Hey good morning Rabosai, I apologize for the delay. Maybe we'll just spend a couple of minutes a little bit to maintain the Kevias in Avos with just one addendum to what we discussed last week and then אם ירצה השם בלי נדר a little bit in Inyanei Chanukah. So I think if I'm recalling correctly last week we tried to understand how both in the Mishnah of שיהי כבוד חברך כמורא רבך as well as in the Rambam's inclusion of Mora Rabo in the mitzvah of Kevod Talmidei Chachamim that you see that by Rabo kavod and mora are really one continuum and then that mora is a more intensive form of kavod. And then that spawns the question, so how can it be that by kibbud av va'em the Rambam does count them as two different mitzvos? If it's bakol d'mai shemanu, if mora is just a more intensive form of kavod, so then it shouldn't be nitan to be counted as two mitzvos. So we suggested that there was a difference between the definition of kavod and mora by abba v'imma as opposed to kavod u'mora by Rabo reflecting the difference in mechayev. Right? So then is that correct, that's what we spoke about last week. Yeah is that correct Rabosai, we talked about that already right? Yeah okay. So I just wanted to add one again just one footnote to that basically. If you look in Sefer HaMitzvos in mitzvos if you have a Sefer HaMitzvos take a look Rabosai in Reish Yud and Reish Yud Alef. So HaMitzvah HaReish Yud again this is the Rambam here in Sefer HaMitzvos and HaMitzvah HaReish Yud היא שצונו לכבד אב ואם והוא אמרו יתעלה כבד את אביך ואת אמך וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו במקומות מן התלמוד ורובו ועיקרו בקידושין.
Then the Rambam says ולשון ספרי איזהו כבוד מאכיל ומשקה מלביש ומכסה מכניס ומוציא.
Right? That range of forms of service of assistance of kol kavod. Okay. המצוה הרי''א היא שצונו לירא מאב ואם והוא שיתנהג עמהם כמנהג מי שהוא ירא ממנו שיענישהו כמו המלך וילך עמהם כדרך שילך עם מי שיפחד ממנו ויירא מהגיע לו ממנו מה שימאס והוא אמרו יתעלה איש אמו ואביו תיראו. ולשון ספרי איזהו מורא לא יושב במקומו ולא מדבר במקומו ולא סותר דבריו וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו במסכת קידושין גם כן.
So what's very I'm just I don't know if you're able to hear me I don't know if the connection is if the connection is is is adequate. We hear. You hear? Okay, thank you. So l'chora there's something k'midumeh I think there's something which is unusual in both those mitzvos seemingly in Reish Yud and Reish Yud Alef which is again Sefer HaMitzvos the Rambam Sefer HaMitzvos is intended as a list of the mitzvos. It's not intended as a comprehensive discussion of the halachos of the mitzvah. It's a list of the mitzvos. Why does the Rambam quote both in Reish and Reish Yud Alef basically the detail Once you define the original line שצונו לכבד אב ואם, that's the definition of the mitzvah. And in reish yud-aleph, lichora, those are the details of the mitzvah. Those are the dinim and the halakhos. That belongs, as the Rambam does present it, in Hilchos Mamrim when he presents the halakhos of kibbud av va-eim. But here the pshat is like this, rabbosai. The Rambam says you're wondering, in reish-tes I just counted kibbud and mora within a single mitzvah. In reish-tes I just told you that kibbud is the ikkar and that mora really just represents a tosefes kibbud. So now you're wondering how can I, mamesh, in the next two mitzvos, now turn around and count kibbud and mora by av va-eim individually? So the answer is because the kibbud that we're talking about legabbai av va-eim and the mora that we're talking about legabbai av va-eim is not the kibbud and mora that we're talking about by rabbo. And that's why the Rambam emphasizes מאכיל ומשקה מוציא ומכניס, that's the ikkar din, the ikkar din of kibbud av va-eim. So the Rambam says, right, but when he talks about in reish-tes, when he's talking about kvod talmidei chachamim, so he says that kvod talmidei chachamim entails kima, that we have to stand up in the presence of a talmid chacham. Now that's equally true, me-ikkar ha-din, you know, that's equally true by av va-eim. It's