Shabbos Chanukah and Selling a Beis Kur

By: Meoros Hadaf Hayomi

An ancient, anonymous song for Shabbos Chanukah, Ichlu Mashmanim, appears in siddurim and is chanted in some communities. The whole composition sings the praises of food, meals, meat dishes, wine and miscellaneous culinary delights to be consumed on that Shabbos and the line ending each stanza goes: “A beis kur sell or lease; rent a beis kur for Shabbos Chanukah!”

In his Responsa (137), Mahari of Bruna, a pupil of the Terumas HaDeshen, remarks that no Torah scholar could have written the song as a Chanukah meal is not defined as a se’udas mitzvah. Others even stress that only foolhardy people could have composed it, as evident from its contents (Orchos Chayim, 670:8). On the other hand, some rebbes, such as Rebbe Pinchas of Koritz zt”l, sang it on Shabbos Chanukah and a few scholars attribute it to Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra as the initial letters of its lines form Avraham. Those favoring the song were somehow able to lend its contents a spiritual connotation and some surmise that beis kur is used as a pun: In Old French a yard for raising and fattening poultry was called a bas court (“low courtyard” – the final s was then, as in certain dialects today, pronounced). The message, then, is “Sell your beis kur” – your field – and rent a bas court for Shabbos Chanukah.

Read more!

Miracles in Halachah

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

Rav Kahana asked Rav (Bava Kamma 116a) : If one person saved the other person’s donkey (on condition that he would be paid for his donkey), and the first person’s donkey ended up being saved anyway, what is the halachah?

Rav answered: Heaven had mercy on him (and the owner of the donkey he saved must still pay him the value of his donkey).

This is comparable to the case of Rav Safra. When Rav Safra was traveling with a caravan, a lion joined them and started traveling with them (protecting them from bandits and other wild beasts). Every night one person from the caravan would feed the lion his donkey (in order that he should not attack them). When it was Rav Safra’s turn, he offered the lion his donkey (rendering it hefker), but the donkey did not eat it. Rav Safra quickly went and reacquired his donkey. [Rav Safra had fulfilled his obligation by offering his donkey. He was not obligated to contribute any more to the cause, for the return of his donkey was regarded as a miracle – Heaven sent, and that would not undo the fulfillment of his obligation. This is comparable to Rav’s ruling: Since the rescuer’s donkey was miraculously saved, it does not undo the obligation from the owner of the donkey that he saved.]

Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina: Why did he have to reacquire the donkey? When he made the donkey ownerless, he only did so because he had to feed it to the lion, not in order that anyone who wants can acquire it (i.e. he did not really make it hefker in the first place)?

Ravina answered: Rav Safra did this as an added precaution (just in case someone would claim that it did not belong to him any longer).

Tosfos asks: The Gemora in Bava Metzia rules that someone who rescues an animal from a lion attack is permitted to keep the animal for himself, for the owner abandoned hope of ever recovering his animal; it is therefore regarded as hefker. If so, shouldn’t Rav Safra’s donkey be legally regarded as hefker?

Tosfos answers that there is a basic distinction between the two cases. Here, the lion is not an attacker, but rather, it is a protector. The lion never attacked Rav Safra’s donkey; the donkey was given to it. It was not inevitable that the lion would kill the donkey. There could have been times that the lion was satiated and would have no interest in eating on that particular night. Accordingly, Rav Safra did not give up hope on his donkey, and is therefore not considered halachically hefker.

The Chazon Ish explains as follows: If Rav Safra’s donkey would have been saved in a completely natural manner (e.g. if there would have been other nights where the lion was satiated and did not kill the donkey), he would have been obligated to repay the others, for he would not have contributed to the caravan’s protection. The Gemora stresses that this was viewed as a miraculous event, for every other night, the lion did consume the donkeys. Rav Safra, being a holy person, was accustomed of having miracles performed on his behalf, and therefore he knew that there was a possibility that a miracle might happen and his donkey will be spared. It was therefore regarded as if he paid his portion towards the caravan’s protection.

