Chanuka: Lighting in Shul with a Bracha Before Shkia.

The Rashba holds that in general you can light before shkia, after Plag. He says that if you're yotzei erev Shabbos, then the zman applies all week.  The Gaon seems to pasken like that, and the Mishna Berura says you can rely on this and even make a bracha. The Aruch HaShulchan says you cannot rely on it on any day except erev Shabbos.
Mishna Berura  (It's reiterated in the Shaarei Tziyun) -

מפלג המנחה - הוא שעה ורביע קודם צה"כ וחשבינן השעה לפי קוצר היום דהיינו שעות זמניות. ויכול לברך ג"כ:

Aruch HaShulchan -

כתב רבינו הבית יוסף בסעיף א דיש מי שאומר שאם הוא טרוד – יכול להקדים להדליק מפלג המנחה ולמעלה, ובלבד שיתן בה שמן עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק. עד כאן לשונו.וראיה לדבר זה: שהרי בערב שבת מדליקין נר חנוכה קודם השקיעה. ובאמת יש ליזהר בערב שבת ליתן הרבה שמן, יותר מהשיעור שבכל יום לכל הפחות בנר אחד, כדי שידלק עד כדי שתכלה רגל מן השוק.אך באמת משבת אין ראיה, מפני שאי אפשר בעניין אחר. דאם לא כן להרמב"ם, דאחר שתכלה רגל מן השוק אין מדליקין, כמו שכתבתי – אין מדליקין נר חנוכה במוצאי שבת. אלא במקום דלא אפשר שאני, והכא נמי בערב שבת כן.

The Trumas Hadeshen, and the Mechaber paskens like him, says that even erev Shabbos kavsa ein zakuk lah. The Taz argues and says that erev Shabbos, kavsa zakuk lah.

Our minhag is to light in shul before maariv, with a bracha. Can you light in shul before shkia?  If you do, can you make a bracha?

The initial response would be that according to the Rashba/Gaon/Mishna Berura, you could light in shul after plag and make a bracha. According to the Aruch HaShulchan, you could not.

But in most shuls, they light lechatchila right after mincha and then they blow out the light before people leave. This is not right, because we only rely on Plag for neiros bedieved!
Second, when we light erev Shabbos, there has to be enough oil so that it will remain lit till tichleh regel min hashuk, and if you intend to blow it out, perhaps that's not sufficient to be mekayem the din of pirsum.  In many shuls, they blow it out right after Maariv, and rightly so, because leaving it alone is a sakana.
Also, in many cases, there's not even enough oil to stay lit so long, even if they would not blow it out.
So is this a scandal? It seems that it's probably a bracha levatala, and even if not, it's at best a bedieved, not to be relied on on a whim! Wait till Shkiya!

HOWEVER, I believe that the opposite is true. Everyone might agree that you could light in shul after plag and make a bracha, and you may blow it out lechatchila, and even the Taz would agree that ein zakuk lah.

This is because by regular neiros, the pirsum is based on the din pirsum for the rabbim, which has a zman and a shiur. But the neiros in shul are not for the rabbim, it's a different din, it's pirsum for the people who came to daven. The Beis Yosef tries to explain the basis for lighting in shul, and brings ideas from the Rivash and the Kolbo. But it is definitely not from the din of the Gemara. If so, we can say that the ikker pirsum of haklaka in shul is the people in shul, and if you don't make a bracha, there would be no pirsum. This svara is based on the words of the Mor UKetziyah in 672, who says:

ונ"ל ליישב קצת דעת הטור דמצוה זו דנ"ח שאני ודאי דברכתה מעכבת לפי שכל עיקרה לפרסומי ניסא וכי מדליק בלא ברכה לא מידי עביד דהרואה סבר לצרכו הוא דמדליק ולא מינכרא מילתא כלל דלשם מצוה קעביד. דוגמא לדבר ממ"ש בס"ד לעיל סימן קכ"ח. והך עדיפא והוא הדבר ג"כ שמברכין העולים לקה"ת ואע"פ שכבר ברכו ויצאו י"ח בהיית לעצמן. ולא דמיא לקריאת מגילה דבספיקא לא מברך משום דבלא ברכה נמי מיפרסם ניסא ע"י קריאתה וק"ל. והיינו טעמא דמברכינן עלה בבית הכנסת אע"פ שאין החיוב מדין התלמוד והיה די להדליק בבה"כ בלא ברכה דהא נמי לספיקא דמיא עם כל מה שהרבו המחברים לתת טעם להדלקה דבבה"כ כמ"ש כב"י משם הריב"ש והכלבו מידי ספיקא דדינא לא נפקא ואעפ"כ לא חששו לברכה שאינה צריכה מספק כי חשבוה צורך המצוה לעשותה כהוגן שאם ידליקוהו בלא ברכה אין בו פרסום הנס שיהיו סבורים שהדליקו נרות לצורך בה"כ וכיון שראו שהלכה רופפת אמרו שלא לזוז ממנהגן של ישראל שתורה היא בכל כיוצא בזה ומינה ניגמר אנן דה"ה המדליק בביתו מחמת ספק ג"כ לא הפסיד הברכה כך נ"ל בדעת הטור ושהב"י מודה לו בזה שאם אנו מצריכין להדליק מספק לא סגי דלא מברך ולכן קבע כן להלכה בסתם

According to the Mor Uktziyah, the hadlaka in shul has nothing to do with tichleh regel and it has nothing to do with the regular din of neiros. The pirsum is the act of lighting and making the bracha b'rabbim, davka in the shul in front of the mispallelim. Now if the ikker pirsum of the neiros in shul is for the mispallelim, and the ikker pirsum is making the bracha, then as long as it's the right day, as long as it's after plag, the minhag applies and you would make a bracha even if you intend to extinguish it right afterwards. The only holdover from the regular din neiros is that you only do this with a bracha at "night," but without a bracha in the mornning.  That, it seems to me, is what the halacha would be, even according to the Taz and the Aruch HaShulchan.

Chanuka: Haragil b'ner and Mitzvas Anashim Milumada.

The Sfas Emes on Chanuka brings the Chidushei HaRi'm to explain the Gemara in Shabbos 23: that one who is careful with Neiros (Shabbos and Chanuka) is zocheh to harbotzas Torah:

הרגיל בנר הוי ליה בנים תלמידי חכמים דכתיב (משלי ו, ג) נר מצוה ותורה אור (שבת כ״ג ע״ב) אדוני מורי זקני ז"ל פירש להמשיך הארה תוך הרגילות פירוש שלא לעשות המצוה על צד ההרגל רק בישוב הדעת, כי החכמה והשכל אינו מתיישן, ואינו בא לידי הרגל, וזה זקן שקנה תכמה. כי סתם חכם נקרא זקן כי הגוף משתנה בעת הזקנה וכן כל מעשי האדם, אבל החכמה אינו משתנה, ולכך נקרא על שם הזקנה כנ"ל. ואיתא במדרש בחוקותי (ל״ה:א) חשבתי דרכי ואשיבה רגלי כו' (תהלים קיט נט) עיין שם כלל דבריו כי על ידי שחישב דוד המלך ע"ה תמיד בכל עת איך לעבוד את בוראו על ידי זה המשיך גם הרגילות אליו יתברך וכמו שכתבנו במקום אחרי וזה שכתוב הרגיל בנר כפשוטו שתמיד מחשב במצות בי במחשבה יכול להיות תמיד עוסק במצוה ועל ידי זה כל מעשיו הם על פי החכמה והשכל וזה שכתוב הויין ליה בנים תלמידי חכמים [על פי מה שכתבו רז״ל עיקר תולדותיהם של צדיקים מצות ומעשים טובים.]

More briefly, elsewhere in the Sfas Emes:

אא"ז מו"ר זצלה"ה פירש הרגיל בנר להביא ההארה והתחדשות אל ההרגל. וכן פירש שתכלה רגל דכליא רגלא דתרמודאי שהוא גם כן להסיר ההרגל והטבע. וכן פירש נר לרגלי דבריך (תהלים קיט קה) טובל בשמן רגלו ודברי פי חכם חן.

(The Medrash in Bechukosai 35:1 that he mentions:

אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ (ויקרא כו, ג), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קיט, נט): חִשַּׁבְתִּי דְרָכָי וָאָשִׁיבָה רַגְלַי אֶל עֵדֹתֶיךָ, אָמַר דָּוִד רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם בְּכָל יוֹם וָיוֹם הָיִיתִי מְחַשֵׁב וְאוֹמֵר לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּלְבֵית דִּירָה פְּלוֹנִית אֲנִי הוֹלֵךְ, וְהָיוּ רַגְלַי מְבִיאוֹת אוֹתִי לְבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּלְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וָאָשִׁיבָה רַגְלַי אֶל עֵדֹתֶיךָ, רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַחָא אָמַר חִשַּׁבְתִּי מַתַּן שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל מִצְווֹת וְהֶפְסֵדָן שֶׁל עֲבֵרוֹת, וָאָשִׁיבָה רַגְלַי אֶל עֵדֹתֶיךָ. רַבִּי מְנַחֵם חַתְנָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר אֲבִינָא אָמַר, חִשַּׁבְתִּי מַה שֶּׁכָּתַבְתָּ לָנוּ בַּתּוֹרָה: אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ, וּמַה כְּתִיב תַּמָּן (ויקרא כו, ו): וְנָתַתִּי שָׁלוֹם בָּאָרֶץ, (ויקרא כו, יד): וְאִם לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ לִי, מַה כְּתִיב תַּמָּן (ויקרא כו, יח): וְיָסַפְתִּי לְיַסְּרָה אֶתְכֶם. רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר, חִשַּׁבְתִּי בְּרָכוֹת חִשַּׁבְתִּי קְלָלוֹת. בְּרָכוֹת מֵאל"ף עַד תי"ו, קְלָלוֹת מִן וי"ו וְעַד ה"א, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁהֵן הֲפוּכוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אִם זְכִיתֶן הֲרֵינִי הוֹפֵךְ לָכֶם קְלָלוֹת לִבְרָכוֹת, אֵימָתַי כְּשֶׁתִּשְׁמְרוּ אֶת תּוֹרָתִי, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ.

