Chanukah Points

The Shu"t Shalmey Chova (#107) discusses can one say the ברכת הרואה on the lighting of a katan. He assumes the question is whether the action of the kid is considered a מעשה מצוה. He doesn't note the Butchatch (679) already raises the question. (It is interesting the Butchatch notes his missing the time to light the candles on Erev Shabbos.) Rav Tzvi Ryzman wants to say a different approach to the question, the question is not if the katan's lighting is a mitzvah lighting, but the question hinges on if the ברכת הרואה of שעשה ניסים is a birchas mitzvah of birchas hashevach akin to saying a beracha on a place that a miracle happened. If it's the first way, a birchas hamitzvah, there has to be an actual lighting of a mitzvah to say the beracha, which is not the case when a katan lights, but if it is a birchas hashevach, it would be possible to say the beracha even on the lighting of a katan. His explanation seems problematic for even if the geder of the beracha is a birchas hashevach, it needs to be recited over a חפצא של מצוה, would anyone contemplate saying a beracha on the lighting of a goy?

As mentioned by my father in the past, the Rambam's opinion is that the lighting of the menorah itself is a fulfillment of hodah, not a separate mitzvah.

The Gemarah Megillah (14a) says   ת"ר ארבעים ושמונה נביאים ושבע נביאות נתנבאו להם לישראל ולא פחתו ולא הותירו על מה שכתוב בתורה חוץ ממקרא מגילה מאי דרוש אמר רבי חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה ומה מעבדות לחירות אמרי' שירה ממיתה לחיים לא כל שכן. Rashi asks but ner Chanukah was added? He says that wasn't an addition of prophets for there were no prophets any more. The Ritva asks but why did they add ner Chanukah? He explains it is the same reason as to why they added Megillah. According to the Ritva just as the Gemarah considers Megillah a form of shirah, ומה מעבדות לחירות אמרי' שירה ממיתה לחיים לא כל שכן, so too ner Chanukah. In other words the lighting is a form of shira. It is not just an act of a mitzvah.

The Rambam Chanukah (3:3-4) says וְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּרוֹת בָּהֶן מִצְוָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, כִּקְרִיאַת הַמְּגִלָּה. כָּל שֶׁחַיָּב בִּקְרִיאַת הַמְּגִלָּה, חַיָּב בְּהַדְלָקַת נֵר חֲנֻכָּה. Why does the Rambam compare Chanukah to Megillah? In light of the Ritva, it is understood. The Rambam is explaining that in the same way Megillah is a mitzvah as a means of expressing shira, hoda to Hashem, so too ner Chanukah. The Rambam continues that all who are obligated in Megillah are obligated in ner Chanukah. Why does he connect it to expressing who the obligation is upon? Woman are obligated in these two mitzvot because אף הן היו באותו הנס. Tosfos asks why we don't employ the same logic to tell us women are obligated in sukkah, or for that reason, they should be obligated in the four cups of wine? The Rambam is telling us that אף הן היו באותו הנס doesn't create an obligation when the miracle is the mere reason for the mitzvah; it is only when the miracle itself defines the mitzvah as a cheftzah of hodah that אף הן היו באותו הנס creates an obligation on a woman (Rav Solevetchik in Mesorah Journal volume 13).

Tosfos Shabbat (21b) asks how the seal on the bottle of oil helps; it should still have been tameh since there is a gezerah that goyim are tameh like a zav. The movement of the jug would have made it tameh? There are a few answers to the question. The Bach (670) suggests that it had a small opening that one could not fit their finger into, and something that cannot be tameh through touching when in the vessel does not acquire tumah through movement either (Shabbat 84b). He adds that it still had to be sealed; otherwise, we would need to be concerned that maybe the oil had been removed and replaced, or it had become tameh through tumas ohel. Therefore, there must have been a צמיד פתיל on it. R. Akiva Eger asks that this contradicts an open Gemara in Chagigah (25a) that צמיד פתיל does not work for hekdesh. In שו"ת קרית חנה דוד  he suggests answers based upon the assumption that the din that צמיד פתיל doesn't work by hekdesh is only Rabbinic, and in this case, they did not impose the gezerah. As discussed in an article about preparing oil nowadays, there is a machlokes Rishonim about what level of kedusha is necessary for the law of צמיד פתיל not to apply. The Rashash in מדייק from the Rosh on Kelim (10:2) that only on kedushas haguf the צמיד פתיל doesn't help, but it does say something that only has קדושת פה. Tosfos Temurah (14a) says the oil for the menorah did not have kedushas haguf. The Chazon Eish (Menachot 30:7) says it is not logical that the oil never obtained kedusha at all. Tosfos means it didn't have kedushas haguf, but did not have kedushas peh. Putting that together, the oil for the menorah would be eligible to be saved by a צמיד פתיל (From here.)

