On Beautification in the Hanukkah Lights
Midbar Matanah – 1996
The Griz’s remarks on the law of beautification with respect to the Hanukkah lamp are already well-trodden ground. Nevertheless, it seems to me that two points emerging from that discussion may be added, points that, to the best of my knowledge, have not received sufficient attention.
A.
The rule of beautification in commandments is derived from the verse This is my God, and I will glorify Him—Make yourself beautiful before Him through the commandments, ‘beautify yourself before Him through commandments’ (see Shabbat 133b and parallels). This is explicit in the Talmud and the halakhic decisors with respect to shreds of flesh that do not invalidate the circumcision (Shabbat 133b), the law of binding the lulav according to the view that a lulav does not require binding (Sukkah 33a), and more.
In the Talmud, Shabbat 21b, the Sages taught: The Rabbis taught: The commandment of Hanukkah is one candle for a man and his household. And those who are meticulous light a candle for each and every person, and those who are the most meticulous of all—Beit Shammai say: On the first day one lights eight, and from then on decreases progressively; and Beit Hillel say: On the first day one lights one, and from then on increases progressively, etc.—the Hanukkah commandment is one lamp for a man and his household; those who beautify the commandment light a lamp for each member of the household; and those who beautify most meticulously follow either Beit Shammai, who begin with eight and decrease, or Beit Hillel, who begin with one and increase; see there. So too this is codified in Maimonides, Laws of Hanukkah 4:1, and in the Tur and Shulchan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 671, in accordance with Beit Hillel. At first glance it seems that on Hanukkah there is a special law of beautification that goes beyond the general law of beautification in commandments, both in scope and in form. There are several levels of beautification, and a distinct form of the commandment at each level.
In Bava Kamma 9b the Talmud states: Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: For the beautification of a commandment, one should spend up to one-third extra on the commandment.—R. Zeira said that beautification of a commandment extends up to one-third in the commandment. Later there it says: In the West they said in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Up to one-third is at his own expense; beyond that, it is at the expense of the Holy One, blessed be He.—in the West they said in R. Zeira’s name: up to one-third is from his own, beyond that from the Holy One, blessed be He.
Rabbeinu Hananel there cites two views regarding the meaning of the sages of the West about beautification beyond one-third: either this is an extra measure of piety and the Holy One, blessed be He, will reward him for it, or only from funds made available to him by God, not from his own labor, does he have license to beautify beyond one-third.[1] At the end of his remarks he adds that one who beautifies a commandment is praiseworthy, as we learned with respect to the Hanukkah lamp: And those who are meticulous light a candle for each and every person, and those who are the most meticulous of all, etc. (Shabbat 21b). Clearly his intention here is to bring proof for beautification beyond one-third, for the source for beautification up to one-third is the verse This is my God, and I will glorify Him, as Rashi cites there.
In the novellae of R. Yitzhak Zev HaLevi on Laws of Hanukkah 4:1, he raises, in the name of one of the sages of the Land of Israel, the question how on Hanukkah those who beautify the commandment—and certainly those who beautify it most meticulously—spend more than one-third beyond the commandment itself. For the basic commandment is one candle for a man and his household, and even the first level of beautification is more than one-third beyond the commandment. At first glance, this seems to support what we wrote above: that on Hanukkah there is a special law of beautification even in quantitative terms.
The Griz writes there that the wording indicates that this law of those who beautify and those who beautify most meticulously is not an obligation incumbent upon a person, but rather the proper rule for one who wishes to beautify beyond what he is obligated to do. That is, by virtue of This is my God one is obligated to beautify up to one-third (although this is not indispensable to fulfillment), but one who wishes to beautify beyond that—this is the form in which he should do so. He then notes that this may be inferred from the wording of Rabbeinu Hananel on Shabbat 21b: That is, those who are meticulous are those who beautify the commandments, as we say: for the beautification of a commandment, up to one-third extra should be spent on the commandment.. His meaning is that there is no obligation to beautify in this manner, as is evident from the Bava Kamma passage. With this, Rabbeinu Hananel intended to explain why the Talmud used permissive language regarding the law of those who beautify the Hanukkah lamp; this accords with his earlier position. He further writes there that this can also be proven from Rabbeinu Hananel’s remarks in the Bava Kamma passage, as cited above.