However, with respect to reacquiring his donkey, it is not sufficient to say that Rav Safra relied on the fact that a miracle might occur and therefore he would not abandon hope on retrieving his donkey. It would depend on the type of miracle. If a public miracle, revealed to all, one that would involve a change in the laws of nature would occur and his donkey would be spared, even if Rav Safra was confident that such a miracle will happen, it would be regarded as if he had despaired on his donkey and he would be required to reacquire the donkey. It would be as if a different donkey was sent down from Heaven. This is because the Torah was given according to the laws of nature, and the halachah will not change due to an open miracle. But, if the miracle would be a hidden one, one that would be concealed by nature, although it only happened because of Rav Safra, it would be regarded as a natural occurrence, and if Rav Safra would be confident that this would occur, the halachah would consider it as if he did not abandon hope about it. This is because all of nature is in truth governed by Heaven, and a miracle such as this would be considered a natural occurrence for one who is accustomed to such miracles. Therefore, since there are times when a lion, due to some abnormality in its stomach, be satiated and it will have no desire to eat, this is viewed as a natural even that Rav Safra was waiting for, and it is as if Heaven sent satisfaction to the lion in order for it not to consume Rav Safra’s donkey.

It emerges from the Chazon Ish that something that changed through an open miracle is not halachically regarded as being the same item that it was before. This would be similar to Reb Chaim Brisker’s challenge to some of the answers given to the Beis Yosef’s famous question.

The Beis Yosef asks: Why do we celebrate Chanukah for eight days if we are celebrating the miracle that the oil that should have lasted for only one day instead lasted for eight days? We should celebrate Chanukah for seven days, since only seven days of the burning of the oil were miraculous!?

He offers two solutions to this problem. He first suggests that on each night, when the oil was poured from the container into the Menorah, the jug remained completely full (similar to the miracle performed by Elisha). Another suggestion is that after every night, all the oil remained in the Menorah.

Rav Chaim Brisker challenges these two answers, arguing that miraculously generated oil is not acceptable for the lighting of the Menorah. He notes that the oil used for the Menorah is described not merely as “Shemen” (oil) but as “Shemen Zayis,” oil produced by an olive tree. This implies that it must be produced by an olive tree, and not by a miracle.

This parallels that which the Chazon Ish stated: The fact that it was a public miracle would change the nature of the oil. Beforehand, it was olive oil, but now, it is “Heaven-sent oil.”

Read more!

Placement of the Chanukah Candle

The Shulchan Aruch (H”M 418:12) and the Rambam (Nizkei Mamon 14:13) rule against Rabbi Yehudah, and hold the store owner liable for his Chanukah candle. The reasoning given is that although the store owner had license to put the candle outside, to fulfill the mitzvah of Chanukah, he still is responsible to ensure no damage comes from it.

The Gemora (Bava Kamma 62) discusses whether Rabbi Yehudah’s exclusion of liability in the case of a Chanukah candle indicates that it should be below ten tefachim. The Gemora concludes with a limit of twenty amos. There is discussion in the poskim about reconciling the two measures. The Shulchan Aruch (O”H 671:6), following the Rosh, rules that the optimum placement (l’chatchila) is below ten tefachim, but the absolute limit (b’dieved) is twenty amos. The Gr”a explains that even though the Gemora deflected the proof from the Mishna, we follow the straightforward implication of the Mishna. The Rambam (Chanuka 4:7) only mentions the measure of twenty amos. The Rambam understood that the two measures are a dispute, and ruled like the opinion of twenty amos. The Rambam therefore could have held the store owner liable simply because he should have placed the candle higher, but nonetheless made the more fundamental statement that performing a mitzvah does not exempt a person from damages. This statement is a more general one, and has implications in other cases, as the Gr”a points out (H”M 418:28). The Shaarei Teshuva (O”H 761:8) points out that the Chachamim and Rabbi Yehudah’s dispute, as detailed in other sources, does not relate to different opinions on the location of the Chanukah candle, but rather on this fundamental question of exemption due to religious activity.

