Chanukah Musings

Day 1 of Chanukah, 5771

Jewish Practice History

Where to Light the Chanukah The Shape of the Menorah
Candles
by Rabbi Ari Enkin The exact shape of the menorah that was used in
the Temple is, to a degree, a matter of debate. In
Although not too widely practiced today, the particular, the shape of the branches of the
Talmud[1] clearly states that in order to properly menorah was a matter about which the
fulfill the mitzvah of the Chanukah lighting, the rishonim disagreed. R. Avraham Ibn Ezra, in his
menorah must be lit on the outside of one’s long commentary to Shemos 25:32, writes that
home. This is due to the requirement that the the branches were half circles. Rashi, ad loc.,
menorah must be lit in a location where it will writes that the branches were diagonal, but that
best publicize and expose the miracle of statement is, in my opinion, inconclusive because
Chanukah to as many people as possible.[2] It he could have been implying a diagonal curve
was only as a dispensation for those who lived in rather than a straight line. However, R. Avraham
the upper floors of residential complexes that Ben HaRambam writes in his commentary to that
merely lighting at a window was deemed verse that the branches were straight and not
acceptable. curved.

Nevertheless, historically Jews have often lived in The archaeological evidence has strongly
countries where there was rampant anti- supported the Ibn Ezra’s position, as Prof. Daniel
Semitism which made lighting outdoors Sperber has demonstrated in volume 5 of
extremely dangerous.[3] Indeed, the Talmud his Minhagei Yisrael. See also some of the images
at the bottom of this article. A good discussion of
continued on page 2 the archaeological issues by R. Dr. Seth Mandel
can be found here.
Miscellaneous
Are You a Hellenist? The Rambam’s position has been somewhat
controversial. In the 19th century a drawing that
It is Chanukah time again and Jews who have he personally made of the menorah was
imbibed even a bit of modern culture need to ask discovered in manuscripts of his Commentary to
themselves the hard question: Am I a the Mishnah and that drawing, which has since
contemporary Hellenist? been published in the Kafach edition of
continued on page 8
After all, the Hellenists spoke Greek, dressed like
Greeks, enjoyed Greek sports and partook of
Greek culture. Are Jews today who do any of that Chanukah Musings from the archives of the
with American culture “Hellenists” in whole or in Hirhurim-Musings blog, which is devoted to
part? Is someone who speaks English and/or
dresses like an American and/or goes to baseball Jewish law, thought, history and community.
games and/or enjoys literature ignoring the main [Link]
theme of the Chanukah holiday?
Unless otherwise noted, articles are written by
For that matter, how did the Rambam reconcile Rabbi Gil Student.
his great respect for Greek philosophers and his
adoption of many Greek philosophical All articles are copyright of the author.
continued on page 12
 Chanukah Musings
Jewish Practice

Jewish Practice There is also the constant worry for one’s

Where to Light the Chanukah menorah lest it be stolen[9] or vandalized.[10]
This is especially true for those who have
Candles (cont’d from page 1) menoras that are made of gold or silver and are
quite costly.
itself instructs us that in a time and place of
persecution the menorah should be lit discretely An additional legitimization for moving the
in the safety of one’s home.[4] It was thus lighting indoors both in our day as well as in
dependant on the safety and security of one’s yesteryear is the reality of the cold winter weather
individual community as to whether the menorah that is a feature of the Chanukah season.[11]
was to be lit outdoors, indoors, hidden from view, Between the winds, rains, and the snow, lighting
or as a compromise - in a window facing the main outdoors could be quite tricky. Some even
thoroughfare where passersby will be able to see suggest that the discomfort of standing outside in
one’s menorah. the cold to light the menorah is enough to
warrant the move indoors.[12]
Today most Jews in western countries enjoy a
relatively safe environment where religious Therefore, in addition to the later ratification of
freedom is assured. It is thanks to such an lighting the menorah indoors which was
environment that we find menoras prominently originally due to government persecution, we
displayed in residential windows as well as the have seen some additional considerations which
public square of such countries, thereby fulfilling seem to have led to the justification of this
the mitzvah of publicizing Chanukah in its most practice in our day as well. It is also appropriate
meticulous manner.[5] to point out that there exists a legitimate basis for
the custom that when lighting the menorah
In our day and age, when most Jews live in indoors, one is to light it at the entrance to one’s
societies where lighting outdoors would not pose home opposite the mezuzah.[13] According to
any security threat or the like, why is it that the this view, there is no requirement whatsoever
custom has still not reverted back to the way it that the indoor lighting be visible to passersby
was originally intended? It seems that there is no outside.
excuse for not lighting outdoors anymore.
Nevertheless, there are a number of justifications A Chassidic[14] interpretation to the still
cited in order to validate the continued practice of prevalent practice of lighting the menorah
lighting the menorah indoors, as we will see. indoors teaches that the lights of the Chanukah
are representative of the “light” of Torah. In
There exists a concept within Talmudic law[6] ancient times lighting outdoors was more
that once an amendment is made in the appropriate when the influence of Torah was
performance of a mitzvah due to extenuating clearly felt in the world. In our generation
circumstances, the changes are to continue even however, where the influence and prestige of
when the original motive for doing so is no longer Torah has unfortunately decreased, the indoor
relevant.[7] For example, the blowing of the lighting represents our hope that at least the lives
shofar on Rosh Hashanah was originally intended of the members of our household will be inspired
to take place during the earlier Shacharit service to follow the light of the Torah.
as opposed to the later Mussaf service as is the
case today.[8] At one time however, much of the In conclusion, it is strongly recommended that
Jewish world lived under an oppressive non- those who live in single family homes and would
Jewish government that used the early morning be able to fulfill the mitzvah in the manner it was
blowing of the shofar as a pretext to murder Jews originally intended by lighting outdoors should
claiming that it was actually a call to war. In definitely consider doing so.[15] Those who
response, the shofar blowing was deferred to the continue to light their menorah indoors due to
Mussaf service where it would be obvious that the the considerations raised above are certainly
shofar was merely a component of the elaborate entitled to do so as well.[16]
religious services of the holiday.
[1] Shabbat 21b
[2] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 139:7, Mishna Berura

