A Guest Post on Chanuka

This is from Harav Professor Eli.   I am grateful that he sent it, and you will be, too, once you've read it.  I don't know that there are many professors of advanced theoretical physics that can write a dvar Torah that simultaneously evinces  rigorous scholarship and artistic creativity.  Actually, I do know one more, but the other one doesn't send me divrei Torah often enough.  Also, he's more in the way of a theoretical professor of advanced physics.

For the time being, it's in Hebrew.  I just got back from Israel this morning, and face a Sisyphean week.  I'll translate it later if I have time.

נרות דזכריה -- דרוש לשבת חנוכה

1.      

נרות דזכריה -- דרוש לשבת חנוכה

1.      מגילה לא - בחנוכה בנשיאים ומפטירין בנרות דזכריה. ומפרש רש"י שם רני ושמחי על שם ראיתי והנה מנורת זהב כולה וגו'. תוס' שבת כג כתבו שיש בקריאת הפטרה זו משום פרסומי ניסא, ועל כן דוחים הפטרת השמים כסאי מפניה. זה חידוש, שהרי לכאורה ההפטרה בזכריה כלל אינה מענין נס חנוכה ונבחרה רק משום הזכרת מנורה. עוד יש לשאול, מדוע באמת לא תקנו להפטיר בזכריה ט-י, "ועוררתי בניך ציון על בניך יון", שהוא ממש מענינא דיומא, ולפי רש"י שם ועוד מפרשים נבואה זו אכן נאמרה על נצחונות החשמונאים על אנטיוכוס.

2.      במראה המנורה נאמרו פרטים רבים - מְנוֹרַת זָהָב כֻּלָּהּ וְגֻלָּהּ עַל-רֹאשָׁהּ וְשִׁבְעָה נֵרֹתֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה וְשִׁבְעָה מוּצָקוֹת לַנֵּרוֹת אֲשֶׁר עַל-רֹאשָׁהּ.וּשְׁנַיִם זֵיתִים עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִימִין הַגֻּלָּה וְאֶחָד עַל-שְׂמֹאלָהּ הנביא לא יודע לפרש את המראה, ועונה לו המלאך כי משמעות המראה היא לֹא בְחַיִל וְלֹא בְכֹחַ כִּי אִם-בְּרוּחִי, אָמַר ד' צב'. צ"ב מה השייכות של פסוק זה למראה המנורה על כל פרטיו.

3.      נבואה זו של זכריה נאמרה בשנת שתיים לדריוש. זו התקופה בה החלו לבנות את הבית השני כמבואר בספר חגי. ספר חגי כולו כולל מספר נבואות שנאמרו במהלך ארבעה חדשים בשנת שתים לדריוש, ותוכן כולן הוא התעוררות לבנין בית המקדש. הנבואה האחרונה בספר חגי היא הנבואה הבאה:

בְּעֶשְֹרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לַתְּשִׁיעִי בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הָיָה דְּבַר יי' בְּיַד חַגַּי הַנָּבִיא לֵאמֹר: כֹּה אָמַר יי' צְבָאוֹת שְׁאַל נָא אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים תּוֹרָה לֵאמֹר: הֵן יִשָא אִישׁ בְּשַֹר קֹדֶשׁ בִּכְנַף בִּגְדוֹ וְנָגַע בִּכְנָפוֹ אֶל הַלֶּחֶם וְאֶל הַנָּזִיד וְאֶל הַיַּיִן וְאֶל שֶׁמֶן וְאֶל כָּל מַאֲכָל הֲיִקְדָּשׁ וַיַּעֲנוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא: וַיֹּאמֶר חַגַּי אִם יִגַּע טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ בְּכָל אֵלֶּה הֲיִטְמָא וַיַּעֲנוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ יִטְמָא: וַיַּעַן חַגַּי וַיֹּאמֶר כֵּן הָעָם הַזֶּה וְכֵן הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה לְפָנַי נְאֻם יי' וְכֵן כָּל מַעֲשֵֹה יְדֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ שָׁם טָמֵא הוּא: וְעַתָּה שִֹימוּ נָא לְבַבְכֶם מִן הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָמָעְלָה מִטֶּרֶם שֹוּם אֶבֶן אֶל אֶבֶן בְּהֵיכַל יי': מִהְיוֹתָם בָּא אֶל עֲרֵמַת עֶשְֹרִים וְהָיְתָה עֲשָֹרָה בָּא אֶל הַיֶּקֶב לַחְשֹוֹף חֲמִשִּׁים פּוּרָה וְהָיְתָה עֶשְֹרִים: הִכֵּיתִי אֶתְכֶם בַּשִּׁדָּפוֹן וּבַיֵּרָקוֹן וּבַבָּרָד אֵת כָּל מַעֲשֵֹה יְדֵיכֶם וְאֵין אֶתְכֶם אֵלַי נְאֻם יי': שִֹימוּ נָא לְבַבְכֶם מִן הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָמָעְלָה מִיּוֹם עֶשְֹרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לַתְּשִׁיעִי לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר יֻסַּד הֵיכַל יי' שִֹימוּ לְבַבְכֶם: הַעוֹד הַזֶּרַע בַּמְּגוּרָה וְעַד הַגֶּפֶן וְהַתְּאֵנָה וְהָרִמּוֹן וְעֵץ הַזַּיִת לֹא נָשָֹא מִן הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אֲבָרֵךְ: וַיְהִי דְבַר יי' שֵׁנִית אֶל חַגַּי בְּעֶשְֹרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ לֵאמֹר: אֱמֹר אֶל זְרֻבָּבֶל פַּחַת יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר אֲנִי מַרְעִישׁ אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ: וְהָפַכְתִּי כִּסֵּא מַמְלָכוֹת וְהִשְׁמַדְתִּי חֹזֶק מַמְלְכוֹת הַגּוֹיִם וְהָפַכְתִּי מֶרְכָּבָה וְרֹכְבֶיהָ וְיָרְדוּ סוּסִים וְרֹכְבֵיהֶם אִישׁ בְּחֶרֶב אָחִיו: בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יי' צְבָאוֹת אֶקָּחֲךָ זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל עַבְדִּי נְאֻם יי' וְשַֹמְתִּיךָ כַּחוֹתָם כִּי בְךָ בָחַרְתִּי נְאֻם יי' צְבָאוֹת:

נבואה זו סתומה. בתחילה אומר הנביא שכיוון שטומאה מקלקלת קדושה ולא להפך, אין ערך לקרבנותיהם של העם, "ואשר יקריבו שם טמא הוא". תוך כדי דיבור הוא ממשיך ומעודד אותם לבנות את הבית ומבטיח שמן היום הזה והלאה, יום יסוד היכל ד', תפסק הקללה -- "מן היום הזה אברך".

