A few questions
Shalom, in honor of the Reverend:
A few questions:
A) Election of a public messenger
Here we find the Magen Avraham Company and 16, in the case of a public messenger – whether it is preferable to have a righteous son of a righteous man, or a righteous son of a wicked man. Choosing a public messenger Here we find the Magen Avraham Company and 16, in the case of a public messenger – whether it is preferable to have a righteous son of a righteous man, or a righteous son of a wicked man. It is easy to study the prayer of the Magen Avraham Method (O’C 35:18), which is that it is good to choose a public messenger who is a righteous son of a righteous man, because the prayer of a righteous son of a righteous man is not similar to the prayer of a righteous son of a wicked man. However, the 16th chapter (ibid., 33) wrote to the founder from the words of the Rosh, “Indeed, the prayer of a righteous man, the son of a wicked man, is a sin.” And this is from what the Tur (ibid.) wrote in the name of the Rosh (Responsorial Psalm 4:22) that the merits of the Shatz do not depend on family lineage, and if he is from a despised family and is righteous, it is good to bring a relative from distant lineage, as it is said (Isaiah 75:19), “Peace be to the far and to the near,” according to Aisha. And in his words, it is a settled matter (Yevamot 67:1) that the prayer of a righteous son of a righteous son is not similar to the prayer of a righteous son of a wicked son, and the mother of the righteous son of a righteous son of a wicked son. [And see in the Pamagi (ibid., 16:73) who wrote, that even according to the 16th chapter, the merit of a righteous son of a wicked son is greater than the merit of a righteous son of a righteous son, that is, on the other days of the year, but on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur it is good to take a righteous son of a righteous son. And so is the tribe of Ephraim (11:10, 30:1). And Yevamat in all this. More on this matter.}
b) In the Shulchan Shulchan (Tarahu, 3), the ruling on the blessing of the seer was brought, and it is for someone who does not light a Hanukkah candle and does not have someone light it for him in his home, who recites the blessing upon seeing his friend’s Hanukkah candle, the blessing that he performed miracles, and that he lived his life if that happened on the first day. One should carefully consider why the blessing of the seer is nullified. If it is said that he recites the blessing on the actual time of Hanukkah [as is the ruling on the blessing of time on the Yot that is said in the market if he did not bless with kiddush], did not the Sha’at (Tarahu, 3) satisfy himself whether he established the blessing of time on the actual day of Hanukkah [and in the Parach (Tarahu, 1) it is clear that he did not establish that he lived his life on the occasion of Hanukkah] and why did he not expand his scope from here. It is also difficult to say that the one who recites the blessing “Shehayinnu” upon the kem is studying the issues of Chanukah, the mitzvah that he fulfills by sight. Therefore, it was from the ruling that the one who recited the blessing “Shehayinnu” on the first day and on the second day lit a lamp in his house should say “Shehayinnu” again, as for the mitzvah of lighting the lamp, he has not yet recited the blessing “Shehayinnu”, and in the Shulchan (ibid.) it is not explained that the 23rd century does not recite the blessing “Shehayinnu” on the second day.
3) In the Shulchan Aruch (O”C 1901) it is written: ‘The one who lights the candle on the first night blesses three blessings, etc. and may his life be blessed, and if he did not bless for a while on the first night, he blesses on the second night or when he remembers.’ And in the Life of Adam (Part 2-3, the Law of Flour), God wrote regarding the matter of his life being blessed on the mitzvah of taking a lulav, that if he forgot and did not bless on the first day, he can still say a blessing even on the seventh day, however in the P”M”G (47:30) it is written that if he took a lulav on the first day and did not bless may his life be blessed again, he cannot say a blessing. And they brought it to Shaar HaZion (ibid., 4). And tseb, what is the difference between a Hanukkah candle and taking a lulav? The dalgavi of a Hanukkah candle, as the rabbis say, even if one lit it and did not recite the blessing on the first day, one repeats and recites the blessing on the second day, as the Shulchan Arhat rules there for the Hadiya. [And it could be said that the Maggid scholars believe that one should not recite the blessing “she-chayinu” on the mitzvah except at the beginning of its performance, but the blessing “she-chayinu” on Hanukkah is also a blessing for the day itself, as explained in the Meyri that one who does not have candles recites the blessing “she-chayinu” on the day itself, and therefore one also recites the blessing on the night of Monday, as one who did not recite the blessing for the journey at the beginning, and therefore one recites the blessing on the rest of the days of the journey. However, it is impossible to say so, since in the Pmag itself (47:172) it is explained that one does not recite the blessing for the day without lighting it, and thus it is proven by the Dasal that the blessing “she-chayinu” is valid for the mitzvah of lighting it, and yet the Shulchan Arhat rules that one can recite the blessing “she-chayinu” on the night of Monday, and again, the Shavuot, the Shavuot, states that a lulav from a Hanukkah candle can be recited.]
