H'annukah

Eight candles in accordance with Beit Hillel

Rav M. Elon

“Ner ish u-beito"
What is H'annukah?
The illumination of fire
The fourth element
A spark of Divinity
The purity of wine

1. “Ner ish u-beito”

Our first topic of discussion which will usher us into this shi’ur is the famous dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as to the correct order of lighting the H'annukah lights – whether each night one is to increase the number of candles he lights, or rather begin with eight lights and reduce one candle each following night.

Let us consider the basic Halakhah regarding the requirement to light the H'annukah candles before we deal with the discussion surrounding the manner of its lighting.

The Ge'mara states:

"תנו רבנן: מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו.

והמהדרין - נר לכל אחד ואחד.

והמהדרין מן המהדרין –

בית שמאי אומרים: יום ראשון מדליק שמנה, מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך;

ובית הלל אומרים: יום ראשון מדליק אחת, מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך."

“Our Rabbis taught (in a be'raittah): The mitzvah of H'annukah (lights) is ner ish u-beito (one candle per man and his household).

The me'hadrin (those who glorify the mitzvah) – (they kindle) a candle for each (member of the household).

The me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin (those who fulfill the mitzvah on its utmost level) –

Beit Shammai say: ‘The first day he kindles eight (lights), from then one he decreases (the number of lights)’;

Beit Hillel say: ‘The first day he kindles one (light), from then on he increases (the number of lights).’”

(Shabbat 21b)

The Halakhah thus sets three levels for the perfomance of the obligation to kindle the H'annukah lights:

The basic obligation is for each household to kindle a single light each night of H'annukah.

Those who are the me'hadrin – who seek to glorify the mitzvah – have each member of the household kindle a single light each night of H'annukah.

The question of the manner in which me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin – those who are particularly careful in their observance and wish to perform the mitzvah in the best possible manner – are to kindle the H'annukah lights is a subject of debate. Beit Hillel requires an incremental supplementation, while Beit Shammai requires an incremental reduction of the number of lights.

How are we to understand this dispute? The Ge'mara itself can in fact be understood in two different manners which then depict the dispute of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai in two differing circumstances.

The Ge'mara states that Beit Hillel and Bet Shammai dispute whether the me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin is to sucessively increase or decrease the number of candles he lights.

Does this statement relate to the previous practice of the me'hadrin – whereby every member of the household lights one candle each? In that case the me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin have each member of the household light the H'annukah lights, as do the me'hadrin, yet now each member lights more candles (whether in decreasing or increasing order).

Alternately the Ge'mara’s depiction of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai’s dispute may refer to the very first obligation of ner ish u-beito. In that case the me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin do not supplement the practice of the me'hadrin, but rather supplement the requirement of ner ish u-beito – every household still has one set of candles, yet now the quantity of candles are increased (one again whether in increasing or decreasing order).

These two possible explanations of the Ge'mara is the subject of much debate among the Poskim (Halakhic Decisors).

Tosafot maintain that Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai concur that the me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin are to light only one set of candles, the dispute applies to the order of this practice. They motivate this understanding by explaining that the me'hadrin have each member light a candle. The me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin wish to indicate that additional lights are required: one light on one night and then two on the next (according to Beit Hillel). Tosafot argue that the only way that this effect can be realized is if only one set of candles is lit for the entire household. If every member lights multiple candles then it merely seems as if many members of the household are each lighting one candle per day – which would only be in accordance with the me'hadrin practice.

The Rambam disputes this stance. The Rambam understands that the mehadrin min ha-me'hadrin make sure to fulfill the mitzvah by lighting additional candles to those kindled by the mehadrin – thus every member of the household is to light his own set of candles in the manner proscribed by either Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai.

The Halakhah always follows Beit Hillel, yet the codification of either the opinion of the Rambam or Tosafot is quite surprising.

Generally, the Shulh'an Arukh follows the opinion of the Sefaradi Poskim – in this case the Rambam – and the Re'ma follows that of the Ashkenazi School of Tosafot; however this is not the case in this halakhah.

