Mikeitz
In its discussion of the laws of Chanukah, the Talmud* includes the following famous passage:
מאי חנוכה. דת"ר בכ"ה בכסלו יומא דחנוכה תמניא אינון דלא למיספד בהון וכו'. כשנכנסו יונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד ונעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים וכו'.
What is Chanukah? It is as the Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev begins the eight days of Chanukah upon which one does not eulogize… When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they contaminated all of the oils, and [the Jews] could not find more than one flask of oil, which did not contain enough to burn for more than a single day. A miracle occurred with it and they lit from it for eight days.
It was upon this that the Beis Yosef asked his famous question: If the flask contained enough oil for a single night, the miracle that ensued only occurred on the following seven nights. Why then is the holiday celebrated for eight days? One resolution that he offers is that upon realizing that if the oil was entirely used on the first night none would remain for the following seven, the Kohanim divided the oil into eighths and used one each night. Miraculously, each night the minimal volume burned for as long as the complete amount would.
This answer is astounding. How could they have utilized only an eighth of the volume required by the halachah? Unaware that a miracle was to occur, they would have been preventing the fulfillment of the mitzvah even on the first night! ** (The Beis Yosef offers an additional two answers, but, as the Taz already remarked, they are without basis.)
The Taz proposes that had the fuel been completely depleted by the first morning as expected, there would have remained nothing with which to allow for the miracles of the following nights. For while Hashem will extend the longevity of a flame, His protocol does not call for its creation out of nothing. Hence, that which a remnant of the oil survived the entire night of burning was itself miraculous.
Somebody posed a strong challenge to this answer. We know from the Talmud*** that the prescribed volume for the oil used in each lamp is one-half log, the maximum amount ever consumed, on the long winter nights of the month of Teves. Although during the rest of the year less is necessary, the half-log is used uniformly every night. Seemingly, then, it was this volume – four login, a half-log for each of the eight lamps – that was contained by the flask of oil found in the Temple. Being that the nighttime at the end of Kislev is shorter than that of Teves, by necessity there would be some oil remaining when morning arrived. As such, there was no need for a miracle to preserve oil for the following night.
We find that the Maharsha**** assumed that the nights of Chanukah were long enough for the full half-log. In another attempt to resolve the mystery of the miracle of the first night, he cites the Mizrachi’s ***** difficulty as to how the Menorah was used without being rendered impure. The Maharsha proposes that the new Menorah consisted of broken lamps which are no longer susceptible to impurity. As per the rules given in Maseches Keilim******, a vessel which initially held between one and two se’in of volume must be able to hold at least a half-log in its broken state in order to continue to be susceptible to impurity. They therefore utilized vessels of this size which were incapable of holding a half-log so that they would be impervious to the ubiquitous impurity. It follows that somewhat less than the prescribed amount of oil was used for the lighting, yet it miraculously sufficed to last the entire night.
Again, this answer would work if one assumes, as the Maharsha does, that the nights of Chanukah demanded the full half-log. However, it would seem that our interlocuter, who assumed otherwise, is in the right: the longest nights, as the language of the Sages states plainly, only comes later, in Teves. We must therefore return to our rejection of the Taz’s resolution; additionally, we are left wondering how the Maharsha could have made such a simple error.
The answer to all of this, I believe, emerges from a proper understanding of the workings of the Jewish calendar. Let’s open up this discussion with another difficulty. The Talmud******* states that if Tekufas Nissan, the vernal equinox, occurs on the 16th of Nissan or later, it is grounds for the intercalation of the year (עיבור השנה). Why, then, do we find a number of instances in our established luach in which the Tekufah occurs a number of days after that date and yet those years are not leap years?
I found this question in a work dedicated to the calendar, Likkutei Ohr, by R. Aryeh Leib HaLevi, a dayan in Lublin********. He answered that there are two calculations provided in our tradition for the Tekufah: that of Shmuel, which is recorded in the Talmud*********, and that of Rav Ada, which is cited in post-talmudic literature. The first neatly divides the year into four periods of 91 days and 7.5 hours a piece. The second is the more precise number of 91 days, 7 hours, and 28 minutes and some change. It was the second that was utilized by the Sanhedrin in making their calculations. The first was provided for public consumption in an effort to suppress the second, as per the Oath to maintain the secrecy of the Sod HaIbbur, the methodology of intercalation**********.
Based on this, it would emerge that the first Tekufah occurs eleven days before the second. It is the first that the Talmud refers to when it instructs for intercalation. Hence, even when the second Tekufah occurs after the 16th of Nissan, the first one does not.
