interesting, that the Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah is not just a function, it's not dependent upon Asara Yamim Tovim. It's not dependent upon the Yom Tov of Chanukah. And in theory, in theory, had the Yom Tov of Chanukah been no longer in force, in effect, with Churban HaBayit, just like all the other Yamim Tovim Megillat Taanit, you would still have a Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah. Still have a Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah. In a minute, Bli Neder, we'll try to explore what the implications and the significance of this are. But just for a moment coming back to Rashi here in Shabbat, so Rav Sacks said a Gevaldige Teretz. So he said like this: This is a Baraita from where? It's a Baraita from Megillat Taanit. So Rashi here is telling us that the Megillat Taanit is defining what they introduced as the Yom Tov of Chanukah. What elements constitute the Yom Tov of Chanukah? That's why it doesn't mention Ner Chanukah, because Ner Chanukah, as Tosafot explains in Rosh Hashanah, really stands independent of the Yom Tov of Chanukah. Ner Chanukah isn't dependent upon Asara Yamim Tovim. No, V'HaRa'aya Tosafot says even if לעולם לא חשיב יום טוב, it still would have been the case that אפילו הכי מדליקין נרות זכר לנס. Gevaldige Teretz, right, again, it's on the surface a sort of technical Teretz, but in the minute, I think we'll discuss what insight it provides. So that's the Pshat for Rashi, the reason עיקר חסר מן הספר is because this Baraita in Megillat Taanit is defining the Yom Tov of Chanukah. So what is it which we do as a result of Chanukah being a Yom Tov? So we abstain from Hesped and Taanit, we say Hallel, we say Al HaNissim. What about Ner Chanukah? No, that's not, we're not doing that as a result of this being a Yom Tov of Chanukah, V'HaRa'aya Tosafot in Rosh Hashanah says, in theory, even if it wouldn't have been a Yom Tov, we would still be lighting the Ner Chanukah. Okay, so that's again, that's the Teretz, Ad Kan Devarav, this is Ad Kan Shamati. So we were talking before, so what's the significance of this though? What's the significance of what insight does this give us into Ner Chanukah, the fact that it's simply not a part of the general Yom Tov of Ner Chanukah? So perhaps as follows. The Yom Tov of Ner Chanukah according to Rashi, again we're emphasizing the Hallel ve-Hoda'ah, the Rambam, whatever his Makor is, says Simcha as well, but we're celebrating the Neis. We're celebrating the Neis. Again, either just with thanking Hakadosh Baruch Hu and praising Hakadosh Baruch Hu as a result, or maybe we're even again celebrating in the sense of rejoicing in terms of Mitzvas Simcha. That's what the Yom Tov of Ner Chanukah is. So what does it mean to say that even if we didn't have a Yom Tov of Ner Chanukah, we would still have, excuse me, even if we didn't have a Yom Tov of Chanukah, we would still have a Mitzvah of Ner Chanukah? What does it mean? So Lichora it means as follows. Again, the Gemara has in a couple of places, but if you look over here for instance on כ"ג עמוד ב, this is one of the places, on כ"ג עמוד ב, the Gemara, or this is the place, the Gemara has on כ"ג עמוד ב, the Gemara tells us that Boei Rava, it's right alongside the Tosafot דבור המתחיל דבי נשא, right alongside there in the Gemara lines, בעי רבא נר חנוכה וקידוש היום מהו? If you only have enough money to either purchase Shemen for Ner Chanukah or wine for Kiddush hayom mahu? קידוש היום עדיף דתדיר, maybe Kiddush hayom should have priority because it's a Mitzvah tedirah, it comes every week. או דלמא נר חנוכה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא? ובתר דבעי הדר פשטה,
after Rava raised the question, he himself Mesaverah answered the question נר חנוכה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא. So we have this equation between Ner Chanukah and Pirsumei nisa. So what does that mean? So apparently according to Tosafot in Rosh Hashanah it means like this. משל למה הדבר דומה, remember we discussed what the Rambam says about the Mitzvah of Krias hamigillah, right? Remember we saw that little paragraph where the Rambam says in the Hakdamah to the מנין המצות על פי סדר ההלכות הרמב"ם, so the Rambam says that the Takkanah of Mikra Megillah is כדי להודיע לדורות הבאים to let all future generations know אמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה that what the Torah promised us and guaranteed us is true, שמי כה' אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו, right? That by reading the Megillah, by telling the story of Purim, so we reinforce our belief in this Yesod haemunah, in this fundamental idea that Hakadosh Baruch Hu responds to our Tefillah, right? So remember we saw that