d) On Shabbat (Na, 2): May Hanukkah. And Rashi: On what miracle did he establish it? It is explained in the Book of Genesis, namely on the miracle of the oil [and so Emek Bracha]. And Tza, in the same place (23, 1) it is said that a woman is obligated to perform the Hanukkah miracle because they were also present at the same miracle, Ayish in Rashi, namely because of the decree of the hegemon and the miracle was performed by a woman. And Tza, that is, the lighting of the Hanukkah candle is on the miracle of the oil, and why is a woman obligated to perform it because of the decree of the Greeks, and is this not a reason for the obligation to light the Hanukkah candle. And so, it is possible for Rashi to interpret because they were in the miracle of the oil, when the Chanukah candles were cut off. [And perhaps Rashi did not command women to ensure that the Menorah candles were lit in the Temple, and they were not in this miracle of examining the affairs of Chanukah, Parasha Kamez, Chanukah Ha-Shem. But then, what is the use of them being in another miracle of the expulsion of the Greeks in order to obligate them to the Chanukah candle, which is because of the miracle of the oil].
1. It is possible that the Taz believes that even though the prayer of a righteous son of a righteous man is better, there is a point in bringing together a righteous son of a wicked man (from distant descendants) and making him a Shatz. Beyond that, the Yevamot does not say that he is a better Shatz, but rather that his prayer in private is more accepted. Considerations regarding Shatz and the congregation are completely different.
2. One recites the blessing of “She Chayyanu” on the Nissa publications, which is also a mitzvah. When one lights, he fulfills it by lighting, and if one does not light, he fulfills it by sight.
3. A. There is no evidence from the PMG, since even if the blessing is for the day, it was corrected to be a blessing upon lighting. Therefore, the division could certainly be that on Chanukah the blessing is for the day. B. And perhaps it can be said in light of the Gemara that says that the Etrog of the days is divided from one another (contrary to the mitzvah of the Sukkah), and therefore one does not recite the blessing on the second day.
4. The fact that the Gemara says that the lighting of the candle was established because of the miracle of the oil pan does not mean that this is the reason for the regulation. It is clear that Chanukah and Purim are mainly because of the victory and salvation, and there is no need to exaggerate the evidence for something that is simply a matter of opinion. Rather, the sages established this in the form of lighting candles because of the miracle of the oil pan. But the lighting is because of the victory, and therefore they believe that the women should also be in the miracle of the victory. Furthermore, it is clear that they were in the miracle of the lighting, since it is a miracle for the entire public (just as they are obligated in the public mitzvot like the congregation). And this is precisely the evidence for what I wrote above, that Rashi wrote that they were in the miracle because of the war and not the oil pan, because being in the miracle of the oil pan does not benefit from committing to lighting the candle (because it was established because of the war and not because of the oil pan).
See Rambam 53:33, who wrote:
And for this reason, the Sages of that generation established that these eight days, beginning on the night of the twenty-fifth of Kislev, would be days of joy and praise, and that they would light candles on the doors of houses in the evening on each of the eight nights to show and reveal the miracle. These are the days that are called Hanukkah, and they are forbidden from mourning and fasting, like the days of Purim, and lighting candles on them is a mitzvah from the words of the scribes, like the reading of the Megillah.
And if you look closely at his language, you will see that the regulation of lighting the candle is a later one. In that generation, the days of Hallel and Simcha were established, and today, candles are also lit on them to reveal the miracle. Therefore, at the end of his words, Maimonides repeats and says again that lighting the candle is a mitzvah from the Mishnah, after he had already said that the Sages established Hanukkah, since lighting it is a later regulation. Therefore, it was necessary to repeat and say that this is also a law from the Mishnah, just like the days of Hallel and Simcha, which were established from the beginning. And this will also explain how the B’Habitat and the B’Sh’ot differed in the manner of lighting the candle, even though they lived several generations after the miracle. And did they not see what their ancestors and rabbis did? But if this is a new regulation that only began in their time, then all of this is a mishnah.
And from this you will understand that the regulation of lighting candles is nothing more than the way of observing Hanukkah, but not that the miracle of the oil jar is the reason for it. At the beginning of the process, they did not light candles at all, but rather celebrated days of praise and joy in memory of the victory. After a while, they decided to establish the observance in the form of lighting candles in memory of the miracle of the jar.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
