Why is there no law/ custom to have a festive meal on Hanukkah?

One curiosity of Hanukkah is that there is no obligation to eat a festive meal in honor of the holiday. Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 670:2) writes that extra meals on Hanukkah are voluntary since it was never decreed that one is obligated to have festive meals to celebrate Hanukkah. Rama (670:2, 16th century) adds that that some people say there is a "small" commandment to have extra meals in honor of Hanukkah. (See article by Meir Rafled, 1995, for a discussion of the sources for having a festive meal on Hanukkah.)

This lack of a festive meal is surprising since the most typical way that people celebrate a happy occasion is by having a festive meal, and on all other holidays there is an obligation to have a festive meal. Why is there no obligation to have a festive meal for Hanukkah? It is true that Hanukkah is not mentioned in the Torah, but Purim is also not mentioned in the Torah and there is an obligation to have a festive meal on Purim. Four different answers have been suggested based on differences between Purim and Hanukkah.

The Levush (published from 1590-1604, quoted in the Mishnah Berurah, 670:6), who seems to have been the first to ask this question, suggests that the difference between Purim and Hanukkah is that on Purim the people were in danger of being killed, but on Hanukkah the people's freedom to practice religion was threatened but not their lives. Thus, since on Purim the danger to the people was physical, then we eat which is a physical act to celebrate our salvation, but on Hanukkah the danger was spiritual so there is no need to celebrate by eating.

The Taz (670:3, 1586-1667) rejects this rationale since he points out that religious freedom is just as important as physical freedom. Instead, he slightly varies the idea of the Levush. He suggests that on Purim, a festive meal was instituted since on Purim there was a clear miracle to save the people's lives, but on Hanukkah the military victory over the Greeks was not an obvious miracle. Instead, the miracle of Hanukkah was that the oil lasted eight days, but this was a "spiritual" miracle that would not have provided as much happiness as by a miracle that saved people's lives. This distinction between the nature of the miracles of Purim and Hanukkah is difficult since one could just as easily argue that the Hasmoneans victory over the much larger Greek armies was a more obvious case of divine intervention than Esther's actions to save the Jewish people. Also, the miracle of the oil was a physical event and presumably made the people happy who saw it.

The Taz's father-in-law, the Bach (1561-1640, comments on the Tur, 670) suggests a different distinction between Purim and Hanukkah. He notes that according to Chazal, on Purim the decree that the Jews were supposed to die was in response to the people's sin of enjoying Achashverosh's party in the first chapter of Megillat Esther (Talmud Bavli, Megillah 12a). Hence, the people had to fast as part of their repentance, and the meal we have on Purim is to "fix" the initial sin of the people. However, by Hanukkah, he writes the sin of the people that caused the Greek decrees was the people's negligence by the sacrifices, and hence the "fixing" of the sin is the just the lighting of the menorah, which is related to the Bet ha-Mikdash.

A fourth suggestion is from the Maamar Mordechai (Mordechai Karmi, 1749-1825, France, commentary on the Shulchan Arukh 670:2) who notes that on Purim the people were saved by Esther's meal with Achashverosh and Haman, and hence the meal on Purim recalls the salvation of the people. However, on Hanukkah, the people's salvation was not related to eating so no meal was established.

Other possible reasons can be suggested. One reason is that it would have been difficult (expensive and time consuming) for people to have large festive meals every day for eight days. On the other hand it was not desired to institute a requirement to have a festive meal just on one day since that would have made the day more important than the other seven days. With this idea, Chazal did not institute a festival meal for practical reasons.

Another possibility is that had a meal been instituted then this might have generated discussions about the war between the Greeks and the Hasmoneans, which in turn might have led the people to try to rebel again. However, after the disastrous rebellions against the Romans in 66-70 and then by Bar Kokhba, 132-135, the idea was just to stress the candle lighting aspect of the holiday without having a meal. However, this idea would not explain why a festival meal was not made obligatory from the time of the Hasmoneans.

A final possibility for the lack of an obligatory festive meal on Hanukkah might be due to the time in the year when the holiday falls. Hanukkah can occur from the end of November to the beginning of January, which means that in certain years (as in 2016) it occurs near the time of the winter solstice, which was a time of festivals of other nations. In Greek times there were festivals for Dionysius and in Roman times the pagan holiday Saturnalia was celebrated in the end of December, for many years, on December 17-23. (The Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 1:3 refers to Saturnalia and another Roman holiday, Kalends, which apparently was celebrated a few days after Saturnalia.) On these holidays there were large feasts and hence maybe Chazal did not institute a mandatory meal on Hanukkah in order to separate Hanukkah from these other holidays. Accordingly, Chazal just instituted the reciting of Hallel (to G-d), and that the candle lighting should be in the homes (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat, 21b) to keep the celebrations of the holiday within the family and the Jewish community. This idea would accord with the notion that Hanukkah was part of the battle to remove the Greek influence from the Jews.