His interpretation of the Medrash not what I would expect - I thought that the Medrash means the opposite of his pshat, that Dovid Hamelech's unthinking hergel superseded his conscious choices. But the pshat in the Medrash is less important than what the Sfas Emes is saying in the Gemara in Shabbos about haragil b'neir.)

Last motzei Shabbos I was at Harav Avraham Chaim Levin zatzal's shiva house, and this was one of the defining traits they spoke about - his absolute determination to avoid the trap of  מצוות אנשים מלומדה.   As Moshe Schmeltzer had said at the levaya, if you knew Rav Levin at forty, you would not know him at forty five. If you knew  him at forty five, you would not know him at fifty, and so on to the end. This was not just a drasha, it was true. As a younger man, Harav Levin he was famously (to some, notoriously,) obdurate and harsh, and far from simcha. But his unending self examination, mostly through the Shaarei Teshuva and Orchos Tzadikim, expressed itself in ongoing change. 

Often, a man that has accomplished great things will settle on a plateau. Rav Levin had established his Yeshiva, he was the foremost expositor and role model of post-war Telz, he had raised successful and exemplary children, he was universally admired in the Yeshiva world, and it would make sense for him to say that you don't' mess with success. But he was not like that. Cheshbon Hanefesh never ended for him, and his honesty and mussar and attempts to improve brought about real change.  My personal relationship with him mostly ended when I left the yeshiva in 1970, so I did not witness this, but others did. As I said, he changed from adamantine and short tempered to patient and warm. Not having witnessed it, as I said, I find it hard to visualize, but apparently this is the fact.  A friend of mine, whose relationship with Harav Levin ended around the same time as mine, called me during the shiva, and it was clear that he still resented Rav Levin's toughness towards him, and he wanted me to say something that would soften those long held feelings. He was very surprised when I told him what I had learned.

As relates to Chanuka, and the Sfas Emes says this pshat in רגיל בנר. Your regillus should always be at the light of a candle -  do not live a life of thoughtless habit, unexamined rote behavior.  Do not live a life of מצוות אנשים מלומדה. 

To underline this idea, here is what Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz says (Sichos 93 page 397.)

״אל תשמחי אויבתי לי כי נפלתי קמתי כי אשב בחשך ה' אור לי" (מיכה ז,ח) ופירשו חז"ל אילולא שנפלתי לא קמתי ואילולא שישבתי בחושך לא היה ה' אור לי. (ילקוט תהילים רמז תרכח) ועיין מדרש שוח"ט תהלים ה ואף כנגד האויב הגדול הוא היצר הדברים אמורים אילולא שנפלתי לא קמתי ואילולא ישבתי בחושך לא היה ה' אור לי שהנפילה והישיבה בחושך הם הם המביאים את האדם לראות את האמת ומתוך החושן מבחין הוא באור ביתר שאת כו׳ 

ובטעם הדבר שע"י זעזוע של נפילה וישיבה בחושך יכולים להתעלות עד ה' אלוקיך נראה כי המעכב העיקרי להתעלות האדם הוא ההתרגלות למצבו שמפני כן אינו מרגיש את ההכרח הגמור להתעלות מעלה מעלה ובנוסף לזה הוא מאבד גם את התרגשות הלב ע"י ההרגל וככתוב (ישעיהו כט,יג) יען כי נגש העם הזה בפיו ובשפתיו כבדוני ולבו רחק ממני ותהי יראתם אותי מצות אנשים מלומדה. כיון שהם במצב של מצות אנשים מלומדה הרי לבם רחק ממני כל אשר הם עושים הוא מן השפה ולחוץ ואף יראתם אותי היא יראה חיצונית שאין לה ולא כלום עם מעמקי הלב ההתלהבות והרגש נעלמים ואינם וכיון שכן נשאר האדם במצבו ואין בו כח ורצון להתעלות ורק זעזוע של נפילה קשה ח"ו מוציא את האדם משלוותו והרגליו ומעורר אצלו את התרגשות הלב וכשרואה פתאום את התהום שבה הוא נמצא יש בכחו להתעלות מעלה מעלה עד ה' אלקיך ולהגיע למקום שאין צדיקים גמורים יכולים לעמוד

Vayishlach and Chanuka. A Guest Post from HaRav Avraham Bukspan

 Rabbi Bukspan is the mechaber of a wonderful Sefer from Feldheim, "Classics and Beyond.  Parsha Pearls." It is a written in a very innovative and modern style, combining anthology and analysis, perfect for an American ben Torah that wants a substantive and creative thought on the Parsha.

ויותר יעקב. שכח פכים קטנים וחזר עליהם (חולין צא.)

 Yaakov remained. He had forgotten some small jars and he returned for them. (Rashi Bereishis 32:25)

בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן

“They searched and found only one jar of oil” (Shabbos 21b)

Many years ago I made a small observation which has panned out to something rather golden. The Shelah Hakadosh writes “there is certainly great symbolism and meaning behind the pachim ketanim of Yaakov, and with it we can understand the secret of the pach of Chanukah.”   

“ובודאי יש דברים גדולים רמוזים בפכים קטנים, ואז תבין גם כן סוד פך שמן של חנוכה”

I then suggested that the one untouched “pach” that was found -which served as the basis for the miracle of Chanukah, was from one of the “pachim ketanim” that Yaakov Avinu went back to retrieve. The basis for this would seem to be from the common use- in both the story of Chanukah and that night that Yaakov fought the angel-of the uncommon word פך - פכים.

If we take it as a given that those פכים קטנים, those small jars were ones that contained oil let’s speculate further on where that oil came from.


The dove returned to Noach with an olive leaf in its mouth;

וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ

 “In her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off” (Bereishis 8:11)

The Gemorah (Sanhedrin 108) cites one opinion that this leaf came from Gan Eden. (See also Bereishis Rabbah 33:6)

We are suggesting that this leaf -whose provenance is from Gan Eden-, was subsequently planted by Noach and from the olives which grew he took oil which he then used in his offerings to Hashem. Noach after a time passed this oil on to his son Shem Ben Noach a.k.a Malkitzdek, the Kohein LiKeil Elyon.

{It is worth noting that the Shelah Hakodesh ( parshas vayeishev mikeitz vayigash, torah ohr ) attributes the seal of the Kohein Gadol on the small pach to none other than Malkitzedek, the Kohein LiKeil Elyon, i.e. a Kohein Gadol.}

כן מצאו פך שמן והיה חתום בחותם כהן גדול. וכבר כתבתי למעלה בשם הרמב"ן כי החשמונאים חטאו שלקחו המלכות לעצמן. מכל מקום הם סברו שיש להם אחיזה במלכות בית דוד, כי תמר זכתה להיות המלכות ממנה, והיא היתה בתו של שם (זהר ח"א, קיז) שהוא מלכי צדק והוא מלך וכהן לאל עליון. וזהו ענין והיה חתום בחותם כהן גדול

Malkitzedek in turn gave it to Avraham Avinu who fittingly gave it to his son and spiritual heir, Yitzchok. And finally it was given to Yaakov where it was kept it in those “pachim ketanim”. And those are the jugs that Yakkov went back to retrieve.

ויותר יעקב לבדו אמר רבי אלעזר: שנשתייר על פכין קטנים, מכאן לצדיקים שחביב עליהם ממונם יותר מגופם וכל כך למה, לפי שאין פושטין ידיהן בגזל 

And Jacob was left alone. Said R. Eleazar: He remained behind for the sake of some small jars. Hence [it is learnt] that to the righteous their money is dearer than their body.  and why is this? Because they do not stretch out their hands to robbery; (Chullin 91a)
With this we can now understand (albeit differently than the Gemorah) why Yaakov was willing to risk his life for those jugs. They were not mere kitchen utensils; they had Gan Eden oil in them! This was Meyuchasdika oil! “It`s belong to my forbearers, of course I`m going to risk my life for this.”

And it is with this oil that the miracle of Chanukah occurs. So of course it will burn 8 days, it`s from Gan Eden! {We`ll see about the question regarding Shemen Nes}

As I stated above this was all speculation on my part, which I then shared with Harav Nachum Lansky of Ner Yisroel. He took me over to a shelf of Seforim, removed and opened a Tikunei Zohar and showed me where the Zohar states that the first stirrings of the miracle of Chanukah began at the very moment the dove had the olive leaf in its mouth.

ואיהו הוד תמניא יומי דחנוכה לארבעה ועשרין יומין דאינון ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד. ומיד דעלה זית טרף בפיה שריא כ"ה על ישראל בכ"ה בכסלו.... ודא איהו חנוכ"ה. (תיקונא תליסר דף כט.)

“And it is in relation to hod that there are eight days of Chanuka after 24 days [of the month of Kislev]. These 24 days are equivalent to the 24 letters in the verse "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever". Immediately thereafter: "And behold in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off." (Gen. 8:11) Chaf -Hei [the numerical value of 25] dwells on Israel on the 25th of Kislev... And this is Chanukah.” (Tikunei Zohar 13)

While not proof positive that the oil is actually from the olive leaf the dots are there for a connection to be made.

Blow it out or only put in half an hour's worth.

Here's a common sense suggestion. When you light Chanuka lights, oil or candles, either blow them out after half an hour, like the Tur and the Mechaber say in 72. If you're superstitious about blowing candles out, then put in no more than half an hour's worth and don't go to sleep for that half hour!  There is definitely a hiddur to sit there for the half hour. But who said there's a hiddur if they burn longer??? And אפילו אם תימצאי לומר. that there's some kind of hiddur, is it דוחה נפשות???