[Link]
2
 Chanukah Musings
Jewish Practice

671:20, Kaf Hachaim 671:37 of yehareg ve-al ya’avor and they may not
[3] Rivash 111 cited in Meorot Natan 14 choose martyrdom.
[4] Shabbat 21b, O.C. 671:5
[5] Igrot Moshe 4:125 Click here to read comments
[6] Tosfot, Rosh Hashanah 32b
[7] Minchat Yitzchak 6:66, Piskei Teshuvot
671:3n. But see Tosfot, Beitza 30a
[8] Rosh Hashanah 32b Al Ha-Nissim
[9] Darkei Moshe 671:9, cited in Piskei Teshuvot
671:3, Bach O.C. 671, see also Gittin 16b by Rabbi Ari Enkin
[10] Kol Bo 44
[11] Aruch Hashulchan 671:24 Whenever one has eaten a meal on Chanukah (or
[12] Ritva Hachadasha cited in Minchat Asher Purim), there is a special prayer, known as ”al ha-
1:58 nissim,” which is inserted in the Birkat Hamazon
[13] Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 671:7; Rama, Aruch in honor of the holiday. In contrast, however, no
Hashulchan 671:27 mention of Chanukah or Purim is made when one
recites the “al ha-michya” blessing which follows
Click here to read comments a snack of mezonot foods, such as cake, cookies,
and sufganiyot.[1] Indeed, on all other holidays
which include a special insertion in the Birkat
Ha-Mazon in honor of the day, a similar insertion
Waging War on Shabbos of some sort is included in the “al ha-michya” as
well. There seems to be an inconsistency here.[2]
The book of Maccabees ([Link]-41) tells the story
of how the Hasmoneans originally refused to A number of answers to this contradiction have
wage war on Shabbos and were slaughtered. After been offered. It is explained that the ”al ha-
that, Matisyahu ruled that they must fight back nissim” is a prayer of thanksgiving, and as such, it
on Shabbos. This account is repeated by Josephus is inserted in the Shemoneh Esrei alongside the
(Antiquities 12:276). Prof. Louis Feldman (Jew “modim” which is a blessing of thanksgiving in its
& Gentile in the Ancient World, pp. 160-161) own right. Similarly, in the Birkat Ha-Mazon, “al
lists other ancient attestations to this refusal to ha-nissim” is inserted in the second section,
fight on Shabbos, such as Strabo ([Link]) which includes a list of a number of gifts from
and Dio Cassius (37:16). The question is why they God which we are thankful for. However, the “al
refused. Isn’t it piku’ach nefesh? ha-michya” blessing does not include a
component or section which is dedicated
R. Shlomo Goren (Meshiv Milchamah 1:2) specifically to thanksgiving. As such, the ”al ha-
addresses this question. He suggests that the nissim” is a prayer which essentially not
Greeks knew how important Shabbos was to Jews compatible with the content or purpose of “al ha-
and wished to force them to fight on that day. michya” and is therefore not included with it.[3]
Thus, there was a shmad-gezerah specifically to
fight on Shabbos and, therefore, the Nevertheless this explanation is weak on several
Hasmonean beis din ruled that it is yehareg ve-al accounts. For example, one who forgot to
ya’avor – when gentiles try to force us to violate a insert ”al ha-nissim” in the appropriate place in
law we must choose martyrdom over violating it. the Birkat Ha-Mazon can still make up his error
In this case, they tried to force us to fight on by reciting it in the concluding “ha-rachaman”
Shabbos and the Hasmoneans chose martyrdom section of the Birkat Ha-Mazon.[4] This is seems
over violating Shabbos. to prove that ”al ha-nissim” is not dependent on a
specific section of any prayer. So too, there is
If that’s the case, then why did the beis some mention of thanksgiving in the “al ha-
din subsequently rule that they may fight back? michya,” albeit on a lesser scale than the Birkat
When the Greeks continued this strategy and it Ha-Mazon, which can allow for some sort of “al
became a threat to the continuity of the Jewish ha-nissim” to be recited at that time.
people, the Hasmonean beis din ruled that the
continuity of the Jewish people overrides the law It may just be that there is no solid explanation

[Link]
3
 Chanukah Musings
Jewish Practice

for the exclusion of ”al ha-nissim” (or some other II. Our Fathers
reference to Chanukah and Purim) in the “al ha-
michya.” It is noted that one who unintentionally The Torah portion of Ki Seitzei discusses the
omitted the ”al ha-nissim” in either the mitzvah of bikkurim, bringing the first fruits
Shemoneh Esrei or the Birkat Ha-Mazon is never grown in Israel to the Temple in Jerusalem. The
required to repeat the prayer.[5] This seems to ceremony includes the farmer’s recitation of
convey a sense that the status of the ”al ha- the bikkurimformula found in Deut. 26:3,5-10
nissim” is on a much lower lever than the other which includes phrases such as “the land which
seasonal additions as one is required to repeat the the Lord swore to our fathers to give us” and “the
Shemoneh Esrei should one have omitted them. first fruit of the land which You, Lord, has given
It is interesting to note that there exists an me.” The specific language of this formula
opinion among several halachic authorities that implicitly excludes those who cannot honestly say
Chanukah and Purim should indeed be it. Therefore, for example, women, servants,
mentioned in the “al ha-michya,” though the messengers and administrators bring bikkurim
halacha is not like this view. [6] but do not recite the formula because they do not
own the land on which the fruits grow.
[1] Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 208:12
[2] Levush O.C. 208:12 Similarly, the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:4) tells us, a
[3] Levush O.C. 208:12 convert does not recite the formula because he
[4] Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 187 cannot say that God swore to his fathers to give us
[5] Aruch Hashulchan , O.C. 208:7 the land. After all, the convert’s ancestors are not
[6] Kaf Hachaim 682:3 the biblical patriarchs. The Mishnah also applies
this limitation to prayer, such as when we pray to
Click here to read comments “the God of our fathers” — a convert must say
“the God of their fathers” or, when leading
services, “the God of your fathers.” This,
Converts and Al Ha-Nissim the Chinukh (no. 606) tells us, teaches us the
importance of being exceedingly honest in every
I. Blending In word we say. Nevertheless, it seems to be a case
where a convert must remain conspicuous
Newcomers to a tightknit, homogeneous group because of the technicalities of his genealogy.
often want nothing more than to fit in but this
desire isn’t always possible to fulfill. Some of III. Avraham, Father of the Converts
these newcomers glory in their unique
backgrounds but many ba’alei teshuvah (newly The Rambam (Commentary to the Mishnah, ad
observant) and converts wish to blend into the loc.; Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Bikkurim 3:4),
existing community. This desire to assimilate however, rules against this Mishnah. He follows
entirely into the community is sometimes the view of Rabbi Yehudah, quoted in the Talmud
frustrated by unique social situations, limited Yerushalmi (Bikkurim 1:4), that a convert is able
language skills, lack of necessary knowledge or recite the formula because Avraham is considered
visible physical differences. It is a reality with the father of all those who accept Judaism. I have
which many newcomers deal, some more heard this position of the Rambam presented as a
successfully than others. Not everyone is capable radical revision of the law but it is not. The
of mastering the Hebrew language or learning the Talmud Yerushalmi quotes two prominent
complex religious and social rules of the authorities who ruled like Rabbi Yehudah —
Orthodox Jewish community. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi and Rabbi Abbahu —
with no mention of any dissenting
I’d like to discuss a potential halakhic barrier to contemporaries. The Gemara (Makkos 19a)
complete entry, a technical matter that could seems to disagree but, as Ritva (ad loc.) explains,
theoretically make a convert stick out. The can easily be interpreted in a way consistent with
resolution of this issue, if I understand it the Talmud Yerushalmi. Nor is the Rambam the
properly, is surprising in its scope and only Medieval authority to reach this conclusion.
remarkable in its breadth. While Rashi (Deut. 26:11) and Rabbenu Tam
(Tosafos, Bava Basra 81a sv. li-mutei) rule like