"כמה נרות מדליק? בלילה הראשון מדליק אחד, מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך אחד בכל לילה עד שבליל האחרון יהיו שמונה; ואפילו אם רבים בני הבית לא ידליקו יותר."

“How many candles does he light? On the first night he lights one, thereafter he adds a candle every night until on the last night there are eight (candles); and even if there are many members of the household they do not light any more.”

(Shulh'an Arukh 671:2)

Thus the Shulh'an Arukh rules in accordance with the opinion of Tosafot, and therefore the Sefaradi world makes sure to have only one H'annukiyah per household. The Re'ma, however, appends his note to this halakhah disputing the Shulh'an Arukh’s ruling, deciding in favor of the Rambam’s opinion:

"הגה: וי"א דכל אחד מבני הבית ידליק, וכן המנהג פשוט."

ויזהרו ליתן כל אחד ואחד נרותיו במקום מיוחד, כדי שיהא היכר כמה נרות מדליקין (מהר"א מפראג)."

“Note: There are those who are of the opinion that each member of the household light (H'annukah candles), this is the clear-cut practice; and each and every (member) should be careful to place his candles in a distinctive location so that the number of candles they are lighting is (easily) recognizable.”

The Ashkenazi world acts in accordance with the Re'ma’s ruling while making sure to fulfill the condition that each set of lights be set apart so it is clear that each person has lit the appropriate number of candles each night.

2. What is H'annukah?

The Ge'mara(Shabbat 21b) asks: “מאי חנוכה” – “What is H'annukah?” – and then answers that only one jug of pure oil with the seal of the Kohen Gadol was found and despite containing only enough oil for one day it sufficed for eight days. Thus it is clear that the nature of H'annukah is defined by fire, something unique among all our festivals. (While there are certain practices that involve fire no festival is defined and characterized by this entity.)

There were many miracles that occurred on H'annukah – our victory over the Greeks was replete with miraculous events, yet it is the miracle of the oil for the Me'norah that the Ge'mara lists as the motivation for H'annukah, and it is the mitzvah of candle lighting that defines H'annukah. Indeed, our central H'annukah experience was our miraculous salvation and triumph over the Greeks, yet it is through this miracle of the oil that H azal teach us to perceive and understand H'annukah.

The miracle involving fire is the basis of the dispute between Beit Hillel and Bet Shammai – whether we are to decrease or increase the burning fire – indeed how fire is to become manifest on H'annukah. This dispute is given expression regarding the H'annukah lights, yet its roots run far deeper, and it is this dipute – in its entirety – we must understand.

Furthermore we must understand H'annukah’s singularity in that it is the first festival steeped in the Torah she-be'al peh (“The Oral Law”). Indeed Purim preceded it, yet is in H'annukah that we first meet the concepts of me'hadrin and me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin – further levels of the mitzvah to supplement its basic fulfillment. It is the first time we encounter the desire to do more than the law requires – something which almost no-one among Am Yisra’el fulfills in accordance with only the basic law itself, yet we must still understand that the fundamental requirement is “ner ish u-beito”.

The home and household forms the basis of this mitzvah. The Greeks attempted to destroy the strongest most central point of the Jewish nation – the home. They entered the Temple defiling every jug of oil – save that jug with the seal of the Kohen Gadol. The reason they were unable to do so is because the Kohen Gadol represents the kodesh kodashim – the Holy of Holies – for it is only he who may enter the kodesh kodashim on Yom Kippur.

Kodesh – that which is sanctified and holy – is the opposite of h'ol – the secular and the mundane. As with light and dark, darkness is the absence of light as h'ol is the absence of kodesh. Therefore one may never mix the kodesh and h'ol, and must always separate between them as night is separate from day.

In the days of the Redemption there will be no light and day, the light of the moon at night will be as the light of the sun, for there is no darkness or night when light is not hindered and restrained. At the end of days the deep essence will be revealed in all its glory.

