 |
|
|
| | Mitzvat Hanukkah (I)
[As we did last year, we will "take a break" from analyzing the weekly Parashah, preferring to investigate some of the Halakhic nuances of Ner Hanukkah and some of the implications of this Mitzvah. This week we will review and analyze the central Sugya in Massechet Shabbat which details the hierarchy of levels of performance of the Mitzvah. Next week's issue will be devoted to a wonderful "depth-analysis" of this Sugya by Rav Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook zt"l.]
I
MITZVAT NER HANUKKAH:
THE BARAITA
As is commonly known, the entire discussion relating to the Rabbinic formulation of the commemoration of the Hasmonean victory over the Hellenists and Seleucids in 165-163 BCE is found in BT Shabbat 21-24. (Why Hanukkah claims no Massechet for itself is an intriguing topic - but beyond the scope of discussion here.) Amid the Halakhic discussion of proper and improper wicks and fuels for Shabbat candles, the parallel investigation relating to fit materials for Hanukkah candles is introduced. This topic opens the door for the full analysis of Hilkhot Hanukkah, including how many lights to kindle, where and when they are lit, who is obligated etc., covering all relevant Halakhic parameters.
Near the beginning of that discussion, we are presented with a Baraita which teaches that there are multiple levels of fulfilling the Mitzvah of Ner Hanukkah:
Our Rabbis taught: The Mitzvah of Hanukkah is:
1) one *Ner* for a man and his household;
2) the *M'hadrin* (zealous - those who wish to beautify and enhance the Mitzvah) [kindle] a light for each member [of the household];
3) and the *M'hadrin min haM'hadrin*:
a) Beit Shammai maintain: On the first day eight lights are lit and thereafter they are gradually reduced;
b) but Beit Hillel say: On the first day one is lit and thereafter they are progressively increased.
(BT Shabbat 21b)
The simplest way of understanding this sugya is the way it was outlined above: There is a basic, bare-bones way of fulfilling this Mitzvah; there is a more enhanced way of performing it, identified with the practice of the *M'hadrin* - and there is the finest, most beautiful style, that associated with the M'hadrin min haM'hadrin. In other words, if someone chooses to fulfill the Mitzvah of Ner Hanukkah in the finest way possible, he will build on to the basic Mitzvah of one candle per household per night, by placing a candle for each member of the household and by increasing this number of candles each night (as in Beit Hillel's scheme), until the final night will be illuminated by 8 candles times the amount of the people in the house, as Rambam rules (MT Hanukkah 4:1-2)
In last year's shiur, we analyzed the two basic approaches to understanding the practice of the Mehadrin min haMehadrin - those generally associated with Rambam (as above) and the Ba'alei haTosafot (who maintain that regardless of how many members of the household are being included in the Mitzvah, only one candle is lit the first night, two on the second etc. Essentially, they reject the hierarchical structure of Mehadrin - Mehadrin min haMehadrin, preferring to see the two as alternatives to the basic Mitzvah). Interested readers are referred to that shiur.
This year, I would like to look into the "bare facts" of the sugya itself and raise several questions. In order to present these questions, we need to see the Gemara's assessment of the Baraita's last clause (the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel):
'Ulla said: In the West [Eretz Yisra'el] two Amoraim, R. Yossi b. Avin and R. Yossi b. Z'vida, differ therein:
One maintains: The reason of Beit Shammai is that it shall correspond to the days still to come, and that of Beit Hillel is that it shall correspond to the days that are gone;
The other maintains: Beit Shammai's reason is that it shall correspond to *Parei haHag* (the bullocks of the Festival. The Torah, in Bamidbar 29, commands us to bring a sequence of offerings on Sukkot wherein the number of bulls offered each day grows increasingly smaller, such that on the first day 13 are brought, on the second 12, etc. and on the seventh day, 7 are brought. We will revisit this further on.); whilst Beit Hillel's reason is *Ma'alin baKodesh v'ein Moridin* (we promote in [matters of] sanctity but do not reduce).