For the people that insist on marei mekomos here are the two mekoros. First, the Magen Avraham 672 sk 3. The Magen Avraham brings from the Darkei Moshe that there is no point in letting the candles burn past a half hour, and there's no benefit from using giant candles. The Magen Avraham says that the first point is certainly true: There is absolutely no benefit, or hiddur, to use more oil. Use half an hours worth and not a drop more! But he says that if you're using candles, it's nice to use a big one, just as we find that a big lulav is called a hiddur. So those of you that 1. use oil, and 2. are makpid on a big lulav, and 3. are meikil in venishmartem, go ahead and use a big candle. I would think that the little tiny possible hiddur involved is not worth even a ספיק ספיקא דנפשות.  BUT! even according to the Magen Avraham, you can fulfill this hiddur by using big candles and blowing them out.

Mekoros for for the opposite conclusion:.
שאילץ יעב"ץ א ד ד"ה כיון, but you don't have to hold like the Yavetz, especially since the Tur, the Mechaber, the Rama, and the Magen Avraham say the opposite..
The Maharam Shik on the Sefer HaMitzvos #98.  He brings a raya from Tosfos in Beitza 22a that more oil is better because it produces a larger flame. I don't believe his idea is accepted by anyone, because it's just not consistent with reality.  Reb Avrohom Wagner says that lemaiseh the raya from Tosfos is good. I say that in order that there shouldn't be a stira between Tosfos and reality, we can say that their oil or their wicks or their lamps were different than ours, so the hiddur of more oil/bigger flame no longer pertains. I was thinking about making a video of a oil lamp with different levels of oil to demonstrate the point, but I'm going to delay that project until the advent of my second childhood.

It is true that the svara of the Tur and the Mechaber in 672 really only applies where we light for the people in the street. Where you light for the household, or even in Israel where the street doesn't empty till late at night, it could be argued that the ikker mitzva continues longer. Indeed, Reb Moshe says this in the Hearos to Bameh Madlikin #11. But as the Aruch HaShulchan says, the mitzva remains as Chazal instituted it -  half an hour, equal to ad shetichleh.

ולפי זה גם האידנא שמדליקין בבית – צריך גם כן שיעור זה. ואפשר דבזה גם הרמב''ם מודה, דדווקא לדידהו, דההיכר היה לבני רשות הרבים, ואחר זמן כליית רגל מן השוק – אין היכר למו, אם כן למה יתן שמן על אחר כך? אבל האידנא שההיכר לבני הבית – שפיר צריך היכר למשך חצי שעה. וכן המנהג הפשוט, ואין לשנות. 

Another raya that you should never leave the candles burning after you've gone to sleep - 

Fire Commissioner Daniel Nigro says everyone in the house was asleep when a neighbor reported the fire around 2:30 a.m. in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood.

UPDATE DECEMBER 2020

The Bach in 672 brings from the Maharshal that some have a minag to leave them burning till they burn out.  

However, the Aruch Hashulchan says that most people do NOT have this minhag. If you don't know that you have it, then YOU DO NOT HAVE IT!

Second, the Machtzis Hashekel/Elya Rabba says that even if you have the minhag, making a tnai will allow you to extinguish after half an hour.  

So: if you're nervous, Maybe I have the minhag! Then go make a tnai. If you want, you can make the tnai every year at Hataras nedarim. It is not nearly as serious as, for example, gebrokts.

Bach:

מיהו ה"ר ירוחם כתב דיש מהגאונים שכתבו דאפי' אחר שיעור זה אסור להשתמש לאורה עכ"ל ומהרש"ל בתשובה כתב הטעם דאסור מפני הרואה שלא ידע לחלק אבל יכול לכבותם עכ"ל ומיהו המנהג להחמיר שלא לכבותן ואסור להתיר להן וכמ"ש רבי' לעיל בסי' תר"ע ועוד נלע"ד דכיון דאיכא תרי לישני ורוב פוסקים מפרשי' דפליגי ור"י ור"ת כתבו דנהגו כלשון ראשון וללשון ראשון אסור לכבותן או להשתמש לאורן לאחר שדלקו השיעור שהרי ללשון ראשון לא הוזכר שום שיעור והכל שוה א"כ מדינא נמי אסור ואע"ג דקי"ל כלשון שני דצריך ליתן שמן בנר שידליק חצי שעה היינו דוקא להחמיר אנו תופסין כמותו אבל לא להקל ולכן יראה דאף לעצמו אין להקל לכבותן ואצ"ל שלא יורה כך לאחרים ודלא כמ"ש מהרש"ל דיכול לכבותן וכ"כ בספר צידה לדרך ויש מדקדקים שלא לכבותה ולא להשתמש לאורה הואיל ושם השמן למצוה עכ"ל ובמסכת סופרים איתא להדיא ואין מגביהין ממקומו עד שיכבה ואע"פ דבהגהת מיימונית מפרש דהיינו דוקא כשהשים בו שמן כשיעור מצומצם לא אתברר לן מנ"ל לפרש כך להקל. ולקמן בס"ס תרע"ז יתבאר דאפי' לאחר שכבה מעצמו אסור:

Aruch Hashulchan 672:9

אם נתן הרבה שמן בנר, יותר מהשיעור – יכול לכבותה לאחר שהדליקה חצי שעה. וגם מותר אחר כך להשתמש לאורה, שלא הוקצה למצותה רק כפי השיעור. ויש מי שאומר דלכבותה – מותר, אבל להשתמש לאורה – אסור (שם סעיף קטן ד בשם רש"ל), דבשימוש אין היכר בין קודם הזמן לאחר הזמן. ויש שכתבו שהמנהג גם שלא לכבות (שם בשם ב"ח). ובוודאי אם המנהג כן – אין לשנות, אבל אצלינו נהגו לכבות.

 Machatzis Hashekel and Elya Rabba, brought in Rav Shvadron's Daas Torah:

יכול לכבותה וכו' עמג"א סק"ד בשם רש"ל   [דאין להשתמש לאורה, אבל לכבותה שרי. ובשם ב"ח דמאחר שנהגו איסור לכבות ולהשתמש אין להקל] 

ועי' א"ר דאם התנה לכו"ע שרי גם ליהנות, וכמ"ש המחצה"ש כאן בשמן [דאם התנה מותר לכבות לאחר השיעור] 

One more thing:

As it happens, Rabbi Yair Hoffman wrote about this recently, and he comes to the same conclusion, with citation to the Chazon Ish and the Chafetz Chaim in their own behavior.   Here is an alternative link to his article.

Vayeishev. From the Kollel Hora'ah of America

Without any influence of negiyus, I think the vort about leisheiv b'shalva is excellent.

ביקש יעקב לישב בשלוה R' Moshe Eisenberg ביקש יעקב לישב בשלוה, Yaakov sought to live in tranquility. השם said, "Is it not enough for צדיקים what awaits them in עולם הבא, that they seek tranquility in this world?", whereupon Yaakov was beset with the distressing episode of מכירת יוסף. On consideration of this statement, two questions arise: First, the גמרא in בבא בתרא says that השם did, in fact, grant יעקב the experience of עולם הבא during his lifetime. Second, is it tranquility that awaits צדיקים in עולם הבא? The גמרא in ברכות says that תלמידי חכמים have no מנוחה in עולם הבא. The answer lies in the מהרש״א's explanation of the גמרא in ברכות. Of course, says the מהרש״א, there is מנוחה in עולם הבא, as we say יום שכולו שבת ומנוחה. On the other hand, the specific definition of מנוחה is rest from a task completed, "when the job is done." Those, then, who had spent a life in spiritual pursuit and merited thereby the experience of צדיקים יושבין כו׳ ונהנין מזיו השכינה- which the מהרש״א terms עיון שכלי- their work is never done, because עיון שכלי is eternal. As such, we derive that the purpose of עולם הבא is עיון שכלי- from which there can be no מנוחה, no end- which is facilitated by מנוחה from all other things. Now, it is logical that the ability to focus solely on spiritual advancement, without any disturbance, would be desirable even in עולם הזה. After all, such is the experience of עולם הבא. But השם says, "Is it not enough for צדיקים what is מתוקן, what is proper and right, in עולם הבא, but they desire that freedom also in עולם הזה." But such freedom is not always מתוקן, proper, in this world. Ease can lead to languor, and from there to indolence and even decadence. Rather, וירא מנוחה כי טוב- having glimpsed the ultimate tov of olam habah- ויט שכמו לסבול, use any agitation and unrest of life in this world as tools for self improvement. Indeed, Yaakov merited עולם הבא during his lifetime. But at what juncture of his life did this take place? חז״ל deduce this from Yaakov's statement כי יש לי כל, which was said at a time when he had fled for his life from לבן, into the arms of עשו, and yet- יש לי כל. In עולם הבא, I will be free from any distraction; but in this world, the turmoil itself helps me to achieve the same purpose, דביקות בה׳.  Such was Yaakov's attitude when he faced the challenges of his life. May we all merit such clarity.

יורה דעה R' Shmuel Katz

Question: I bought a new set of dishes for use with fleishigs. May I designate the mugs that come with the set for use with milchigs? Answer: The רמ"א [a] writes that in order to be able to differentiate the milchig and fleishig knives, the מנהג is to make a mark on the dairy ones. This מנהג was to etch three grooves into the handle [b] of the dairy utensil. The מנהג was universal to the extent that the פמ"ג [c] says that if one were to find a knife with these grooves on the handle on a Jewish street, the knife is definitely milchig. The דרכי תשובה [d] quotes from the אדני פז that even if the knives have recognizably different handles, one should still make three grooves in the milchig handle. He understands that it is proper to make a universally recognizable sign, so others using your knives will also be able to tell the difference. The ערוך השלחן [e] on the other hand, suggests having visibly different sets of dishes for milchig and fleishig, to avoid confusion, even if it’s not a universally recognizable design. He seems to understand that we are only concerned that the owner and his family know which is which. The general custom today is to follow the opinion of the ערוך השלחן. This is evident from the fact that we are not careful to have dishes that are universally recognizable as milchig or fleishig. In fact, many have never heard of חריצי חלב, the three grooves, which were ubiquitous once upon a time. However, even the ערוך השלחן [f] agrees that if there is a universal way of designating dishes, one should not do the opposite i.e. one should not use three grooves as his personal way of labeling his fleishig dishes. Consequently, one may not use and label dishes in a way that will confuse others, even if the owner and the owner’s family are aware of this. In our case, it is almost universal that all the matching dishes from a set, are used together as a set, and splitting them may lead others to use them improperly. Therefore, in conclusion, if one wishes to split a set of dishes, one should label the mugs as dairy in a way that even an outsider who knows that the rest of the set is fleishig will realize that the mugs are not to be used with the set, as they have been separated to be used with milchigs.