equally true. I'm going to turn my video off and see if that will improve the audio. Is the audio any better now? It's hard to know immediately. You'd have to see after a few minutes probably. Okay, so I'm also going to excuse me, I'm going to try one other thing. Excuse me one second. The Rambam in reish-tes mentions that kvod talmidei chachamim entails kima. Now, the emes is that kibbud av va-eim, kvod av va-eim also entails kima, also entails standing up in the presence of one's parents. The Rambam in perek vav of Hilchos Mamrim at the end of halakha gimmel. So kima is part of כיבוד אב ואם the same way it's part of Kvod Talmidei Chachamim. So why is it that the Rambam mentions in Sefer Ha-Mitzvos kima by Rabbo, but he doesn't mention, he does not mention kima by av ve-immo? And be-chlal, why is he telling us any of the pratim of what כיבוד אב ואם entails? Those are dinim, those are halachos, that's not for Sefer Ha-Mitzvos. So the answer l'chora is that according to what we discussed, it's Kaftor Va-Ferach. In Kuf Tes the Rambam groups Kavod and Mora on one continuum. Kavod and Mora as one continuum, so the kavod is exemplified by kima. The kima is not something that's also be-chlal kavod, it exemplifies what the kavod is. On the heels of that, so Reish Yud and Reish Yud Aleph would have been very confusing for us because how can you divide Kavod and Mora by av ve-immo into two mitzvos if it's really one continuum? So it just should be בכל מאי דמנה. Kavod should be subsumed in Mora which represents tosafos Kavod. Ella mai says the Rambam, no, understand that what Kavod and Mora mean by av ve-immo is different than what it means by Rabbo. Kavod by av ve-immo, yes, does it include kima? Yes. Is it exemplified by kima? No. It's exemplified by machal, by mashkeh, machnas u-motzi. So therefore by mentioning those dinim and be-davka not mentioning the din of kima. And similarly he also tells us what Mora entails so that we'll understand that in contradistinction to Rabbo legabei av ve-immo Kavod and Mora are two distinct things, they're not part of one continuum. And that's why they're takeh two different mitzvos. Okay, that was the he'arah that I just wanted to add in terms of what we're learning in Os. So maybe we'll switch gears a little bit, chaper-ayn a little bit inyanei Chanukah. So the Rambam begins, you have, okay, so I'm going to try calling in Rabosai. Hello, is it audible? We hear you very loudly. Okay good, thank you. Okay. So if you take a look in the very beginning, so the Rambam on הלכות מגילה וחנוכה, so the Rambam says יש בכולן שתי מצוות עשה midivrei soferim ואינם מן המניין. Okay, they're not min ha-minyan because as the Rambam explains ba-arichus in Sefer Ha-Mitzvos, then the minyan taryag only includes mitzvos d'oraisa, it does not include mitzvos d'rabbanan. Good, that's good. Shaila is what does the Rambam mean that yesh be-chulan? What is it, how did the Rambam do the math and get shtei mitzvos? Again, this is for all of הלכות מגילה וחנוכה. So in Megillah you have krias ha-megillah, you have shalach manos, you have matanos l'evyonim, you have seudas Purim, so that's four. By Chanukah you have ner Chanukah and you also have a chiyuv Hallel on Chanukah. So l'chora it should have been six. How did the Rambam reduce the six to two? So that's the shaila. And okay, and so do we know, do we know which of that list of six the Rambam has in mind when he said two? So we have some inkling because in Megillah Aleph Aleph the Rambam writes קריאת המגילה בזמנה מצוות עשה מדברי סופרים. So we just accounted for one of the two. And if you take a look in Perek Gimmel of Hilchos Chanukah Halacha Gimmel Rabosai, if you have a Rambam take a look at Gimmel Gimmel in Hilchos Chanukah. ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחילתם מליל חמישה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהם הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות וימים אלו הן הנקראין חנוכה והן אסורין בהספד ותענית כימי הפורים והדלקת הנרות בהם מצוה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה.