paragraph in the Rambam. So in Pirsumei nisa, there's something in Pirsumei nisa which and maybe this is what the Bach had in mind that we discussed earlier this evening, Pirsumei nisa can stand alone, even if Naniach that Chazal had felt that because of the subsequent Churban and all the devastation which came in its wake, too much of what had been achieved through the victory of the Chashmonaim had been lost that we should be able to continue observing Chanukah. So Naniach that Chazal had felt that there was no longer ample reason for observing the Yom Tov of Chanukah. That's not what they felt. We hold that לא בטלה מגילת תענית with regard to Chanukah. Says Tosafot, it still would have been imperative to commemorate the Neis of the Ner Chanukah, to reinforce the Yesod haemunah of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's involvement in history, of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's involvement with us, even if conditions wouldn't have allowed us to be celebrating Chanukah as a Yom Tov. That's what the Yom Tov of Chanukah represents. It represents again that we're celebrating the Neis. Even if we wouldn't have been able to celebrate the Neis, we would have had to commemorate the Neis. Why? Because in lighting Ner Chanukah, so in lighting Ner Chanukah, so there's a message there, right? The same way in the Megillah, the Rambam says there's a message of אמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה she-mi... that HaKadosh Baruch Hu responds to tefillah, that that's the message which emerges from Mikra Megillah. So there's a message that emerges from Chanukah by commemorating the nes of Chanukah of hashgacha pratis, of HaKadosh Baruch Hu's involvement. Right? Again, assuming the pshat of the, right, the Maharal of Prague points out, why do we make such a big deal about the nes of Chanukah? Okay, so it was takeh a big nes. It was a good trick to take an amount of oil which is really only suffices for one day and have it burn for eight days. But was it that different than the kuntz which the Ribbono Shel Olam pulled every day when He had the Ner Ma'aravi burn for 24 hours even though it only was given enough oil to burn throughout the night? It wasn't so qualitatively different as a nes than that was. And that happened, that wasn't only once, that happened every day. So how come this nes had to be commemorated? Why do we make such a big deal about the nes of the Menorah? It wasn't any different than all, and what about the fact that the fire on the mizbe'ach never went out? What about all the other, what about all the other nissim? So the Maharal explains that there is a remarkable symmetry between the nes of the Menorah and the nes of the milchama, right? That the nes of the milchama we describe in Al HaNissim as טמאים ביד טהורים רבים ביד מעטים, right? And what's the nes of Chanukah? דלא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן which they hadn't defiled. So there was just a little bit of pure oil, right? And that's and that was the and somehow or other from that they were able to light for eight days. Says the Maharal, the significance of the nes of Chanukah was the was that it interpreted the nes on the battlefield, lest one think that that wasn't a nes, lest one think, well, in guerrilla warfare, so sometimes you can defeat a superpower. So lest one be inclined to give such a spin, so the Ribbono Shel Olam made this nes in the Beis HaMikdash and said, "No, you look at this, you look at this little bit of shemen which is tahor and you'll see how that defies the laws of nature. You'll see how miraculously that's going to burn for eight days. So based on that you'll understand what happened in the milchama between the Chashmonaim and and the Syrian Greeks." So the so by commemorating the nes of Chanukah, so it also it reinforces, it reinforces that belief again of HaKadosh Baruch Hu again intervening, of HaKadosh Baruch Hu's of HaKadosh Baruch Hu's involvement in history, in our destiny, guarding us and preserving us. Says Tosafot, even if Chazal would have felt that we didn't have reason to be celebrating Chanukah, even if Chanukah wouldn't have been a Yom Tov on which we could be saying Hallel, on which we could, according to the Rambam, also have a mitzvah simcha, but we would still have that mitzvah again to commemorate the nes of Chanukah for its for all its again implications in terms of our emunah. And that's really again I think what the insight of of the Tosafot in Rosh Hashanah is. It's not just the technical distinction that the mitzvah of Ner Chanukah is independent of the Yom Tov of Chanukah, but it points again to to the this dimension of the Ner Chanukah as reinforcing yesodos ha-emunah. Okay.