אורח חיים Rabbi Shmuel Goldstein

Question: I am going away for Shabbos Chanukah. Where should I light the Menorah? Answer: If one is staying away from their normal house for a day or two during Chanukah, and they are eating and sleeping in a different house, then they should light in that place, because it is considered to be their house for the duration of their stay [a]. If one is leaving their house after sunset, (obviously not on Friday), it is best to light at home [b]. If one lit in the other place, they still have fulfilled their obligation [c]. When returning home, if one will be back before זמן שתכלה רגל מן השוק, (the time when people stop frequenting the streets in that neighborhood), then it is better to wait and light at home. If this is too difficult, one may light in their temporary house, but then they should eat a meal there too [d]. If one will not return home until after זמן שתכלה רגל מן השוק, then it is better to light in their temporary house, and here too it is preferable to eat a meal there [e]. If one will return after dawn, then they must light in their temporary house, but still it is preferable that they a meal there as well [f]. If one is going away, and will be sleeping in one place but eating in another place, it is better to light in the place where they are eating [g], unless either they will also eat a meal that day in the house that they are sleeping [h], or if the place where they are sleeping is more privately theirs’ than the place where they are eating, (such as if they are eating in a Shul) [i] [j]. If a man is lighting away from home and his wife is lighting at home, he can make the Brachos only if he is lighting before she does, (since she may be fulfilling his obligation). According to some פוסקים he may say the Brachos if he specifically has in mind, before the time that his wife lights, that he does not want to fulfill his obligation with her lighting [k].

To receive Points to Ponder weekly via email, please contactkollelhoraah@gmail.com or text KHAWEEKLY to 22828

Mikeitz, Bereishis 41:16. The Nexus of Spiritual and Physical

This is from Reb Yaakov, with my son R' Mordechai's hesber.
Emes L'Yaakov here:

מ"א ט"ז בלעדי אלקים יענה את שלום פרעה 

הנה לכשנתבונן בב' מיני נרות שנצטוינו להדליק נר שבת ויו"ט ונר חנוכה הא' ניתן להשתמש בו ואדרבה בלא תשמיש א"צ להדליק והב' אסור בתשמיש ואפי' לעסוק כנגדו בד"ת אר בדבר מצוה נאסר הא' משום שלום בית והשני מפני שהוא כנגד אור המקדש עדות היא לישראל שהשכינה שרויה בישראל והלא גדול השלום שמדחה לנר חנוכה ואף שכאן ישנו פירסומא ניסא אבל שלום ביתו עדיף וצריך טעם הלוא פרסום הנס מאשר ההשגחה הפרטית ויכולת ד' וכל הדברים הנגררים מצד הנס אבל מצד אחר עונג השבת התאחדות הגשמיות והרוחניות על ידי סעודת השבת זהו ענין המאחד כל העולמות זה בזה והרי אכילת שבת מעין עולם הכא ואיך יתכן שאכילה ושתיה יהיו מעין עולם של רוחניות ליום שכולו שבת ומנוחה וע"כ מפני שהעולמות אחוזים זה בזה וזוהי דרכן של אבותינו שבכל הויות העולם שתפו שם שמים בכל עניניהם והדברים הגיעו כל כך עד שיוסף הצדיק בדברו שיחת חולין לכאורה עם פרעה מלך מצרים תיכף בשמעו שמלך מצרים אומר שמעתי עליך תשמע חלום לפתור אותו מוחה בכל תוקף ואומר בלעדי אלקים יענה את שלום פרעה ואח"כ בתוך דבריו את אשר האלקים עושה הראה את פרעה וכן להלן ועל השנות החלום גו' כי ממהר אלקים לעשותו וכן היתה שיחתו כל כך עד שפרעה הכופר שאמר לי יאורי ואני עשיתיני יחזקאל כ"ט פ"ג הוכרח להודות בפני שריו ועבדיו הנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלקים בו הרי שכן הבין גם פרעה וזהו השלוב של גשם ורוח ועיין מה שכתבתי בביאור ענין זה להלן בפרשת וארא שמות ז' פכ"ב 

Reb Yaakov points out that we have two mitzvos to light candles, one for Shabbos and Yomtov and one for Chanuka. The first requires that we enjoy and benefit from it, but benefiting in any way from the second is assur, even to use it to learn Torah. If only one can be done, the Shabbos candle has priority, despite the lesson of Chanuka that miracles can happen, that the spiritual is the true power in the world. The reason, he says, and as my son explained, is that Kodoshim, certainly the Menorah, involve taking the physical and converting it to purely spiritual. But the experience of Shabbos means to bring the physical and the spiritual together, to harmonize them by connecting them to each other. That is a far greater mitzva than the light of Chanuka.

Chanuka. Mizmor Shir Chanukas HaBayis- מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד

Delivered at a Mesiba in December 2014 for the Kollel Boker of the Adas Bnei Yisrael.  The comments are mostly from earlier versions of this post and most of them were incorporated herein.

Many of us say Tehillim 30, מזמור שיר חנוכת בית לדוד, after davening on Chanuka.  The relevance to Chanuka is obvious- this chapter celebrates the dedication of the Beis Hamikdash, which is the essence of Chanuka.  The Gaon says that it was the Shir shel Yom for the duration of Chanuka, and replaced the regular Shir shel Yom.

One would naturally assume that it was the Shir shel Yom only toward the end of the time of the second Beis HaMikdash, after the Chashmonayim.  I don't think that is correct.  I believe that Mizmor Shir was the shir shel yom on the twenty fifth of Kislev throughout the era of the second Beis HaMikdash.  I also believe that was also true even in the first Beis HaMikdash period.

The Pesikta Rabbsa (brought by the Tur in the beginning of Hilchos Chanuka, and ילקוט שמעוני מלכים א קפ"ד and Bamidbar Rabba 13:2)  says that we were told to build the Mishkan after Yom Kippur.  We built it very swiftly, and it was ready either on the twenty fourth or fifth of Kislev.  It could have been erected on the twenty fifth, but Hashem told us to put it into storage until Nissan.  To repay the twenty fifth for its lost opportunity, Hashgacha arranged that for the Chashmonayim to rededicate the Mikdash on that date.

Similarly, the Yaavetz in the Mor Uketziah on OC 470 is the first to point out that in Chaggai, the bechina of the Kohanim about the laws of Tumah was stated to have taken place on the twenty fourth of Kislev, referred to in that passuk as " before a stone was placed on a stone in building the Mikdash."  So the Mikdash Sheni was begun on the twenty fifth of Kislev.

It is absolutely clear that the twenty fifth of Kislev was Chanuka long before Chanuka, long before the Chashmonayim were born.  It is a day of inherent segula for building the Beis HaMikdash.  Reb Eli showed me that in Megillas Antiochus it says that the Hellenists profaned the Mikdash on that date as well- which implies that they chose that date in order to emphasize their victory over our mesora,

I believe, but I accept that my proof requires some assumptions, that the first Bayis was begun on that date as well, as I will explain.





Reading Mizmor Shir, we have several questions.  First, David HaMelech never saw a Beis HaMikdash.  He saw Nov and Givon   So what chanukas habayis was he celebrating?  Another question is that although the first sentence tells us that this chapter was written to celebrate the inauguration of the Bayis, not one word thereafter mentions or even hints to anything having to do with the Beis Hamikdash.  It is a general song of salvation and praise.  Why is there nothing in it about the Bayis?

• The Radak says that Dovid Hamelech looked forward to the day when the Chanukas Habayis would prove that Hashem had forgiven him for the sin of Bas Sheva.  Shlomo was the living embodiment of the relationship between Dovid and Bas Sheva.  If Shlomo succeeded his father as king, and if he built the Beis HaMikdash, and if the Shechina rested upon it, it would be absolute proof that Dovid had been forgiven.  So when Nassan HaNavi told him that his son would succeed him and build the Beis HaMikdash, he wrote Mizmor Shir to celebrate his redemption, and that through the Chanukas HaBayis Hashem was going to make that mechila absolutely clear- the great joy of the חנוכת הבית לדוד was  כי דיליתני ולא שימחת אויבי לי.

Eilu v'eilu, and עפר אני תחת כפות רגליו, but according to the Radak, the joy for the Chanukas HaBayis was as a siman, not a sibah.  David Hamelech was not celebrating the dedication of the Beis HaMikdash!  He was celebrating the mechila and ritzui, and the Chanukas HaBayis was proof and public declaration of the mechila and ritzui.

• I would like to point out that the Radak's pshat could be made much more interesting and germane to Chanuka with the addition of one little point.

The Radak said that David Hamelech wrote the Mizmor looking forward to the time that Shlomo's dedication and hashra'as hashechina in the Mikdash would prove that Hashem had forgiven him.  My problem with that pshat was that it takes away the focus from the Mikdash, and places it on David's relationship with the Ribono shel Olam and his reputation in Klal Yisrael, while the pashtus of the chapter is that it focuses on the celebration of having a Beis HaMikdash.  According to the Radak, the Mikdash is only a siman, a proof of David's rehabilitation and restoration, not the focus of the Mizmor.