[Link]
4
 Chanukah Musings
Jewish Practice

the Mishnah, that a convert may not recite this that Avraham is the father of all converts is not
formula, Ri — Rabbenu Tam’s nephew and meant literally. From a genealogical perspective,
disciple, and Rambam’s contemporary — clearly non-semitic converts are most likely not
disagreed (Tosafos, ibid.). He also followed the descended from him. This is, rather, a symbolic
conclusion of the Talmud Yerushalmi and ruled statement that all converts are full members of
like Rabbi Yehudah that a convert’s father is the Jewish community and can refer to Jewish
Avraham and therefore he need not deviate from history as their own. We are one people; our
the standard formula and prayers. fathers are theirs and our past is theirs. When a
person converts and joins the Jewish community,
These two authorities, the Ri in France and the he gains full rights to an established family and a
Rambam in Egypt, both of whom left a profound glorious history.
impact in Jewish law through their writings and
teachings, influenced subsequent authorities so It matters little, therefore, whether the patriarchs
that the standard ruling for eight centuries has are a convert’s literal ancestors or not, or whether
been that a convert need not change the wording the convert owns an ancestral portion in the Land
of his prayers (cf. Shulchan Arukh, Orach of Israel. Our ancestors and our land are his.
Chaim 53:9, Yoreh De’ah 217:9). Unlike a woman, messenger, etc., a convert need
not worry about the technicalities of the formula.
IV. Two Questions Therefore, the Rambam easily extends R.
Yehudah’s lenient ruling to other blessings based
There are still two outstanding questions. The on this logic and did not worry about scriptural
first is grappled with by commentators (e.g. exegesis.
Tosefos Yom Tov and Seder La-Mishnah on
Bikkurim 3:4): Even if converts refer to Avraham A hint to this can be seen in the Rambam’s words
as their father, what about the phrase that in his Commentary to the Mishnah, where he
prevents women, messengers, etc. from reciting writes that the rabbis (R. Yehudah and those who
the bikkurim formula? How can a convert say followed his lead) ruled leniently and attached
that the fruits come from his land when he does (samkhu) that ruling to the idea of Avraham
not have an inherited portion in the Land of being the father of all converts. The conceptual
Israel? This is no small challenge. basis for this permission is separate from,
connected only tenuously to, the verse regarding
The second is about other blessings. Some the spiritual ancestry. A difficulty, though, is the
common blessings refer to events that occured Rambam’s ruling (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos
long after the patriarchs. Can a convert recite the Ma’aser Sheni11:17) that a convert cannot recite
blessing “that He performed miracles for our the confession associated with bringing ma’aser
fathers” on Purim and Chanukah or must he sheni (second tithe) to the Temple. Why doesn’t
change the language? The talmudic conclusion R. Yehudah’s permissive ruling apply to this as
regarding the patriarchs does not seem to affect well? I do not know but it seems from the
those blessings. Rambam’s letter that this is the exception and R.
Yehudah’s permission is the general rule.
In a letter to Ovadiah the convert (Iggeros Ha-
Rambam, Shilat edition, vol. 1 p. 233ff.), the The standard practice today is that converts do
Rambam tells his correspondent that he may use not alter any blessings. They even recite the
the standard prayers that refer to “the God of our blessing “Who has not made me a gentile”
fathers.” The Rambam further writes that, if he (cf. Piskei Teshuvos 46:11). Despite the apparent
wants, Ovadiah may also recite without change technical differences between a born Jew’s
the standard blessing “that He performed background and that of a convert, we are all part
miracles for our fathers.” Why? The Rambam of the Jewish people, joining together to share the
does not explain. same communal future, present, and past.

