Q&A: Questions for His Honor; I would be happy if he would answer them in his valuable free time
Questions for His Honor; I would be happy if he would answer them in his valuable free time
Question
A. Fulfilling the obligation of the Hanukkah lights through a minor’s lighting:
In the Shulchan Arukh (Orach Chayim 675:3) he brings the view of “there are those who say” that a minor who has reached the age of education can discharge an adult’s obligation for lighting the Hanukkah lamp.
And the Mishnah Berurah (there, se’if katan 13) asks from the laws of Megillah (Orach Chayim 689:2), where the author states without qualification that one who hears it from a minor has not fulfilled his obligation. What is the distinction between fulfilling the obligation of Hanukkah lights through a minor’s lighting, and fulfilling the obligation of Megillah by hearing it from a minor? See there. Now in the responsa Chacham Tzvi (New Additions, siman 13, and these words were first brought in the responsa Divrei Rav Meshulam siman 5) he explained that Megillah is different, because the obligation rests on each and every individual to hear or read the Megillah; therefore a minor cannot discharge the adult’s obligation, even if the minor has reached the age of education. In contrast, with Hanukkah lights, the obligation is not on each and every individual, but rather that one of the members of the household should light. Therefore it is enough for a minor who has reached the age of education to light at the entrance to the courtyard, and then no one in the household remains obligated to light again. See there.
But his distinction requires explanation: if a minor, once he has reached the age of education, is considered “obligated in lighting” (at least rabbinically), why does he not also discharge the adult’s obligation in the reading of the Megillah? And if a minor, even after reaching the age of education, is not considered “obligated in lighting” (rather, only his father is obligated to educate him in this, but there is no obligation on the minor himself), then how can the household fulfill their obligation through his lighting? What distinguishes him, upon analysis, from a minor who has not reached the age of education, regarding whom all agree that one does not fulfill the obligation through his lighting, because he is not among the “members of the household” obligated in the lighting of Hanukkah lamps? And just as if a lamp was lit on its own or by the act of a monkey, one does not fulfill the obligation, so too this minor should not be able to discharge the household’s obligation.
B. In the text of the prayer “For the Miracles” recited on Hanukkah, one may ask: why is only “in the days of Mattathias son of Yohanan the High Priest” mentioned, etc., and it is not also mentioned that this was in Jerusalem—as on Purim, where we say: “in the days of Mordechai and Esther in Shushan the capital”?
C. In the hymn “Maoz Tzur” we say: “And they breached the walls of my towers and defiled all the oils.” One may ask: according to the opinion in Pesachim (16a) that the liquids in the slaughterhouse of the Temple are pure—that is, all liquids in the Temple do not contract impurity—how were all the oils defiled?
D. Prayer for a miraculous event: in the Rema (Orach Chayim 682:11) it says: when one forgot “For the Miracles” in Grace after Meals, when he reaches “The Merciful One” he should say: “May the Merciful One perform for us miracles and wonders just as You performed for our forefathers in those days at this season, in the days of Mattathias,” etc. This requires examination, since one does not pray for a miraculous event (as explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 3:2, and likewise in the Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 60a: “If his wife was pregnant,” etc.).
General questions:
A. It says in Avodah Zarah (55a): As for sufferings, when they are sent upon a person, they are made to swear that they shall come only on a certain day, and leave only on a certain day and at a certain hour, and through a certain person and through a certain medicine. When their time to leave arrives, this person goes to a house of idol worship. The sufferings say: Is it right that we should not leave? And then they say again: Should we, because this fool behaves improperly, violate our oath? And this is what Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the meaning of the verse “evil and faithful illnesses”? Evil in their mission, and faithful to their oath. It is explained that when sufferings are decreed upon a person, it is decreed until when he will be ill and when he will be healed. One may ask from here against what Tosafot wrote (Rosh Hashanah 16a, s.v. k’man), where they asked: what help is there in the daily blessing “Heal us,” since a person’s healing was already decreed on Yom Kippur? And they answered in the name of Rabbenu Tam that when he will become ill is decreed, but when he will be healed is not decreed. See there. Seemingly his words are contradicted by the Avodah Zarah passage above.
B. Maimonides wrote (Laws of Prayer ch. 1, halakhot 4–5) that Ezra and his court arose and established the order of prayer, and they also established the number of prayers and their times corresponding to the offerings, as in the verse: “Evening and morning and noon I speak and moan, and He hears my voice.” This is very difficult: since he wrote that Ezra and his court established the times of prayer, how does he bring a verse spoken by King David?
After apologizing for taking up your valuable time, honorable master!
Answer
A. This of course depends on the dispute between Rashi and Tosafot regarding a minor who discharges an adult’s obligation in Grace after Meals and in Megillah reading. I think it is brought explicitly in Tosafot regarding Megillah. Is the minor himself obligated in the matter, or is his father obligated to educate him?
It seems there is room to distinguish, in Rabbi Chaim’s manner, between obligation and fulfillment. This is how it works regarding Maimonides on a minor who became an adult between the two Passovers—if they offered the Paschal sacrifice on his behalf, he has fulfilled it and is not obligated in the second Passover—or regarding levirate marriage of a minor in the writings of Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik on the Torah, on Judah and Tamar, and in the Noda B'Yehuda and others. In all these cases they distinguish between the claim that the minor is not obligated and the claim that if he nevertheless did it, he has a mitzvah-fulfillment to his credit, similar to a woman regarding a time-bound positive commandment. Now, one can discuss whether someone who has fulfillment but is not obligated can discharge the obligation of someone else who is obligated. Plainly, no. But it seems to me that here there is room for the reasoning you brought. If the commandment applies to the individual person, then someone who is not obligated cannot discharge another. But if the commandment is on the household, then it is enough that he has a mitzvah-fulfillment even though he is not obligated.
B. I just thought that on Purim it was outside the Land of Israel. Perhaps there was reason to mention that in order to explain why Hallel is not recited, according to the Talmud’s answer in tractate Megillah that one does not recite Hallel for a miracle that occurred outside the Land.
C. Is your question on the hymn? After all, it is explicit in the Talmud that they defiled all the oils—“What is Hanukkah?” In the Talmud’s conclusion there, it remains difficult. Meaning, it is not clear whether that opinion stands in the final conclusion. True, one can ask why they did not bring a proof from here. But in Maimonides and in Rashi there they wrote that it refers only to water and blood, which implies that it does not apply to all liquids. And there is also room to discuss that even if they do not have impurity on the Torah level, they are impure with respect to becoming unfit for offering and for use in sacred matters, such as lighting the menorah.
D. One should distinguish between a general prayer for miracles in the future and a prayer for a concrete miracle. Every prayer before going out to war or for healing is a prayer for a miracle.
General questions:
A. See Tosafot on Shabbat 12b, where the tanna’im and medieval authorities (Rishonim) disagreed about this.
B. In making their enactment they relied on a verse from Ezra. Similar to this is the Mishnah at the end of tractate Berakhot: they instituted that one should greet his fellow using God’s Name, and although among the early authorities there are those who explained that this was a later enactment—the Raavad, brought in the Mikhtam, attributes it to the court of the Hasmonean house—they still brought a verse from Boaz in the Book of Judges. Especially since Maimonides wrote “as in the matter stated,” and it is clear that he did not mean they had an actual source from there.