The answer is that the reason we would celebrate having a Beis HaMikdash is because it would prove that Hashem loves us.  Yes, having the Mikdash is an inherent boon.  But the greater the value the Beis HaMikdash has, the greater its value is as a siman that Hashem loves us and desires our Avodah.  So even though in that particular case it was a siman for David Hamelech's restoration to Hashem's love, it always serves that purpose for Klal Yisrael as a whole.

This approach echoes that of the Pnei Yehoshua in Shabbos 21b.
The Pnei Yehoshua says that the nes of finding the oil that was tahor was not necessary.  If there was no oil that was tahor, the rule of Tumah BeTzibur would have allowed us to use whatever oil we had.  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, that a loving relationship had been renewed between Hashem and Klal Yisrael.   That is indeed worthy of a great celebration.  We see that the Pnei Yehoshua looks at the nes shemen as a siman of something more important.  Our approach, that having a Beis HaMikdash is a siman of an Eis Ratzon, both for David HaMelech and for the Chashmona'im, follows the same logic.

But even with this addition to the Radak, I find this less than fully satisfying; it's connection to Chanuka is still tangential.,   So let us move on to the achronim.

• Harav Isser Zalmen Meltzer (in his introduction to the second of the volumes of the Even Ha'Ezel on Kodshim,) brings the Malbim's pshat, and then says his own pshat.

נתעוררתי בדברי דהע"ה בתהילים כ"ט שמתחיל מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד וראוי היה שתיכף יבואו דברי שבח ותודה לד' על שזיכנו בבנין ביהמ"ק, והנה אנו רואים מזמור תהילים אומרים אותו בתפלה להתפלל על החולה

ומצאתי שעמד בה המלבי"ם בפירושו, וחידש לפרש שכל המזמור מיוסד על שהי' חולה ונתרפא מחליו והמליץ ע"ז חנוכת הבית.  ובודאי זה דרך דרוש ורחוק מפשוטו של מקרא.  ובפשוטו הוא כפירש"י דאמר המזמור כשיהי' חנוכת ביהמ"ק

 אך באמת לימד אתנו דהע"ה דרך בהנהגתו.  כי במנהגו של עולם אם יהי' אדם בצער בפרנסתו ואח"כ יעשה חולה לא ידאג כבר לפרנסתו כי אם לבריאותו ויתפלל לה' שישלח לו רפואתו. וכשנענה ונתרפא מתפלל לפרנסתו שלא תהי' בדוחק.  אח"כ עזרו ד' עוד ביותר שהגיע לחיי הרחבה וכמאמה"כ מן המצר קראתי -- ענני במרחב -- והנה נתעשר ובנה בית גדול, בעשותו חנוכת הבית ובא להודות לד' על עשרו ואשר עזרו לבנות הבית הנהדר, כבר שכח ימי עניו ומצוקו וגם חליו אשר חלה ונתרפא ומביע תודתו רק על עשרו ואשרו. ולימד אותנו דהמע"ה כי בימי עשרו ואשרו עליו לא לשכוח את ימי עניו ומצוקו ואשר נתרפא מחליו.   אף אם גם בשעתו הביע תודה עד החלצו צרותיו, אבל עתה בעת אשרו צריך הוא לזכור עוד ולהביע תודתו אשר הושיעו מצרותו ואח"כ לזכור בתודתו את אשרו ושמחתו, וזהו שסיים במזמור פתחת שקי פתחת שקי ותאזרני שמחה למען יזמרך וגו' לעולם אודך.

 in English- 

• The Malbim says it has nothing to do with the Beis Hamikdash.  When Dovid says חנוכת הבית, he means his body.  He is praising Hashem for healing his body and restoring his health and his strength.  The expression Beis HaMikdash is a metaphor- the body as a temple.

• Reb Isser Zalmen prefers to understand it as Rashi there does, that Dovid wrote the chapter so that it would be sung when the Mikdash would be inaugurated by Shlomo.  Dovid Hamelech felt that when a person celebrates a great gift from Hashem, he should remember all that he went through before that moment.  Dovid remembered the many times he faced imminent danger of illness and mortal enemy, and although the inauguration of the Beis Hamikdash certainly would be an occasion for thanks and celebration, any celebration of that great gift must be predicated by an expression of gratitude for simply allowing him to live and to overcome the many threats to his existence.

As Reb Isser Zalman says, the Malbim's pshat is difficult to accept because it takes away any shaychus to the Beis Hamikdash.  Furthermore, it is entirely inconsistent with our Minhag and with the Gaon.  If he's talking about his body, it has nothing to do with Chanuka.

Reb Isser Zalman's pshat is a little tzarich iyun because Dovid Hamelech knew that he would be long gone before the Chanukas HaBayis.  Yes, he wrote this in preparation for the future, but what would those people who would be singing it care about Dovid Hamelech's life experience?  Bishlema if he himself said it, fine, he was thanking Hashem for bringing him to that point.  But for others, Dovid Hamelech's life experience had nothing to do with the Binyan Hamikdash and would be a distraction from the main simcha of the day.  The truth is that Reb Isser Zalman's pshat would work better with the Ibn Ezra, who says that the Bayis is not the Beis HaMikdash, it's just Dovid Hamelech's palace, the Beis Arazim.  But Reb Isser Zalman says he wants to say like Rashi, that it refers to the Beis HaMikdash.

• The Brisker Rov (in the newer thin black book) says pshat as follows.  He brings a Medrash that the blueprints, the 'הכל בכתב מיד ה עלי השכיל, were given by the Ribono shel Olam to Moshe with Hashem "standing,", and Moshe to Yehoshua with Moshe standing, etcetra down the line, and so it is clear that there's a din that the ksav had to handed over by one who is standing, that the מסירה requires עמידה.  When Dovid Hamelech was sick, he was afraid that because he couldn't stand on his won, he wouldn't be able to give the ksav to Shlomo, and Shlomo would not be able to build the Mikdash.  When he was healed, he celebrated his ability to stand up, because that made it possible for him to give the ksav to Shlomo Hamelech which enabled Shlomo Hamelech to build the Beis HaMikdash.

(It is clear in the pesukim in Divrei Hayamim I (28:11-19) that Dovid gave the hakol biksav plans to Shlomo:

 ויתן דויד לשלמה בנו את תבנית האולם ואת בתיו וגנזכיו ועליתיו וחדריו הפנימים ובית הכפרת:  ותבנית כל אשר היה ברוח עמו לחצרות בית ה' ולכל הלשכות סביב לאצרות בית האלהים ולאצרות הקדשים:  ולמחלקות הכהנים והלוים ולכל מלאכת עבודת בית ה' ולכל כלי עבודת בית ה':  לזהב במשקל לזהב לכל כלי עבודה ועבודה לכל כלי הכסף במשקל לכל כלי עבודה  ....  הכל בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל כל מלאכות התבנית)

I don't have to tell you that this pshat, diamond-like in its beauty and brilliance, also contains about as much moisture as a diamond.  If you're used to the Brisker derech, this is perfectly fine.  For the rest of us, it might not be entirely satisfying.

(Parenthetically, the Rov does not even address why the mesira would require amida.  If you ask me, I would say that it is because it has a din of eidus, but then he is not going with the Rashbam in Bava Basra's pshat in the requirement that eidim stand..)

• I saw an answer from Rav Shlomo Wahrman, a great American Talmid Chacham who was nifter this year, printed in Hamaor in 1984.  (Thank you, SC, for directing us to Rav Wahrman's sefer in which he reprinted this pshat under a different title.)  His vort lends itself to numbering, as follows:

1.  Rashi (Zevachim 24a) says that David Hamelech was mekadesh the floor of the Azara after buying the property from Aravna.
2.  Tosfos there brings the Yerushalmi that the Kiddush required the same procedure as needed to be mekadesh the Azara, namely, a king (Dovid), a prophet (Gad), the Urim ve'Tumim, and the 71 member Sanhedrin.
3.  The Gemara (Sanhedrin 107a) notes a contradiction in the number of years given for the length of David's reign, showing a difference of six months.  The Gemara answers that he was a Metzora for six months, during which he did not have the status of king.
4.  Additionally, the Yerushalmi  (Rosh Hashanna 1:1 and Horyos 3:3) says that during those six months that he was running from Avshalom he did not have the status of king.
          A.    The Radak, and the Meiri brought by the Chida, say that to have the status of king, you need the actuality of a loyal population.  During those six months, the people followed Avshalom.
          B.    This is also brought in the Avnei Nezer YD 312:15-

מלך גופי׳ אף לאחר שהמליכוהו אם מרדו בו רוב ישראל אין עליו דין מלך. כמבואר בירושלמי פ"ק דר״ה ובהוריות דכל ששה חדשים שהי׳ דוד נרדף מאבשלום ה״ מתכפר בשעירה כהדיוט. דקרא בקרב ישראל קאי על המלך עצמו ג"כ. וקרא כתיב הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל. וכשמחלוקת בישראל היינו שאין רוב ישראל מרוצים בו לא הוא ולא בניו מלכים

5.  Thus, we see two reasons that for those six months he did not have the Halachic status of "king": his tzara'as and the Avshalom rebellion.
6.  So David said that it was only because he was cured of Tzara'as and the rebellion quelled that he regained the status of king which enabled him to be mekadesh the Ritzpah.  This is what it means when it says
ארומימך ה׳ כי דיליתני ולא שמחת אויבי לי- that he overcame Avshalom.
ה׳ אלקי שועתי אליך ותרפאני- that he was cured from his Tzara'as.
7.  A Metzora has to act like an aveil- he dresses like an aveil and covers his head like an aveil.  This is what it means when it says
הפכת מספדי למחול לי פתחת שקי- that he was released from his aveilus.
8.  When he was no longer a metzora, and he was no longer an aveil, and was restored to his throne, and he was in a matzav of simcha- then ותאזרני שמחה- he was able to be mechaneich the floor of the Beis Hamikdash.
9.  Being mekadesh the floor of the Beis Hamikdash was the essence of the creation of the Hashra'as HaShechina that made the Beis HaMikdash meaningful.  It was the essence of the Chanukas Habayis, the Bayis that would only be visible many years later when Shlomo built it.  When he was mekadesh the Ritzpah, he was truly being mechaneich the Bayis.  And that is why he sang the Mizmor מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד.
10.  (This little addition is mine, not Rav Wahrman's.) This Kedusha of Dovid Hamelech was not limited to the time when Shlom's Mikdash stood.  The kedusha is eternal.  As Shlomo Hamelech said (Melachim I:8, בנה בניתי בית זבול לך מכון לשבתך עולמים.    And it will forever be through there that tefillos forever rise to Hashem, as Shlomo said ושמעת אל תחינת עבדך ועמך ישראל אשר יתפללו אל המקום הזה ואתה תשמע אל מקום שבתך אל השמים ושמעת וסלחת.  This is what it means when it says למען יזמרך כבוד ולא ידום ה' אלוקי לעולם אודך.