V. The Convert and the Community Click here to read comments

I’d like to suggest that our first question above

answers our second. R. Yehudah’s explanation

[Link]
5
 Chanukah Musings
Jewish Practice

Public Menorah Lightings whatsoever.[6] It seems, therefore, that it is

difficult to justify the worldwide Chabad public
by Rabbi Ari Enkin menorah campaigns, at least from mainstream
halachic sources.
The phenomenon of public Chanukah menorah
lighting ceremonies is a well known feature of Nevertheless, there may be grounds to permit or
Chabad-Lubavitch outreach activities. However, justify these public menorah lightings (along with
it is not completely clear that holding such the recitation of the accompanying blessings)
ceremonies, which include the recitation of the based on other considerations. There are some
blessings over the menorah, are halachically precedents within halachic literature which had
sanctioned. It appears from normative halachic allowed for study groups which gathered nightly
texts that it is not permitted to light the during Chanukah to light the menorah along with
Chanukah menorah, at least not with the the accompanying blessings.[7] It is also noted
accompanying blessings, in any place besides the that the original establishment of the menorah
home and in the synagogue.[1] Indeed, it has lighting at home was that it take place outdoors –
been noted that while the Lubavitcher Rebbe a practice which is uncommon in most of the
certainly encouraged public Chanukah menorah world today. As such, it can be suggested that
lightings, he actually never discussed whether or these public menorah lightings are warranted as
not the accompanying blessings should be recited they recall the original enactment of the sages
as well. which was that the menorah be lit outdoors.[8]
The case for these public menorah lighting
Even the practice of lighting the menorah in the ceremonies is further strengthened if the event
synagogue each night, along with the includes mincha and/or maariv prayers as
accompanying blessings, is not mentioned well.[9]
anywhere in the Talmud or early halachic codes.
Indeed, there are a number of halachic
authorities who actually oppose the entire [1] Rema O.C. 671:7
institution of the synagogue menorah lighting [2] Shibolei Haleket 185, Tanya Rabati 35
and insist that if it must be done then the [3] Maharam Shik Y.D. 374, Mishnat Sachir O.C.
accompanying blessings should not be recited.[2] 2:202
Even in more recent times there were a number [4] Beit Yosef O.C. 671, Meiri, Shabbat 23a, Shut
of great rabbis, including the Chatam Sofer, who Rivash 111
would decline the appointment of lighting the [5] Beit Yosef O.C. 671, Orchot Chaim, Chanukah
menorah in the synagogue for this reason.[3] 17, Kol Bo 44
Nevertheless, this approach was never accepted [6] Tzitz Eliezer 15:30, Minchat Yitzchak 6:65,
as normative halacha and the menorah continues Shevet Halevi 4:65, Az Nidberu 6:75
to be lit in all synagogues each night of Chanukah [7] Mishne Sachir 2:202
along with its accompanying blessings. [8] Az Nidberu 6:75
[9] Mishna Berura 671:69, Kaf Hachaim 671:65,
The motivation and justification for a menorah Torat Hamoadim p. 312 note 97
lighting ceremony in the synagogue was that it
was seen as an opportunity to contribute Click here to read comments
to pirsumei nisa – the requirement to publicize
the miracles of Chanukah.[4] There is also a view
that the menorah lighting in the synagogue is Happy Holiday
performed in order that it serve to discharge the
mitzvah for those who would otherwise not light a
menorah themselves.[5] While the practice of I. The Issue
lighting the menorah in the synagogue, complete
with the accompanying blessings has prevailed, a It is common in Israel for many people to greet
number of authorities are quick to assert that the each other on Purim and Chanukah (and Israel
dispensation to recite the blessings in the Independence Day) with “Chag Samei’ach”
synagogue does not extend to any other venue (Happy Holiday). There is a reason to oppose this

[Link]
6
 Chanukah Musings
Jewish Practice

practice, based on a halakhah regarding Shemini “chag” doesn’t mean that any day can be called
Atzeres. I’ll try to explain the reason for the one; it is, after all, still a full-fledged holiday.
objection and why I think it doesn’t apply.
III. The Counterargument
II. The Objection
Despite all this, I don’t think that this objection is
The Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chaim 668:1) writes convincing. The Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh Deah
that in the prayers we refer to Shemini Atzeres as 220:20) rules, based on a Yerushalmi, that
“Yom Shemini Chag Ha-Atzeres.” The Rema someone who vows not to have wine on “chag” is
writes that the Ashkenazic practice is different, to not allowed to drink it even on Shemini Atzeres.
say “Yom Shemini Atzeres Ha-Chag.” The reason The Taz (ad loc. 15) writes that this is not relevant
he gives for this is that the other way implies that to our discussion of Shemini Atzeres because
Shemini Atzeres is a “chag” in the technical sense vows follow colloquial language (leshon benei
of having a chagigah sacrifice, which is not adam). Even if Shemini Atzeres is not technically
correct. Therefore, rather than call the day a considered a “chag,” if people regularly call it one
“chag,” we should refer to it as the end (atzeres) then in a vow it is considered a “chag.” The
of Sukkos, which is a “chag.” (The Vilna Gaon language of prayer, however, is different and
[Ma’aseh Rav, no. 268] follows the vast majority cannot follow colloquial usage.
of medieval authorities who support the first
version and not the Rema’s.) In addition to the obvious, what we see from
this Taz is that there is no objection to calling
However, the Pri Megadim (ad loc., Mishbetzos Shemini Atzeres a “chag” even if it is not
Zahav 1) disagrees with the Rema and says that technically one, as long as you don’t do it in
both ways can be understood as implying that prayer (the Taz certainly disagrees with the
Shemini Atzeres is the end of Sukkos, which is a Bekhor Shor quoted above). If so, there should
“chag.” And, indeed, the Maharil explicitly adopts also be no objection to calling Chanukah (and
the Shulchan Arukh’s way of saying it but other days) a “chag,” by saying “chag samei’ach,”
explains it as the Pri Megadim does. However, if that is the colloquial usage. Like with vows and
the Pri Megadim adds that we should keep the Shemini Atzeres, it should not matter whether or
phrase “Shemini Atzeres” connected and not a chagigah sacrifice is brought on that day. It
uninterrupted, like it is in the Torah. (He also is all a matter of common usage.
says that we should say “Atzeres” and not “Ha-
Atzeres,” but I have never seen a prayerbook that Click here to read comments
has it that way.)