In our times of exile there is the darkest of nights. Night is distinct from day, and kodesh is distinct from h'ol – combining them is sacreligious. The Maharal explains that the kodesh kodashim is not the place most distinct from the mundane but rather the point where the h'ol is in fact a facet of the holy.

The battle of the Greeks against the Jews was a battle of kodesh against kodesh. The Greek culture, arts, morality, and philosphy are almost akin to ours. Thus they posed the greatest threat, for their depth of being can easily captivate the weakened Jew. The Maharal explains that Greece ( יוון – yavan) has the numerical value of sixty-six while the word היכל (Heikhal) – the Temple’s Inner Sanctuary – has the numerical value of sixty-five; so great is the threat the Greeksd posed to our holy Temple and faith.

The Greeks attempted to assail our most essential beliefs for they attempted to defile that oil with the seal of the Kohen Gadol who enters the kodesh Kodashim. Furthermore they attacked the expression of the Kodesh Kodashim in the Jewish nation – the mitzvah of Be'rit Milah (Circumcision) where the flesh and holy become one. The Hellenists worshipped the pure physical, physical that served its own purpose; they denied the connection between the physical and the holy, that the physical must uplift the holy.

Our kodesh kodashim is the Jewish home. The Jewish betrothal is termed “kiddushin” – “sanctification” – for the meeting of man and wife is the founding of a sacred testament to God. This is the great event of humans who live a physical life in sanctity and as part of the holy.

The be'rakhah recited under the H'uppah is “מקדש עמו ישראל על ידי חופה וקידושין” – “Who sanctifies His nation Yisra’el through H'uppah and Kiddushin.” There is no other be'rakhah where we state that God has sanctified us through any specific act – yet when it is the Jewish home that we are founding it is clear that this is where God is sanctified.

Thus we light a candle every night to light revealing the sanctity in every home unit. There are those, the me'hadrin who are able to have each member of the family manifest the sanctity. How, then, are we to understand the dispute of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai? Are we simply to add more fire?

3. The illumination of fire

Our answer lies in another dispute – regarding the be'rakhah recited over the candle at Havdallah.

"בית שמאי אומרים: שברא מאור האש,

ובית הלל אומרים: בורא מאורי האש."

“Beit Shammai say: ‘(he recites) “Who created the illumination of the fire;”’

Beit Hillel say: ‘“Who creates the illuminations of fire.”’”

(Be'rakhot 51b)

Not only do they disagree as to the present or past tense of “create,” they also dispute whether the singular or plural of “illumination” should be employed.

The Ge'mara concludes that Beit Shammai do not preclude the opinion of Beit Hillel regarding whether the preset or past tense should be employed – concurring that the present tense is also acceptable – yet on the issue of the singular or plural term they remain in disagreement. Beit Shammai maintains that every fire emits one light, whereas Beit Hillel maintains that every fire emits multiple lights. Indeed Beit Hillel turns to Beit Shammai and say: “There are many illuminations in light” (ibid.)

It is quite obvious that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai are not disputing empirical fact – anyone who has examined a flame knows that it takes on and emits various colors as it burns.

In order to understand this aspect of their dispute we must return to the continuation of our very first source, the Ge'mara dealing with manner in which the H'annukah lights are to kindled in accordance with the me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin.

"...אמר עולא פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד אמר טעמא דבית שמאי כנגד ימים הנכנסין וטעמא דבית הלל כנגד ימים היוצאין וחד אמר טעמא דבית שמאי כנגד פרי החג וטעמא דבית הלל דמעלין בקדש ואין מורידין."

“Ula stated: ‘Two Amora’im in the West (Erez' Yisra’el) disputed this (as to the motivation of the dispute) – Rabi Yosi bar Abin and Rabi Yosi bar Ze'veida.

One said that the motivation of Beit Shammai (in their order of lighting) is in relation to the approaching days, and the motivation of Beit Hillel is in relation to the previous days;

and the other said that the motivation of Beit Shammai (in their order of lighting) is in relation to the oxen (of the sacrifices) of the Festival (of Sukkot), and the motivation of Beit Hillel is that one is always to ascend in kodesh (sanctity) and never descend.’”