Now, let us apply these calculations to the year of the miracle of Chanukah, 3622 (139 BCE). This date can be determined by starting with the destruction of the Second Temple in 3828 (68 CE), as per Seder Olam cited in Rashi and Tosafos to Avodah Zarah 9b. The Talmud there states that the Hasmonean victory over the Seleucids was 206 years prior (leading to 103 years of the Hasmonean dynasty and then 103 years of the Herodian dynasty). Hence, the above year.***********
This was the twelfth year of the nineteen-year calendrical cycle, as can be determined by dividing the above year into 19-year units. According to the calendrical tables, in this year the winter solstice occurred on the seventh day of Teves. The Tekufah of R. Ada, as explained above, would occur eleven days earlier, on the eve of the 26th of Kislev. Thus, the longest night of that year was the previous one, the night of the 25th.************ It emerges that the Maharsha was indeed correct – on the night of the Chanukah miracle an entire half-log was necessary for each lamp of the Menorah. It follows that the Taz’s approach is now vindicated as well – a miracle was necessary to preserve some of the oil of the flask for the following nights.
There is, however, a different difficulty which I would raise regarding the Maharsha’s answer. The Mishnah************* states that a menorah is one of a number of vessels which are impervious to impurity if made from earthenware. Perhaps, then, the answer to the Maharsha’s difficulty is that they utilized an earthenware menorah for the lighting in the Beis HaMikdash, precluding his answer.
I would like to propose another solution to the Beis Yosef’s question. The Abudarham************** cites the Sefer HaItim’s question as to why Chanukah is not celebrated for a ninth day due to sefeika de-yoma (the uncertainty of the correct date). Perhaps, I would suggest, one question answers another. In truth, only seven days of Chanukah were instituted – as no miracle, in fact, occurred on the first day. Our celebration of eight days is merely to allow for the sefeika de-yoma.
In truth, though, I don’t believe that this is the correct answer. In order to develop this further, let us raise some more questions about the talmudic passage of Chanukah.
1) The initial question, “What is Chanukah?” is peculiar. 2) Rashi’s explanation of this question – “for which miracle did the Sages establish the holiday?” – is also troublesome: Perhaps it was not established for any miracle, rather for the reconsecration of the Temple (as the Maharsha writes.) And the language “for which miracle” indicates that there was more than one; what other miracle was there besides for that of the oil? 2) What is the function of the answer’s preface “On the twenty-fifth of Kislev begins the eight days of Chanukah upon which one does not eulogize…”? 3) Why indeed was a holiday established for the miraculous fulfilment of but a single precept, while the military victory – which achieved religious freedom for the nation – was ignored?
The resolution to all of this may lie in the two meanings of the word חנוכה.
One is that offered by the Ran***************: חנו כ"ה, they rested on the 25th. As the Levush**************** explains, the troops rested on that day from their battles and celebrated their victory. This approach takes up our third question and answers that, indeed, the holiday was established to commemorate the military accomplishment. Another is provided by the Abudarham: it is an acronym for ח' נרות והלכה כבית הלל, eight lamps, the law is in accordance with Beis Hillel.
Now, let us consider the implications of these two approaches. Why eight days? According to the latter approach, because that is how long the oil burned*****************. But according to the first approach, one day of celebration should have sufficed to celebrate the victory, just as it did on Purim.
Why, though, does it start on the 25th day of the month? According to the first approach, because that was the day that they rested from the battle. But according to the latter approach, it ought to have begun a day later, when the miracle began. For even if one adopts the sefeika de-yoma, it ought to have extended the holiday one more day at the end, not at the beginning. Thus, each approach has its advantage and disadvantage.
The elegant resolution, I propose, is that both reasons are true. The holiday can therefore begin on the 25th, due to the military victory, and extend another seven days, due to the miracle of the oil. This is also reflected in the holiday’s enactments. That not to eulogize was in celebration of the military victory, while that of the הלל והודאה, praise and thanksgiving, was in response to the miracle of the oil.
Hence, the question מאי חנוכה – what is the correct meaning of the word? That is, which miracle – the military or that of the oil – was the impetus for the holiday? What lies behind this question is the awareness that neither of the two independently satisfies the contours of the festival. The answer is that both are true. As evidence, the unusual language of the beraisa is quoted: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, which indicates the military victory component; begins the eight days of Chanukah, which indicates the miracle of the oil component.
________________________________________________________
* Shabbos 21b; cited in Tur, OC 670.** See Magen Avraham 671:1.*** Menachos 89b.**** Chullin 55a.***** Notes to Semag, Hilchos Chanukah.****** 2:2.******* Rosh HaShanah 21a.******** 3:7.********* Eiruvin 56a.********** See Kesuvos 111a; Rashi, ad loc.*********** [The Toldos makes the error of assuming that the Hasmonean kingdom began simultaneously with the victory of the Chanukah story. In reality, the victory and rededication of the Temple occurred in the mid-160’s. The general conflict, however, continued thereafter, with the kingdom only assumed in 140 CE.]************ [For a lengthy discussion of the difficulties with these calculations and their possible resolution, see Mig’denos Eliezer, an appendix to Toldos Shmuel, vol. 2 (Satoraljaujhel, 1930-1939).]************* Keilim 2:3.************** Cited in Ateres Zekeinim, beginning of Hilchos Chanukah.
*************** Shabbos, Alfasi 9b.**************** OC 670:1.***************** And for the Beis Yosef’s question, we have the aforementioned suggestion of the sefeika de-yoma.