Read more!

Just in Time for Chanukah

The Gemora in Shabbos (21b) states that it is a mitzvah to place the menorah for Chanukah at the entrance to one’s house. During the dangerous times, they would light the menorah on the table inside and that would be sufficient.

What would be the halacha nowadays? Can one light the menorah on his table and with that, fulfill his mitzvah? Do we say that since it is not dangerous now, the halacha reverts back to the original ruling that the menorah must be lit facing outside?

The Dvar Yehoshua offers proof from the beginning of Meseches Kesuvos (3b). There it says that during the dangerous times and onward, they would marry on a Tuesday, and the Rabbis did not protest. The Shitah Mekubetzes writes that even after the danger was over, they still married on a Tuesday. This was because there was a concern that it may return to the dangerous times.

Our Gemora (Kesuvos 89a) states: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger (when the idolaters decreed that mitzvos may not be performed) and onwards, a woman may collect her kesuvah without a get, and a creditor may collect without a pruzbul.

The Rambam in Hilchos shemitah (9:24) rules: If a lender claims that he had a pruzbul and he lost it, he is believed, for from the time of danger and onwards, a creditor may collect without a pruzbul.

The Kesef Mishna explains: Although presently, there is no danger, we do not differentiate between two different times. Accordingly, you might be able to apply the same logic regarding lighting the menorah on a table inside the house even when there is no danger.

The Reshash offers the following comment according to the Kesef Mishna: It is for this reason that the Mishna uses the precise terminology of, “and from the time of danger and onwards.” This teaches us that the halacha is applicable even after the danger is no longer here.

Reb Yitzchak Zilberstein writes that accordingly, there would be no proof from this halacha to the lighting of the menorah. There, the Gemora states that during the dangerous times, they would light the menorah on the table inside and that would be sufficient. It does not say, “and from the time of danger and onwards.” Therefore, it can be said that one would not fulfill his mitzvah of lighting the menorah if he lights it on the table.

Read more!

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY

Mazel Tov to Daf Notes on our first year anniversary. We would like to thank all the contributors for their superb efforts in keeping up with the Daf and for all the comments. Our gratitude is also extended to all those throughout the world who have disseminated the Daf Notes and made others aware of this unprecedented tool to studying the Daf in depth. Yasher koach, and HaShem should give us the strength to continue being marbitz Torah, lihagdil Torah ulehadirah.



PLEASE CLICK ANYWHERE ON THIS POST FOR A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE, AND PERHAPS YOU'LL FIND A POST THAT YOU MISSED THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 28 - Hallel on Chanukah is a Torah Requirement

The Gemora inquires as to why the Mishna did not mention that there was no ma’amad on the first of Nissan for they recited Hallel and there was a Mussaf sacrifice and a wood offering. Rava answers that this Mishna is an indicator that the Hallel which is sung on Rosh Chodesh is not based upon a biblical ordinance and therefore the ma’amad is not suspended. This is based upon the words of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak who states: "Eighteen times during the year an individual may recite the whole Hallel, and they are: On the eight days of Sukkos, on the eight days of Chanukah, on the first day of Pesach and on the first day of Shavuos. While in exile, however, one may recite it twenty-one times during the year, namely: On the nine days of Sukkos, on the eight days of Chanukah, on the first two days of Pesach and on the two days of Shavuos." Rosh Chodesh is not mentioned here, indicating that it is only a custom and therefore it will not suspend the ma’amad.

Rashi states that the obligation to recite Hallel on Chanukah is similar to a Biblical obligation since it was established in accordance with the practice instituted by the prophets of reciting Hallel whenever the Jewish people are saved from a dangerous situation.