(Shabbat 21b)

While one explanation of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai’s dispute claims that it is a matter of differing perspectives - Beit Hillel counts each day of H'annukah as it occurs, while Beit Shammai counts the days of H'annukah yet to come – the second explanation seems quite peculiar. How are the sacrifices of Sukkot which start with eight oxen on the first and then decrease in increments of one to relate to H'annukah? While the concept of “ma’alin be'kodesh ve'-ein moridin” – “one is always to ascend in kodesh (sanctity) and never descend” – is quite beautiful, it seems to have no connection to H'annukah. Moreover, what exactly is the dispute about? Each motivation seems to be completely indepedent.

4. The fourth element

If we consider the concept of fire we will recall that the universe is comprised of four basic elements – earth, water, wind, and fire. Fire is unique for it was created by man. The other elements were created by God, and man may only acts to harness them in an attempt to utilize and gain benefit from them. Fire, however, only existed in potential until man unleashed it bringing the fire itself into existence.

Every week we have two occasions when we utilize light – Candle Lighting prior to Shabbat, and Havdallah at the conclusion of Shabbat. We recite a be'rakhah during Havdallah over fire for we have the tradition (based on the Ge'mara in Pesah'im 54a) that after the first Shabbat night had fallen and then man took two stones, striking them together in order to make light.

This Ge'mara stands in contradistinction to the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot that lists fire among those things created on erev Shabbat during twilight. The Ge'mara (ibid.) thus answers that indeed the potential for fire was created by God on erev Shabbat, yet this potential was only brought into reality when God bestowed wisdom unto man to realize this potential immediately following Shabbat.

Fire was man’s very first creation – and every Shabbat, the moment Shabbat exits, we recall this moment by lighting the Havdallah candle. Then we recite a be'rakhah to God that He is the Creator of fire! We acknowledge that our first creative act whereby we created one of the four basic elements is not ours – but rather God’s. This is the acknowledgement we begin our week with – the week that is replete with creative activity begins with our declaration that any creativity is not ours, but rather God’s.

Rav Kook’s comments in Ein Ayah on the Ge'mara in Berakhot are extremely enlightening. Rav Kook explains that the be'rakhah which we recite at Havdallah on the candle expresses the fundamental concept that not only are all natural phenomena and all organic creations the handiwork of God and thus fulfill the role decreed upon them, but even those artificial innovations that man forms and creates are the handiwork of God. Indeed, each generation greatly develops and advances in its understanding of the world and in its ability to create; in the words of Rav Kook:

"שכל דור ודור מחדש בסתרי הטבע להוליד דברים חדשים ותולדות חדשות, כולם מעשה ד' המה שיצר את הטבע באופן הראוי להתחבר עם שכל האדם, שגם הוא הנהו חלק אחד מחלקי המציאות"

“For every generation innovates in the hidden secrets of nature initiating new things and new derivatives – which are all the handiwork of God Who created nature in the correct manner such that it can bond with man’s intellect; man, too, being an element of the (natural) reality.”

(Ein Ayah, Be'rakhot 21b)

Man was able to employ his intellect – which itself is a creation of God – in extracting the potential to create sparks from the rocks. Therefore, Rav Kook explains, we recite a be'rakhah over fire which was the very first human innovation and which serves as the archetype of all human advancement, innovation, and invention. Fire – and every other field of human advancement – is a result of man’s intellect which God planted in his body, and is akin to the flora of nature which grows and develops. Man’s intellect too ‘grows’ in an almost ‘natural’ manner unleashing various potentials of nature at their right time.

Now we understand how the be'rakhah over the Havdallah candles states that God created fire – for He did! The intellect which He granted man, which was to innovate fire at its specific time, is the work of God.

Why, however, do we choose to recite this be'rakhah at the close of Shabbat?