Bibliography:

Rafled, Meir, 1995, Eating and happiness on Hanukkah, in Minhagei Yisrael, edited by Daniel Sperber, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, Vol. 5, pp. 85-101.

Ya'aleh ve-yavo and al ha-nissim

Two prayers that are sometimes added to the Shemoneh Esrei are ya'aleh ve-yavo and al ha-nissim. We recite ya'aleh ve-yavo in Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Chodesh and the festivals by Shacharit, Minhah and Maariv and also in the Birkat Ha-mazon on the same days. We recite al ha-nissim on Purim and Hanukkah, also both in the Shemoneh Esrei and Birkat Ha-mazon.

There are three other differences between the two prayers. One, they are recited in different places in the Shemoneh Esrei and in the Birkat Ha-mazon. Ya'aleh ve-yavo is recited within the blessing of avodah in Shemoneh Esrei and in the blessing for the re-building of Jerusalem in the Birkat Ha-mazon. On the other hand, al ha-nissim is recited in the blessings of thankfulness both in Shemoneh Esrei and in Birkat Ha-mazon.

A second difference is that if one forgot to say ya'aleh ve-yavo in Shemoneh Esrei (excluding Maariv on Rosh Chodesh) and in Birkat Ha-mazon on Yom Tov, where one is obligated to eat, then one is required to repeat the Shemoneh Esrei or Birkat Ha-mazon (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim, 178:6,7; 422:1). However, if one forgot to recite al ha-nissim then one does not repeat Shemoneh Esrei or Birkat Ha-mazon. (Shulchan Arukh 682:1; 693:2, and 695:3. Mishneh Berurah 695:15 notes that there are two opinions if one forgot to recite al ha–nissim by the meal on Purim whether one has to repeat Birkat Ha-mazon, and he rules that one does not repeat Birkat Ha-mazon. The Arukh Hashulchan 695:13 emphatically rejects the opinion that if one forgets al ha-nissim in Birkat Ha-mazon one has to repeat Birkat Ha-mazon.)

A third difference between the two additions is that ya'aleh ve-yavo is never said by Musaf, but al ha-nissim is recited on Musaf of Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh Tevet which occurs on Hanukkah (Orah Chayyim 682:2).

Another difference that is indirectly related to the two additions is with regard to the blessing after eating, al ha-michyah, which is a "shortened" version of Birkat Ha-mazon. If one recites al ha-michyah, on Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, and Yom Tov, then one refers to the special day, but if one recites al ha-michyah on Hanukkah or Purim, then the day is not referred to (Orah Chayyim 208:12). (Bet Yosef, Orah Chayyim 208, ve-tsarich, quotes various opinions that even on Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, and Yom Tov, one does not need to refer to these days in al-ha-michyah.)

A clue to understanding the difference between these two additions is from a Tosefta (Berakhot 3:14), which records that on a day that does not have a korban musaf like Hanukkah and Purim, one mentions the day in the Shemoneh Esrei but if one forgets to refer to the day, then one does not repeat Shemoneh Esrei. The implied converse to this rule is that on those days when a korban musaf is offered such as Yom Tov, Chol ha-Moed and Rosh Chodesh, if one forgets to refer to the day, one repeats Shemoneh Esrei. Al ha-nissim is the prayer in which we refer to Hanukkah and Purim, while ya'aleh ve-yavo is the prayer where we refer to Yom Tov, Chol ha-Moed and Rosh Chodesh. Thus we see that the difference between the two additions is that ya'aleh ve-yavo relates to the korban musaf, while al ha-nissim does not.

Furthermore, we see from the Tosefta, that the korban musaf connects to all the prayers of day, Shacharit, Minhah and Maariv. The importance of the korban musaf is that whenever there are prayers on the day, one needs to add something that marks the special day. The korban musaf generates an obligation to mention the special day in all prayers of the day, and this obligation is why one must repeat the Shemoneh Esrei and Birkat Ha-mazon if one forgot to say ya'aleh ve-yavo. (Gershon Segal, my brother-in-law, pointed out to me that this idea accords with the Mishnah in Megillah 4:2, that we have an extra aliyah by the reading the Torah on a day when the korban musaf would be offered, as again see that the korban musaf impacts on the prayers of the day and not just on the Shemoneh Esrei of Musaf.)