Although we generally relate to the holiday Chanukah as being of Rabbinic origin, Chasam Sofer explains that the obligation to establish a festival on the day on which a miracle occurred is, in fact, a Torah requirement. Chasam Sofer writes, “therefore observing the days of Purim and Chanukah are indeed a Torah obligation and one who fails to do so is nullifying a positive precept in the Torah.” It is a long-standing Jewish custom to hold celebratory meals during Chanukah to provide an opportunity to sing and recite praises to G-d for the miracles He performed on our behalf. Doing so, explains the Chasam Sofer, is the fulfillment of a positive Torah commandment.

This last paragraph can be found here.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 25 - Vinegar Can Burn

The Gemora records an incident with Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa. One Friday night, Rabbi Chanina noticed his daughter in a despondent mood. Upon asking her what the trouble was, she replied: "I got the two vessels containing oil and vinegar mixed, and poured the latter into the Shabbos lamp and lit it." He said: "My daughter! Why should that trouble you? He who has ordained that oil should burn can also ordain that vinegar should burn." We have learned in a braisa that the vinegar in that lamp burned all night and all day, until some of it was used for the Havdalah prayer.

With this Gemora, Reb Dovid Feinstein answers the famous question of the Beis Yosef on Chanukah. Why do we celebrate Chanukah for eight days when the miracle was only for seven?

The Sages chose Chanukah, a festival that revolves around oil's ability to burn, as the time to teach the fundamental truth that even so-called "natural" events take place only because God wants them to. When seen in the perspective of God's will, the burning of oil is no less miraculous than would be the burning of water. The Talmudic Sage Rabbi Chanina Ben Dosa pithily expressed this truth in explaining a miracle that occurred in his own home. Once, his daughter realized that she had poured vinegar instead of oil into the Sabbath menorah. Rabbi Chanina calmed her, saying, "Why are you concerned! The One Who commanded oil to burn, can also command vinegar - and it will burn!" The Talmud goes on to relate that those Sabbath lights remained aflame until after the Sabbath ended (Taanis 25a). To hammer home this truth, the Sages decreed that Chanukah be observed for eight days: The last seven to commemorate the miracle of the Menorah, and the first to remind us that even the 'normal' burning of oil is only in obedience to God's wish. (Rabbi David Feinstein)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 24 - DERIVING BENEFIT FROM A MIRACLE

The Gemora recorded an incident with Eliezer of Bartusa where a miracle occurred with his wheat at the time of his daughters wedding. The Gemora states that he donated this wheat to charity. Rashi explains that it is forbidden for one to derive benefit from a miracle. He cites the Gemora (20b) where it states regarding one who derives benefit from a miracle; it will be deducted from his merits.

Sefer Hazechus from the Chidushei Harim (Beshalach) offers another reason for this prohibition. It is written: “Hashamayim shamayim laHashem v’ha’aretz nason livnei adam,” – we are only permitted to use this world. Something that comes from a miracle and is not in the regular nature of this world was not given to us and therefore it is prohibited to derive benefit from the miracle. (I don’t understand this reason because the entire purpose of the miracle was to provide for us – how can the outcome of the miracle be considered as part of shamayim?)

It seems evident from Rashi that it is not only a pious act but rather one is forbidden to do so. Mitzapeh Eisan cites Rashi later on the same daf (24b) that would seem to contradict this idea. Rashi states regarding the incident with Rav Mari and Rav Yehuda that he didn’t want to derive benefit from the sand that miraculously turned into flour. Rashi says that it is preferable not to derive benefit from a miracle and not that it is forbidden.

Mitzapeh Eisan answers that there is a distinction between a private individual and the public. A private person like Eliezer of Bartusa is forbidden to derive benefit from a miracle; however, when it is relevant to the public, it is only a pious act for them not to derive benefit from the miracle but it is not forbidden. (See however Mitzapeh Eisan, Minachos (69b) where he would seem to indicate that there is never a prohibition against deriving benefit from a miracle.)