Twins Of Sun And Moon

Rashi (Bereishis 38:27) notes the difference between the term תאומים used for Tamar’s pregnancy and תאמים used for Rivka’s. In Tamar’s case, both children were righteous, whereas Rivka bore Yaakov, a tzaddik, and Esav, a rasha. The Torah’s need to highlight this distinction suggests that there is a fundamental similarity between these two pregnancies. What is that comparison?

Regarding Zarach’s birth, Rashi comments that the phrase “ארבע ידות” appears, alluding to the four acts of treachery committed by Achan, who descended from Zarach. Others explain that it refers to the four items Achan took: a Shinar garment, two silver pieces totaling 200 shekels, and one golden tongue. Why is Achan’s sin hinted at here?

The Ramban, citing the Bahir, explains that Peretz and Zarach correspond to the sun and the moon. Zarach, whose name suggests “shining,” represents the sun—constant and unwavering. Peretz, whose name implies “breaking through,” parallels the moon, which waxes and wanes. What does this symbolism mean? Zarach embodies the tzaddik, whose light shines steadily and whose path is straightforward. Peretz represents the baal teshuva, whose spiritual journey includes ups and downs but ultimately reaches greater heights. This is why Mashiach descends from Peretz for the transformative power of teshuva surpasses the static righteousness of the tzaddik (see Likkutei Sichos vol. 30).

The Torah distinguishes between Yaakov and Esav, and between Peretz and Zarach, because the potential dynamic was similar. Yaakov parallels Zarach—the tzaddik—while Esav could have mirrored Peretz, becoming a baal teshuva. Instead, Esav succumbed to his lows and never rose above them.

The Maharal expands on the Ramban’s sun-moon analogy, noting that Achan’s four transgressions correspond to the four acts of betrayal against the four designated cherem items, reflecting the power of the sun created on the fourth day. Unlike the moon, which fluctuates, the sun is fixed and limited. Achan’s sin lay in trying to emulate Peretz—seeking expansion beyond his boundaries and taking what was not his. This overreach led to his downfall.

Self, Non-Self

 קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת אשר עשית את עבדך

The Gra (cited in Pardes Yosef) says this is the 8^th possuk in the 8^th parsha and that is where Chazal see to say a talmud chacham should have an eighth of an eighth of haughtiness (Sotah 5a.) The question is that this possuk seems to be the opposite of haughtiness, Yakaov is saying how small he is?  The Gemarah in Sotah is difficult for the Gemarah says haughtiness is a terrible middah and then throws in the statement about a talmud chacham, why is he given an allowance for a bit of haughtiness? The Gemarah compares this bit of haughtiness to the crown of the bristle-like growth on the top of the husk. What is the meaning of this comparison? 

The Midrash says קָטֹנְתִּי מִכָּל הַחֲסָדִים א"ר אבא ב"כ איני כדאי ר' לוי אמר כדאי אני. How can there be an opinion כדאי אני if this is the ultimate statement of humbleness on the part of Yaakov? 

Sfas Emes (5648) אך עי"ז עצמו שקטנתי. עי"ז כדאי אני. ואם אמנם לעיני בשר האומר קטנתי נראה כי הוא מתגאה. אבל מי שאומר לפני הבורא ית' קטנתי הוא שהכיר את עצמו וראה שיודע הוא שכל החסדים ואמת שעשה עמו הבורא ית' אינו בזכותו. ולכן באמת לא יגרע מזכותו כלום. וזה הכלל אם אדם תולה בעצמו נעשה לו באמת בזכות מעשיו.

When Yaakov says קטונתי it means that he felt so small, so nothing, that all he felt was his connection to Hashem. By totally negating himself he was able to say כדאי אני because the אני was not a אני of self merit but rather an אני of the Godliness within himself  being fit for anything. When there is the ultimate self negation that leads one to have a haughtiness, not of self inflation but due to the connection to The Infinite. 

The Alter Rebbe explains that the haughtiness of the talmud chacham is compared to the part of the chaff that guards the wheat for it is only a protective stage that the haughtiness is needed to inspire one to have the ability to increase one's avodah but after one reaches a greater level all haughtiness should be dropped. But as we see from Yaakov Avenu there is a third level of a haughtiness from the feeling of tremendous smallness. This is when haughtiness is desirable. That is why the Gra is pointing to this possuk as explanation of the Gemarah (based upon sicha of Rebbe 5749.) 

The Alter Rebbe after his redemption on 19 Kislev wrote a letter (Igros Kodesh Tanya letter 2) starting with this possuk emphasizing that the more chesed one receives from Hashem, the closer one seems, the more one sees their own smallness. This allows one to push aside their own self and be in tune with the Godliness within themselves.   

In terms of Rambam in Gemerah Sotah, see letter of Rebbe.