4.      הנביא מדגיש שלש פעמים "שימו לבבכם" ליום הזה. יום זה הוא כ"ד בכסלו ובו "טרם שום אבן אל אבן בהיכל ד'", ומן היום הזה והלאה, היום אשר יוסד היכל ד', אברך. כלומר, תחילת בנין הבית בימי זרובבל ויהושע היתה בכ"ה בכסלו. כמדומה שהראשון שהעיר בזה בכתובים הוא היעב"ץ (מו"ק, או"ח תר"ע), שכתב כי תקנת חנוכה בכ"ה בכסלו, היתה גם כדי להזכיר את אותו יום שעליו צוה הנביא שימו נא לבבכם אל היום הזה, יום תחילת בנין הבית השני. בזה הוא מיישב את קושיית הב"י, שהיום הראשון של חנוכה, כ"ה כסלו, אינו זכר לנס השמן אלא מזכיר את יום ייסוד היכל ד' ושאר שבעת הימים הם זכר לנס השמן.

בזה גם מיושבת קושיית האחרונים מדוע חנוכה מתחיל בכ"ה בכסלו, הלא החשמונאים נכנסו להיכל בחמשה ועשרים לחודש כסלו, כלשון הרמב"ם (כך גם מבואר בחשמונאים א,ד,נא שחנוכת המזבח היתה בכ"ה ביום). אם כן הדלקת המנורה היתה בליל כ"ו, ומדוע אנחנו מדליקים מליל כ"ה. (אגב, גם חילול המקדש בימי היוונים בקרבנות לע"ז החל בכ"ה בכסלו, כמבואר בחשמונאים א,א,נז: ובחמשה ועשרים יום לחודש זבחו את זבחיהם על הבמה אשר הקימו נוכח מזבח ד', ואולי אף הם כוונו את הדבר ליום ייסוד ההיכל)

5.      נבואת נרות דזכריה נאמרה בכ"ד שבט באותה שנה, חדשיים לאחר יום יוסד היכל ד'. ראשית הנביא מבטיח כי ירושלים תוסיף להבנות עוד, שבתי לירושלים ברחמים וגו' פרזות תשב ירושלים מרב אדם וגו' ואז רואה הנביא את יהושע הכהן הגדול בבגדים צואים, כלומר מלוכלך בעוונות (ובסנהדרין צג נתפרש שהעוון כאן הוא שנשאו בניו נכריות, כמבואר בעזרא י,יח), והשטן מוצא מקום להשטינו. למרות זאת, הקב"ה מעביר מעליו את העוון ומלביש אותו מחלצות וצניף, היינו בגדי כהונה. לא מוזכר בפסוק שהיתה כאן חזרה בתשובה כלשהי, ואכן, כמבואר בעזרא, עוון הנשים הנכריות לא נתקן עוד שנים לאחר מכן, כולל כלותיו של יהושע בן יהוצדק. מה אם כן פשר העברת העוון כאן?

אולי אפש"ל שנבואה זו והנבואה בחגי לעיל מפרשות זו את זו. כלומר, אמנם הכהן הגדול, והעם אותו הוא מייצג, מלוכלכים בעוונות אבל למרות זאת, בחסד ולא בזכות, הקב"ה מתעלם כביכול מכך "ומשתי את עון הארץ ההיא ביום אחד". במילים אחרות, אמנם צודק חגי הנביא כי העם טמא, ולכן יטמא את בית המקדש ולא בית המקדש יקדש אותו, אבל למרות זאת, באופן חריג, הקב"ה מצווה אותם לבנות את המקדש אע"פ שאינם ראויים. זו אכן הנהגה פלאית, ויהושע וחבריו "אנשי מופת המה". ועדיין קשה קושיית חגי, הלא בני ישראל מטמאים את המקדש, ומה טעם במקדש כזה?

6.      כאן מגיע חזון המנורה. רש"י מפרש כי למנורה היתה גולה (ספל גדול) על ראשה, ולכל אחד מן הנרות היו שבעה צינורות קטנים ("מוצקות") שהוליכו את השמן מן הגולה אל הנרות. על יד המנורה היו שני עצי זית, והזיתים נחבטים מאליהם, ונעצרים מאליהם, והשמן זב אל הגולה ומשם אל הנרות.

במילים אחרות, המנורה שמדובר בה כאן אינה סתם מנורת בית המקדש, אלא זו מנורה הדולקת מאליה. אם נצרף לכאן את נבואת חגי, מדובר במצב בו העם טמא, כל אשר יקריבו טמא הוא, ואז מופיעה לעיני הנביא מנורה הדולקת מאליה. מה פשר המראה הזה, איך הוא קשור למראה על יהושע ובגדיו הצואים, ואיך הוא מתפרש בפסוק לא בחיל וגו'? אולי י"ל שכוונת הנבואה היא שבעוד שבאופן רגיל מצות הדלקת המנורה מסורה לישראל, הם שצריכים לנטוע זיתים, למסוק ולעצור שמן, ולהדליק את הנרות, בבית שני המנורה היא מנורה שדולקת מאליה ללא התערבות אדם, כי אין ביד אנשי הדור להדליק אותה בכוחות עצמם. זו התשובה לשאלת חגי, וההסבר ל"מופת" של ההתעלמות מעוונותיהם של יהושע ובני דורו – "ומשתי את עון הארץ ההיא ביום אחד". לאמר, באופן רגיל, במצב הראוי והרצוי, קדושת המקדש תלויה במצבו הרוחני הגבוה של עם ישראל ונובעת מכוחו, ואז אכן ישראל הם שמדליקים את נרות המנורה (הדלקת המנורה היא סמל להשראת השכינה בישראל ובמקדש, כמבואר בשבת כב: מחוץ לפרוכת העדות יערוך וכי לאורה הוא צריך והלא כל ארבעים שנה שהלכו בני ישראל במדבר לא הלכו אלא לאורו אלא עדות היא לבאי עולם שהשכינה שורה בישראל). כאן, באופן חריג ויוצא דופן, נבנה מקדש שבו המנורה דולקת מאליה, כלומר הקב"ה בעצמו מדליק את הנרות, משום שישראל אינם יכולים ואינם זכאים לעשות זאת.

לפי זה הפסוק המבאר את המראה מתפרש כך: לו זכינו, היה הבית נבנה בחילו ובכוחו של עם ישראל, כלומר בזכותו הרוחנית. אמנם, הנביא אומר כי כאן "לא בחיל ולא בכח" –  כלומר הבית הזה, בית שני, נבנה לא בחילו ולא בכחו הרוחני של עם ישראל, "כי אם" רק "ברוחי" – אך ורק באתערותא דלעילא, אף שמצבם של ישראל כלל אינו מצדיק זאת.

7.      ומה טעם זכו לבנין במצב כזה, נתבאר היטב ביערות דבש דרוש ד, "שהיה יותר נכון שיהיה הגלות בלי הפסק שבעים שנה...אבל.. אילו התמיד הענין עוד מאה או מאתים שנה ... היה נשכח התורה מכל וכל מבלי זכר כלל... ולזאת... קרבנו לפקודתו בסוף שבעים שנה ... רבו המלמדים תורה ברבים וגדרו גדר וסייגים ומשמרת וכהנה רבות אשר יד ד' עליהם השכיל לבל תשכח התורה" (וקדמו ר"ח קרשקש באור ד', ראה בית-ישי סימן י"ד).