[note that Ulla is unsure as to which Amora authored which approach; this is likely due to their sharing the first name "Yossi", thus generating some confusion as to authorship.]
Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: There were two old men in Sidon: one did as Beit Shammai and the other as Beit Hillel: the former gave the reason of his action that it should correspond to *Parei haHag*, while the latter stated his reason because *Ma'alin baKodesh...*
II
THE QUESTIONS
A: NER ISH UVEITO
When we look at this Baraita, we are immediately struck by an anomaly in the presentation of the Mitzvah:
Ner Ish uVeito - One Ner per household.
Most of the Mitzvot by which we are obligated devolve upon the individual - be it T'fillin, Lulav, Birkat haMazon - or Lashon haRa, Basar b'Halav etc. [There are, of course, both individuals and classes which are exempt from these - some are exempt as a matter of principle and others as a matter of circumstance.]
Of those which don't directly obligate the individual, the rest generally fall upon the community (e.g. the establishment of a Beit-Din, K'riat haTorah [according to some Poskim] some aspects of Tzedakah) or on the nation as a whole - such as appointing a King, fighting certain wars and building the Beit HaMikdash (along with the many communal offerings brought there).
We don't, as a rule, have Mitzvot which are "family" commandments. Our first question, then:
1) Why is the "basic" Mitzvah of Ner Hanukkah formulated just that way: Ner Ish uVeito?
B: MEHADRIN
The second "level" of performance is attributed to those who wish to beautify the Mitzvah - known as "Mehadrin". We are familiar with the notion of Hiddur Mitzvah as a general rule which encourages us to enhance objects used for Mitzvot (Hefza shel Mitzvah). This principle is first expressed in the Midrash on the verse: Zeh E-li v'Anveihu (Sh'mot 15:3):
Zeh E-li v'Anveihu (literally "I will make a dwelling place for Him; here interpreted - homiletically - as) "I will adorn Him" - [i.e.,] adorn thyself before Him in [the fulfillment of] precepts. [Thus:] make a beautiful Sukkah in His honour, a beautiful Lulav, a beautiful Shofar, beautiful Tzitzit, and a beautiful Sefer Torah, and write it with fine ink, a fine reed [-pen], and a skilled penman, and wrap it about with beautiful silks. (BT Shabbat 133b)
Note that this Midrash does not delineate how one should beautify the Mitzvah - the specifics of what constitutes a more beautiful Sukkah, Lulav, Sefer Torah etc. are pretty much left up to the individual's aesthetic sense.
Regarding the performance of Hiddur Mitzvah, the Gemara clearly rules that there is a financial limit to spending for such an ideal:
R. Zera said on behalf of R. Huna: For [the performance of] a Mitzvah one should go up to a third. A third of what? You could hardly suggest 'a third of one's possessions,' for if so when one chanced to have three Mitzvot [to perform at one and the same time] would one have to give up the whole of one's possessions? - R. Zera therefore said: For [performing a Mitzvah in] an exemplary manner (Hiddur Mitzvah) one should go up to a third of [the ordinary expense involved in] the observance thereof. (BT Bava Kama 9)
We now have two further questions on this passage:
2) Why is the "Hiddur Mitzvah" of Ner Hanukkah specified and detailed with the exactitude we normally associate with the demands of the Halakhah - unlike other Mitzvot where the "Hiddur" is left unspecified? (The Baraita could have just noted that there are those who have the custom of beautifying this Mitzvah - without specifying how it is done.)
3) Why does the Halakhah ignore the "one-third spending cap" on Hiddur Mitzvah here? Even if there is only one other member of the household, the "Mehadrin" immediately increase their spending for this Mitzvah by 100%? (This is especially egregious in light of the first opinion of the Shulhan Arukh [OC 656:1] which limits the obligation to spend anything extra to a narrow class of cases).
C: MEHADRIN MIN HAMEHADRIN
1. The premise:
The ultimate level of performance brings us to a dispute between those two great 1st century schools - Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Before analyzing their dispute, it is prudent to note the point of departure - they agree that the ideal method of performing this Mitzvah is to alter the number of candles lit in a fashion which follows a consistent sequence. They only disagree about the "direction" of that sequence - should it ascend or descend?