Rav Kook explains:

"וזאת היא מעין קדושת השבת שאנו מכירין בששת ימי המעשה ע"כ כאשר ביום השבת אנו מעידים על היצירה הכללית שלא נמצא עמה שיתוף שכל פרטי אנו מעידין אח"כ בהתחלת ימי המעשה, שגם כל מעשינו פעלת לנו ה', עד שגם הדברים המלאכותיים, כמאורי האש, מעשי ידיו הם, 'אַתָּה הֲכִינוֹתָ מָאוֹר וָשָׁמֶשׁ.'"

“This is akin to the sanctity of Shabbat whereby we aknowledge the six days of (creative) activity. Therefore, when on Shabbat we testify to the broad creation which had no accompaniment of any individual intellect, at the onset of the week of the days of (creative) activity we then testify that all our actions were performed for us by God – such that even the artificial creations, like the illuminations of the fire, are the work of His hands, ‘You have prepared the illumination and the sun” (Tehillim 74:1).”

(ibid.)

Shabbat is when we cease from all creative activity in testimony to all of creation that is solely the work of God, We then open our week – at the very first moment after Shabbat – with testimony to that fact that all our creativity and productivity that follows is a result of our God-given intellect unleashing the powers of nature. I am to connect to God’s natural world on Shabbat in order to be able to then allow this world its expression – and fulfillment – during the week. On Shabbat we recognize the supremacy and complete control of God over His world, and it is this same concept which we infuse into the week ahead and our forthcoming achievements.

5. A spark of Divinity

Now we can understand the basis of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai’s opinions.

Beit Shammai maintains that one is to recite the be'rakhah over the fire in the past tense singular. This be'rakhah takes us back in time to man’s very first, basic achievement – through the friction of two rocks creating a spark. Indeed man has come a long way since that initial develpoment, but as man advances there is the greatest danger that he distances himself from that moment when he knew that he was merely realizing the potential that God had embedded in those rocks. Adam was fully concious of that Divine creation called his intellect, and thus it was God who had created the fire, not him!

Beit Shammai fears that as we move forward from that point, greatly developing and further sophisticating nature – there is the greatest danger that we will forget our source. This be'rakhah must serve as the starkest reminder that man was closest to God at that first momenet, with that minute spark. Then it was clear that man’s intellect was a creation like every other aspect of this world, and this must serve as the basis for the intellectual man’s existence.

Beit Hillel disputes this position – man is at his greatest when he is able to further develop and innovate. At his climax man fulfills his destiny and thus moves closer to his source, closer to God’s plan for him. Man’s greatness is when he takes that small spark and transforms it into a myriad illuminations, a great burning fire.

Therefore when Beit Shammai explains that the best fulfillment of the H'annukah lighting is to start with eight candles it is not because eight candles are the height of the festival – the final night when only one candle is lit is the climax of H'annukah! Returning to the very basic primeval spark of fire is when man realizes his place in the world, and thus is able to stand before God. The ideal is for man to move from his furthest point – when he has developed and produced – from the eight candles to one candle, the source of all fire and creativity.

Of course Beit Hillel dispute this – man rises above the natural world as he gains more control over it. The more he is able to innovate, create, and invent the closer he moves to God. In this manner he reveals the potential planted in every corner of this world and causes God’s glory to become manifest. It is preciely in these pursuits, as he delves into every crevice of the world that Beit Hillel sees man at his greatest, and it is here that Beit Shammai fears man will move away from God and descend into the depths as he revels in his own independent ability.

This, then, is the relation of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai’s motivations to the concept of ma’alin ba-kodesh ve'-ein moridin and Sukkot respectively. The climax of Sukkot is the closing festival – She'mini Atzeret – when after the entire Sukkot we reduce the number of oxen offered every day until only one is offered. The sacrifice of one ox is the climax of man returning to his source. Sukkot is the universal festival when all the nations of the world will ascend to Ye'rushalayim to offer sacrifices and praise to God. The Jewish nation is the “Light unto the Nations” who join in our festival – yet on the final day of this universal festival the Jewish nation is to stand alone before God at its purest.