8.      ואכן כך מפורש בפסוק אצלנו, שהשראת השכינה בבית שני היא על-תנאי ועל סמך ההתנהגות העתידית אִם-בִּדְרָכַי תֵּלֵךְ וְאִם אֶת-מִשְׁמַרְתִּי תִשְׁמֹר וְגַם-אַתָּה תָּדִין אֶת-בֵּיתִי וְגַם תִּשְׁמֹר אֶת-חֲצֵרָי ... כִּי-הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת-עַבְדִּי צֶמַח אם אכן ישפרו מעשיהם יהפוך הבית הזה לגאולה של ממש. וכעין זה בסיום נבואת חגי: : בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יי' צְבָאוֹת אֶקָּחֲךָ זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל עַבְדִּי נְאֻם יי' וְשַֹמְתִּיךָ כַּחוֹתָם כִּי בְךָ בָחַרְתִּי נְאֻם יי' צְבָאוֹת היינו, לעת עתה טרם הושלמה הבחירה בזרובבל.

9.      אם כן, מראה המנורה הוא מראה של עם טמא שאינו מסוגל להדליק ומקבל מנורה הדולקת מעצמה, ומרמז על מצבו של בית שני, שנמסר לישראל באתערותא דלעילא, כדי לרומם אותם משפלותם.

ממש ככל החזיון הזה נשנה בימי חשמונאים, שאף אז היה המקדש טמא ומחולל, ורבים מישראל היו מתיוונים, ואף עליהם היתה קשה קושיית חגי הנביא, ואעפ"כ טהרו מחדש את המקדש והחזירו העבודה למקומה, ומה שראה זכריה בחזונו ראו הם בפועל – מנורת זהב שדולקת מעצמה, לאמר לא בחילכם לא בכחכם שורה השכינה בבית הזה, כי אם ברוחי, אף שאתם לא ראויים.

10.  חשיבותו של נס פך השמן אינה העובדה שדלק השמן יותר מן הצפוי (וכבר הקשו שהלא עשרה ניסים היו תמיד בבית המקדש, ומאי אולמיה האי מהנך) אלא בכך שהוא רומז בשנית לנבואת זכריה, ומלמד כי הקב"ה משרה שכינתו במקדש גם כשישראל במדרגה רוחנית ירודה, כדי לקיים אותם בגלות.

לפי הנ"ל נבואת נרות דזכריה שייכת ממש לנס חנוכה, ומובן היטב מדוע יש בה משום פרסומי ניסא, כדברי התוס' שבת. 

11.  אמנם, הן במהדורה קמא של בית שני בימי יהושע וזרובבל, והן במהדורא בתרא של בית שני בימי החשמונאים, לא הצליחו ישראל להתרומם כראוי בעזרתו של בית המקדש, ועל כן לא התקיימו הנבואות שבהמשך ספר זכריה, ולא הביא הקב"ה את עבדו צמח. מה היא אם כן החשיבות של החזרת השכינה למקדש על-תנאי, אם בסופו של דבר נכשל הנסיון בשני המקרים?

12.  להאמור, זכר הנס וההודאה שבחנוכה אינם על עצם החזרת עבודת המקדש למקומה. על זה אכן יש מקום לטענה שבטלה מגילת תענית (עי' ר"ה יח: ותיבטל איהי ותיבטל מצוותה), אחר שכל התועלת שבנס כבר עברה מן העולם. מה שאנו מציינים בחנוכה אינו עצם הקמת בית שני, לא בפעם הראשונה ולא בפעם השניה. אלא את ההודעה משמים שאף כשישראל אינם ראויים הקב"ה נוטה להם חסד שלא כראוי להם, ומשרה שכינתו ביניהם שלא כפי מידתם כדי לרומם אותם (כדברי היע"ד הנ"ל) להיטיבם באחריתם.

(השווה פני יהושע שבת כא: "וא"כ הדק"ל שהיו יכולים להדליק בשמן טמא דטומאה הותרה בציבור. לכך נראה דעיקר הנס לא נעשה אלא להודיע להם חיבת המקום עליהם... בענין הנרות שהוא עדות לישראל שהשכינה שורה בהם...להודיע שחזרו לחיבתן הראשונה כנ"ל נכון")

Sukkos and Chanuka

I like to think that the end of one Yomtov is the time to start looking forward to the next one. Now that Sukkos is over, and MarCheshvan is about to begin, there's a long, empty time until the next Yomtov. But at the Ne'ilas Hachag of Simchas Torah, I heard a very nice dvar Torah from a young man, Joey Nussbaum, and it bears repeating both because of the connection between Sukkos and Chanuka and because of the explanation it provides to a perplexing Gemara in Shabbos.

We all know the Beis Yosef's question about why we celebrate eight days, when the miraculous long-burning oil only lasted seven days more than it normally would. The Aruch Hashulchan addresses this question in OC 670:5. He brings from the Sefer Chashmona'i that in the year before Matisyahu's rebellion, Antiochus had prevented the korban celebration of Sukkos and Shemini Atzeres. Therefore, when the Jews were able to re-inaugurate the Beis Hamikdash, they intentionally celebrated for eight days, in order to show that they were making up for the lost days of Sukkos and Shemini Atzeres. The eight days of burning, then, were simply a heavenly ratification of their decision to establish this eight day holiday. (This is actually made clear in the Megillas Chashmona'im.)

With this we can finally understand what Shammai means by saying that we should start with eight candles and go down one every day just as was done with the bulls that are brought on Sukkos. Everyone reading the Gemara is puzzled by this association, because this reverse progression is unique to Sukkos, and why would Chanuka davka reflect the singular rules of Sukkos? But now we understand that Chanuka was viewed as a stand-in, as a commemoration, of the Sukkos holiday and korbanos that they had been prevented from bringing.

This also explains why we find dinim of hiddur on Chanuka that we generally don't find in other dinim. The reason is, again, because Chanuka is, to some extent, a quasi-Sukkos, and Sukkos is a holiday when hiddur on the esrog and all the minim is stressed to an unusual extent.

Micha Berger of http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/11/chayei-sarah-kibbush-and-chizuq.shtml commented that he heard this association from Rav Aharon Soloveichik in 1993, and expanded on it with something else he heard from him. What follows is from Micha's website, Aspaqlaria, at the above link.

R. Chaim Soloveitchik holds that there is a distinct difference between the sanctity of Eretz Yisroel that came with the first commonwealth and that of the second.

The first Temple did not create a permanent qedushah (holiness). The reason given is “that which was acquired through conquering is lost through conquering. The First Commonwealth built on land acquired in the wars of the days of Yehoshua and the Shoftim (Judges), was itself conquered.

The Second Commonwealth was “merely” an immigration of a group of Jews who decided to live in the land as Jews. It is predicated on the mitzvos done there, the education of children raised there. That kind of sanctity can not be undone. “Qidshah lisha’atah viqidshah le’asid lavo – it was sanctified for its time and sanctified for all time to come”. Even today, Har Habayis (the Temple Mount) has the sanctity of the Temple.

R. Aharon understands his grandfather’s words in the light of this distinction. The first commonwealth was founded on kibbush. It therefore had an inherently inferior qedushah. The second commonwealth was built by chazaqah. When Hashem tells Zecharia, “Not by force and not by might but by My spirit”, He is saying that the second Temple should be build on chazaqah, not kibbush, to lead to a permanent sanctification. “Neqeivah tesoveiv gever.”