Right away, we have identified a fourth difficulty here:
4) Why is the ideal form of Nerot Hanukkah one of changing (ascending or descending) the number of candles lit, following a consistent sequence for all 8 days?
2. Beit Shammai v. Beit Hillel
In assessing the merits of each side of this dispute - before looking at the various explanation presented by the Gemara (in other words, on the terms of the Baraita as it stands), Beit Hillel's position seems so much more reasonable that it would be difficult to understand Beit Shammai's approach. This is, of course, a debatable point, since one could argue that eighteen centuries of codified practice make Beit Hillel's position so normative that the "odd" practice advocated by Beit Shammai seems just that. Nonetheless, I believe that an a priori argument against Beit Shammai's formula could be marshaled within the context of the Baraita itself:
Since the point of departure for Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai is Hiddur Mitzvah (and identifying the most intense expression of that ideal), a "diminishing" Mitzvah seems to be out-of-place. To wit, I could understand suggesting that the basic obligation of a Mitzvah should be in diminishing form - that may be recommended by the conceptual foundations of the Mitzvah in question. To suggest, however, that the Mitzvah is beautified by its dissipation is counter-intuitive and hard to fathom.
To add to the difficulty of Beit Shammai's position, note that the previous clause, which advocated the basic Hiddur (an oxymoron), suggested that it is accomplished specifically with more candles - one per person as opposed to one per house. Beit Shammai's "diminishing lights" can hardly be seen as the next step in the Hiddur of this Mitzvah.
We will not present this as an independent question, as the various explanations given by the Gemara serve to assuage these concerns - but note the concerns, nonetheless.
3. The two explanations
Once we move "beyond the Baraita", to the explanation of the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, we find a few more difficulties.
The first approach, which posits Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as disputing which type of publicity we want to express (how many days to go or how many days have passed) seems reasonable; it places Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai on common ground, with a slight variation in approach. Both schools agree that the most beautiful expression of the Mitzvah includes some form of external information which publicizes the extent of the miracle. The only point of contention is whether the length of the holiday is best publicized by notifying how many days have passed or how many days are left.
The second approach, however, is difficult to understand. The unusual [descending] order of Parei haHag (the bulls offered on Sukkot) doesn't seem to share much with the principle of Ma'alin baKodesh (we ascend in matters of sanctity). In other words, unlike the first explanation of the dispute, these two models don’t begin from a common principle or area of law. There seems to be no common ground between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel - which is odd, as noted above, considering that they share much common ground on the basic mechanics of Mehadrin min haMehadrin.
Our next question is, therefore:
5) What is the rationale behind the second Amoraic opinion about this dispute?
4. The two elders
The final point made in the Gemara seems somewhat superfluous and unnecessary. Once we have presented two approaches to the dispute, what is added by noting that two elders in Sidon - operating before Beit Hillel's opinion was determined to be normative - provided explanations for their behavior which jibed with the second approach? After all, the difference in approaches does nothing to determine the practical Halakhah - and once we have learned of the two possible approaches to understanding the dispute, this confirmation is pretty useless. If the elders in Sidon practiced according to Beit Hillel, that would be a report that carried practical significance - but merely restating the second approach doesn't enhance our appreciation of the original dispute one whit…or does it?
Our final question is:
6) What new information, if any, is provided by the report of the two Sidonese elders? | |
|
| Mikra, Copyright © 2011 by Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom and Torah.org. The author is Educational Coordinator of the Jewish Studies Institute of the Yeshiva of Los Angeles. |
Questions or comments? Email feedback@torah.org.
Join the Jewish Learning Revolution! Torah.org: The Judaism Site brings this and a host of other classes to you every week. Visit http://torah.org or email learn@torah.org to get your own free copy of this mailing.
Permission is granted to redistribute, but please give proper attribution and copyright to the author and Torah.org. Both the author and Torah.org reserve certain rights. Emailcopyrights@torah.org for full information.
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment