Transcript

בימי בית שני כשמלכות יון גזרו גזרות על ישראל ובטלו דתם ולא הניחו אותם לעסוק בתורה ובמצוות ופשטו ידם בממונם ובבנותיהם ונכנסו להיכל ופרצו בו פרצות וטימאו הטהרות וצר להם לישראל מאוד מפניהם ולחצום לחץ גדול עד שריחם עליהם אלוהי אבותינו והושיעם מידם והצילם וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתיים שנה עד החורבן השני וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואיבדום בחמישה ועשרים בחודש כסלו היה ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור במקדש אלא פך אחד ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים עד שכתשו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחילתם מחמישה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקים בהם הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס.

Rambam begins, he tells us the historical background of Chanukah. So the Rav zecher tzaddik l'vracha used to comment: Mah nishtanah, that he does so by Hilchos Chanukah, he does not do so in Hilchos Megilla, because in Hilchos Megilla the background is in Tanach, it's in Kisvei Hakodesh. So the Rambam is assuming, as he writes in the hakdama, that a person learns Tanach. He's not looking to supply yedios that are available in Tanach, that in the Yad Hachazaka he's telling us from Torah Sheba'al Peh, not from Torah Shebiksav. So by Purim we have Megillas Esther, so the background is provided there. Chanukah which obviously is not in Kisvei Hakodesh, it happened after that, so the Rambam provides the background and because the background is not just of historical, not just providing us with historical information, but hayos that the whole mitzvah of Ner Chanukah, Chazal say is pirsumei nisa, so in order to be m'kayem the mitzvah, a person has to know the background. Okay, fine. The Rambam describes the oppression, the persecution. So it's strange. The makor is not really clear either. But the Rambam says la'asok b'Torah. לא הניחו אותם לעסוק בתורה ובמצוות, so we know that they assered Talmud Torah, milah, Shabbos. That pashtu yadam bivnosayhem, so we know from the Gemara in the beginning of Kesuvos that they established a law that every woman getting married would first be violated, Rachmana litzlan. But the Rambam also mentions pashtu yadam b'mamonam. They hit us in the pocketbook. Again, eleh makor is not entirely clear and beyond that, I don't know, it seems a little bit out of place. of all the other life and death, be it spiritual, be it physical gezeros. Okay, so lefi peshuto, lefi peshuto obviously, obviously money is of no intrinsic significance. I think Rav Schechter likes to say that the reason money is muktza on Shabbos is because whatever is not a kli or an ochel is muktza, so money is muktza because it's junk. The same way junk is muktza, so money is also also muktza, margla befumei. And and of course that's true. Me'idach gisa, Chazal tell us ואת כל היקום אשר ברגליהם that a person's money, a person's assets, is what מעמיד אותו על רגליו. There's nothing spiritual about about money, it's not what life is about, it has no intrinsic inherent significance. Lema'aseh, rachmana litzlan, if a person doesn't have enough money, so that does have spiritual implications. The the the ones of poverty rachmana litzlan, the ones of debt rachmana litzlan, is something which which which does impact a person spiritually as well and that's why lefi peshuto the that to be in very dire financial straits is something which has spiritual implications. The same way the Rambam points out in Hilchos Teshuva that if a person doesn't enjoy good health, so he can't apply himself to Torah and chochmah, which is what life is about, so too if a person, nebach, rachmana litzlan, is consumed because of lack of adequate funds, so it's also something which is highly significant, even though obviously it's of no inherent significance, it has no no no no no intrinsic value or worth. The Rav used to comment that there's something conspicuously absent from the Rambam's narrative of the events of Chanukah is that the Rambam doesn't say anything about tefillah. He says lachatzom lachatz gadol, the oppression was severe, the oppression was great, and ultimately the Rambam seems to say when we're basically at the breaking point, so then Hakadosh Baruch Hu had rachmanus. Hakadosh Baruch Hu had rachmanus. It's an interesting contrast to the Rambam in, I probably mentioned this on occasion, I don't remember, the Rambam at the beginning of Sefer Hamada, so he has two listings of the taryag mitzvos. After the first listing, so then he has another listing of as to where they are al seder hahalachos. And for that second minyan hamitzvos, the Rambam has another little mini hakdama. And in that mini hakdama, so the Rambam says all of the taryag mitzvos that I just listed you'll find here discussed and presented and all their halachos in the Yad, and what's more you'll find the mitzvos derabbanan also. And then the Rambam has a little bit of a discussion as to how mitzvos derabbanan steer clear of the issurim of bal tosif and bal tigra. And the Rambam says that basically that Chazal in takanos derabbanan are also bound by bal tosif and bal tigra. The Rashba on ראש השנה ט"ז says that no, Chazal have a pass. Chazal that bal tosif and bal tigra doesn't apply to takanos Chazal. And the Rambam says no, Chazal are included in the issurim of bal tosif and bal tigra. He says why is, why are mitzvos derabbanan not bal tosif and bal tigra for the following reason. If someone, Chazal would come Rachmana Litzlan and they would have said

שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווהו במצווה זו להוסיף על מצוות התורה או לחסר אחת מאלה שש מאות ושלשה עשר מצוות,

that takke would be bal tosif or bal tigra.

אבל אם הוסיפו בית דין עם נביא שיהיה באותו הזמן מצווה דרך תקנה או דרך הוראה או דרך גזירה אין זו תוספת שהרי לא אמרו שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווה לעשות עירוב או לקרוא המגילה בעונתה ואילו כן היו מוסיפין על התורה אלא כך אנו אומרים שהנביאים ובית דין תיקנו וציוו לקרוא המגילה בעונתה כדי להזכיר שבחיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ותשועות שעשה לנו והיה קרוב לשווענו כדי לברכו ולהללו כדי להורות,

now listen to this next sentence very carefully rabosai,

וכדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלוהים קרובים אליו כה' אלוהינו בכל קראנו אליו.

So the yesod the Rambam says about mitzvos derabbanan in general is that A: Chazal, the Beis Din HaGadol that introduced each mitzvah had to clearly delineate this is a mitzvah derabbanan, this is not a mitzvah derabbanan, this isn't something Hakadosh Baruch Hu directly commanded in the Torah, no it's a mitzvah derabbanan. A, that's necessary in order that it shouldn't be bal tosif, but more than that is necessary. They also have to tell you what it is in the Torah that this derabbanan links up with, what it is in the Torah that this derabbanan is protecting, is facilitating, is fostering. A derabbanan A, it has to be clearly identified as such, and B, a derabbanan has to, Chazal have to explain what it is in the Torah again that they're protecting, they're facilitating, they're fostering. Because there's no such thing as adding to the Torah. So it can't be 'oh this would be a good mitzvah to have so we're saying it's takke only derabbanan'. No, it has to be, there's nothing to add to the Torah. Toras Hashem temimah. Ella mai, but Chazal are charged with protecting, fostering the Torah, so what is it in the Chumash that this is fostering. So the Rambam says and I'll give you a, I'll give you a for instance. And the for instance he gives is by Megilla. And one of the things the Rambam says, it's a different take on Megilla than we generally have, is that the de'oraisa belief, the de'oraisa hashkafa which the mitzvah derabbanan of krias ha'megilla is coming to reinforce is the belief in koach hatfila.

וכדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלוהים קרובים אליו כה' אלוהינו בכל קראנו אליו.

The belief and especially in particular of the koach of the tfila of the tzibbur, tfila of the tzibbur. So when you sort of juxtapose this, this Rambam here with the Rav's he'ara by the beginning of hilchos Chanukah, so it's something very fascinating. Agam, that we always notice that Chazal talk about krias ha'megilla as pirsumei nissa, מצוות קריאה פרסומי ניסא, and Chanukah is pirsumei nissa. But yet there's a very in terms of what it is that we're mifarsem, what it is that what the message of the nes is, but there's a fundamental difference. Because with regard to Purim, part of the message is the again, the belief in the efficacy of tfila b'miyuchad tfilas hatzibbur, כה' אלוהינו בכל קראנו אליו. The Gemara Rosh Hashana says that refers to the be'tzibbur. And by Chanukah, that's what the Rav points out, that the Rambam doesn't mention that tfila played any role in the yeshuah. Chanukah, the message of the... the pasuk in Malachi says that אני ה' לא שניתי ואתם בני ישראל לא כליתם. It's an extraordinary, extraordinary pasuk. The pasuk compares Hakadosh Baruch Hu's eternity and says that kavyachol just as I, Hashem, am unchanging, so my havtacha to you which assures nitzchus Yisrael is always going to be fulfilled and that Klal Yisrael exists looking towards the future eternally. And that seems to be again. So by Purim, part of the emphasis is koach hatfila. Koach hatfila. That's part of the when we're mefarsaim the nes of Purim, so the message that we're supposed to broadcast to ourselves, to others, is that the turning point in the nes comes about in response to

לך כנוס את כל היהודים וצומו עלי ואל תאכלו ואל תשתו שלשת ימים.

That that's the turning point in the course of events. And Chanukah there is no analogue to that. There is no analogue to the tfila. Chanukah on the contrary it's the lachatzam lachatz gadol when things are reaching the breaking point, so then it's אני ה' לא שניתי ואתם בני ישראל לא כליתם. Depending upon how you read it, the way the Rav understood it, so he used to compare it to something the Ramban has a comment here, right before Revi'i in parshas Shemos. The Ramban is a little bit of a cryptic lashon. Look at the Ramban right before Revi'i on the vayizkor,

וישמע אלהים את נאקתם ויזכר אלהים את בריתו את אברהם את יצחק ואת יעקב וירא אלהים את בני ישראל וידע אלהים.

I think the way the... you'll take a look at the lashon the Ramban, I think, I heard him metzaya the Ramban, I didn't hear him read the Ramban and explain how he elicited what he did from it, but I think the way that the Rav read this Ramban, I cannot vouch for this, is that the Ramban learned pshat in the psukim, וישמע אלהים את נאקתם is the naakasam was just a... or even the... was just a cry of pain. And Hakadosh Baruch Hu agam that it wasn't formulated or directed as tfila, Hakadosh Baruch Hu accepted it as such because they couldn't, they couldn't really hold out any longer even though they weren't reuyin lehigael. Anyway, al kol panim. So the Rambam... Okay, al kol panim, the Rambam does not have, Rambam does not have tefilla here in, in the story of Chanukah. The other thing which is, which is remarkable about the Rambam's presentation in halacha bet, if you read halacha bet, from, what, for halacha bet, end of halacha aleph, so the Rambam says that

והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתיים שנה עד החורבן השני.

So here too the Rebbe used to comment that the Rambam clearly disagreed with the famous Ramban in Parshas Vayechi. Right, the Ramban in Parshas Vayechi on לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחוקק מבין רגליו says that the Chashmonaim were chassidei elyon, but in taking melucha for themselves, so that they עברו על צוואת הזקן, that they violated what, what the Torah says and what Yaakov Avinu says and then the Torah endorses of לא יסור שבט מיהודה, that malchus is given to Shevet Yehuda, and the Ramban says he thinks that's why the Chashmonaim have no descendants. That's why Chazal tell us that the Chashmonaim were, were wiped out because they were chassidei elyon and they did an aveira so sevivav nis'ara me'od and, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu מדקדק עם צדיקים כחוט השערה. The Rambam clearly mentions it in the context though of the, of the attainments of the, of the Chashmonaim. He mentions it beneshima achas with

והושיעו ישראל מידם שגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתיים שנה.

The Rambam describes it in very, very positive terms. The shayla is, but what, what about the Ramban's taina? That is how is it, how, how can you depict it as something positive given the fact that לא יסור שבט מיהודה? Rambam writes in Hilchos Melachim Perek Aleph Halacha Tes,

מלכי בית דוד הם העומדים לעולם שנאמר כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם.

That it's only a melech from Beis David that, who can anticipate that his line will continue forever.

אבל אם יעמוד מלך משאר ישראל תפסק המלכות מביתו שהרי נאמר לירבעם אך לא כל הימים.

