Q&A: The Hanukkah Riddle More Interesting than the Beit Yosef’s Question
The Hanukkah Riddle More Interesting than the Beit Yosef’s Question
Question
I would like to raise a new point.
I was asked whether one must sell his clothing in order to obtain a Sabbath candle. The answer is that this is not explicit in the halakhic decisors.
By contrast, regarding a Hanukkah candle this is explicit.
So a Hanukkah candle is greater than a Sabbath candle.
But if he has only one candle, he should light the Sabbath candle, משום peace in the home.
That implies that the Sabbath candle is greater than the Hanukkah candle.
A paradox.
One solution is to say that it was never actually stated that there is no need to sell one’s clothing for a Sabbath candle.
Possible, though it seems a bit forced to me.
I tried to think that perhaps there are different planes here:
publicizing the miracle is more important than my personal comfort, and therefore one sells the clothing. But peace in the home is more important than publicizing the miracle. If so, there is no a fortiori inference, since these are different planes. (One would have to assume that my personal comfort is more important than peace in the home. Were I not hesitant, I would say that if I am uncomfortable, there will not be peace in the home, and therefore it would not be right to sell the clothing for a Sabbath candle.)
I think this is nice, but in practice (something we don’t like talking about) it doesn’t help. Because I will sell the clothing in order to buy a Hanukkah candle. Then, when I buy the candle, suddenly I have one candle, which I will be forced to light as a Sabbath candle. Consequently, I will have to sell another garment. And if I do not have another garment, I will end up with a Sabbath candle and not a Hanukkah candle.
I would be glad to know whether the Rabbi has a solution to this matter.
Thank you very much,
and may you have a happy Hanukkah, radiant with the light of Torah.
Answer
Mathematicians define transitivity as follows: if A<B and B<C then A<C.
But not every property satisfies transitivity. For example, if A is B’s father and B is C’s father, it is not true that A is C’s father.
Notice that in the definition of transitivity we referred to the relation “<”. There are other relations that are not transitive (such as being the father of).
But even with regard to the relation “greater than,” there is not necessarily transitivity, if one can say that A is greater than B in respect P (but not in respect Q), while B is greater than C in respect Q (but not P). Something like what you wrote.
An example: the relation of similarity seems at first glance to be transitive. If A is similar to B and B is similar to C, then A is similar to C. But regarding the category of building on the Sabbath, Avnei Nezer wrote (in an article), and the Kehillot Yaakov cites him (in the section on building and demolishing utensils), that the primary category of building is the building of a house. There we gather components (bricks, wood) and create from them a functional space. This primary category has two subcategories (according to Maimonides): curdling cheese — gathering parts that does not create a space; and making a tent — creating a space not by gathering parts. Notice that both subcategories resemble the primary category, but in different respects, while between the two subcategories themselves there is not the slightest similarity. So even the relation “similar to” can concern one aspect but not another (like the relation “greater than”), and therefore need not be transitive.
This is probably the solution to the collection of loops raised by the commentators (Tosafot on the loss of one’s rabbi versus one’s own loss versus the honor of one’s father, Hatam Sofer on a similar loop in tractate Berakhot, the well-known dilemma of matzah made from the new grain, and so on). There is no transitivity there, and therefore there is no difficulty in the fact that no hierarchy is maintained and instead a circle is formed. In practice, of course, this can create a practical dilemma: what nevertheless should be done first, what should be preferred? That is a conflict — what to do — but not a contradiction, meaning claims that cannot be reconciled and it is impossible to adopt both or all three together.
So in general, there is no necessity for transitivity everywhere.
What you present here is not a contradiction (precisely because of what you explained, that there is priority here from different perspectives, and therefore there is no problem if transitivity does not hold) but at most a conflict. However, you argued that this conflict has no practical way out. Note that even if that is true, there is still no conceptual problem. We simply do not know how to act in practice, but that is not an essential/theoretical problem.
Now we have to discuss whether there really is no practical solution to this conflict. What you are describing is that on a Hanukkah Sabbath one must sell clothing in order to buy a Sabbath candle (because one does so in order to buy a Hanukkah candle, and then one gives preference to the Sabbath candle). On an ordinary Sabbath this obviously does not arise. It is like: since it serves as a wall for Sabbath purposes, it serves as a wall for a sukkah only on the Sabbath of Sukkot. Here too: since one needs to sell clothing in order to buy a Hanukkah candle, one must sell it in order to buy a Sabbath candle.