Rav Aharon Soloveitchik notes Chanukah’s connection to Sukkos. According to Seifer haMakabiim, on the first Chanukah people who had just missed being oleh regel, going up to the beis hamiqdash, with their esrog and lulav, did so then at their first opportunity. Beis Shammai taught that one should light 8 lights the first night of Chanukah, 7 the second, learning from the 70 bulls offered for the mussaf on Sukkos, which also declined in number each day: 14 the first day, 13 the second, etc… Rav Yosi bar Avin or R’ Yosi bar Zevida explains that Beis Shammai are emphasizing the link between Chanukah and Sukkos. (We follow Beis Hillel, and teach that the ideal is to increase as the holiday progresses. They do not deny the connection; but rather Beis Hillel asserts an overriding halachic principle — that we increase in holiness over time.)

The concept of being a geir vetoshav is at the center of the similarity between the two holidays. Sukkos is a time when the toshav leaves his home to experience geirus in the Sukkah. Chanukah is also about the ger’s Chazaqah, the rededication of the second Beis haMiqdash. Not about winning the war – the war wouldn’t be over for years – but about being able to live in Israel as Jews, with access to the beis hamiqdash.

Do Unmarried Girls Light the Menora?

I saw an informative and entertaining handout in Shul this week. It began thusly:
In "rove mekomos," the minhag is that unmarried girls living at home don't light the menorah. Why is this? Why wouldn't the hiddur of Ner lechal echad ve'achad apply to them? The piece, which is scholarly and thorough, goes through various opinions and explanations that have been stated over time.

The 'entertaining' part, for me, was the implicit assertion that because of their anecdotal presumption that in "rove mekomos" unmarried girls living at home do not light, that this is the predominant minhag.  This is a blithe dismissal of, or an (intentional?) obliviousness to, those homes in which unmarried girls DO light the menorah.

Such as, the Feinstein homes, pursuant to Reb Moshe's instruction, and the Soloveichik (Reb Aharon) homes, pursuant to Reb Aharon's instructions.

I personally attest to Reb Moshe's psak.  I spoke to him about it, I spoke to my father in law about it, and my wife remembers lighting when she was a child, as do all the Feinstein granddaughters.  Reb Aharon's psak is from his son, Reb Moshe, and his talmidim, Rabbis Shlomo Cherrick and Gary Schreiber.

For the purposes of the dvar torah, it would have been sufficient to state that in many homes, unmarried girls do not light, and this is a common hanhaga.  Rove is irrelevant.  Rove people shukle during Shmoneh Esrei, but Reb Moshe and Rav Rudderman and Reb Yaakov did not.

Does anyone out there have personal knowledge of what the minhag is in homes of other gedolim?

Anyway, if you're interested in the mar'ei makom cited in the handout:
Chasam Sofer, Chidushim, Shabbas 21-- young women don't light because they used to light at the doors, and kol kevuda etc.
If this sounds extreme, think about why you looked forward to going to Tashlich when you were younger. I can certainly see how lighting the menora at the doorways could become, as they say, a Matzav.
Eshel Avraham (Butchatch)-- something ahl pi sod. As far as I can tell, it's based on "vehadarta pe'nei zakein, and from there they see that "since women don't have beards, they're not in the parsha of Hiddur Mitzvah." Not my department. If you're interested, look it up yourself.
Nit'ei Gavriel, Chanuka 7:2-- since the tachlis of women is to get married and then they will be pattur on the basis of Ner Ish Ubeiso, there is no reason for young girls to accept a hiddur they will ultimately not follow when they reach "tachlis yetzirasan." This is strange for two reasons: because they will be doing the hiddur when they get married, by way of participating in their husband's hadlaka, and because I find it hard to believe that "tachlis yetzirasan" is to become bateil to a man.
Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Halichos Shlomo-- basically the same without the "tachlis yetzirasan" line; that since they will marry and not light, "lo chaishinan" that they should light until then. This, I understand. Why should they get into the habit of lighting only to stop when they get married?

Chaim B., the Mechaber of the Torah Website Divrei Chaim, gave me another source: Rav Sternbuch in his Moadim Uzmanim, Vol. 2, Siman 133.
Rav Sternbuch says that the takana of hadlakas haner has two aspects: a commemoration of the miraculous victory and of the renewal of the Beis Hamikdash, and a re-enactment of the Hadlakas Hamenora, as the Ramban in Be'ha'aloscha and the Raavad in Hilchos Tefilla say. Women's chiyuv is only on the first, because "af hein hayu...." But the aspect of re-enacting the Hadlakas Hamenora of the Beis Hamikdash does not apply to women, because they are not chayavos in Machatzis Hashekel. Therefore, although they are chayavos to light, and can even be motzi men, that's only because they are chayavos on the global obligation. But as for the aspect of Menora re-enactment, only a man can do that. Therefore, it is better for women to be yotzei along with their husbands or their fathers, so that they can participate through the man's hadlaka in the greater mitzvah, which they would not have if they lit by themselves.

Rav Sternbuch is basically re-purposing Reb Akiva Eiger's point in OC 106 from the Besamim Rosh and the Teshuvos 6 about women being pattur from Musaf, since it comes from the Machatzis Hashekel. However, there are big differences. One difference is that Chazal befeirush said that women are chayavos in Ner Chanuka, and to say that their chiyuv is different is surprising, as implied in the Turei Even in Megilla; another difference is that the din of hadlaka ksheira be'zar, as far as I know, applies just fine to women also, just like Shechita k'sheira bezar applies to women; and finally, that why on Earth would it make a difference if they're being yotzei with a man, if the concept of Menora has no shaichus to them.

Tumah Hutrah be'Tzibur and Chanuka: Never-Ending Dvar Torah on the Never-Ending Oil

 Please note: This piece has been edited, and sometimes incorporates, or anticipates, comments I received after the first version was posted.

Perhaps you've heard this question; Why did they need a neis of the Pach Hashemen, if Tumah Hutrah beTzibur.  The  פך השמן was entirely unnecessary if טומאה הותרה בציבור, and it was not essential even if טומאה דחויה בציבור.
The rule of Tumah Hutrah Betzibbur is this: Generally, the Kohanim who do the Avodah and the ritual objects which are used in the Avodah, must be Tahor. If, however, the majority of the Kohanim are Tamei, or if the Korban itself became tamei, or if no oil/flour/wine is available which is tahor, then we invoke the rule of Tumah Hutrah Betzibbur, which allows us to disregard Tumah problems. There are those that say Tumah Dechuyah Betzibbur, which means that the rule is only a last-resort safety net. But there are those that hold Tumah Hutrah Betzibbur, that under these circumstances, we can, lechatchila, ignore the tumah-- even if you could look around and find a Kohein that is not tamei, you don't have to bother.