However, it would seem that the law of beautification in the Hanukkah lamp depends on the two views cited by Rabbeinu Hananel regarding beautification beyond one-third. According to the second view, from money earned by one’s own labor one is not permitted to spend under this rule of beautification beyond one-third. If so, unless Hanukkah is different and one is obligated to beautify beyond one-third even from one’s own earnings, what proof could Rabbeinu Hananel bring from the Hanukkah lamp that it is proper to beautify beyond one-third? There the beautification would be based on a novel rule specific to Hanukkah. Although this is a major legal innovation, from the Griz’s remarks, and from the plain sense of Rabbeinu Hananel, it seems that the law of beautification in the Hanukkah lamp is the same law found in all commandments—namely, that it is proper to beautify even beyond one-third—and it depends on the two views above whether this applies even to one’s own earnings. If so, the special innovation in the beautification of the Hanukkah lamp concerns only the form of the beautification, not its quantity, that is, not the price involved, contrary to the simple understanding. Yet even this is apparently not unique to Hanukkah. In the lulav and in circumcision too there is beautification with a distinctive form, not merely an increase in cost up to one-third, as in the ordinary rule of beautification. Even so, with Hanukkah there still appears to be a special novelty, in that there are several levels of beautification, and especially that even at the highest level the Sages fixed a specific form of beautification, not merely a higher expenditure.[2]
Still, it should be noted that the difference between these two levels of beautification is not like the difference between the two levels of beautification throughout the commandments generally. In all commandments there are two levels in terms of cost: up to one-third and beyond one-third. This rule certainly applies also to the Hanukkah lamp: one should light with oil and not with a wax candle, even if the higher price is up to one-third, and beyond one-third from funds that did not come from his own labor—or, according to the other view, he is permitted even from his own earnings—as stated above. However, on Hanukkah an additional rule of beautification was introduced that is not directly connected to price but to the manner of lighting, and only indirectly does it turn out that it also costs more than one-third of the commandment.
One may ask whether the beautification of the Hanukkah lamp is an obligation, like This is my God, and I will glorify Him, or whether this is merely the proper form for fulfilling the rule of beautification beyond one-third that exists in all commandments. From Rabbeinu Hananel it appears that this is entirely optional, for otherwise how could Rabbeinu Hananel bring proof for beautification beyond one-third from the Hanukkah lamp, as explained above? Yet according to this, a legal novelty follows: if one has money only either to light one oil lamp, or to light wax candles at the highest level of beautification, it is obvious that it is preferable to light one oil lamp, for that fulfills the obligatory beautification required by This is my God, and I will glorify Him.
Now the Mishnah Berurah, Orah Hayyim 671:7, cites Chayei Adam, rule 153, and the responsa Binyan Olam, no. 34, which rule that in such a case it is preferable to light with wax and to continue increasing from night to night. Although I have not seen anyone note this, on the face of it this is against Rabbeinu Hananel’s view and against the simple understanding of the language of the Talmud and Maimonides, that this rule is optional, as the Griz infers. In any event, their position reflects the simple understanding of the law of the Hanukkah lamp: that here a special law of beautification was introduced and is obligatory; indeed, it takes precedence over the ordinary obligation of beautification derived from This is my God, and I will glorify Him that applies to all commandments, and clearly its cost is also more than one-third of the commandment.