In the Teshuvos Daas Sofer (O”C 119), he asks on this concept from the lighting of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdosh in the times of the Chashmanoim. The halacha is that a certain amount of oil is needed in each bowl; how can the lighting of the menorah be valid if some of the oil came through a miracle? (It would seem to me that the principle of mitzvos lav lehonos nitnu should apply here.) The Maharshak adds that there is a halacha derived from the passuk ‘mashkeh Yisroel,’ that something that is forbidden for consumption by a Yisroel is forbidden to be used for the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Ben Ish Chai (Ki Savo) asks on this concept from Eliyahu who derived benefit from the flour and the oil by the episode with the ben Hatzraphis, even though that occurred through a miracle. He answers that it was permitted in that situation since the extra oil and flour was not recognizable. Every time some oil and flour was taken, it was miraculously replenished; therefore there was no prohibition against deriving benefit from the miracle.

The miracle of the oil in the menorah can be explained in the same manner. Each bowl had oil in it that did not come about via the miracle. The miracle was that the oil did not disappear. Even as it was burning, the level of the oil stayed the same. In this type of scenario, it is permitted to derive benefit from the miracle. (An explanation identical to this is brought in the name of Reb Chaim Brisker.)

The Rama (682:1) rules that one who forgets al hanisim should recite the following tefillah: Harachaman ya’aseh lanu nisim – The merciful One should perform miracles for us. The Tevuos Shor asks that if we are not permitted to benefit from a miracle and it deducts from our merits, why are we praying for a miracle. One of the answers given is that we are permitted to pray for a miracle that will sanctify Hashem’s name in the world. The merits received due to the Kiddush Hashem exceed the amount of merits that are deducted.

Many commentators ask from the fact that Klal Yisroel derived benefit from the manna, the well of Miriam and the Pillar of Clouds that traveled with them during their time in the Wilderness. The Chidah writes that this is what Klal Yisroel was asking when they initially saw the manna. They said “Man hu.” The letters of the word ‘man’ is a ‘mem’ and a ‘nun.’ This stands for ma’aseh nisim. Klal Yisroel was asking if they were permitted to receive pleasure from the manna which is completely a miracle. He adds that the logic of deducting from their merits would not apply there because the manna came about in the merit of Moshe and not because of them. Sefer Ezer Miyahuda states that regarding a miracle which is done on behalf of Klal Yisroel that sanctifies Hashem’s name; it would be permitted to derive benefit from the miracle.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - MENORAH WITH SEVEN STEMS

One is prohibited from building a house in the form of the Beis Hamikdosh. One cannot make a courtyard similar to the courtyard of the Beis Hamikdosh. One is forbidden from creating a menorah corresponding to the menorah in the Beis Hamikdosh. He is not allowed to make a menorah that has seven stems even if he constructs it from other metals. Rabbi Yosi maintains that one may not make a menorah out of wood either.

The sefer Shoel U’meishiv wants to answer the famous Beis Yosef’s question with this halacha. The Beis Yosef asks why do we eight days of Chanukah when the miracle was only for seven days? There was enough oil found for one complete day. He answers that it is forbidden to make a menorah with seven stems. This is forbidden even if it is not in the precise dimensions of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash. Chanukah could not be seven days since the menorah couldn’t have seven stems.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 18 - Nine Days of Chanukah

The Mishna states that at the beginning of six months, messengers would be sent out to notify the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. They were sent out in the month of Nissan because of the festival of Pesach. At the beginning of Av, they were sent out because of the fast. Messengers were sent in the month of Elul on the account of Rosh Hashanah. They were sent out during Tishrei because of Yom Kippur and Sukkos. Messengers were sent out during Kislev because of Chanukah and during Adar because of Purim.

A question is brought down in the sefer Poseach Shaar. If messengers were required in the months of Kislev and Adar because of Chanukah and Purim, shouldn't there be a halacha that in the faraway places, where the messengers cannot reach in due time, that there should be an extra day of Chanukah and Purim because of the doubt as to the correct day? this is indeed the reason why the other festivals have an extra day. It would emerge that there should be nine days of chanukah and two days of Purim nowadays in the Diaspora.