So clearly the two mitzvos that the Rambam means are Krias HaMegillah and Chanukah leaving, I guess this is an appropriate metaphor for today, leaving the Shaloch Manos, Matanos L'evyonim, Seudas Purim out in the cold as well as as well as as well as Hallel seemingly. And the emes is this halacha just minei u'vei Gimmel Gimmel is just so cryptic. On the one hand the Rambam says that takkana is you're supposed to say Hallel and light ner Chanukah and then he turns around and says and ner Chanukah is מצוה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה. So what exactly is Hallel? You know the Rambam not only does he not count it but sort of toch k'dei dibbur of mentioning it he then turns around and says that we don't I don't know then doesn't sort of doesn't acknowledge it in the count. So that that's the that's the question. Again is it still audible Rabosai? Still still clear? Yes. Yes. Okay okay thank you. Okay let's leave this question aside for a moment and and go to Gimmel Yud excuse me Dalet Yud-Beis in Hilchos Chanukah Rabosai. פרק ד הלכה יב. Mitzvas ner Chanukah says the Rambam מצוה חביבה היא עד מאד וצריך אדם להיזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה אפילו אין לו מה יאכל אלא מן הצדקה שואל או מוכר כסותו ולוקח שמן ונרות ומדליק.
So to just I guess the overview of the halacha is this that that the mitzva of ner Chanukah is a mitzva of pirsumei nisa, l'hodeia hanes. Right? That the Gemara tells us in in multiple places that the mitzva of ner Chanukah is l'hodeia hanes. The Gemara in Shabbos Chaf-Gimmel Amud-Beis when the Gemara asks what if Rachmana litzlan a person is so poor that he can either buy wine for Kiddush or he can buy a little bit of oil to light ner Chanukah so should he buy the wine for Kiddush because תדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם or should he buy the shemen for ner Chanukah because of pirsumei nisa? And the Gemara says yeah he should buy the shemen for ner Chanukah because of pirsumei nisa. The Gemara in Chaf-Dalet says that we that we include Al HaNissim in Birchas HaMazon, not only in Tefilla but in Birchas HaMazon as well mishum pirsumei nisa. The Gemara in Berachos also mentions that in the beginning of the second Perek that Chanukah is pirsumei nisa. Okay good. So so and then as the Maggid Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh explain the Rambam then extrapolates as follows. This din that the Rambam presents that that an ani Rachmana litzlan an ani would have to be שואל או מוכר כסותו in order to be mekayem the mitzva. So it doesn't say that in the Gemara. There is no such Gemara. The Maggid Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh explain but what there is is this Gemara in Pesachim in in the last perek about daled kosos commenting on the Mishna that אפילו עני שבישראל לא יפחתו לו מארבע כוסות של יין.
Even an ani who receives from the food bank from the Tamchui Rachmana litzlan. So even he at the expense of taking tzedaka has to have daled kosos. Says the Gemara why is that? Mishum pirsumei nisa. So say the Maggid Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh so the Rambam extrapolates from there that that in the context of of daled kosos, the Gemara tells us that pirsumei nisa, if necessary, a person takes tzedaka. So the Rambam extrapolates, well Chanukah is also pirsumei nisa, same din. Okay, fine. Now, let's get a little bit into some of the pratim of the halacha here. Let's reread. מצות נר חנוכה מצוה חביבה היא עד מאד וצריך אדם להזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס.
Okay, that again, that that's what we said that Ner Chanukah is pirsumei nisa, ולהוסיף בשבחה קל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה. Okay, the fact that the Rambam is talking about hodaah, not just pirsumei nisa, but he's talking about hodaah as well. Where does that come from? So if you take a look in the Gemara in Shabbos on כ"ה עמוד ב', a few lines before, I think it's a few lines before they branch out, so the Gemara famously quotes the baraita from Megillas Taanis, Mai Chanukah? And it tells the story of Chanukah, that that is sort of a nidon bifnei atzmo, the way the baraita presents the story of Ner Chanukah is itself something to comment on a different time beli neder im yirtzeh Hashem. But then the baraita says, לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודיה. That subsequently Chazal instituted the Yom Tov of Chanukah, עשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודיה. So Rashi says, Hallel, again, Hallel is kipshuto that we say Hallel on Chanukah, and hodaah, Rashi says that you say Al HaNissim. Okay, that's what it says in Rashi. Rav Soloveitchik used to comment as follows: that if you look in the Rambam in Hilchos Chanukah, so the Rambam doesn't, does not mention Al HaNissim in Hilchos Chanukah. The only place where you find Al HaNissim in the Rambam is in Hilchos Tefillah, when the Rambam, I think it's perek beis in Hilchos Tefillah, when the Rambam talks about the adjustments or the differences in tefillah for Shabbos, Yom Tov, Rosh Chodesh, so in that context, he also tells us that on Chanukah and Purim you say Al HaNissim. So he doesn't even allude to Al HaNissim in Hilchos Chanukah. He does have it in Hilchos Tefillah. Says the Rav: Because you see klar that the Rambam disagrees with Rashi. The Rambam didn't understand the takkanah that עשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודיה that the hodaah refers to Al HaNissim, because if there's a special takkanah, if the very takkanah of Chanukah specifies that you say Al HaNissim, so then that belongs in Hilchos Chanukah. But if the takkanah of Chanukah established a Yom Tov of Chanukah, then there is a halacha the Gemara in the sixth perek of Brachos has. The Gemara quotes the pasuk ברוך ה' יום יום. And the Gemara says, וכי ביום מברכין ובלילה אין מברכין? אלא בכל יום ויום תן לו מעין ברכותיו.