An explanation of this I saw in the book Netivot Yehoshua by my teacher R. Yigal, part I, in Kuntres HaMo’adim, no. 12. He writes this by way of introduction to the famous question why we needed the miracle of the flask of oil, since we rule that impurity is permitted for the public, and they would have been allowed to light even with impure oil. He writes there that the entire miracle was that they were enabled to light with superior oil; that is, although it was permitted to light with impure oil, it is obviously more fitting to light with pure oil.[3] According to this, one could say that since the whole miracle was that it became possible to light in a beautified manner, the enactment commemorating that miracle includes an element of beautification in the very core of the enactment. In other words, this beautification does not stem from the general law of beautification applying to all commandments, but is a special rule in the Hanukkah lamp as a memorial to the beautification involved in lighting with pure oil. All this fits the Mishnah Berurah’s view, that there truly is a novel obligation of beautification here. But according to Rabbeinu Hananel, that this is like all commandments, where there is value even beyond one-third in the ways described above, it seems that there is no special obligation of beautification in the Hanukkah lamp. Possibly, however, the particular form of the beautification, and the fact that it has two levels, is for the reason suggested by Netivot Yehoshua.
What emerges from all this is that the Mishnah Berurah’s ruling—namely, that the law of beautification in Hanukkah lights is part of the original enactment and a full obligation—is against the plain sense of the Talmud and Maimonides, and explicitly against Rabbeinu Hananel, as the Griz wrote. From those commentators it emerges that this rule is optional for one who wishes to beautify, and is not part of the obligation of the enactment itself.
B.
In light of our conclusion in the previous section, it should be noted that the miracle of Hanukkah did not precede Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel by many years.[4] If indeed the beautification was obligatory as part of the original enactment of the Hanukkah miracle, it is somewhat difficult to understand how Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai could dispute the form of that enactment. In so short a period, and while the Jewish people were in their land, it is implausible that so great a disruption of tradition should have taken place. The straightforward conclusion is that they were not disputing the nature of the original enactment, but rather a law of beautification added to that enactment and not obligatory. According to this, perhaps not the entire public acted this way, and the possibility of disruption in the tradition sounds more plausible. Yet although this is apparently a major innovation, it seems possible to say that this law of beautification was not included at all in the Hasmonean enactment, but was introduced by Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai themselves.
Maimonides writes in Laws of Hanukkah 3:2: For this reason, the sages of that generation ordained that these eight days, beginning on the twenty-fifth of Kislev, should be days of joy and praise, and that candles should be lit in the evening at the entrances of the houses on each and every night of the eight nights, to show and reveal the miracle. These days are called Hanukkah, and they are forbidden for eulogy and fasting, like the days of Purim. And the lighting of the candles on them is a commandment of rabbinic origin, like the reading of the Megillah.—that because of this the sages of that generation instituted these eight days, beginning on the twenty-fifth of Kislev, as days of rejoicing and Hallel, and that lamps are lit on their evenings at the entrances of the houses each night of the eight nights to display and reveal the miracle; these days are called Hanukkah, eulogy and fasting are forbidden on them as on Purim, and the lighting of the lamps on them is a rabbinic commandment like the reading of the Megillah. His wording requires explanation in two respects: first, why did he add at the end that the lighting of the lamps on these days is a rabbinic commandment, when at the beginning of his remarks he had already stated the laws of the enactment? Second, his wording is not entirely clear. One may read it as saying that the enactment was to establish days of rejoicing, Hallel, and lamp-lighting; but the plain sense of his wording is that the enactment was to establish days of rejoicing and Hallel, and that we also light lamps. It seems, however, that the simple sense of his wording indicates that the lighting of the lamps was not part of the original Hasmonean enactment, and that is why he added that this law too is rabbinic, like the reading of the Megillah.[5]
The same is implied by the text of For the miracles and by many other sources (the Book of Maccabees, Sefer Yosippon, and Pesiqta Rabbati), which do not mention the miracle of the flask of oil at all. This suggests that in the days of Mattathias and the Hasmoneans, when this text was instituted, they in fact did not institute the lamps, which commemorate the flask of oil.[6]
Up to this point we have seen that it is possible that the entire enactment of lighting does not date from the Hasmonean period. However, Megillat Antiochus states in these words: Therefore the Hasmonean family fulfilled and ordained, and the children of Israel together with them, all alike, to observe these eight days as days of feasting and rejoicing, like the festivals written in the Torah, and to light lamps on them in order to make known the victories that the God of heaven wrought for them.—that the Hasmoneans established these eight days as days of feasting and joy, like the festivals written in the Torah, and to light lamps on them in order to make known the victories granted them by the God of heaven. This implies that the lighting of the lamps was indeed part of the original enactment of the Hasmoneans.