But I do not see this as a problem. Here are a few thoughts of mine on the matter:
1. Indeed, on the Sabbath of Hanukkah one must sell clothing in order to buy a Hanukkah candle, and then we will use it as the Sabbath candle, and now we will sell another garment and buy a Hanukkah candle. That’s all. The circle does not continue beyond that.
2. One could say that even on the Sabbath of Hanukkah, one sells clothing for the lighting of the Hanukkah candle and lights Hanukkah, not Sabbath. The reason is that the Sabbath candle requirement has already fallen away, because we have no money, and for that one need not sell clothing. Once we are exempt from the Sabbath candle, we buy a Hanukkah candle and light it.
3. Another comment: when you light the candle that you bought with the value of the garment, you do not have to decide whether it is a Hanukkah candle or a Sabbath candle. Leave it to the Holy One, blessed be He, to decide. True, you would not be able to recite a blessing, but blessings are not indispensable. And perhaps one could recite both blessings and let the candle serve both purposes (although that would involve “bundling commandments together”).
Happy Hanukkah to all of you,
Discussion on Answer
Thank you very much!
Although in less precise wording, that was indeed what I meant:
If we are dealing with two different planes, there is not necessarily any carryover of all the details. That is what I was trying to demonstrate.
What I meant by “paradox” was this: if we assume that there really is no obligation to sell one’s clothing in order to light a Sabbath candle, we would arrive at a different conclusion by force of transitive carryover. And indeed there is no necessity for such carryover, but in practice the carryover would occur. Still, the Rabbi is right that even if in practice the result is that a person will light Sabbath candles, that does not mean there is an obligation to sell his clothing. It simply means that in this case a situation arises in which I bought Hanukkah candles and oops — in the end we use them for Sabbath candles, apparently like solution 1 that you suggested.
Solutions 2 and 3 seem less likely to me. I will explain why:
2. When does the exemption from the Sabbath candle due to poverty take effect? Does that exemption take effect before sunset? Maybe one could argue that since one may light from plag haminchah onward, the exemption would take effect at that moment. And that would mean that only if I sold the garment and bought Hanukkah candles after plag haminchah would the exemption from Sabbath candles already have taken effect. In short — forced.
3. The laws of the Sabbath candle and the Hanukkah candle are different. One is supposed to benefit from Sabbath candles, while it is forbidden to benefit from Hanukkah candles. Hanukkah candles should be lit outside by the doorway, while Sabbath candles should be lit indoors, in a place where one can benefit from them. One can decide to rely on the Rema and simply light indoors, and not actively benefit but only passively. But still, the matter seems difficult, as stated.
Thank you very much! I assumed I would merit more precise mathematical definitions, and indeed you did not disappoint 😉
A happy and radiant Hanukkah!
Hello.
For the sake of the dialectic, I think solutions 2 and 3 are not entirely implausible.
2. The exemption does not necessarily take effect at a specific instant. If you are poor, they did not require you to light a Sabbath candle. The proof is that you are not obligated to sell your clothing for it. So even if you bought a Hanukkah candle, you are still poor and therefore still exempt. It is somewhat similar to the logic behind the solution to the loop involving matzah from the new grain (where one is not supposed to spend all one’s money on a prohibition that is set aside in the face of a positive commandment).
3. I said there is a difference regarding the blessing, and therefore one can light without a blessing. The same applies here: because of the doubt, do not benefit from the light. As for the place of lighting, you already mentioned the Rema (though in my opinion his leniency nowadays is implausible, and I already devoted a column to this in the past).
I didn’t understand number 2.
If a person is poor and has no money to buy a Sabbath candle, he is exempt from lighting.
Afterward, if he finds a candle, would he still not be obligated to light it because he was already exempt?
Yes, he would be obligated. I was talking about the same moment in time.
Regarding number 3:
A Sabbath candle has to be usable for one’s needs (peace in the home),
while a Hanukkah candle may not be used,
so it seems impossible to fulfill both with one candle.
And if at the moment he knows that the candle will not actually be for Hanukkah, is he still obligated to sell his clothing?
Just one more clarification: a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. But what happens when it is a positive commandment versus a positive commandment, or a prohibition versus a prohibition? These are examples that you would not call a paradox, but there is still a practical dilemma here (a conflict). The same applies in our case.
(In parentheses: when it is a positive commandment versus a positive commandment or a prohibition versus a prohibition, there is a solution: passive omission is preferable. But I only wanted to illustrate the difference between a contradiction/paradox and a conflict/dilemma.)