Rav Wahrman's pshat is truly excellent, and although it's a lomdisheh approach, it definitely has more feeling than the Brisker Rov's pshat.

• An anonymous comment that was sent in to my other website directs us to an excellent pshat based on the Medrash Tehillim:  

In the events described in Shmuel II Perek 24, because of a sin, ultimately 70,000 Jews died. Medrash Shochar Tov on Mizmor 17 says the sin was Klal Yisrael's delaying the building of the Bais HaMikdash. Indeed, the conclusion of the chapter is Dovid buying the makom haMikdash from Aravna and being makriv karbanos there to finally remove the charon af. While this was happening, Dovid davened "I am the one who sinned, what did the sheep do? Please strike me and my family instead." Immediately after, he was told by the navi Gad to buy the makom Hamikdash from Aravna.  So it was Hashem granting Dovid the inspiration to do his chanukas habayis (the consecration of the makom haMikdash) that saved him from hesped and death etc.

With Rav Wahrman's pshat and the Medrash Shocher Tov in mind, let us look at the pesukim in Shmuel II.  David told Yoav to go do the census.  Yoav was very upset; he felt, correctly, that it was wrong to do the census.  The passuk says that he delayed finishing as much as he could, and it took nine months and twenty days to finish the job.  Upon his return and his report, Gad HaNavi came to David and told him he was going to punished, and that he should choose which punishment will take place.  David chose the plague.  The plague took three days.  The next day, Gad told David to be makriv on the Har HaBayis.

If we assume, and I know this is an assumption, that Yoav began his job in the early spring, namely, Rosh Chodesh Adar, then he came back nine months and twenty days later, the twentieth of Kislev.  On the twenty first, Gad told David to choose his punishment.  The plague occurred on the twenty second, third and fourth.  On the twenty fourth, Gad told David to bring korbanos on the threshing floor of Aravnah.  On the twenty fifth of Kislev, David purchased the Goren, and he was makadeish the ground of the Har HaBayis.  The chanukas Bayis Rishon was, then, on the twenty fifth of Kislev.

Why would I think Yoav left Rosh Chodesh Adar?  First, and most honestly, because it would fit so nicely.  We did establish that the kiddush of the Ritzpah took place on a date that was nine months and twenty five days.  Isn't it tempting to think that it was on the twenty fifth of Kislev?  Second, because it might have been potentially the beginning of Nissan, unless they made that year a thirteen month year.  It is not unreasonable to assume that a count of months begins from Nissan, even if that year Nissan turned out to be Adar Sheini.  And who knows?  Maybe he did like Chizkiyahu, and עיבר ניסן בניסן.

From Rav Yehuda Oppenheimer:

1) Re: "Why would I think Yoav left Rosh Chodesh Adar? First, and most honestly, because it would fit so nicely..." Maybe the severity of dovid's sin was that he instructed yoav to count the people directly ON THE VERY DAY associated with the mitzva to do so through shekalim. 

Also from Rav Yehuda Oppenheimer:

2.) Based on the gemara in A"Z 8a together with the rambam kiddush hachodesh 9:3 it seems that Adam harishon may have already celebrated and brought korbanos in the makom hamikdash on chanuka. 

But there is one question that we still need to address.  Given that David was mekadeish the Ritzpah, and in a sense he was mechaneich the Bayis Rishon, why does he not talk about the Beis HaMikdash at all?  Talk about the Shechina, about korbanos, about the Menorah.  There's nothing there.  Why?

I asked the people at my kiddush this question, and I learned something from the answer I got.  If you want to understand Tehillim, sometimes the person to ask is not necessarily the gadol batorah.    You need to ask someone who is a maamin, a baal bitachon who has experienced the struggle, one who has experienced the heights and the depths, good times and bad, comfort and pain.  David HaMelech was loved, and he was hated.  He was a king, and he was a despised refugee hunted by his own son and cursed by the people he asked for help when he was hungry.  He did not have an easy life.  He struggled every day with himself, with his family, with his friends, and it is the tears and the song of that life that came to us as his Sefer Tehillim.  Reb Yakov Feigenbaum said the following, and I think it is the best pshat I ever heard in this mizmor, and karov l'emes.

He said that David HaMelech was teaching us why we should care about having a Beis HaMikdash. Every man experiences many things in his life.  He is sick, and he is cured.  He is pursued by enemies, and Hashem offers him a refuge.  He is threatened with death, and he survives.  Through it all, he knows that it is hashgacha pratis, and that it is chesed from the Ribono shel Olam.  He has seen the רגע באפו, and he has faith that חיים ברצונו.  It is vitally important that he should have a place where he can come face to face with the Ribono shel Olam, a place that is dedicated to tefilla and avoda, where he can publicly proclaim "Ribono shel Olam, I see You, I thank you, I know that everything is in Your hands and everything comes from Your hands."  When David said Shira about the Chanukas HaBayis, he taught us why the Bayis matters.  He didn't need to talk about exactly how we do the avoda.  The soul of the avoda is recognizing that we were created by the Ribono shel Olam and to say Hallel ve'Hodaah- but this Hodaah, the Hodaah of Mizmor Shir is a combination of Hoda'ah "recognition" and Hoda'ah "gratitude.

You can see this in the Ramban says in Parshas Bo,  There's no point in highlighting any one sentence here- every word is important.

וכוונת כל המצות שנאמין באלהינו ונודה אליו שהוא בראנו והיא כוונת היצירה שאין לנו טעם אחר ביצירה הראשונה ואין אל עליון חפץ בתחתונים מלבד שידע האדם ויודה לאלהיו שבראו וכוונת רוממות הקול בתפלות וכוונת בתי הכנסיות וזכות תפלת הרבים זהו שיהיה לבני אדם מקום יתקבצו ויודו לאל שבראם והמציאם ויפרסמו זה ויאמרו לפניו בריותיך אנחנו וזו כוונתם במה שאמרו ז"ל (ירושלמי תענית פ"ב ה"א) ויקראו אל אלהים בחזקה (יונה ג ח) מכאן אתה למד שתפלה צריכה קול

To have a place that is dedicated to tefilla, the public proclamation of our awareness of God, for הודאה in both senses of recognition and gratitude, there is nothing more precious and vital than that.  As the Gemara in Megilla 18a says,  עבודה והודאה חדא מילתא היא.

I think the same pshat applies to the other Mizmor Shir- Mizmor Shir LeYom HaShabbos.  There's nothing in there about Shabbos, but every word of that Mizmor tells us what Shabbos is all about, the kedusha and spiritual growth, the reflection on the past and hope for the coming days, that is the essence of Shabbos.  It doesn't have to mention Kiddush, or issur melacha.  It shows us what we are supposed to gain from the Kedusha of Shabbos, and once you know that, then Shabbos can have a roshem on you.

Chanuka. Ma'oz Tzur- The Thirteen Breaches

Yasher Koach to Harav Micha Berger, who sent me his Dvar Torah for Chanuka.  Reb Micha tells us that when in Ma'oz Tzur it says ופרצו חומות מגדלי, that the Greeks breached the walls of my tower, this refers to the Mishna in Middos.  Here is the beginning of Reb Micha's post:

The 5th verse of Ma’oz Tzur describes the Chanukah story. One phrase in this verse is “ufortzu chomos migdalai“, which would be literally translated “and burst open the walls of my citadel”. Mentally, I used to picture breaking down the walls of the Beis haMiqdosh, or perhaps a fortress. However, I found the following mishnah in Middos (Ch. 2, mishnah 2 in the Yachin uBo’az edition, mishnah 3 in Kahati’s — who splits up the Yu”B‘s mishnah 1 into 2 parts). The second chapter describes the Beis haMiqdosh as it would appear to someone walking in from outside the Temple Mount to the Altar. This mishna picks up right after you walk through the gate and onto the Temple Mount.
Inside of it is the soreg, 10 tefachim [appx 2'6"] high. It had thirteen peratzos (broken openings) there, that the Hellenist kings partzum (broke open). They returned and closed them off, and legislated corresponding to them 13 prostrations.
To help you picture what a soreg is, the root means woven. The Bartenura describes the soreg as a mechitzah woven out of thin wooden slats running at diagonals. The Bartenura compares it to the part of the bed used to support the mattress, with plenty of open space inside the weave.
He goes on to say that the Hellenists opened up holes in the soreg opposite each of the gates in the outer wall to let anyone see in. Note the shoresh used /p-r-tz/, the same as in the piyut. The soreg marked the limit for gentiles, they were not allowed in beyond that point. To the Hellenist mind, this havdalah bein Yisrael la’Amim, separation between the Jews and the other nations, was repugnant. It ran against their assimilationist efforts.

Reb Micha then weaves together ideas from Rav Hutner and Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch to teach a lesson about the symbolism of the Soreg wall and the role of the Jewish People, with special relevance to the victory of Chanuka.