HOWEVER: Please realize that there is a right way to ask the question and a wrong way. If you ask "why was there any need for a flask of shemen tahor, if tumah hutrah betzibur," the question is a non-starter, for the following reason:

When is Tumah Hutrah Betzibur? When the majority of the kohanim are tamei, in which case we don't need (if you hold hutrah) to even look for a kohen tahor; or if the korban itself is tamei, that you are allowed to proceed with the avodah. What if the kohanim are tahor, and there is shemen tahor and shemen tamei. In fact, what if the majority of the shemen available is tamei. Would there be a din of hutrah? NO. You would just go and look for Shemen Tahor. IF you couldn't find shemen tahor, THEN we would invoke Tumah Hutra Betzibur. So, the question is not "why did they bother to look for shemen tahor." The answer to that is, because if there was shemen tahor available, it would be assur to use shemen tamei. The question is "Why was there any need for "the miracle of the unconsumed oil" to enable the avoda of the Menora to proceed, since if the shemen tahor was burned completely the first night, and they had nothing left but shemen tamei, they would invoke Tumah Hutra Betzibur and use the shemen tamei." (Please note that Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, in his Mikra'ei Kodesh, Siman 6, D'H BShu't Chacham Tzvi, addresses this question and disagrees with what I wrote here.)

Reb Yosef Engel wrote the Ayin Panim LaTorah and the Gevuras Shemonim comprising seventy and eighty answers respectively to certain famous questions- Taam Ke'ikar and pigul by Minchas Sotah..  To the best of my knowledge, nobody has written an Ayin Panim book to answer the above question, but rather there are scattered answers here and there-- Daas Zekainim, Pnei Yehoshua, Netziv, Reish Lakish's psul Hesech Hada'as, and so on and on....

I wonder how many GOOD answers we can put together here.

1. Pnei Yehoshua, Shabbas 21b.The Pnei Yehoshua is, to my knowledge, the first to ask this question: What is all the fuss about shemen? If you hold Tumah Dechuyah Betzibur, fine: they preferred to do lechatchila. But if you hold Hutra, what's the problem? He tries to suggest that since lighting the menora is not an avodah, the rule of hutra doesn't apply, but he rejects that. So he says the miracle was indeed unnecessary: they could have used Shemen Tamei. The miracle happened to present to the world a public testimony that the Shechina rested on Klal Yisrael, and that once again it was an Eis Ratzon and a renewal of a loving relationship between Hashem and Klal Yisrael.  (See below from the Munkatcher.)

2. Pri Chadash Hil. Chanuka 670 (and the Aruch Laneir Rosh Hashanna 24b).The Pri Chadash says that although Tumah Hutrah Betzibur would allow us to ignore the Tumas Meis, it it not mattir other Tumos at all; since there was a problem of Tumas Zivah here as well, Tumas Zivah is absolutely not muttar betzibur.
By the way, the Netziv in Ha'amek She'eilah 26:17 says that the Pri Chadash is 100% wrong.  He says that although this distinction does apply regarding the Kohanim who are doing the avodah, because it is a tumah that was generated from their bodies (Tumah yotzei mei'gufo) it does not apply to the items being brought as korbanos; so although Tumah Hutrah Betzibur would not be mattir where the kohen is tamei for example tumas sheretz, it would certainly be mattir where the korban or the oil was tamei any sort of tuma at all, including sheretz, zav, or meis. Or Metzora, or Nidah, or whatever. The Minchas Baruch also strongly disagrees with the Pri Chadash.)
However: Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, ibid, defends the Pri Chadash with a befeirusheh Yerushalmi! He found the Yerushalmi says like the Pri Chadash in Pesachim, Keitzad Tzolin, at the end of Halacha 7. It is possible that the Bavli argues on the Yerushalmi, as pointed out by Rav Wahrman in his She'aris Yosef 1:24.)

3. Rav Eliahu Mizrachi, the Re'aim.
The Re'aim in his pirush on the Sma'g on Hilchos Chanuka says the following. We know that by Millah, the cutting itself is docheh Shabbas. But other things, even if necessary to the bris, and not docheh Shabbas. For example, if the knife is dull, or was left in a different house, one cannot be mechallel Shabbas by sharpening or bringing the knife. The knife is not the mitzvah, it is a necessary element in doing the mitzvah-- it is a Machshir. Here, the mitzvah is lighting the menorah. The oil is not the mitzvah, it is a machshir that enables the lighting of the menorah. Therefore, the rules of dechiyah that we find in other avodos, i.e., tuma hutra betzibbur, will not apply, just as the dechiyah of shabbas that applies to millah does not allow dechiyah involving the knife.
The Chacham Tzvi in his teshuvos #87 says, respectfully, that this does not make any sense at all. If you can burn karbanos that are tamei, then you can light oil that is tamei. (He answers the kashe like the Pnei Yehoshua, that the miracle was not necessary for the avodah, and was intended only as a sign of Hashem's love.)
I would defend the Re'aim by saying that unlike korbanos, where the eimurim are themselves the cheftza shel mitzvah, and the mitzvah is that eimurim are supposed to be burned, the mitzvah of lighting the menora is to produce light. It's not a din that the oil needs to be burned, that there is a chiyuv on the oil that it be burned. The oil is merely the specific means by which the Torah directs that we produce that light. (This is Shittas Tosfos in Temura 14b. See also Reb Chaim on the Rambam in Ma'aseh Hakorbanos on the lighting of the Menorah, and the Mikdash David 21 toward the end.) That being the case, the oil is, indeed, more of a machshir than an element of the mitzvah.

4. Daas Zekeinim Miba'alei Hatosfos.The Daas Zekeinim Miba'alei Hatosfos in Parshas Shemini, on Bikrovai Ekadeish, says that a Kohen Hediot, on the day he is nimshach, is assur in tumas krovim JUST LIKE A KOHEN GADOL. On this basis, Rav Zevin suggests the following: When do you say Tumah Hutrah beTzibur? Only when there was already a matzav of kedusha, and then a breach of Tumah happened. But where we are now bringing a new matzav of Hashra'as Hashechina, like by the Milu'im in the Midbar, where there was nothing before, and now we were bringing Hashra'as Hashechina, then you don't say Tumah Hutrah beTzibur. The only reason the avoda continued after the death of Nadav and Avihu was because Hashem gave a special exception to this rule.  The Neis of the Chashmona'im was not just to continue the avodah; it was a chanukas habayis as if it were a totally new Hashra'as Hashechina. Therefore, you can't say Tumah Hutrah beTzibur.
This is like the Gemara that nevu'ach can't first come in Chutz La'aretz. A navi who had nevu'ah in Eretz Yisrael and then goes out can have nevu'ah outside also. But the first nevu'ah has to be in Eretz Yisrael. Here, too: If there was kedusha ve'tahara before, you can allow tumah betzibur. But this was a totally new matzav of kedusha, and it had to be inaugurated in a matzav of perfect kedusha, so we couldn't say Tumah Hutrah beTzibur in this case.
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, D'H Vegadol Echad, disagrees. Tosfos Ta'anis 17b says that if Kohanim now knew their mishmar, they would be prohibited from drinking wine, because Me'heira Yibaneh etc. and they'll be needed to do the avodah; and even though we're all tmei'ei meis, that's doesn't matter, because Tumah whatever betzibur. From Tosfos we see, Rav Frank says, that even though the avodah they would be called for would be to be mechaneich the new Mikdash and Keilim, we WOULD apply the din of Tumah Betzibur.