The tefillah should reflect the character of the day. If today is Shabbos, it should be reflected in our tefillah. If today is Yom Tov, it should be reflected in our tefillah. If today is Rosh Chodesh, it should be reflected in our tefillah. And once Chazal introduced a Yom Tov of Chanukah, if today is Chanukah, it should be reflected in our tefillah. So it's not the pshat that the takkanah of Chanukah says that there's a hiyuv of Al HaNissim. No, the takkanah of Chanukah establishes a Yom Tov of Chanukah. Once there's a Yom Tov of Chanukah, this general din of אלא בכל יום ויום תן לו מעין ברכותיו says that we should say Al HaNissim. Fine. But then what does it mean when the baraita in Megillas Taanis says, excuse me, when the baraita in Megillas Taanis says that עשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודיה, so what does hodaah refer to? So says the Rav, hodaah, according to the Rambam, refers to Ner Chanukah. That the Ner Chanukah is a non-verbal instrument of hodaah. A non-verbal instrument of hodaah, right? It's possible to communicate non-verbally as well. Let's say when, ich veiss, when people... hang a flag on Memorial Day or July 4th, Independence Day, and they hang an American flag outside their homes, so they're non-verbally communicating, right? They're non-verbally expressing patriotism. So Ner Chanukah is a non-verbal form of hoda'ah. And that's what the Rav pointed to this Rambam, to our Rambam in ד, י"ב והודייה, that the Ner Chanukah is an instrument of hoda'ah. Okay, good. Very good. Again, but let's look at this Rambam one more time, here in dalet yud bais, or at least part of it. מצות נר חנוכה מצוה חביבה היא עד מאד וצריך אדם להזהר בה.
Again, is the audio is good, Rabosai? Very clear. Okay, thank you. מצות נר חנוכה מצוה חביבה היא עד מאד וצריך אדם להזהר בה
kedei lehodi'a hanes ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודייה לו על הנסים שעשה. So the Rambam shifts. Initially, he says Ner Chanukah is lehodi'a hanes in the singular, but then he continues and says it's ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודייה לו על הנסים in the plural. So what's that about? I mean, if nissim would mean, ich veis, not only the menorah but the battlefield, so he should have said it the first time also. So what's that shift from the singular to the plural? That's the question. So l'chora the p'shat is as follows. If you have a Rambam, if you have the first volume of the Rambam, again, this is a passage which we've looked at in another context, if you go to the Hakdamas HaRambam to the Yad HaChazaka, after he lists the taryag mitzvos, so after he finishes the shas lo sa'aseis, so the Rambam says these are all the d'oraisas. In addition to d'oraisas, there are also mitzvos d'rabanan, and mitzvos d'rabanan, even though they don't appear in this list of taryag, were also chayavim lekabla ulshomram שנאמר לא תסור מן הדבר שיגידו לך ימין ושמאל, and d'rabanans do not violate bal tosef. And then the Rambam explains why it is or how it is that d'rabanans, which seemingly are a tosefes, I don't know, the Torah didn't say to read the Megillah, the Torah didn't say to fast on Tisha B'Av, the Torah didn't say to light a Ner Chanukah, and now we have such a mitzvah to fast on Tisha B'Av, to light a Ner Chanukah, to read the Megillah. So why isn't that a tosefes? So the Rambam explains as follows. אם הוסיפו בית דין עם נביא שיהיה באותו הזמן מצוה דרך תקנה או דרך הוראה או דרך גזירה אין זאת תוספת שהרי לא אמרו שהקדוש ברוך הוא צוה לעשות עירוב או לקרוא המגילה בעונתה ואלו אמרו כן היו מוסיפין על התורה אלא כך אנו אומרים שהנביאים ובית דין תקנו וצוו לקרוא המגילה בעונתה כדי להזכיר שבחיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ותשועה שעשה לנו והיה קרוב לשוענו כדי לברכו ולהללו וכדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו כה' אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו.