According to the Rema and Pri Megadim (and How to Eat a Jelly Donut
many others), we have to be careful to not refer to
Shemini Atzeres as a “chag” because it lacks
Eating a jelly donut on Chanukah is an enjoyable,
a chagigah sacrifice. If that is the case, then we
if unhealthy, custom. But there may be halakhic
should also make sure not to call Chanukah (and
limitations on how you can eat it. I’ve had
other days) a “chag” because it also doesn’t have
occasion to eat with colleagues at kosher delis
a chagigah sacrifice. Hence, the objection to the
and they invariably comment about the way I eat
greeting “chag samei’ach” on days that are not
a pickle. I have a method for doing it. As I eat, I
technically chag.
cut narrow horizontal slices, using my fork to
hold the pickle in place and my knife to slice it.
The Bekhor Shor (Sukkah 46b) and Birkei Yosef
Someone inevitably comments about my using a
(Orach Chaim 668:1) bring many proofs that the
fork and knife, always connecting it to an episode
Talmud understood Shemini Atzeres as being
of Seinfeld in which people eat a Snickers bar
considered a “chag” despite its not having
with a fork and knife (link - “I am eating my
a chagigah sacrifice. If they are correct, then the
dessert. How do you eat it, with your hands?”).
Rema’s objection falls away (although the Pri
Megadim’s remains). However, this does not
There is actually a halakhic basis to why I use a
necessarily mean that the greeting is appropriate.
fork and knife in general, although I have to say
Just because the Torah called Shemini Atzeres a

[Link]
7
 Chanukah Musings
History

that I really do it because I like the taste of a thin and the only proof – that the Rambam’s position
slice of pickle. The post-Talmudic tractate of was that the branches of the menorah were
Masekhes Derekh Eretz Zuta (4:5) states that you straight.
should not hold a large (egg-sized) piece of food
in your hand and eat from it, because it is bad Who really cares?
manners and unpleasant for others to witness.
This is quoted in the Shulchan Arukh (Orach In more recent times, the Lubavitcher Rebbe z”l
Chaim 170:7). Based on this, the Eliyahu emphatically stated (correctly, in my opinion)
Rabbah writes that you should use utensils to cut that, according to the Rambam, the branches of
pieces rather than using your hands. the menorah were straight. He said this on a
number of occasions and it was printed in
The question then arises what to do with food Likkutei Sichos, vol. 21 pp. 168, 169, 170 & 171.
that is normally eaten by hand or in big pieces. The Lubavitcher Rebbe further directed his
Since people will not be offended, can you eat it followers to try to change the image of the
with your hands and/or hold big pieces in your menorah as visualized by the public. Given the
hand while you eat? This is relevant to Lubavitch mindset, this not only concludes the
sandwiches, falafel, pizza, pickles and many other debate but creates an imperative to publicize
foods, such as jelly donuts. The Piskei their view. Which is what made the following find
Teshuvos quotes the Responsa Or Le-Tziyon both interesting and frustrating. Keep in mind
([Link]) as ruling leniently (contrary to George that I agree that the Rambam’s view is that the
Costanza). However, he also quotes R. Ya’akov branches of the menorah were straight.
Yisrael Fischer who rules strictly, that you must
not hold a large piece of food in your hands (he Regarding the shape of the branches of the
doesn’t discuss using utensils). menorah in the Temple, the Rambam writes
in Hilkhos Beis Ha-Bechirah [Link]
It seems to me, based on over three decades of
pizza store patronage and Chanukah jelly donut ‫ושלשה כפתורים אחרים היו בקנה המנורה שמהן‬
eating, that the common practice is to be lenient. ‫יוצאים ששת הקנים‬
Where certain foods are eaten with large pieces in
your hands, you may do so – for those foods.
In his translation of the Mishneh Torah, R.
Eliyahu Touger, a Lubavitcher chassid, renders
Click here to read comments
this passage as follows:

“Six [diagonal] branches extended from three

other bulbs in the [central] shaft of the Menorah.”

Diagonal? Where does the Rambam mention

History diagonal? But wait, R. Touger adds the following
The Shape of the Menorah in his comments:
(cont’d from page 1)
“The Rambam implies that the branches of the
Rambam’s commentary, portrays a menorah with Menorah extended diagonally from its central
straight branches. However, this is inconclusive shaft.”
because the drawing is clearly just a rough
example of how the various pieces of the menorah No, the Rambam implies nothing of the sort. This
– the bulbs, cups and flowers – are supposed to is nothing more than inserting Lubavitch
be placed, i.e. how many on the branches, how propaganda into the words of the Rambam,
many on the central stem, etc. The lines and where it does not belong.
circles are so exact that they were certainly drawn
with a ruler and compass. So it is no surprise that Click here to read comments
the Rambam drew the branches straight for the
sake of his illustration because that served his
purposes. However, it seems to me that the
Rambam’s son’s testimony is sufficient proof –
[Link]
8
 Chanukah Musings
History