5. The SiteOwner, hereinafter referred to as yhs, for "your humble servant."
Reb Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma in the beginning of Be'ha'aloscha says that even though Hadlaka Ksheira be'Zar, that is only true for the Hadlaka ledoros. But to be mechaneich the Menorah, it needed Davka a Kohen and Davka Aharon Hakohein. She'ata madlik umeitiv, the kepeida on Atta, referred to the original hadlaka of chinuch. If so, we can say that this din of hadlaka of chinuch doesn't have the regular dinim of avodah: if it were avodah, it would kesheira be'zar. So if it's not kesheira be'zar, it must not be because of the dinim of Avodah. If it is not in the regular parsha of Avodah, we can't bring a raya from the regular avodah as far as whether it would be muttar be'tumah.
This is NOT the same teretz as the Daas Zekeinim. He's talking about the din of Tumah Hutra Betzibur, and he says it does not apply when you are bringing a new hashra'as hashechina. This teretz is saying a lomdus-- that the din that the chinuch hamenora required Aharon at the Milu'im shows that this requirement was not mitzad avoda at all. If it's not mitzad avodah, then you can't bring rayos about any hetter tumah from regular avoda.
I'll give you an example that will show the difference between the terituzim of yhs and the Daas Zekainim. Is there a din of Tuma Hutra BeTzibur for the first korbanos that are brought in a new Beis Hamikdash? According to the Daas Zekainim, there would not be, because these avodos are mechaneich and bring a new Hashra'as Hashechina. According to yhs, there would be a din of hutra, because they are just regular avodos, and by avoda there is a din of hutra.
A friend just delivered the Shalal Rav on Chanuka, and I saw that this teretz was said by:
The Chochmas Shlomo in OC 670; the Imrei Emes in Naso from the Kotzker; and Reb Yosef Engel in Shabbas 23a. See? If I had the sefer before, I wouldn't have said the teretz myself.

6. The Avnei Neizer.   Rav Meir Don Plotzki, in the Kli Chemda at the beginning of Be'ha'aloscha, brings the following teretz from the Sochetshover, unrelated to the famous contemporary mechaber sefarim Harav Moshe Nachum Sochechewsky, although he's very much like Reb Meir Don, except for being a little more serious.
When is the din of Ner Tamid or the din of Korban Hakavu'ah lo Zman docheh? Only where there is a Kli you can bring it on. For example, bringing the Korban Tamid is, of course, docheh Shabbas. But if there is no mizbei'ach, there are two reasons that you can't be makriv the Tamid. First of all, building the mizbei'ach is not docheh Shabbas, since it's only a machshir. AND SECOND, since there is no mizbei'ach, there is no chiyuv to bring the Tamid at all. Similarly, since, after the week of the Milu'im, we aren't mechaneich keilim with Shemen Hamishcha, how are we mechaneich keilim? Avodasam mechanchasam. So until the new menorah was actually used, THERE WAS NO MENORAH. If, ahl pi din, there was no menorah, then lighting the menorah would not be docheh either Shabbas OR TUMAH. There is no din of Tamid when there is no menorah, and there is no menorah until it was mechumach through use, and you couldn't use it when all you have is shemen tamei.
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, ibid, in the section titled "Im Binyan Hamizbei'ach Docheh Shabbas Ve'Tumah, has a lengthy discussion on this topic; he brings opinions that even though binyan hamikdash is obviously not docheh Shabbas, binyan of the Mizbei'ach and the Menora WOULD be docheh Shabbas.

7. The Steipler, Teretz I.
The Steipler in 5:19 says the following:
Even if you hold that Tumah Hutra Betzibur, that's only together with the ko'ach hamattir of the Tzitz. And if you hold that the Tzitz is only mattir when it is on the Kohen Gadol, it could be that since the TUMAH of the shemen occurred when the Kohen Gadol was not wearing the Tzitz, this Tumah would not be hutrah. (This is Rashi's shittah, that it has to be on the Kohen Gadol when the Tumah occurs, and some say he holds it has to stay on the Kohen Gadol from beginning to end. Anyway, when he gathered the torah from the original print and reprinted them on the relevant masechtos, this is one of the few that he did not reprint. I'm not saying that proves anything, but there it is.)

8. The Steipler, Teretz II.
Even if you hold in other avodos that Tumah Hutrah, by the Menora it could be (why?) it's only dechuyah, and if it's dechuya, you need the Tzitz at the time the Tumah occurred. (Again, I'm not responsible for this; I'm just quoting what he says.)

9. Achronim, quoted by the Shalal Rav.
"Kamah min Ha'achronim" say that although there's a din of hutrah, kodshim that are tamei are not allowed to be burned at night. Therefore, there would be a side-issur in burning the oil in the Menora at night.

And you thought I wouldn't get to seventy. Look! I'm already at nine! And I didn't even have to start hakking a tshainik with the Ohr Hatzafun!

OK, it looks like I'm going to have to start with Drush. I will try to avoid hakking a tshainik. If I do, feel free to mention it.

10. yhs
The Sfas Emes in his drushim on Chanuka brings from his father that the Pach Hashemen symbolized the immutable, untainted faith of the Jew.

Having said this, we can say that the reason there was a miracle was because despite the epidemic influence of Hellenism, there remained an untainted purity in Jewish Nation's soul which enabled them to re-awaken and respond to the call to holiness and faith. This seed of the miracle was symbolized by the untouched Pach Hashemen.  

UPDATE:

Reb Chaim Brown writes that Taharos is merumaz in the word Da'as ('והיה אמונת עיתיך וגו) ,  Since the main pegam of what we call "Yavan" is their anthropocentric and materialistic view of Da'as, it was the purity of the Pach Hashemen that that signalled the success of the Chashmona'im. Tahara, and the Da'as of Torah, is the antithesis of Chochma Yevanis.

11. The Munkatcher in Rav Shulem
This really follows in the derech of the Pnei Yehoshua.
Sometimes, Hashem destroys the enemies of the Jewish People because they are wicked, and their sins earned destruction. When we, Klal Yisrael, benefit from such visitation of punishment on the wicked, it is not a reason to say Hallel, since we are only tangential beneficiaries. On the other hand, there are times that our enemies are destroyed because of Hashem's love for us. This is a reason to celebrate the vanquishment and to say Hallel. The miracle of Chanuka, while it certainly was a salvation for Klal Yisrael, was not clearly one way or the other. Chazal hesitated to declare the chiyuv Hallel because of this ambivalence. When, however, the nes of the Shemen occurred, Chazal saw it as proof that the miracle had taken place because of Hashem's love for Klal Yisrael. This was demonstrated by miraculously providing us with the Shemen Tahor and allowing it to suffice for the entire time it was needed. Thus, the Shemen was evidence of the nature of the victory-- that the victory stemmed from Hashem's approval of our abandonment of Hellenism and our teshuva and demonstrated Hashem's love for Klal Yisrael.