Nevertheless, our point—that it was the beautification that was instituted later, and not the basic commandment of lighting itself—remains intact. Something similar is entertained in Mo’adim U-zemanim by R. Sternbuch, part II, where he questions whether the enactment that each person light at the entrance of the house is not from the Hasmonean house; see his proofs there. The objection he himself raises against his position is, according to our approach here—that this applies only to the beautification—well resolved.
The upshot of all the above is that, in light of the Griz’s well-known discussion of beautification in Hanukkah lights, one should note that the commentators disagree whether the law of beautification is part of the obligation established by the enactment of the Hanukkah lamp, or rather an additional element that is not obligatory (although, of course, according to all views it does not invalidate fulfillment). Accordingly, one may argue, at least according to the view that it is obligatory, that the dispute of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel indicates that this enactment was a later addition of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai themselves, and not from the period of the Hasmonean house. Even according to the views that it is not obligatory, one could still say this, except that the necessity of doing so is weaker. And of course this matter requires an independent discussion; I intended only to draw the attention of careful readers to it.
[1] There is an apparent contradiction in his second interpretation. At first he writes that from money earned by one’s own labor he is not obligated, while at the end it implies that he is not permitted. However, one should examine the reading there, for the version ‘he is not obligated’ appears in parentheses. The straightforward reading seems to be that he is not permitted, akin to the enactment of Usha that one who spends generously should not spend more than one-fifth. For otherwise there seems to be no difference between the two interpretations—except perhaps a merely verbal difference in explaining the words at the expense of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is strained.
[2] There is room to consider, regarding beautification in circumcision and lulav, whether this is merely the ordinary rule of beautification—that the performance of the commandment should be more beautiful, since in practice a bound lulav and a complete circumcision are more beautiful. If so, it would seem obvious that in the Hanukkah lamp there is a special form of beautification that goes beyond the general requirement that the commandment be performed beautifully. Lighting the lamps in the distinctive pattern of increasing or decreasing from night to night is clearly not merely to make the lighting more attractive, but has some special significance. Indeed, in the Talmud in Shabbat cited above we find sources for these forms from the festival bulls and the like, which seemingly have no connection at all to beautification. In circumcision and lulav, by contrast, there is obviously no need for a source for the form of the beautification. Therefore it seems that beautification in the Hanukkah lamp is not merely to beautify the lighting, but also to attain additional values, though they are not indispensable.
[3] Still, it should be noted that this was miraculous oil, and it remains difficult why this should count as a greater beautification than impure oil, which is permitted ab initio for the public. This requires further discussion.
[4] There is broad discussion in the study hall and beyond as to how long these two schools continued. Some wish to say that since the heavenly voice declaring the law to follow Beit Hillel emerged in Yavneh, the two schools themselves still existed until then; but this is not at all compelling. See Dorot HaRishonim, part II, p. 294, who proves with many arguments that the principal disputes between the two schools themselves were in the time of Hillel and Shammai themselves, and that what continued until the period of Yavneh were only those who followed in their path. More would have to be said.
[5] In Hasdei Avot, printed at the end of Yakhin Da’at, no. 17, it is written that the enactment of the lamp was after the destruction of the Temple. R. Yehuda Gershuni likewise cites this in Or HaMizrah, N.Y., vol. 22, issue 79–80, p. 43. See also Binu Shenot Dor VaDor by R. N. D. Rabinovitch, who strongly challenges their position from many directions. His difficulties are resolved according to what we have written here: that the enactment was during the Temple period, but later than the Hasmonean era. Indeed, Maimonides himself in Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 1, writes explicitly that the Hanukkah lamp was instituted during the Temple period; see there.
[6] See Maharatz Chayot on Shabbat 21b, who cites in the name of Pesiqta Rabbati that the enactment of eight days is not because of the miracle of the flask of oil, but because of the eight spits that they found; see there.