This pshat in Ma'oz Tzur is discussed by Rav Gedaliah Shor in his Or Gedaliyahu, by Rav Mordechai Vinkler in his Levushei Mordechai, and by Rav Mordechai Ezrachi in his Birkas Mordechai.

Here is the Mishna in the second perek of Middos, including the previous Mishna,

כל הנכנסין להר הבית נכנסין דרך ימין ומקיפין ויוצאין דרך שמאל, חוץ ממי שארעו דבר, שהוא מקיף לשמאל.[מה לך מקיף לשמאל], שאני אבל, השוכן בבית הזה ינחמך.שאני מנדה, השוכן בבית הזה יתן בלבם ויקרבוך, דברי רבי מאיר.אמר לו רבי יוסי, עשיתן כאלו עברו עליו את הדין.אלא השוכן בבית הזה יתן בלבך ותשמע לדברי חבריך ויקרבו.

לפנים ממנו, סורג גבוה עשרה טפחים. ושלש עשרה פרצות היו שם שפרצום מלכי יון. חזרו וגדרום, וגזרו כנגדם שלש עשרה השתחויות.לפנים ממנו, החיל עשר אמות.

And here is the Piyut-  יוונים נקבצו עלי, אזי בימי חשמנים, ופרצו חומות מגדלי, וטמאו כל השמנים.


I only want to make a minor observation.  In one of the Megillas Antiochuses (מגילת אנטיוכוס) that we have, a reference is made  to breaches being made in a wall called "shaar bas rabbim."   This can be seen here, four lines from the bottom.  What it says is

ויהרגו מהם רבים וחומות ירושלם נתצו ויפרצו בתוקפם י״ג פרצות בשער בת רבים וקצץ הפרכת ובטל המערכה והסיר התמיד והרס המזבחות

The term שער בת רבים might refer to the Soreg as well.  After all, it follows a description of their having ruined the walls of the city, and immediately afterwards talks of the damage they did within the Beis Hamikdash. But it might not.  Most people that use the term, and the mefarshim in Shir Hashirim 4:5 where the term appears, understand it to refer to the gates of Yerushalayim, not the Soreg.

Anyway, if the words of Maoz Tzur refers to the Soreg, the expression חומות מגדלי is odd, because the Soreg was certainly not a choma. If the description in Megilas Antiochus refers to the wall of the Har Habayis, or the Azara, whatever Sha'ar Bas Rabbim means, and it is not the Soreg, then it is an interesting coincidence that the number thirteen appears in both cases.

UPDATE
Yasher Koach to the person who sent in something from R' Avraham Gurevitz, as follows, copied from the comments:

R' Avraham Gurwitz (in his Ohr Avraham on Megillah/Chanuka p 109) says a lomdus based on the Gemara in Avoda Zara 52b with Rashi and Ramban:
When the Yevanim entered the Bais Hamikdash and Heichal, their very entry (conquest?) caused the vessels and the actual structure itself to lose its sanctity and became chullin. The Gemara learns this from the passuk "u'va'u bah PRITZIM v'chillilu'ah"; so the Yevanim are called "pritizim" because they were "poretz" and damaged the holiness of the Bais hamikdash and its contents, ayin sham. So thats the meaning of the Yevanim being "poretz chomas migdalai"; its referring to the chillul they did to the very walls of the "migdal" (the Bais Hamikdash).

Rashi there:

דכתיב ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה. מכיון שנכנסו עובדי כוכבים להיכל יצאו כליו לחולין וכיון דנפקי לחולין קנינהו בהפקירא והוו להו דידהו וכשנשתמשו בהן לעבודת כוכבים נאסרו:

Ramban in Milchamos there on page 24a:

שהרי בית המקדש עצמו יצא מקדושתו על ידם ונעשה חול, שהרי בענין בית המקדש כתוב ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה, והתם הרי אין בו מעילה, אלא ודאי על ידי עובדי כוכבים יצאו לחולין דקרא בעובדי כוכבים כתיב שהרי נביא מתנבא על המקדש שיחרב ואמר שיצא לחולין על ידם וגזרת הכתוב היה הכל אע"פ שאין מעילה בקרקעות ואע"פ שאינם בני מעילה 

He also mentioned that the Steipler (5:19, not on mesechtos) says:

למאן דאמר בפסחים (דף טז ע"א, ויז ע"א) דמשקה בי מדבחיא דכן- טהור, (פירשו ר"ח ורש"י כל המשקין של קודש נקראים על שם המזבח, כגון דם לזריקה, וכו' ושמן למנחות), למה לא הדליקו בשמן, הרי לא קיבל טומאה כלל. 

The kashe is asked by many achronim; for example, see the Mor UKetziah in 670.  So he brings from the שערי דעה that 

כיון שנכנסו היוונים למקדש, אזי מדין "באו פריצים ויחללוה" בטלה קדושת המקדש (ראה ע"ז נב ע"ב), ומאז הרי זה כמו משקין שיצאו לחוץ למקדש, ולכן יכלו היוונים לטמא השמנים 

And they say over in the Steipler's name the following addition- that this explains the nusach "ופרצו חומות מגדלי", namely, that the kedusha of the Mikdash was bateil, and as a result, the oil was susceptible to Tumah- וטמאו כל השמנים".
(This teretz actually has been said by many achronim, too.  See, for example, the Shoel UMeishiv Kamma 3:42.)

Since the volume of Kehillas Yaakov was a compilation of the sefarim he wrote before he started organizing them on Masechtos, and is not commonly available (and this is one of the pieces that didn't 'make it into the Masechtos set,) here is a photo of the relevant paragraph.  The piece is much longer.

And finally, I want to publicize my personal experience this Chanuka.  I always approach the holiday with a degree of anxiety, because my shiur has for a long time been giving me increasingly expensive and therefore embarrassing gifts, for Chanuka, Purim, my birthday, and Baruch Hashem there are no other days they've thought of.  So last night, before coming into the shiur, I nervously glanced in, and I was relieved to see no tables were set, no sufganiyot, and no glint of gift wrap.  I sat down to begin the shiur, and in walk my friends pushing a MASSIVE SNOW BLOWER.   I mean massive in the sense that this is a multi-horsepower behemoth that can breeze down a block of two foot deep snow without a hiccup.  It would plow through the Soreg with ease.  I think this is unprecedented in the history of Daf Yomi, and I am proud of the bizarre but wonderful and heartwarming thought process, and the desire to show kavod hatorah and hakaras hatov that brought this about.  May Hashem bless them, every last one of them, with Arichas Yamim v'Shanim of good health and happiness.

Here it is.

First reaction:

Second reaction:

Final reaction:

And this video is here partly because they're singing Maoz Tzur, but mostly because I like it.  The group's name is Kipalive.  Thanks, Steve, for sending it.

An Extraordinary Insight into Chanuka

This is my translation of Eli's Drasha. It is a gem, one of those הכל בחזקת סומין עד שהקדוש ברוך הוא מאיר את עיניהם ideas.

The Lamps of Zechariah

On Chanuka, we read the parsha of the Inaugural Offerings brought by the Tribal Princes, and the Haftara is the Lamps of Zechariah (Zechariah 2:14- 4:7).  Rashi explains the relation  of the Haftara to Chanuka is the verse "and I saw, behold a golden menorah..."  Tosfos Shabbos 23 writes that reading this Haftara publicizes the miracle of Chanuka, and this is why we prefer it over the usual haftara of Hashamayim Kis'i.  This is chidush, because it seems that the haftara of Zecharia is completely irrelevant to the idea of Chanuka and it was chosen because of the mere simple mention of the Menora.  Also, why would Chazal not have chosen a different chapter in Zecharia, Chapter 9, which says "and I will awaken your sons, Zion, over your sons, Yavan,"  which directly addresses the central concept of the Chanuka, the victory over the Greeks.  In fact, according to Rashi and others this latter prophecy in Chapter 9 was specifically said regarding the victory of the Chashmona'im over Antiochus!  Does a mere mention of the word "menora" in an irrelevant context outweigh a direct reference to the victory of Antiochus??

Our Haftara lists many attributes of the menora in the vision.

And the angel who spoke with me returned, and he awakened me as a man who wakes up from his sleep.

And he said to me, "What do you see?"

And I said, "I saw, and behold [there was] a candelabrum all of gold, with its oil-bowl on top of it, and its seven lamps thereon; seven tubes each to the lamps that were on top of it.

And [there were] two olive trees near it; one on the right of the bowl, and one on its left.

So I answered and spoke to the angel who talked with me, saying, "What are these, my lord?"

Pure gold, bowl on top, seven lamps upon seven arms, seven pipes for the lamps, two olives upon it, one to the right and one to the left.

Zechariah did not understand what he was being shown, and the angel explained לֹא בְחַיִל וְלֹא בְכֹחַ כִּי אִם בְּרוּחִי, "not with might, not with force, only with my spirit, so says Hashem, the lord of hosts.  How was this prophetic message encapsulated in Zechariah's vision of this menorah?

This prophecy in Zechaiah was said in the second year of the reign of Darius.  This was the time during which they began building the second Beis Hamikdash, as explained in the book of Chagai.  The entire book of Chagai involves a number of prophecies that were said during four months  of Darius' second year, and their message is to encourage and stimulate the building of the mikdash.  The last prophecy in the book of Chagai is the following:

On the twenty-fourth [day] of the ninth [month], in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Haggai the prophet, saying:

So said the Lord of Hosts: Now ask the priests the Torah, saying:

Should a man carry sacred flesh in the skirt of his garment, if it touches in his skirt the bread and the pottage and the wine and the oil, or any food, will it [the food] become contaminated?" And the priests replied and said, "No."

And Haggai said, "If the contamination of a dead body touches all these, will it become contaminated?" And the priests replied and said, "It will become contaminated."

And Haggai replied and said, "So is this people, and so is this nation before Me, says the Lord; and so is all the work of their hands, and whatever they sacrifice there is contaminated.