So itachen what the pshat in the Rambam is as follows: The gemara says in Nazir, Tosafos in Gittin highlight this gemara, that Chazal knew that Bayis Sheni was going to be chorev. Chazal had a kabbala, they knew Bayis Sheni was going to be chorev, they knew there was going to be another galus. Tosafos says that, that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Pruzbol even though Pruzbol requires that Shmitah, Shmitas kesafim only be mi'derabbanan, even though in Hillel's time, bizman haMikdash, בזמן מקדש בית שני, Shmitas kesafim was d'Oraisa, Tosafos says that because they knew that asid haBayis lecharov, and they quote a Gemara Nazir like that. They had such a kabbalah. Whether it was the, what the Ramban says, that the two tochachos in Bechukosai and Ki Savo, however the, the kabbalah was transmitted, Chazal knew. So yitachen that according to the Rambam, one only violates לא יסור שבט מיהודה if one is looking to establish a מלוכה שתהא לו ולבניו כל הימים. But if one knows, one concedes and one says that this is a temporary measure, so that doesn't violate לא יסור שבט מיהודה. לא יסור שבט מיהודה is to try to encroach upon the havtacha that it's kol hayamim, but as a temporary measure, so then. And the Chashmonaim again, how do we know that what the, what was in the Chashmonaim's head? Because we know that, that Chazal had this awareness that whatever they were doing bizman Bayis Sheini was, was temporary. Does it stand even if it's a machlokes Rambam and Ramban? About that? About whether the nevuah was... Gemara in Yirushalmi says... and nevuah was... no longer... it's not a tzivuy that לא יסור שבט מיהודה was a prophecy, but it's not a mitzvah. So according to Rambam you're not chayiv to keep it, the same way that Rambam says about Mitzrayim. What's it going to do with Gezeiras Orayta? Ramban says that because it was a nevuah, so once it's a nevuah, so if they would have been meskaven to keep that nevuah, so they would have been doing a mitzvah by mushabed Mitzrayim. And Rambam says, no, that's not true. Even if they would have been meskaven to do a mitzvah, they had no heter. The fact that it's a nevuah, that way doesn't change the person's, the individual's obligation. So the fact... The Rambam says that, that there's no question as to why the Mitzrim were punished, even though the Torah said it was going to happen, because it wasn't nigzar on any particular Mitzri to do it. And it's no different than if, the same way we could predict that in any community there's going to be rishayim and tzaddikim, so kaveyachol Hakadosh Baruch Hu can share similar information and that doesn't represent a gezeirah. And Ramban's hasagah, Ramban says why couldn't they be misayay that they're meskaven to keep the nevuah? The Ramban is masig because he says that you find by Nevuchadnezzar that, that he knows the nevuahs about him, and אף על פי כן he's punished. He says specifically by the Mitzrim, he says that couldn't why? He says if they were meskaven to do a mitzvah? Even though they didn't know? He then says, so then he says once you see by, once you see that even if the nevuah would be about a particular individual, so then he says it depends upon the kavana. And he says by Nevuchadnezzar and then the same thing by the Mitzrim, their kavana wasn't to, to implement the ratzon Hashem, but, but by Nevuchadnezzar was self-aggrandizement v'chulu, and the same thing that if it would have been l'kayeim ha'nevuah. But what's the shaychus? I mean, what's the connection? From the hasagah of the Ramban, you see that the Rambam says that even if they would have been meskaven to keep the nevuah as a mitzvah, that doesn't help, that's not a p'tur. Because a nevuah isn't a tzivuy. They don't have... they have no... they have no right to say, according to Rambam the Mitzrim had no right to say that they're, they're being mekayeim ratzon Hashem because of the nevuah. No, because the nevuah didn't say that Achmad has to go, has to go beat up or, or kill a Jew. But Ramban's hasagah, Ramban even if the nevuah had said that, they would have been... why? That's not the Rambam's point. The Rambam writes that it wasn't directed to individuals. It said that in general. They then say that. Then there's, there's something which is very, very conspicuous again, not so much what the Rambam says but what the Rambam doesn't say. In Halacha Bais, the Rambam says right

נכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור במקדש אלא פח אחד ולא היה להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים.

says נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. So then the Rambam edits out that phrase of nasah bo ness. Then in Halacha Gimmel he talks about the haaros of the galus, the ness, not that the Rambam didn't think it was a ness, no one thought it wasn't a ness, but for whatever reason shailah is why did he edit out in Halacha Beis? Again, if you have if you have the Gemara Shabbos, you take a look on in the v'lo matzu, v'lo hayah, how what's the lashon here in Shabbos? נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. And the Rambam edited out that phrase, at least in Halacha Beis. Only in Halacha Gimmel and then again in Perek Daled he talks about the ness. But when he's narrating what happens, he doesn't say nasah bo ness. One possible pshat I once heard someone suggest, there is a there is another pshat which is which is true but a little bit too involved for now. But one pshat I once heard suggested is the following. L'maiseh, again, so as the Braisah in Megillas Taanis says it was nasah bo ness. It it it was a miracle. But there was no bas kol at the time. There was no drumroll that said get ready guys, here comes here comes a miracle for the ages, right? There was no such bas kol, there was no such drumroll when when it happened. And and what the Rambam is telling us over here is that the Chachamim had the sensitivity to recognize the miracle for what it was. Mistama mistama maybe they maybe there even were if there were any Syrian Greeks still around or whatever, mistama there were people, mistama that there were there were skeptics who probably, again to speak anachronistically, probably had whole theories about why the rate of combustion, why there were atmospheric conditions for why the rate of combustion should have been slowed and why this quantity of shemen which looked like and and otherwise under ordinary circumstances would have only lasted one night, but again due to all the the change in atmospheric conditions. The point is in retrospect it's easy to know that it's a miracle, but beshaiso it requires a sensitivity even when it really is a a miracle. The again l'maiseh in the Rambam there is another another pshat that the Rambam has something more amuka in mind but but this is also a very important point. Mistama we see lots of miracles. I don't know whether necessarily miracles mamash on the on the same scale of והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים. But again since there's no drumroll and there's no bas kol so we takeh figure out how the combustion rate was slowed and and don't recognize them as such. And that's what the Rambam says, when it was happening, no one said that it was a ness. No, then Chazal looked at it and they recognized it as a ness. So the Braisah in Megillas Taanis is telling telling us objectively, and the Rambam is according to this approach, wants to make sure that we appreciate the sensitivity that was and is required to recognize a nes. L'mayseh, again, regardless of how you explain that omission of the Rambam in Halacha Bais, if you take a look in Daled Yud Bais for a minute. Mitzvas Ner Chanukah

