[KollelH blog] The Mehadrin Of Chanukah

The Mehadrin Of Chanukah

The Gemara in Shabbos 21b says that there are three levels whereby one can fulfill the obligation of the mitzvah of Chanukah: basic, mehadrin, and mehadrin min hamehadrin. The basic requirement of the mitzvah of Chanukah is to light one candle each night per household. To fulfill the mehadrin level one must light a separate candle for each member of the household every night. In order to fulfill the level of mehadrin min hamehadrin, according to Beis Hillel, one must add one new candle each night, totaling eight candles on the eighth night.

The Rambam and Tosafos have a machlokes regarding this halacha. The Rambam (Hilchos Chanukah 4:1) says that if one wishes to perform the mehadrin min hamehadrin, he should light a candle for every member of his household and add one for each person on each night. Tosafos (Shabbos 21b) says that the halacha of mehadrin min hamehadrin does not encompass the mehadrin level. In other words, when one intends to fulfill the mehadrin min hamehadrin level by adding a candle each night, only the head of the house should light the menorah – not the entire household. Tosafos explains that if the entire household lights their own menorahs, an outsider will not be able to determine what day it is, since too many lit candles may confuse the outsider as to how many people are actually in the house. Therefore, when performing on the mehadrin min hamehadrin level, one does not light a separate menorah for each member of his household.

Regarding this machlokes the Ramah (Orach Chaim 671:2) rules in a similar way to Rambam's ruling – with one variation. The Rambam said that the head of the household lights a separate menorah for each member of his household. The Ramah says that every member should light their own menorah.

The Brisker Rav, in his sefer on the Rambam (Hilchos Chanukah 4:1), explains that the point on which the Rambam and the Ramah disagree is based on a different machlokes. In order to perform a bris milah one must remove a certain amount of the skin. Although one can fulfill the mitzvah by removing the minimal amount, it is preferable (mehadrin) to remove the entire foreskin. If one finished performing the bris having removed the minimal amount of foreskin, there is a machlokes regarding whether he can return to remove more of the foreskin. The Beis Halevi explains that the Rishonim who opine that one cannot revisit to remove more of the foreskin believe that mehadrin can only be performed in the action of the mitzvah. Once the mitzvah is fulfilled, any further actions are not considered part of the mitzvah. Thus one cannot return to remove more of the foreskin, since he has already fulfilled his obligation of the mitzvah.

The Brisker Rav explains that the Rambam is of the opinion that one cannot return to remove more of the foreskin. Therefore, we can assume that he believes that mehadrin can only be performed while one is performing the mitzvah, not after he has fulfilled his obligation. Thus the Rambam rules that in order to fulfill mehadrin, the head of the household must light the candles on behalf of his household. The reason is that if each member would light the menorah individually, once the head of the household lights he has fulfilled the mitzvah and can no longer perform mehadrin. Hence the head of the household should light for each member in order for it to be considered one action of lighting.

The Ramah (Yoreh De'ah 264:5) sides with the Rishonim who say that one can return to remove more of the foreskin. He therefore rules that each member of the household can light individually since even once the mitzvah is fulfilled, one can still perform mehadrin. Alternatively we can explain that the Ramah disagrees with the Rambam regarding the issue that when each individual member lights his own candle, it is considered one action of the mitzvah. So even according to other Rishonim, one can still perform mehadrin.

Reb Shach, in his sefer on the Rambam (Hilchos Chanukah), takes issue with the comparison that the Brisker Rav drew from bris milah. The mehadrin that is associated with the mitzvah of bris milah, and most other mitzvos, is to beautify the mitzvah. For example, regarding the mitzvah of lulav, in order to fulfill mehadrin one must have a nice lulav. It is regarding this form of mehadrin that the Rishonim have a disagreement as to whether it can be performed after one has fulfilled the mitzvah. However, the mehadrin that is associated with the mitzvah of Chanukah is completely different. It is not to perform the same action in a more beautiful manner, but rather it is to do a completely separate action – namely to add more candles. Regarding this form of mehadrin we do not find that any of the Rishonim suggest that one cannot perform mehadrin after the basic mitzvah is fulfilled, since the mehadrin requires a separate action.

I believe that there is evidence that this mehadrin is different from the usual mehadrin. Concerning the usual mehadrin, one is not required to spend more than a third of the value of the basic mitzvah. But regarding the mehadrin of the mitzvah of Chanukah, one is required to spend more than a third of the basic mitzvah (i.e. if there are more than three members in the household, and from the fourth night on when one must spend more than a third of the basic mitzvah.

A freilichen Chanukah

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.

--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 12/23/2011 12:14:00 AM

[KollelH blog] vayaitzai

Is Ma'ariv Really Optional?