And now, consider from this day and before-before placing a stone upon a stone in the Temple of the Lord

so that they should not come to a heap of twenty measures, and there would be ten; [similarly,] when one would come to the wine vat to draw off fifty press-measures, and there would be twenty.

I smote you with blast and with yellowing and with hail in all the work of your hands, and you are not [returning] to Me, says the Lord.

Pay attention now, from this day and before-from the twenty-fourth [day] of the ninth [month]- from the day that the Temple of the Lord was founded, pay attention.

The seed is still in the granary, and the grapevines, the fig trees, the pomegranate trees, and the olive trees have not yet borne [fruit]-from this day I will bless."

And the word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth of the month, saying:

Say to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, saying: I am shaking up the heaven and the earth.

And I will overthrow the throne of the kingdoms, and I will destroy the power of the kingdoms of the nations. And I will overthrow the chariots and their riders; and the horses and their riders shall come down, each one by the sword of his brother.

On that day, says the Lord of Hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, My servant; says the Lord, and I will make you as a signet; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of Hosts.

This prophecy is very obscure.  First the prophet says that because Tuma ruins Kedusha, and not vice versa, the people's sacrifices have no value.  Then, immediately, he encourages them  to build the mikdash and promises that from this day and on, the day the foundation of the mikdash is laid, the bad times will end and blessings will begin.

The prophet emphasizes three times "pay attention" to this day.  The"day" is the twenty fourth of Kislev, the day before a stone was placed on a stone to build the temple.  From that day and on, from the foundation day, blessing will come.  In other words, the first day of building, in the time of Zerubavel and Yehoshua the Kohen was the twenty fifth of Kislev.

The first to note this remarkable coincidence is the Yaavetz in his Mor Uktziah, OC 670, who writes that the institution of Chanuka on the twenty fifth of Kislev  also memorializes the day Chagai proclaimed "pay attention to this day, the day we begin rebuilding the Second Temple."  With this he answers the question of the Beis Yoseph that there seems to be no miracle to commemorate on the twenty fifth, since there was enough oil for one day.  He says that the holiday on the twenty fifth is not for the miracle of the oil but rather to remember the day the second temple had been begun.

With this, we also can answer the other question of why does Chanuka begin on the twenty fifth: If the Chashmonayim entered the sanctuary on the twenty fifth , as the Rambam says, and as stated in Megilas Chashmonayim, then the lighting of the menora must have been on the eve of the twenty sixth!  The answer is, as explained, that the twenty fifth had ancient significance as the day the Anshei Knesses Hagdola laid the foundation of the Bayis Sheini, as was well known to Chazal when they instituted these days of commemoration.  (By the way, it was on the twenty fifth that the Greek idolators profaned the altar, as stated in Chashmona'im 1:1:57.  They probably chose that day to ridicule the hopes of those few that held on to the vision of the founders of the Bayis Sheini.)

The prophecy of the candles of Zecharya was said on the twenty fourth of Shvat of that year, two months after the founding of the new temple in Kislev.  First, Zechariah promises that Jerusalem will be rebuilt and secure, and then the prophet sees Yehoshua the Kohen dressed in filthy clothes, filthied by sin.  The Satan finds an opening to accuse.  Despite this, Hashem removes the sin and dresses him in clean priestly clothing.  No mention is made of repentance at all.  Is this not a puzzle?  After being told that he was unworthy, he is told, ok, it's fine, go ahead and act as if you were a meritorious Kohen Gadol.  What happened, what changed?  Perhaps the solution to this puzzle will explain the obscure prophecy in Chaggai, as follows:

Although the Kohen Gadol, and the People he represents, are sullied with sin, still and all, by grace and kindness, and not by merit, Hashem, in a manner of speaking, disregards the sins and removes the sin of the land on that day.

In other words, Chaggai was right.  The people are tamei, and they will sully the temple more than the temple will make them tahor..  And despite that, in an exceptional manner, Hashem commands them to build the temple despite their being unworthy.  This indeed is miraculous, and Yehoshua Kohen Gadol and his cohort have experienced   a singular event.  But what is the answer to Chaggai's question?  If Israel would sully the Temple, what use is such a Temple? It is here that the vision of the menora comes into play.

Rashi explains that the menora had a large basin atop it, and each of the seven lamps had seven small pipes that brought oil from the basin to the lamps.  Next to the menora were two olive trees, and the olives fell from the tree by themselves nad pressed themselves, and the oil ran into the basin and from there to the menora. and the lamps. In other words, the Menora described here is not just the Menora that stood in the Mikdash.  This is a Menora that lights itself.  What is the import of this vision?  How is it connected to the vision of Yehoshua and his dirty clothing?  How does it lead to the passuk "not with strength and not with force...?"  Perhaps we can say that the prophet was saying that while normally, the mitzva of lighting the Menora is given over to the Jewish People, and it is they that are required to plant olive trees, to harvest, to press, to light, but the Menora of the Second Bayis was a Menora that lit itself without human involvement.

This was the answer to Chaggai's question, the explanation to the conundrum of the disregard of the sins of Yehoshua and his generation-   and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day, Zecharia 3:9.  Indeed, under normal circumstances, under   preferable circumstances, the kedusha of the Mikdash would reflect and stem from the high , spiritual level of the People and it would be we that would light the Menora.  But here, in these exceptional circumstances, a Mikdash was built in which Hashem Himself lights the Menora, because Klal Yisrael is not able or worthy to do so. According to this, the passuk should be read thus:  If only we would have meritted, the Mikdash would have been built with the strength and force of Klal Yisrael, in other words, with our spiritual merit.  But, the prophet tells us, in this case, not with force and not with strangth- this Bayis, the Bayis Sheni, is built not with the spiritual force and strength of the People, it is not בחרבי ובקשתי, as Yaakov Avinu said about his achievements (see Breishis 48:22 and importantly the Targum Onkelos there), but rather B'ruchi, with My Spirit- by My will, exclusively and specifically with divine initiative, in that the status of Klal Yisrael does not in any way justify doing so. And why did this happen?  Why did they receive this boon?  The Yaaros Dvash explains that "it would have been much better that the Galus continue unabated...but...if had this situation would have continued for too much more time, the Torah would have been  utterly and irretrievably forgotten.  So Hashem brought us back to His guard at the end of seventy years...and the teachers of Torah to the public flourished and instituted many ordinances and measures to guard the observance and maintenance of the Torah, as Hashem inspired them. 

If so, this vision of the Menora is a vision of an autonomous self-lighting menora, and it symbolizes the condition of the second Bayis, that was given to us only by heavenly impetus in order to lift them from their debased condition, as our passuk says, and as similarly said at the end of Chaggai, So said the Lord of Hosts: If you walk in My ways, and if you keep My charge, you, too, shall judge My house, and you, too, shall guard My courtyards, and I will give you free access among these who stand by....behold! I bring My servant, Tzemach, the Shoot.  If they would improve their spiritual level, Hashem would change the Mikdash from a undeserved gift made necessary by the spiritual crisis of Klal Yisrael into a Mikdash that stems from the holiness of Klal Yisrael. 

And exactly as was shown to these neviim was once again experienced in the day of the Chashmona'im.  Then too the Mikdash was tamei and deconsecrated, and many Jews were turning to Greek culture, and all the people were asking the same question as Chaggai asked, and even so they cleansed anew the Mikdash and brought back the Avoda.  What Zecharya saw in a vision, they saw in reality- a menora that lit of its own accord!  This is exactly the nevua'h of Zecharya!  This endlessly burning Menora proclaimed "Not with your force, not with your power, is the Shechina resting in the house, only because of My Ru'ach, My choice, even though you are not yourselves worthy."   Both in the first iteration of the second Bayis in the day of Yehoshua Kohen Gadol and Zerubavel, and in the second in the time of the Chashmona'im, Klal Yisrael were not successful in elevating themselves by means of the re-sanctified Temple, and so the prophecies of the end of Zecharya were not fulfilled, and Hashem did not send His servant, Tzemach David, the Shoot.  

The importance of the cruse of oil is not that it burned for so long, but in that it expressed with absolute clarity the return of Zecharya's prophecy, that Hashem rested His Shechina on the Mikdash even when Klal Yisrael was on a low spiritual level, so that they could survive the Galus. According to this, the prophecy of the candles of Zecharya is directly on point to the miracle of Chanuka, and we now understand that it publicizes the miracle, as Tosfos in Shabbos says. According to this, the commemoration and celebration of Chanuka is not on the return of the Avodas Hamikdas to its place, because then we would ask, as the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna asks, what is the point of remembering the miracle of Chanuka, when any benefit it brought has long evaporated and replaced with suffering worse than that which preceded it- what good is the memory of grapes to the starving-again fox?  Our commemoration of Chanuka is not the actual rebuilding of the Bayis, not by the Anshei Knesses Hagedola and not the renewal by the Chashmona'im.  It is the knowledge that even when we don't deserve Hashra'as HaShechina, Hashem goes beyond din and provides grace to Klal Yisrael at a level far beyond what they deserve-- for the purpose of elevating them and giving them the opportunity to work themselves up to a point where they can actually deserve what they have been granted, so that they will be able to light the Menora by themselves, by dint of their own merit, as the Yaaros Dvash explained.  

In brief, the miracle of the oil showed us that we needed a divine gift, that we were not yet zocheh to accomplish kedusha on our own.  It was a gift - it was לא בחיל ולא בכח.  This infusion of kedusha was a great chesed, because we we so desperately fallen that we were inexorably advancing toward the brink of a cliff and totally incapable of saving ourselves without an infusion of Kedusha.  Here is a mashal: it was like a government declaring martial law during a crisis in order to preserve a democracy.  Hashem said "I will grant you this miracle, this gift of Kedusha, as an emergency measure that will enable you to try, once again, to work yourselves up to a point where you can earn it yourselves."  We all look forward to- and work to achieve- the time when we will not need any more such miracles, because we will light the menora, every day, all by ourselves, and we will win our battles בחרבי ובקשתי.