The Hasmonean Menorah Hasmoneans took iron spits, covered them in tin,
and used them as a menorah. When they were
able to afford a fancier menorah, they made one
It is common knowledge that when the
out of silver. Eventually, they were able to replace
Hasmoneans (Maccabees) reconquered and
that silver menorah with one made of gold.
entered the Temple, they could not easily locate
Tosefos Rid explain that the tin looked like wood,
oil. What is not as well known is that they could
which is why R. Yossi ben R. Yehudah called the
not find a menorah at all and had to build a new
menorah wooden, but it was really made of iron
one. I believe that the details of this menorah
and plated with tin.
imply a very specific shape for at least that
menorah, regardless of a dispute among
I find it interesting that the Gemara states not
rishonim regarding how the menorah looked.
just that the menorah was made with tin-plated
iron, but that the iron was spits (shefudin). To
There is a debate in the Gemara (Menachos 28b)
me, this seems to imply that the branches of the
regarding an earlier disagreement between Rebbe
menorah were straight rather than rounded.
(Yehudah Ha-Nasi) and R. Yossi ben R. Yehudah.
There is a general debate about the shape of the
According to one view, Rebbe holds that the
ideal menorah in the Temple. However, it seems
menorah in the Temple must be made of gold or
to me that all would agree that the Hasmonean
silver but other metals are invalid, and R. Yossi
make-shift menorah, which is really what
ben R. Yehudah holds that the menorah may be
Chanukah is all about, had straight branches.
made of any metal but not wood, metal or glass.
The other position holds that Rebbe is of the view
Whether there is an obligation for our menorahs
that the menorah can be made of any metal and
to look like the Hasmonean menorah is a separate
R. Yossi ben R. Yehudah is of the view that the
issue. For example, R. Hershel Schachter likes to
menorah can be made of any material except for
tell the story of how one of his students once
clay. Thus, according to the first view, R. Yossi
misunderstood a lecture he had given and then,
ben R. Yehudah holds that the menorah cannot
when he saw R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik light
be made of wood and according to the second
Chanukah candles directly on aluminum foil
view he holds that it can.
without any menorah, told him that R. Schachter
holds one cannot fulfill his obligation that way. R.
A proof is brought for the second view. One is not
Soloveitchik begged to differ, and contended that
allowed to make life-size imitations of the Temple
one does not need any menorah whatsoever so
structures and utensils, such as a replica of the
long as one has proper candles (his reported
altar or of the menorah. However, one is allowed
response was, “Tell Schachter that he’s crazy”).
to make replicas that are different from the real
However, what the Hasmonean menorah looked
version in a significant way. For example, one
like, I believe, can be inferred from this passage.
may make a menorah with 6 or 8 branches but
not one with 7 branches like the menorah in the
Click here to read comments
Temple. A menorah with 7 branches is not
allowed to be made of any metal, and not just
gold. R. Yossi ben R. Yehudah adds that one may
not even make a menorah with 7 branches out of
wood, like the Hasmoneans did. Yochanan the High Priest
This implies that, according to R. Yossi ben R. We say in the “Al Ha-Nissim” addition to prayers
Yehudah, the menorah in the Temple may be that the lead player in the Chanukah story was
made out of wood, since that is precisely what the Matisyahu ben Yochanan the High Priest. The
Hasmoneans did. It seems that when they question is whether this Yochanan, Matisyahu’s
entered the Temple, there was no menorah there father, was the famous Yochanan the High Priest
so they had to make a new one. or not. It is not entirely clear whether the term
High Priest is going on Yochanan or Matisyahu.
However, the Gemara responds that R. Yossi ben And even if it is going on Yochanan, it is unclear
R. Yehudah did not mean that the menorah was whether he is the Yochanan the High Priest
literally made out of wood, rather the mentioned in the Talmud, who served for 80

[Link]
9
 Chanukah Musings
History

years and became a Sadducee at the end of his life is also noted that the “al ha-nissim” prayer which
(Berakhos 29a). is recited in the Shemoneh Esrei and Birkat Ha-
Mazon focuses primarily upon the military
There are three positions on the identity of the victory. The “ha-neirot halalu” recited after
famous Yochanan the High Priest: lighting the menorah does not mention anything
about the miracle of the oil, either. So too,
1. The Rambam (Introduction to Commentary to according to many authorities, the “she-asa
the Mishnah) and Rokei’ach (Hilkhos Chanukah) nissim” blessing recited each night of Chanukah
are of the view that he was the son of Matisyahu, refers to the military victory and not the miracle
of Chanukah fame, evidently named after his own of the oil.[2]
grandfather.
There is even a view that immediately after
2. Sefer Yuchasin (1:16) and Seder Ha-Doros reciting the first blessing of “l’hadlik,” one should
(2:Yochanan Kohen Gadol) state that Yochanan then recite the “ha-neirot halalu”, and only then
the High Priest was Matisyahu’s father and is the continue with the “she’asa nissim” blessing and
one mentioned in the “Al Ha-Nissim.” the lighting of the menorah. The reason for this
approach was in order to ensure that one would
3. Later scholars, including Doros Ha-Rishonim have in mind the military victory when lighting
(part 2 p. 442) and Toledos Tanna’im Ve- the menorah.[3] Although the halacha does not
Amora’im (vol. 2 p. 688), are of the view that follow this view, it certainly demonstrates the
Yochanan the High Priest was the grandson of significance and centrality of the military victory.
Matisyahu and the son of Shimon.
It emerges therefore, that the requirement to
R. Matis Kantor, in his The Jewish Time Line praise God on Chanukah (i.e. the recitation of
Encyclopedia, has an interesting appendix on this Hallel) is much more connected to the
subject. miraculous military victory rather than the
miracle of the oil.[4] Indeed, it is noted that we
Click here to read comments don’t find any precedent where the rabbis
instituted an obligation to praise God for a
miracle which is already commemorated with its
Chanukah… For Which own mitzvah (i.e. the lighting of the menorah).
Furthermore, although the lighting of the
Miracle? menorah is certainly intended to recall the
miracle of the oil, it might just be that doing so is
by Rabbi Ari Enkin actually intended to help us focus on praising God
for the military victory.[5]
Although most people are under the impression
that the primary miracle of Chanukah and the In fact, it might be especially important to
reason we light the Chanukah menorah is the emphasize the military victory. This is because
miracle of the oil, this actually might not be the with regards to the miracle of oil, it’s obvious that
case. it was a miraculous event. However, cynics could
argue that the military victory was completely
As Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach writes:[1] natural, won by might, determination, and a
“The primary purpose for lighting the Chanukah series of fortunate coincidences. The same is true
candles is in order to praise the Holy One Blessed regarding the Six Day War and other Israeli
Be He for the great miracles which He performed military operations – clearly miraculous, though
for our forefathers in the military victory. there will always be those who insist it was Israeli
Therefore, when lighting the candles one is to military might alone which is to be credited for
concentrate on thanking God for the military the victory and not any Divine intervention.
victory.” (emphasis added) Perhaps this is the reason God also created the
miracle of the oil in the first place - to remind us
In fact, there is much more evidence to suggest that just like the miracle of oil was clearly from
that the primary miracle and emphasis of Him, so too the military victory.
Chanukah is the miracle of the military victory. It

