Q&A: Plain-Sense and Midrashic Conservatism in the Commandments of Hanukkah
Plain-Sense and Midrashic Conservatism in the Commandments of Hanukkah
Question
Dai If one did not light, he may still light. But from then on, the time has passed. Rabbi Yosef Porat says that one should be careful to light immediately at night and not delay too much; nevertheless, if he delayed, he should light because of the doubt, since the Talmud gives two other interpretations. But according to the Ri, nowadays one need not be concerned about when exactly he lights, because for us the only public recognition is for the members of the household, since we light indoors:
It seems that both of them lit indoors, and the Ri Porat “took the Sages literally” and understood that the definition of the time from sunset until the marketplace empties is not subject to change, whereas for the Ri there is a flexibilization of the Sages’ words, and in Rabbi Michi’s language from the lectures, an “application of the words of the Sages to the current reality.”
Does the Rabbi think that the dispute here is between plain-sense conservatism and midrashic conservatism?
Answer
Not exactly, since both of them lit indoors, and in that sense they are not plain-sense conservatives. The question is whether one must adhere to the formal parameters of Jewish law even where they are no longer relevant (because when the reason lapses, the enactment does not lapse, and something established by formal count requires another formal count to permit it), or not.
But I have already written and said that there really are no plain-sense conservatives. It is an ethos, not a real ideology of any group (perhaps with the exception of hilltop youth and the women in shawls, who really do try to go back and live like Abraham our forefather).
Discussion on Answer
A. I did not understand why neither of them is a plain-sense conservative. There was a time of danger, so they lit indoors (I know this is a big question—what kind of danger are we talking about… It is not far-fetched that they understood it like the Ritva, I think, that this even refers to financial loss and the like). That is the straightforward meaning of the definitions the Sages gave us.
B. I accept what the Rabbi said, that there really are no plain-sense conservatives… I meant that there is more of a pull in the plain-sense direction, like in the Haredi–Modern Orthodox division.
I want to argue that the Ri holds that he is fulfilling the formal parameters of Jewish law, and not that when one is indoors the enactment is nullified… He understands that in a place where people do not light outside, the Sages would want us to light when the members of the household are present. In that sense, this is an inquiry into the “reason for the verse” as applied to the Sages’ words.
Ri Porat holds that one who lights at home at nine at night does not fulfill what the Sages defined. Ri holds that he does.
Am I not right?
Let me be more precise: regarding lighting inside the house, this is a plain-sense understanding of the Sages’ words.
The dispute (in my opinion) is about fulfilling “if he did not light, he may still light.”
According to Ri Porat, if you lit after half an hour, you did not fulfill this explanation. According to Ri, you did, because indoors this expands to the entire time that the members of the household are present.
If that is the “plain sense” of the Sages’ definition, then there is no such thing as plain-sense conservatism. Clearly there is some flavor here of a debate about midrashic conservatism, but as I explained, neither of them is truly plain-sense.
See column 190