מצוה חביבה היא עד מאוד וצריך אדם להזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה על הניסים שעשה לנו.

So the Rambam goes from the lashon yachid to lashon rabbim. He says that a person has to be nizaher on Mitzvas Ner Chanukah lehodi'a hanes and then that should then translate into ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה על הניסים שעשה לנו. So again, whatever the pshat is in Gimmel Bais, the Rambam does seem to be saying here in Daled Yud Bais that Mitzvas Ner Chanukah and the pirsumei nisa shebo is supposed to sensitize us to other nissim as well, not just to recognize and appreciate this nes, but to sensitize us to other nissim as well. Yitachen that that idea is reflected in the minhag Yisrael of singing Maoz Tzur. L'mayseh, if you look at Maoz Tzur, you could equally well sing it at the Purim seuda. You could sing it at the Seder but we're too busy with Chad Gadya, so there's not really much time. But if we'd be mikatzer Chad Gadya, skip a few of the steps, fast forward to עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא and you know, we'd have time for Maoz Tzur also. So vos epis that Maoz Tzur is Chanukah? It's as appropriate for Purim and for Pesach and bichlal, why is it appropriate on Chanukah? So yitachen that the minhag again of singing Maoz Tzur reflects this idea that the Mitzvah of Chanukah of pirsumei nisa, again, as we said before, recognizing nitzchiyus Yisrael, so then it's supposed to translate into ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה על הניסים שעשה לנו and that's why we takeh review not only the Nes Chanukah but the other nissim as well. I could just one last he'ara that we're glossing over lots of things here in the Halachos that we haven't commented on. But if you take a look here in Halacha Gimmel, Halacha Daled, so the Rambam a couple of times refers you back to invokes Krias Hamegillah.

ימים אלו הן הנקראים חנוכה והן אסורין בהספד ותענית כימי הפורים. הדלקת נרות בהן מצוה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה. כל שחייב בקריאת המגילה חייב בהדלקת נר חנוכה.

So again and again. He's not always, what would be missing if he would have said הדלקת נרות בהן מצוה מדברי סופרים and he hadn't said keKrias Hamegillah? What would be? I don't know whether כל שחייב בקריאת המגילה חייב בהדלקת נר חנוכה, you have to count the words, count the syllables, is he really saving anything as opposed to telling you who's chayav in Ner Chanukah? So the Rebbe used to say that what the Rambam has in mind here is that when Chazal were mesaken hadlakas Ner Chanukah, so they were relying on the precedent, again, at that point, it's after the cessation of nevuah, right? So there are no nevi'im. Chanukah is after that. They're relying on the precedent of the mitzvah d'rabbonon of Krias Hamegillah. And that's why the Rambam is constantly equating and comparing because Chazal relied on on that precedent and that's how the Rav used to explain that the Rambam puts hilchos megillah before hilchos chanukah. So in Shulchan Aruch you have hilchos chanukah before hilchos megillah because the Mechaber has things according to the sort of a pragmatic order. He has things according to the calendar. So it begins with hilchos Pesach. So then if you begin talking about Yom Tov from hilchos Pesach, so you're gonna get to Chanukah before you get to Purim. So in Shulchan Aruch hilchos chanukah is before hilchos Purim and megillah. And the Rambam has a conceptual arrangement and conceptually, not just historically, but conceptually, megillah is before chanukah because Chazal looked to that precedent.