12. Based partially on Reb Tzadok
Reb Tzadok, in the first drash in his his Pri Tzadik on Chanuka, brings the Ramban in Parshas Vayechi, who states that the reason for the ultimate utter destruction of the house of the Chashmona'im stemmed from their usurpation of the monarchy from the descendants of Yehuda (Lo yasur sheivet mi'Yehuda). Reb Tzadok asks, but we find numerous kings who were not from Yehuda, such as Moshe Rabbeinu, Shaul, and Yeravam, who were kings on the basis of Nevu'ah. He answers that definitive mastery of Torah she'ba'al Peh enables a person to accede to malchus, no matter what his shevet. (Gittin 62-- Rabbanan ikru melachim, dichsiv "Bi melachim yimlochu.") That being the case, it was when Yanai, the great-grandson of Matisyahu, destroyed Torah she'ba'al peh, (BB 3b and Kiddushin 66a) leaving only his brother in law, the right of malchus of the Chashmona'im ended and they were destroyed. If so, the symbol of the Menorah was that the zechus of Torah of the Chashmona'im earned for them the right of malchus; the menora was no longer just a mitzvah, it was Torah. The Gemara in Sotah 21a says that a mitzvah is like a candle that exhausts its fuel and goes out, and Torah is eternal light itself. It was davka because of the great Torah defense of the Chashmona'im that the menorah, which in essence is a mitzvah candle, had to burn without stopping, because it now symbolized the Chashmona'i dedication to Torah, which never extinguishes. Torah, as Chazal say, and Tumah, are incompatible. Therefore, it was only with Shemen Tahor that the nes of Chanuka could have occurred.

13. Based on the other half of Reb Tzadok.
He also suggests that this right of malchus when based on Torah depends on matrilineal descent from Yehuda; this is found, for example, in Hillel, who was descended from Yehuda matrilineally, as opposed to the Reish Gelusa, who was of patrilineal descent (Sanhedrin 5a and Yerushalmi Kilayim 9:3). If this is true, then every last Kohen can claim this right, since Aharon was married to Elisheva bas Aminadav, who was, of course, from Shevet Yehuda. Again-- since this corollary malchus right is limited to those who are gedolei and machazikei Torah, once Yanai did what he did, their right ended and their family was wiped out. Thus, again, since the rights of the Chashmona'im are based on Torah she'Ba'al Peh, which was transubtantiated in the Menorah, it could not possibly have been Tamei, because Torah and Tumah are mutually exclusive.

14. The גרי'ט, whoever that is.
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, in his Mikra'ei Kodesh, at the end of the piece, on page 13, D'H Ve'haGri't, says that since the Gezeira was to be ma'avir on the dinei Torah, and they were metamei the shmanim intentionally to show that Tumah was not significant, the result is that Tuma becomes like Arkesa De'mesana, black shoelaces; the halacha is that although generally we choose martyrdom only when the alternative is one of the three great sins, AZ, GA, and ShD,
but when the oppressor's intention is to strike at the essence of Judaism in a mass attack on our laws, we are told to accept martyrdom for even trivial minhagim. If so, he says, under the circumstances, we would refuse to use Shemen Tamei even if Tumah Hutrah BeTzibur.

15. The Nesivos'es son in law, Reb Yoel Ashkenzai
At the end of his second chelek of Mahari'a, not the teshuva volume, he has drashos. At the end of the drashos, he says the following teretz:
Although hadlaka would be muttar on the basis of Tamid, once the neiros had been lit it would be assur to let them continue to burn, because at that point there is no mitzva being done be'po'eil. How this is different than eivarim and pedarim I don't know, but I didn't see it inside yet.

16. GJS
Rabbi Dr. GJS, in a comment, suggests that "Tim'u kol hashmanim" might use the word Tumah as a reference to use for Avoda Zara, just as wine can become Avoda Zara and assur through mixing or pouring. Of course, an object that is used for Avoda Zara is passul for Avoda in the Beis Hamikdash, even with an Eid Echad, so circumstantial evidence would also passel it. Only a sealed container, like a sealed wine bottle, could be known to be untouched and therefore never used for Avoda Zara.  (Consecrating would not be a problem: ein hekdesh le'AZ.)

Indeed, Avoda Zara is Tamei like a Sheretz, as it says in Avoda Zara 47b, and as thoroughly discussed in the Rambam 6 Avos Hatuma. (The Rambam says, kidarko bakodesh, that this din is Midivrei Sofrim with a Remez.) Thus, the use of the word "tim'u" to mean Avoda Zara would not only be on the basis of the generic concept of "sullied," but a legally precise reference to the state of Tum'a generated by use for Avoda Zara.

Avoda Zara, while additionally passul because of its tumah, would of course not be muttar on the basis of Tuma hutra betzibbur.

17.  Chidushei Maharach- חידושי מהרא״ך
The Tzitzi is only meratzeh on things that are kasher only if done by Kohanim, but not on things that can be done by non-kohanim.  Since Hadlakas Menora can be done by any Yisrael (Rambam 9 Biyas Mikdash 7), the tzitz would not be meratzeh on hadlaka.

18.  Rav Tzvi Hirsch Meizels, the Veitzener Rov, in his Dvar Tzvi Lechanuka p. 41.
Since the passuk says "Hamenorah Hatehorah," you see there is a specific need for tahara in the menorah.  Now, if you hold Tumah dechuyah, we can say that the passuk means lechatchila.  But if you hold hutrah, the passuk doesn't make sense at all, since every hadlaka is muttar gamur.  It must be, he says, that if you hold hutrah for every other avoda in the Beis Hamikdash, that din hutrah does not apply by the Menorah, and by the menorah it is definitely only dechuya.  So Lechatchila, they wanted Shemen Tahor.

19.  Also from R' Meisels.
If the menora went out during the day, it would be a mitzva (Tosfos Chagiga 26b DH Menora) to relight it so that you would be able to light at night from the fire that was burning there already.  That hadlaka is only a hechsher and would not be docheh Tumah.  I don't get this teretz, because if it's only a hechsher and not an avodah, who cares if the shemen is tamei?

20.  Rav Simcha Elberg in HaPardes, year 67 volume III answers with what must have been, for him, a self evident truth, because he brings no rayos at all.

ומה שנראה בזה לומר, דלא שייך כלל לומר ט ומאה הותרה בציבור שיכשיר לבנות בית מקדש ולומר דכמו שטומאה הותרה בהקרבת קרבנות ומותר להקריב לזרוק ולהקטיר ולעשות כל העבודות בטומאה בקרבנות ציבור או בקרבנות קבועים, אף שהם של יחיד, כמבואר בכמה דוכתי טובא בש״ס, כן א פשר לבנות בית המקדש בטומאה, זה אינו משום דכל הדין של טומאה הותרה נאמרה רק אחר שיש כבר ביהמ״ק, אז אמרי׳ שהוא מוכן להקריב בו קרבנות אפילו בטומאה אבל לעשות ולבנות ביהמ״ק בטומאה זה לא אמרי׳, דרק אם המקדש כבר בנוי אז אמרי׳ דאפשר כל הקרבנות גם בטומאה, אבל לבנות ולעשות המקדש בטומאה זה א׳׳א

His answer is like Rav Zevin's pshat with the Daas Zkeinim, and like the Avnei Nezer.  But they bring rayos, and he doesn't.  Maybe he was just referring to their bavusteh teirutzim.


21. December 2017: Someone sent this to me, from Rabbi Hershel Shechter.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter Eilu V'Eilu The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue: the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel tummah>[2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash? Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim[4]. The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur; and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha, with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse. Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance with the consensus of that era. Similarly, if the story of chanukah would have occurred a few generations later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and caused the nes to occur. [1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110 [2] See Pesachim 16a [3] See Sotah 4b [4] Eruvin 13b [5] Eruvin ibid [6] Zevachim 61b

What Kind of Oil Shall I Use for the Menorah?