Beit Hillel maintains that our purpose is to increase sanctity in the world and therefore we always rise in sanctity – for we take every corner of that selfsame secular world and transform it into the sacred. That basic spark released from those rocks is elevated and elevated even further by every human illumination and addition – the greatest point is reached on the final day of H'annukah after we have moved from only one light to the great illumination of eight lights.

The miracles of H'annukah were manifest through the H'ashmona’im who then established the Hasmonean kingdom. These were high priests who assumed the monarchy – which was the grave sin which led to their demise. The tremendous spiritual heights that had us merit the great salvation and triumph over Greece was the fact that our kohanim Ge'dolim who serve in the inner sanctuary were they who took up the sword in battle! The greatest climax – the kodesh kodashim – was in these kohanim battling the mighty Greece and then on victory entering the Temple and the inner Sanctuary to light the Me'norah.

However, with this colossal achievement came the great risk and danger of the ensuing results of such an event. How long will the nation be able to maintain this level of the fusion of the spiritual and the physical, of the elevation of the secular to the holy?

The Ge'mara (Rosh ha-Shanah 18) tells us that the Greeks decreed that no-one mention the Name of God. When the H'ashmona’im established their kingdom they decreed that every document include God’s name in reaction to the previous Greek oppressive decree. A year later they found a bill of debt containing God’s Name in the garbage. They then annulled their decree that every document contain God’s Name.

The greatest achievement, the revelation of the kodesh kodashim, is when every aspect of reality – from contracts of debt to the garbage – manifest God’s Name. However this is extremely difficult to maintain, this is the goal and destiny of man and will be realized at the end of days, yet in the current reality a stage is reached where the great spiritual advances must be moderated and constrained.

6. The purity of wine

There is another dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai which gives expression to these two approaches.

The Mishnah and Ge'mara in Masekhet Shabbat (17a) record eighteen decrees of Beit Shammai which were accepted as Halakhah for they had a majority in the synod which debated these issues. The Mishnah lists these eighteen decress – we will deal with one of them.

The case discussed is whether the grapes one harvests are made suceptible to tum’ah (ritual impurity). The rule is that a dry foodstuff that comes into contact with a dead animal, for example, cannot become ta’me (impure). Only if wet it is said to become susceptible to tu’mah for now it has the ability to be made impure.

The question is whether the moment the grapes are removed from their bunch – and immediately some juice is released – each grape wet by this small amout of juice then becomes susceptible to tum’ah. If this is the case it becomes most difficult to pick grapes for use in the Temple for they will almost certainly be made impure at some point in the process – whether by human contact or otherwise – after they are picked.

Beit Shammai maintians that indeed this liquid makes the grapes susceptible to tum’ah while Beit Hillel dispute this. Beit Hillel poses a question to Beit Shammai to disprove their rationale – when olives are picked to make olive oil they need not be picked in taharah (purity)! Beit Shammai is of the opinion that grapes can be made impure the moment they are picked which would require all those involved in this process to be pure. However when olives are picked (and of course there is no reason to make a distinction between one fruit and another) we do not require that his be done in taharah! (Again some of the liquid olive may have wet the olives themselves as they are picked.)

Beit Shammai respond in quite a surprising fashion:

"אם תקניטני גוזרני טומאה אף על המסיקה!

נעצו חרב בבית המדרש אמרו הנכנס יכנס והיוצא אל יצא;

ואותו היום היה הלל כפוף ויושב לפני שמאי כאחד מן התלמידים והיה קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל."

“‘If you (Beit Hillel) continue to taunt me I will also decree (the susceptibility of) tum’ah on olives!’ They drove a sword into the (floor) of the Beit Midrash and stated: ‘Whoever enters (the Beit Midrash) may enter, yet he who leaves may not leave.’ That day Hillel sat in subservience before Shammai akin to one of his students, and (that day) was as severe for Yisra’el as the day they made the (Golden) calf.”

(ibid.)

Beit Shammai wish to maintain the balance of numbers in the quorum in the study hall for they were in the majority – hence they forbid their students from leaving. The Ge'mara conludes that Hillel was subervient to Shammai – he was forced to accept Shammai’s opinion since he was in the minority – and thus grapes are to be harvested in tahara.

Rav Kook explains this peculiar incident as follows:

The significance of driving the sword into the ground is that here is a battle between two schools of thought, and as in war one side must emerge victorious – a conclusion must be reached.

Wine – the produce of grapes – makes one happy, “and wine gladdens the heart of man” (Te'hillim 104:15). The gladness one feels us a result of wine results in rejoicing that one shares with others, for one most certainly invites his family, friends, and acquiantances to share in his happiness. The moment one abounds with happiness and exhiliration one has to be with others – he can’t be alone. Wine leads to the social and most spiritual collective result of everyone uniting in the individual’s happiness.

Oil, on the other hand is used primarily for anointing oneself. This is done for one’s own personal physical enjoyment and most certainly need not be shared with others. Indeed often one desires to keep his precious moments of personal enjoyment to himself - “It is like the precious ointment of oil upon the head, that runs down upon the beard” (Te'hillim 133:2).

Oils have wonderful qualities that apply to the physical and one’s body – one anoints himself in order to gain physical pleasure, one enjoys the fragrant scents of different oils. Wine, on the other hand, leads to collective exhiliration, and is most certainly not limited to one’s own body or any one limb (as with oil when one anoints various parts of his body).

Beit Shammai is of the opinion that anything which holds appeal for the physcial, which is part of the physical world, may indeed be distorted and detached from its pure roots and become completely absorbed in the physical world. Wine has the most positive quality of leading to great happiness and rejoicing – qualilities that are of the highest moral and spiritual fibre. Yet if not directed and channeled correctly into the correct spheres wine has the power to lead to drunkenness and inapropriate behavior. Beit Shammai thus rule that the utmost care be taken with that which has such great potential for good, yet that which may have the opposite effects if not closely supervised. Therefore the grapes must be harvested in purity.

Beit Hillel turns to Beit Shammai and poses a question from the harvesting of olives which even by Beit Shammai’s ruling need not be harvested in taharah. Beit Hillel tells Beit Shammai that if we are to be so concerned that every object that holds great spiritual potential must be completely removed from the mundane reality – then even olive oil must not be used for mundane purposes! If the sanctity that may be attained through olive oil in the Beit Mikdash must derive from olives that are harvested and pressed in taharah – then olives too must be harvested in taharah, and the simple enjoyment one gains from anointing oneself with olive oil becomes undesirable! Beit Shammai’s concerns for the isolated sanctity of grapes and wine cannot stop there – yet must be translated into even the smallest personal pleasures offered by olive oil.

Beit Shammai replies that indeed if Beit Hillel continues to ‘pester’ him with his arguments then he will indeed decree that olives, too, must be harvested in taharah! For ideally we desire the entire creation to be in a state of constant taharah! Thus a compromise between Beit Hillel’s deep appreciation of the less than perfect reality and Beit Shammai’s striving for the ideal must be reached – olives need not be harvested in taharah while this requirement remains for grapes. No compromise, then, may be reached regarding wine.

Rav Kook explains the peculiar proclamation preceding the final decision in accordance with Beit Shammai as follows:

“Whoever enters (the Beit Midrash) may enter, yet he who leaves may not” – he who is about to enter the Beit Midrash in order to join the debate may do so, “yet he who leaves” – he who is accustomed to leave the Beit Midrash in order to examine the application of the ideals of the Beit Midrash in the imperfect reality must not leave! A decision must be made within the four walls of the Beit Midrash – and even someone who by his nature considers the outside world and incorporates it accordingly into the Halakhah may not do so. The conclusion reached must be the singular unadulterated truth.

How does the Ge'mara close this discussion?