In the beginning of this week's parshah the Torah writes about Yakkov Avinu's departure from his father's house in Bear Sheva. The passuk says "Vayifga bamakom" and he met the place. This passuk carries many deeper levels of understanding aside from the pashut pshat. Rashi explains that the "place" that the passuk is referring to is Har Hamoria. The Gemara in Chullin 91b explains that Hashem lifted the mountain and brought it to Yakkov, hence the wording "and he met the place". The Gemara in Brachos 26b explains that the word "vayifga" means to daven, and that it was at this point that Yakkov Avinu instituted the tiffela of ma'ariv.

The Gemara in Brachos 27b says that although all of the tiffelos are mandatory, the tiffela of ma'ariv is a rishus (voluntary).  Tosafos (Brachos 26a) points out that one may not decide not to daven ma'ariv unless there is an adequate reason i.e. another time sensitive mitzvah.

The Gemara in Brachos 21a discusses the halacha in a scenario where one is in middle of davening shimoneh esray and realizes that he had already davened this tiffela. The Gemara says that he should stop davening immediately, even if he is in the middle of a bracha. Even though one may daven a tiffelas nidavah (a voluntary tiffela) whenever he desires, he must stop in the middle since he initially began davening under the impression that the tiffela was obligatory. The Tosafos Harash explains that just as there are not any korbanos that are part obligatory and part voluntary so too there cannot be a tiffela that is part obligatory and part voluntary.

Based on this, the Rambam (hilchos tiffela 10:6) wrote a tremendous chiddish. He wrote that the abovementioned Gemara that discusses the halacha of when one realizes in the middle of shimoneh esray that he has davened that tiffela, should not apply when the tiffela that one is in the middle of is ma'ariv. The reason for this ruling is since the tiffela of ma'ariv is voluntary it can connect to a tiffelas nidavah.  Therefore if one was in the middle of davening ma'ariv and realized that he had already davened ma'ariv if he desires he may continue davening as a nidavah. Since both tiffelos are voluntary they should be able to connect as one voluntary tiffela.

The Ra'avad disagreed with this psak and, as explained by the Kesef Mishnah, argued that for many generations Klal Yisroel have accepted upon themselves an obligation to daven ma'ariv. Even the Rambam himself writes (hilchos tiffela 1:6) that all of Yisroel wherever they are have accepted to daven ma'ariv involuntarily. So how can the Rambam say that the tiffela of ma'ariv can connect with a tiffelas nidavah since they are both voluntary?  

Reb Chaim Solovatchik zt'l in his sefer on the Rambam suggests the following approach to understand the ruling of the Rambam: although Klal Yisroel have accepted upon themselves to daven ma'ariv involuntarily, nevertheless the type of tiffela remains the same. Since the tiffela of ma'ariv was instituted as a voluntary tiffela it remains that type of tiffela in its essence. In other words, one can have an obligation to daven a voluntary type of tiffela. The obligation to daven a particular tiffela does not affect the type of tiffela that it is in its essence. Therefore the tiffela of ma'ariv can connect with a tiffelas nidavah since they are both voluntary tiffelos in essence.

On the other hand, the Ra'avad believes that whether one is obligated to daven a certain tiffela will affect the type of tiffela that it is. Therefore since we have accepted upon ourselves to daven ma'ariv involuntarily the tiffela becomes an obligatory tiffela and can no longer connect to a tiffelas nidavah.

The Rambam (hilchos tiffela 1:10) writes that there are some Ge'onim who were of the opinion that one may not daven a tiffelas nidavah on Shabbos since we do not bring a korban nidavah on Shabbos. The implication from the Rambam is that he agrees with this view. This however raises a problem, how can one daven ma'ariv on Shabbos if according to the Rambam himself it is a voluntary tiffela in essence?

I want to suggest that although ma'ariv is a voluntary tiffela in its essence, it differs from a nidavah. The similarity that ma'ariv shares with a tiffelas nidavah is that they are both voluntary, and therefore they can be connected. However the Gemara in Brachos 26b says that all of the tiffelos correspond to different korbanos; shachris corresponds to the tamid shel shachar, mincha to the tamid shel bain ha'arbaim, and ma'ariv corresponds to the aimurim of the korbanos (which even if they are not brought the korban is effective- it is for this reason that ma'ariv is a rishus). Therefore even though ma'ariv is voluntary, it corresponds to the aimurim which are brought even on Shabbos. A korban nidavah however is not brought on Shabbos, and therefore one cannot daven a tiffelas nidavah on Shabbos.

It would appear to me that the Rambam's ruling that one may continue davening ma'ariv even if he realizes that he already did so, does not apply on Shabbos. Since one cannot daven a tiffelas nidavah on Shabbos he cannot end off the shimoneh esray with a tiffelas nidavah.  

For questions or comments email: RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com 

--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 12/01/2011 08:32:00 PM