Several months ago I posted on the issue of whether olive oil needs a hechsher.

http://havolim.blogspot.com/search?q=olive+oil

The funny thing is that although it seems clear that no hechsher is needed for consuming olive oil, it is possible that for those that wish to be mehadeir to use olive oil for the menorah, a hechsher would be needed simply to determine that it is olive oil at all, and not some other ersatz substitute. On the other hand, it is also possible that the hechsher is based on a combination of fundamental, though possibly flawed, assumptions (that the tanker that is labeled Spanish Olive Oil is not really turkish Filbert Oil) and the din in Yoreh Deah that olive oil doesn't really need a hechsher at all, as I noted in the cited post.

So: the bottom line is:
Don't spend one cent more for special super duper shemen zayis zach extra virgin olive oil. You're just wasting your money. It's most likely isn't virgin, and it might not even be olive oil at all. And it is "super duper", in a manner of speaking.  The duper is the merchant. You are the dupee. Buy store brand el cheapo oil-- just avoid pomace oil. It doesn't burn well.

UPDATE:
I just returned from a week in Israel.  On Shabbos, Rav Eisenstein of Maalot Dafna/Machal, gives a halacha shiur.  This one was a diatribe on how wrong it is to use any but the most beautiful and expensive olive oils, zach kasis l'maor, Extra Virgin Olive oil.  He said the whole point of Chanuka is to not be satisfied with "adequate" in Kiyum Hamitzvos, and to lazily and cheaply take the easy way out is an affront to the mussar haskeil of Chanuka.

UPDATE:
I've been thinking about what Rav Eisenstein said.  I think it falls into the "some things are worth believing even if they're not true" group.  Here's what Wiki says about acidity in olive oil:

Extra-virgin olive oil Comes from virgin oil production only, and is of higher quality: among other things, it contains no more than 0.8% free acidity (see below), and is judged to have a superior taste, having some fruitiness and no defined sensory defects. Extra-virgin olive oil accounts for less than 10% of oil in many producing countries; the percentage is far higher in the Mediterranean countries (Greece: 80%, Italy: 65%, Spain 30%).

Virgin olive oil Comes from virgin oil production only, but is of slightly lower quality, with free acidity of up to 1.5%, and is judged to have a good taste. 

Refined olive oil is the olive oil obtained from virgin olive oils by refining methods that do not lead to alterations in the initial glyceridic structure. It has a free acidity, expressed as oleic acid, of not more than 0.3 grams per 100 grams (0.3%) and its other characteristics correspond to those fixed for this category in this standard. This is obtained by refining virgin olive oils with a high acidity level and/or organoleptic defects that are eliminated after refining. Note that no solvents have been used to extract the oil, but it has been refined with the use of charcoal and other chemical and physical filters. Oils labeled as Pure olive oil or Olive oil are primarily refined olive oil, with a small addition of virgin-production to give taste.

Olive pomace oil is refined pomace olive oil often blended with some virgin oil. It is fit for consumption, but may not be described simply as olive oil. It has a more neutral flavor than pure or virgin olive oil, making it unfashionable among connoisseurs; however, it has the same fat composition as regular olive oil, giving it the same health benefits. It also has a high smoke point, and thus is widely used in restaurants as well as home cooking in some countries.

The way I understand it, you could chemically reduce the acidity in every grade of oil to zero, so unless you trust the producer, you're wasting your money and being taken for fool.  It would be nice to believe that a hechsher vouches for the character of the oil, but see the second sentence in this update.

And more fundamentally, the idea that olive oil is better for the mitzva, that it is a kind of hiddur, is very debatable.  Pashut pshat in the Gemara on 23a is clearly that there is no such hiddur.  See Dibros Moshe on Shabbos page 469, where he says that it is clear in the Gemara that what matters is the quality of the light, not the kind of oil that produces it.  That's what he holds lehalacha.  He says that the reason there is no benefit to using the kind of oil with which the miracle happened is that it was produced in a manner no longer used, and just the fact that you're using olive oil is nothing if it wouldn't be kosher for the menora.

Ahl Hanissim--Thanking God for War

In Ahl Hanissim, we thank God for nissim, niflaos, gevuros, yeshu’os, and milchamos (wonders, empowerment, salvations and battles). Someone asked Harav Mordechai Eisenberg, (currently of Marlboro, New Jersey,) why do we thank Hashem for milchamos? It’s like a recovered patient being grateful for the disease. Yes, 'milchamos' could be interpreted as meaning “having fought for us”, as Rashi explains Moshe’s promise to the Jews at the Red Sea, “Hashem yilacheim lachem v’atem tacharishun” (Shemos 14:14). Still, the word milchamos seems out of place, once “wonders, empowerment, and salvations done for our forefathers” were mentioned. If it was going to mention milchamos, it should have said it before yeshu’os- thank you for fighting for us and for saving us. Once yeshu’os was mentioned, milchamos seems out of place.

The Gemora in Bava Basra 17a says that four people died only because of the sin that came about through the serpent in The Garden of Eden. “Arba meisu b’etyo shel nachash.” These were Binyamin, Amram the father of Moshe, Yishai the father of David, and Kil’av a son of David. If we were to intentionally search for four obscure tzadikim in Tanach, we might come up with a similar list. We know very little about any of these people: this one had a famous father, and the other had a famous son, and Binyamin is, perhaps, the brother whose personal decisions and behavior we know least about. Usually, he is mentioned as the subject of the actions of others, or for having not done something, rather than what he actually did. Why is it that we know so little about these people? If they were such spectacularly great men, would we not know more about them?

Perhaps the answer is that Odom ein tzadik bo’oretz asher ya’aseh tov velo yechta– if a person lives isolated and insulated from the world, and never faces severe challenge, he may be a perfect tzadik, but he will not be a world changer. To grow, to be an 'oseh tov,' you need nisayon, challenges that take you to the edge of what you think you are capable of withstanding. The days of Mashi’ach are called “yomim she’ein bohem cheifetz,” because they will be quiet times of communing with Hashem, unchallenged by physical and spiritual enemies of our faith. The figures we know of in Tanach, the individuals who left an indelible mark on us, are the ones who had to fight and strive and overcome.

The Seleucids wanted to impose their anti-Jewish philosophy on the Jews, and the milchama, the decision whether to fight for what you believe, to find out whether you actually believe it, was a tremendous stimulus for growth. Of course, if we had lost the war, the tragedy would have outweighed the spiritual bravery encouraged by the battle. But since there was a teshu’a, we give thanks for not only the tehu’ah, but we thank Hashem even for the Milchama. This idea is also expressed in Tehillim 23:4, Mizmor Ledovid, where it says “shivtecho umish’antecho heimo yenachamuni. We thank Hashem both for His staff, the challenges and confrontations He puts in our way, and also for His support and assistance.

(From the drasha I said at my Daf Yomi's Chanukah party, upon receiving a Tzofnas Pa'anei'ach ahl Hatorah. Thank you!)

UPDATE 2013
I just saw the the Ponovezher Rov asks the question, brought, I think, in one of the likut sefarim on Chanuka.  He answered that the war with the Yevanim and the Misyavnim never ended, and it has been a long and bitter war.  It is almost beyond human endurance to continue fighting.  We thank the Ribono shel Olam for giving us the strength and courage to continue the battle.