[Link]
10
 Chanukah Musings
History

[1] Halichot Shlomo 16:9 “It seems to the Ri that Beis Shammai and Beis
[2] Halichot Shlomo p. 306 note 19 Hillel are only referring to the ‘one light per
[3] Masechet Sofrim as explained in Halichot household’ because then there is more beauty [in
Shlomo p. 106 note 20 the mitzvah] in that it is clear that when one adds
[4] Rivevot Ephraim [Link] or subtracts [from the lights] that it is
[5] Halichot Shlomo p. 305 note 17 and p. 307 corresponding to the days that remain or have
note 46 passed. But if one has one light for each person
then even if a single person adds [lights] on
Click here to read comments subsequent days it is not clear because people
might think that there are multiple people in the
The Story Behind Ri’s household.”
Chanukah Innovation This is the Ri speaking about a practice that is
done every single year. While he was the initiator
Most readers are probably aware of the debate of the Tosafist method, he was not the first
over the third level of Chanukah lights. To review scholar in this school. We know that he learned
briefly, there are three levels for this mitzvah: 1) the tractate Shabbos with his uncle, Rashbam
the base, which is one light per house; (mentioned by Urbach somewhere in Ba’alei Ha-
2) mehadrin, which is one light per household Tosafos), and generally studied under his other
member; and 3) mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, uncle, Rabbenu Tam. What did they do every
which is additional lights for each day. The Chanukah? What did their grandfather, Rashi,
dispute regarding mehadrin min ha-mehadrin is do? The Ri is suggesting something radical here.
as follows: According to the Rambam (and If he grew up in a home in which every household
others), each household member lights additional member lit their own menorah then he was
lights each day of Chanukah, so that a four- breaking with this tradition of his family and
member household on the second night has eight teachers with his interpretation of this Gemara
lights (excluding the shamash) on four menorahs. passage. If so, and that is how it is generally
According to Tosafos, the mehadrin min ha- presented nowadays, then the following questions
mehadrin rejects the mehadrin approach of each arise:
household member having a light and reverts
back to the base of there being only one light per 1. The passage in Tosafos, quoted above, does
household, except that the number of lights not present this as a radical interpretation.
increases per day, so that this same four-member There is no discussion of the standard
household on the second night has only two lights practice nor any “traditionalist” arguing with
on one menorah. Conventional wisdom has it that the Ri. Why not?
this is one of the few cases in which Ashkenazim
follow the Rambam and Sefardim follow Tosafos. 2. I did not have the books available for a
thorough search, but a brief browse through
However, this view attributed to Tosafos is not Ashkenazic halakhic literature did not even
really that of Tosafos. It is the view of a single, yield a discussion of the Ri’s position! They
albeit important, member of the authors of just quote the Gemara without comment.
Tosafos – the Ri (R. Yitzchak) of Dampierre. Why don’t the Semag and Semak cite the Ri
This fact raises a number of questions in my as representing a new position on how to
mind. Here is the language of Tosafos fulfill this mitzvah? Why doesn’t the Hagahos
(Shabbos 21b sv. ve-ha-mehadrin min ha- Maimoniyos quote the Ri as the Ashkenazic
mehadrin): alternative to the Rambam?

‫נראה לר “י דב “ש וב “ה לא קיימי אלא אנר איש‬ 3. And, of course, the standard question: Why
‫וביתו שכן יש יותר הידור דאיכא היכרא כשמוסיף‬ do later Ashkenazim follow the Rambam and
‫והולך או מחסר שהוא כנגד ימים הנכנסים או‬ not the Ri?
‫היוצאים אבל אם עושה נר לכל אחד אפי ‘ יוסיף‬ If the Ri was not presenting a radical
‫מכאן ואילך ליכא היכרא שיסברו שכך יש בני אדם‬ interpretation but was just explaining the Gemara
.‫בבית‬ based on standard Ashkenazic practice, then the

[Link]
11
 Chanukah Musings
Miscellaneous

following (generally similar) questions present practice like that change over time? If people
themselves: followed mehadrin min ha-mehadrin according
to the Rambam, why and how would they change
1. Why doesn’t the Ri or Tosafos note that his their practice? Perhaps at some point in time
explanation is based on the standard there was a transition from following the base
practice? level to the mehadrin and/or mehadrin min ha-
mehadrin levels, at which time families
2. Why is the explanation attributed to the Ri intentionally deviated from their established
when it seems fairly obvious based on the practices in order to fulfill the mitzvah in a better
standard practice? way, as discussed in the Gemara. When that
happened, for whatever reason people followed
3. If the Ashkenazic practice changed at some the practice as explained by the Ri.
point, when? Why does the Ashkenazic
halakhic literature ignore this issue if there I sent this to R. Ephraim Kanarfogel, an expert in
was a change? Tosafist history, and he showed me the following
in the recent edition of Tosefos Ri Ha-Zaken
Here is what I would like to suggest to answer (Shabbos 21b sv. ve-ha-mehadrin):
these questions, keeping in mind that this is all
conjecture and I did very little research in the
halakhic literature, no research whatsoever in ‫נראה לר“י דלא קאי אנר לכל אחד ואחד לקיים‬
general historical literature, and did not have .‫המנהג שלנו‬
access to academic Jewish studies such as Prof. “It seems to the Ri that this does not refer to ‘a
Daniel Sperber’s Minhagei Yisrael. So this is all candle for every person,’ in order to uphold our
extremely tentative and I would appreciate any practice.”
feedback from people who research this topic
more thoroughly. It seems clear that the Ri was defending his
custom, which leaves us some open questions.
It seems consistent with the above to assume that
even the leading Torah scholars of the medieval Click here to read comments
Franco-German community did not perform the
mitzvah of Chanukah lights at the level
of mehadrin min ha-mehadrin. Perhaps they did
it mehadrin but I’d go so far as to suggest that Miscellaneous
they just performed the base level of one light per Are You A Hellenist?
household. That is why the Ri can offer a radical (cont’d from page 1)
suggestion regarding how to perform mehadrin
min ha-mehadrin without anyone getting excited
and the halakhic manuals ignoring it. He wasn’t approaches with the apparent Chanukah message
breaking with traditional practice and probably rejecting Greek ideas? Indeed, the Gemara itself
did not even put his own suggestion into practice. (Megillah 9b) seems to praise the Greek language
His comment was an entirely theoretical as a beautiful divine gift that we Jews may gladly
suggestion. embrace.