So the Rambam gives us a test case. He illustrates how d'rabanans steer clear of bal tosef. And basically the Rambam clearly is stipulating two conditions. Condition number one is that Chazal clearly identify the d'rabanan as such. They clearly identify this is not a mitzvah d'oraisa, this is a d'rabanan. If someone asks us, why can't you eat basar of b'cholov, why can't you eat chicken meat cooked with milk, the answer is not that the Torah forbids it, the answer is that Chazal forbid it. The Torah does not forbid it, the Torah only forbids basar behema b'cholov and Chazal היו גוזר אטו בשר בהמה, היו גוזר בשר עוף. So first of all every d'rabanan is clearly identified and delineated as such. But that's not enough, right? It's clear from the Rambam's arichus. The because that isn't enough. The Rambam is ma'arich to explain that additionally every de'rabanan must link up to something in the Torah. There must be something in the Torah, a mitzvah in the Torah, a core value, a core belief, a core principle. There must be something in the Torah which the mitzvah de'rabanan is protecting, facilitating, fostering, reinforcing. There's no such thing as an independent de'rabanan. Every de'rabanan, as it were, is meshubad to some de'oraisa. Every de'rabanan is coming to facilitate, to foster, to protect, to reinforce some de'oraisadika inyan. And that's what the Rambam illustrates. Again, the Rambam illustrates this for us by mikra megilla and basically tells us v'idach zil g'mor. He illustrates it with mikra megilla, saying mikra megilla is kedei levorech u'lehallel. That by reading the megilla, it should promote bracha and hallel, or it itself is bracha and hallel. Obviously, which are de'oraisadika activities that a person should engage in. And it reinforces belief in what the Torah tells us of the power of t'filla b'tzibbur, כה' אלקינו בכל קראנו אליו. Okay, now let's ask the question. Again, the Rambam left it for us, right? Idach zil g'mor. But let's ask the question, so what's the analog to this by mitzvas ner Chanukah? What de'oraisa—again, so mitzvas ner Chanukah is condition number one, is that Chazal clearly delineated this is a mitzvah de'rabanan, it's not a mitzvah de'oraisa. We're not coming and saying we had a nevuah and Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to introduce Chanukah. No, this is a mitzvah de'rabanan which the Torah authorizes Chazal to introduce as such. But what de'oraisa is the de'rabanan of Chanukah fostering? What inyan de'oraisa is the de'rabanan of ner Chanukah facilitating? The p'shat is, that's what our Rambam in daled yud beis is answering. Our Rambam in daled yud beis is answering exactly that question. What did we say? Again, re-reading again: וצריך אדם להזהר בה, a person has to be nizaher in ner Chanukah kedei l'hodia hanes. That's what ner Chanukah is. Now, ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה. Again, no de'rabanan can be self-contained because no de'rabanan can be independent. Every de'rabanan has to be, again, a bridge to something in the Torah. Because the only justification for a de'rabanan, the only way a de'rabanan isn't bal tosif, is if it's not independent and it's bedavka there to foster, to facilitate, to protect, to promote something in the Torah. So what is it that ner Chanukah is looking to accomplish? What inyanim de'oraisa are being advanced by ner Chanukah? Oh, says the Rambam, the mitzvah of ner Chanukah is pirsumei nisa. Okay, but so now I want to know, what is it in what Torah beliefs, what inyanim de'oraisa is ner Chanukah, is the pirsumei nisa of ner Chanukah designed to foster and to promote? להוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה לנו. That we should recognize the providential, miraculous, providential and appreciate and give praise to Hakadosh Baruch Hu for the providential miraculous course of Jewish history. And that's why the mitzvah of ner Chanukah is l'hodia hanes. The mitzvah of mikra megilla is to read the megilla. Now, but what's the de'oraisa, what are the inyanim de'oraisa which are being fostered by the ner Chanukah, by the mikra megilla? That's להוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה לנו. That the ner Chanukah is intended—the ner Chanukah is intended not simply that we should recognize the nes of Chanukah. The ner Chanukah is intended that we should recognize nissim in general, that we should recognize again the miraculous providential nature and course of Jewish history. Now so that explains the shift from the lashon yachid to the lashon rabim here in perek daled. Let's revisit, let's return to our original question. Why is the Rambam counting one mitzvah for Chanukah and one mitzvah for Purim? So lechora the answer is as follows. In Sefer HaMitzvot in the shorashim when the Rambam talks about when you count something as one mitzvah which which may have chalakim which may have different components and when you count something as multiple mitzvot, so the Rambam says it's not as simple as whether or not the chalakim are מעכב זה את זה. It's not as simple as saying well by lulav the daled minim are מעכב זה את זה so it's one mitzvah. And by tefillin they אינן מעכב זה את זה so they're two mitzvot, it's not as simple as that the Rambam says. Why? Because Chazal darshan vehaya lachem letzitzit that vehaya lachem is lashon yachid that lavan and techelet even though they're not מעכב זה את זה are still only one mitzvah. So the Rambam says so it's more subtle than that. So what is the determining factor as to why a lavan and techelet one mitzvah and not two mitzvot? If they're not מעכב זה את זה, so in what so what binds them into one mitzvah? If they're מעכב זה את זה you understand what binds them into one mitzvah. A lulav without an etrog is not a mitzvah, an etrog without a lulav is not a mitzvah. So I understand how they're they're they're bound together to be one mitzvah. But I can have lavan without techelet, maybe I can have techelet without lavan, I can certainly have lavan without without techelet. How how are they one mitzvah? So the Rambam says because really what determines whether it's one mitzvah or two mitzvot is whether or not the Torah identifies an overarching encompassing kiyum of the various elements. So by tzitzit the Torah says והיה לכם לציצית וראיתם אתו וזכרתם. That the kiyum of tzitzit which is accomplished הן על ידי לבן, הן על ידי תכלת is ure'item oto uzechartem. Similarly by the daled minim the Torah says that the kiyum is that with these minim ושמחתם לפני ה' אלהיכם. So the Rambam says that something is one mitzvah when there's an overarching and therefore combining or binding kiyum of the different chalakim, of the different elements. Even if they're אינן מעכב זה את זה it's still one mitzvah. Ma she'ein ken if they're אינן מעכב זה את זה and there's no overarching kiyum, so then it's it's going to be separate mitzvot. Now kafta de-mifrach. We wanted to know when we we took out our fingers and we counted the mitzvot in Hilchot Megillah ve-Chanukah we got six. The Rambam, I don't want to claim that the Rambam used his fingers for counting just because I do, so the Rambam without using his fingers, the Rambam came to the Rambam got to two. So how did how did the Rambam's math, how did he get to two when we got to six? So the teretz is like this. Let's ask the same question that the Rambam in Minyan HaMitzvot instructs us to ask by every de-rabbanan. What's the de-oraita, what's the inyan de-oraita that's being promoted, that's being fostered, that's being facilitated? So let's say on Purim. So the Rambam asks and answers the question legabei kriyat Megillah. Let's ask the question about mishloach manot, matanot la-evyonim, seudat Purim. So what's the answer? Obviously the same as the answer is for mikra Megillah. It's also levarech, le-hallel, le-hodia to dorot habaim שבאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו כה' אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו.
Let again, we we recognize that the Rambam in daled yud bet is answering the question legabei ner Chanukah. What the inyan de-oraita is by ner Chanukah. Now let's ask the question what about Hallel on Chanukah? What inyan de-oraita is the de-rabbanan of Hallel on Chanukah intended to foster, intended to... To promote. So klar, klar, it's not that there's two different themes and that Ner Chanukah is promoting one theme, fostering one Inyan d'Oraisa and Hallel a different. No, it's clear that we're doing it's the same overarching Kiyum through different methods. It's the same Ur'isem Oso Uzchartem through different methods, Lavan and Techeiles. It's the same ושמחתם לפני ה' אלקיכם through Dalet Minim. It's the same Emes vashepichtanu ba'Torah through Mikra Megilla, Shalach Manos, Matanos l'Evyonim, Seudas Purim. It's the same להוסיף בשבח והלל והודיה לו על הניסים שעשה, Hein through Ner Chanukah, Hein through Hallel. So mimaila, that's what the Rambam says, there's two Mitzvos m'Divrei Sofrim in Chanukah and Megilla. Okay, it's a little late, so we'll stop here. Okay, everyone should continue to enjoy a Lichtige Chanukah, everybody. Have a good productive day, everyone should be well, be safe. Kol Tuv.