“That day Hillel sat in subservience before Shammai akin to one of his students, and (that day) was as severe for Yisra’el as the day they made the (Golden) calf.”

How does the Golden Calf relate to this discussion?

"וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם."

“Mosheh saw that the nation had been exposed, for Aharon had exposed them (allowing them to become) the subject of derision to their enemies.”

(She'mot 32:25)

Aharon reacted to the nation’s request for something to take the place of the tarrying Mosheh by acquiescing and even assisting in the creation of the Golden Calf. The sin of the Golden Calf held terrible consequences for Am Yisra’el, but if we consider it through Aharon’s eyes it may not seem that severe.

The nation greatly rejoiced with the Calf, dancing around it. This ‘religious’ fervor was misplaced, and thus they are punished. Yet only three-thousand people lose their lives when the Tribe of Levi is told to kill all those involved in the idolatrous practice! Certainly Aharon may have claimed that had the festivities been allowed to continue the overwhelming majority of Am Yisra’el would have been able to influence that handful who actually perceived the calf as a deity. Aharon, the man of peace – as was Hillel – was quite willing to stay the judgment of these idol-worshippers in the hope that the delicate reality would be swayed.

Mosheh, the Law Giver, was the epitome of the unchanging, absolute Torah. This terrible sin must be punished with full force, and immediately. While in other areas of Torah there is room for flexibility – in this matter the law must be forced swiftly and to the ultimate degree. And here Aharon withdrew, allowing his brother to assume the reins in dealing with the nation, just as Hillel was to give way to the unyielding Shammai.

In all of Halakhah the general priicple is that the halakhah is set in accordance with Beit Hillel’s opinion. Yet there is a time when even Hillel and his Beit Hillel understand that the unwavering approach of Shammai and his Beit Shammai is most appropriate – and therefore the decree is legislated that the grapes are to be harvested in taharah.

Shammai, too, understands that the world cannot fit the mold of the Halakhah if the Halakhah remains unchanging and is unwilling to supplement and complement the diverse reality. Therefore Beit Shammai agrees that olives need not be harvested in taharah – yet if Beit Hillel does not recognize that there are times when the unflinching Halakhah must remain stable against the winds of change, that merriment and rejoicing must stem from and be steeped in taharah, then even the more mundane activities will be affected and limited.

Then – the Golden Calf assuming the place of the Holiest of Holies, God Himself; and now – on H'annukah when we are dealing with the oil stamped by the Kohen Gadol, we deal with the kodesh kodashim: may we enter the secular and infuse it with sanctity. Once again the question is how much man may do in meeting the physical reality while embarking from the heights of spirituality.

We light the H'annukah candles – ner ish u-beito – infusing each home with kodesh. The me'hadrin infuse the mundane with so many more variations and concentrations of the kodesh. The me'hadrin min ha-me'hadrin – according to Beit Hillel – add on to the mundane every single day, building on the secular until they reach the climax of eight candles; Beit Shammai understands to the contrary – the climax is reached when we return to the basic source, to one candle.

Grapes must be harvested in taharah in accordance with Beit Shammai; on H'annukah the Halakhah is in accordance with Beit Hillel. On H'annukah we are to develop the great potential of the fire. We must develop and advance the first sparks in to a great fire that illuminates all of reality – all the while moving closer to our roots and our God.

In the future, however, Beit Hillel will assent to Beit Shammai’s approach throughout Halakhah – and even the olive harvest will be performed in taharah. Then, when all the nations of the world will recognize and accept God’s sovereignty they will ascend to the Beit Mikdash to offer sacrifices, sacrifices that comprise many oxen at first, yet then move closer to the source, culminating in only one ox – one single illumination of fire.

Today the more I fuse with others and with my mundane reality, the more I am able to infuse even the farthest recesses of our dark reality with kodesh, the more I fulfil my Halakhic obligation. One candle is added every night until eight candles are lit on the final night of H'annukah – for this Halakhah is in accordance with Beit Hillel.

Translated by Sholem Hurwitz

Copyright Keren Yishai/Rav M. Elon