If we want to be even bolder, perhaps we can That seems to fly in the face of the conventional
suggest that Spanish Jews similarly did not understanding of the Chanukah message as a
perform the mitzvah mehadrin min ha- rejection of gentile culture and thought.
mehadrin. While the Spanish commentaries to
the Gemara discuss the dispute between the To answer these questions we need to first
Rambam (and others) and the Ri, it is possible establish the identity of the Greeks against whom
that neither view was put into practice until later. the Maccabees rebelled. Rav Yitzchak Herzog
The Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 671) is often quoted (Judaism: Law & Ethics, pp. 175-176) explained
as ruling like the Ri but that is imprecise. What that the oppressive regime under discussion did
he does is simply state that the common practice not consist of students of Socrates and Aristotle.
is according to the Ri. How could a family-based While Alexander the Great was himself a student

[Link]
12
 Chanukah Musings
Miscellaneous

of Aristotle and brought with him this profound Hilchos Chanukah 3:1): “In the days of the
Greek culture, over a century had passed by the Second Temple, when the Greeks ruled, they
time of the Maccabees – and the Syrian-Greek decreed restrictive laws against Israel in order to
culture in the land of Israel had degenerated into destroy their religion. They did not allow them to
a hedonistic, self-absorbed society. engage in Torah and mitzvos; they laid their
hands on their property and on their daughters,
These Syrian-Greeks, the Hellenists, tried to be and they entered the Temple, made breaches in it,
the spiritual descendants of the Greeks but and defiled that which was pure. Israel suffered
actually regressed to frivolity and decadence. To mightily under them, and [the Greeks] greatly
many Jews – Hellenist Jews – this base culture oppressed [Israel], the God of our fathers took
superseded their religion. When we replace our pity on them and saved them from their hands,
religion with foreign values and abandon our and delivered them.”
covenant with God, we are acting like Hellenists.
When, however, we remain firmly entrenched in The sin of the Hellenists was their attempt to
our Jewish beliefs and observances but expand remove us from our religion by law and by force.
our horizons with additional, religiously
inoffensive culture, we are not acting like There may be “Hellenists” today who try –
Hellenists at all. through misinformation, intimidation and
legislation – to remove Jews from their religious
Even this, though, is somewhat beside the point. heritage. In my experience, however, the major
The primary offense of the Hellenists is explained Jewish movements and certainly the various
by our continual anachronistic referral to them as segments of Orthodoxy do not conform to this
Greeks, which they were not. Rav Yosef Dov description.
Soloveitchik (Days of Deliverance, pp. 180-184)
explained that we call them Greeks because, Chanukah is the source of many lessons about
despite their deviations from the Greek heritage, God, Torah and the Jewish people. It should be
they retained the Greek desire to missionize, the used as an opportunity to increase the love of God
call to “civilize the savages” by forcefully and His Torah, not as a weapon to denigrate Jews
imposing their culture and beliefs on their subject with different views by labeling them
populations. This was the crime of the Hellenists “Hellenists.”
and the impetus for the Chanukah rebellion.
The Maccabees were fighting for the survival of
Relevant to this discussion are the words of the the Jewish people, not the division of it into tiny
“Al Ha-Nissim” we add to our prayers during subgroups.
Chanukah: “In the days of Matisyahu the son of
Yochanan the High Priest, the Hasmonean and This originally appeared as an Op-Ed in the Dec.
his sons, when the wicked Greek government rose 5, 2007 issue of The Jewish Press.
up against Your people Israel to make them forget
Your Torah and violate the decrees of Your will.” Click here to read comments

The key words here are “to make them forget

Your Torah and violate the decrees of Your will.”
The Chanukah story is not about battling How Many Candles?
acculturated Jews or rejecting philosophy that is
consistent with, but not native to, the Torah. It is How many candles do we light on Chanukah?
about clinging to Torah and mitzvos, and There are two ways to calculate this. One is to add
rebelling against an oppressive regime that up every number from 2 (1 + a shamash) through
sought to force us to abandon our religion. The 9 (8 + a shamash) = 44. The other is to recognize
Hellenists passed laws forbidding Jews from that this is an arithmetic series and use the
observing our religion and, for that reason, we simple formula: 1/2 * n * (A1 + An) = 1/2 * 8 * (2
fought back and with God’s help defeated them. + 9) = 44.

This is emphasized by the Rambam in his Now calculate how many candles you would have
description of the oppression (Mishneh Torah, to light if Chanukah was 15 days or 30 days (135

[Link]
13
 Chanukah Musings
Miscellaneous

and 495).
Note the seemingly religious terms of praise of
Legend has it that the basis of this formula was God that are applied to humans. It seems like
figured out by an elementary school student God is intentionally written out of the story.
named Carl Friedrich Gauss, when his teacher
told the class to add up all the numbers from 1 to [Reverting to Modern Hebrew transliteration.
100 and he was able to do it in a few seconds Please forgive me.]
(more info: I, II).
“Gvurot Yisrael,” the brave deeds of Israel. Isn’t it
A prominent rabbi once pointed out to me that usually Gvurot Hashem?
Tosafos (Menachos 106a s.v. she-hein elef), offer
a similar formula. It is “hagibor,” the brave man of each generation,
who redeems the nation. Isn’t is usually God who
Click here to read comments is “go’el ha’am”?

And so on, and so on.

Who Can Retell? I’m not sure if I’m just being overly picky, but it
seems to me to be an intentional writing out of
Time for another conspiracy theory. This web- God from Jewish history, as was common among
site (click on the candles) got me thinking again ardently secular Zionists, through an
about the Hanukah song “Mi Yemalel” and my appropriation of religious terminology.
theory that it is subtly anti-religious. How so?
Consider the lyrics (taken from here): Here’s another example. I remember learning a
song that went, “Not by might not by power but
Mi yemalel gvurot Yisra’el, by spirit alone...” Compare with Zechariah [Link]
‘otan mi yimneh? “Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit,
Hen bechol dor yaqum hagibor, says the Lord of hosts.” Clearly, an intentional
go’el ha’am. change of “My spirit” to “spirit alone”.

Shma’! Bayamim hahem bazman hazeh, Click here to read comments

Makabi moshia’ ufodeh,
uvyameinu kol ‘am Yisra’el,
yit’akhed, yaqum veyiga’el.

Hirhurim – Musings

[Link]
14