Abudraham writes that this is only required on the Biblical festivals but we do not have this stringency on Chanukah and Purim which is only Rabbinic.

The Mordechai states that in the Meggilah it is written "V'lo yaavor," the meggilah should not berecited on any other day but the fourteenth of Adar. Sefer Dovev Meisharim (1:15) asks on this that the verse would only answer why the meggilah is not recited on any other day but there should be an extra day for all the other obligations of Purim.

Minchas Chinuch writes that in the days that Rosh Chodesh was determined through the witnesses and Beis Din, there actually was nine days of Chanukah in the faraway places. He states further that in the future when the Beis Hamikdosh will be built, there will also be nine days. Nowadays, that we are experts in the correct days of the month, there is no necessity to institute an extra day since it is only Rabbinic.

We can answer the famous question of the Beis Yosef according to the Minchas Chinuch. He asks that there should be seven days of Chanukah and not eight because the miracle of the oil was only for seven days. We can answer that the reason there is an eighth day is because of the doubt as to when Rosh Chodesh was.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 18 - Chanukah and Shabbos

by Reb Ben

The Gemara states that on Chanukah there is a requirement to publicize the miracle that occurred regarding the lighting of the menorah in the Bais HaMikdash. The Halacha is that if one only has sufficient oil or candles to light either the Shabbos candles or the Chanukah candles, he should light Shabbos candles as shalom bayis, domestic harmony, is more important than publicizing the miracle of Chanukah. We see from here the importance of being in a state of peace on Shabbos. It is said lo sevaaru eish bechol moshvoseichem beyom HaShabbos, you shall not kindle fire in any of your dwellings on the Shabbos day. The sefarim write that this alludes to the idea that one should not become angry on Shabbos, as fire denotes anger. Thus when one kindles the Shabbos and Chanukah lights, he should remember that most important is that peace and tranquility should reign in the home.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 13 - Omer and Chanukah

A very nice post from Reb Aryeh Lebowitz pertaining to the daf and to Chanukah (you can find many insightful and in depth discussions here on the daf ).

The gemara questions how the Jews were able to bring the korban omer when they first arrived in Eretz Yisroel. The Ran (in the chidushei haran) wonders why they couldn't have brought their own grain from the other side of the yardein, which would be kasher l'omer b'dieved. The Ran answers that even though something may be kasher b'dieved, the very first time you do something cannot be in a b'dieved fashion. Rav Yosef Engel (gilyonei hashas to Shabbos 21b as expounded by Rav Yonasan Sacks shlit"a) extends this idea as follows: the torah in Parshiyos Terumah/Tetzaveh tells us about the mitzvah of constructing the mishkan and its various keilim. It also mentions, along with each k'li, what that k'li was used for (the mitzvah of avoda associated with it). The gemara Sanhedrin daf 17 understands that while Moshe was able to consecrate keilim with the shemen hamishcha, once we no longer have the shemen hamishcha the avoda of the kli is what gives it its kedusha and allows it to be used in avoda. Essentially, the torah tells us of the avoda together with the construction because the completion of the "construction" may be the very first avoda one does with that kli. This is why the torah only mentions the korban tamid when it talks about the avoda of the mizbeach even though there are so many other korbanos for which the mizbeach is used (because the focus is not on what it is used for but on what its first use is for because it derives its kedusha and is only complete after the first use. The idea is that the beginning of everything sets the tone and must be on the highest level. The first use of each kli paves the way for every subsequent use and therefore is viewed with extra scrutiny. With this Rav Yosef Engel explains the necessity for the neis shemen on chanukah in light of tumah hutrah/dechuya betzibur. It may be okay to have the oil tamei for lighting the menorah, but it is not okay to have tamei oil for the chanukas hamenorah which is meant to set the tone for each subsequent lighting. This is why the ba'alei hatosafos on the torah explain "bi'krovai ekadeish" that on the day a kohein hedyot starts his avoda he can't become tamei even to kerovim, because the beginning and chinuch of his avoda must be b'tahara.

Read more!