On the other hand, al ha-nissim is not due to any sacrifice, and hence it has the status of a custom, see Mishnah Berurah 208:59. Thus if one forgot to say it, then he does not have to repeat Shemoneh Esrei and Birkat Ha-mazon.

Yet if ya'aleh ve-yavo relates to the korban musaf why do we not recite it during the Shemoneh Esrei of Musaf, which is derived from the korban musaf? The answer is that ya'aleh ve-yavo is a "mini-Musaf" and therefore it does not have to be said when one recites the full Musaf, but it must be recited by the other Shemoneh Esrei during the day. In contrast, al ha-nissim is recited on Musaf of Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh of Hanukkah since the prayer is to thank G-d and there is no reason not to add these extra thanks by the Musaf prayer.

This difference in the relationship of the two additions to the korban musaf also explains why the additions are added at different places in the Shemoneh Esrei and Birkat Ha-mazon. Ya'aleh ve-yavo is based on the korban musaf, and hence it is included in the prayers that relate to bringing sacrifices, which is the avodah blessing in Shemoneh Esrei and the third blessing by rebuilding Jerusalem (and implicitly the Bet ha-Mikdash) in Birkat Ha-mazon. However, al ha-nissim is not based on any sacrifice but is to thank G-d, and hence it is more appropriate to be included in blessings where one is thanking G-d, moddin in Shemoneh Esrei and the second blessing in Birkat Ha-mazon.

With regard to al ha-michyah, this is a "shortened" version of Birkat Ha-mazon and hence it is one "level" less than Birkat Ha-mazon. Thus, by Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov where one is obligated to refer to the day in the Birkat Ha-mazon, also by al ha-michyah, one refers to the days but if one forgot one does not have to repeat al ha-michyah. However, by al ha-nissim, which only has the status of a custom in Birkat Ha-mazon, then one "level" less means that we do not refer to Hanukkah or Purim in al ha-michyah.

Ma'oz Tzur

After we light the Hanukkah candles, and say the piyyut ha-nerot ha-lalu, “these lights,” the custom is to sing Ma’oz Tzur. This custom was initially just amongst the Ashkenazim, but I have been told that recently (in the last hundred years?) Sefardim also sing the song. This song is thought to have originated in Germany in the thirteenth century by a poet named Mordechai since this name is the acrostic from the first letters in the first five stanzas of the song. In addition, the tune for Ma’oz Tzur is thought to be from a German folk song (Millgram, 1978, pp. 319, 618, see also Levinsky, 1956, vol. 5, p. 182).

The first stanza of Ma'oz Tzur is an introduction to the song, the next four stanzas record historical events where G-d saved the Jewish people, and the sixth and last stanza is a prayer for the future redemption. This last stanza has several versions, and is deleted altogether in some versions (see for example in Hertz, 1952, p. 952).

Why is the last stanza deleted in some versions? A possible answer is that the stanza has a call for vengeance, but Yom Tov Levinsky (1956, vol. 5, pp. 180-182) notes that there are other prayers (for example, Av ha-Rachamim) that also have calls for vengeance but these have not been altered or removed. Levinsky claims that the problem with the sixth stanza is the last line of the stanza, dehei admon be-zel zalmon, which he claims refers to Fredrick Barbarossa, a German King who was a redhead (admon) and one of the leaders of the Third Crusade, 12th century. According to Levinsky, the problem with the line is that it called for Fredrick Barbarossa to be vanquished.

Ismar Schorsch (1988) completely rejects this possibility. He notes that the stanza is not cited until the seventeenth century long after the time of Fredrick Barbarossa. Instead, he claims that the stanza is referring to the time after the Reformation, that the Jews were hoping that this would signal the end of Christianity. And, since Christianity was identified with Edom, the last of the four empires that would rule before the Messiah, the stanza is a prayer for the coming of the Messiah. He interprets the line dehei admon be-zel zalmon, as a prayer to vanquish Christianity (admon = Edom, and zalmon = zelem, the cross). Furthermore, he notes that the final verse mentions seven shepherds, which refers to seven biblical figures (Micah 5:4 and Succah 52b) who would accompany the messiah.

Why was the custom of singing Ma'oz Tzur established? Is it just because the song is a nice song? Why do we not sing Ma'oz Tzur on Purim and Pesach, as the song also refers to these times of salvation?

Avigdor Shinan (1999, p. 98) writes that it seems that the song was written due to the persecutions experienced by German Jewry in the 13th century. The idea being that the song would have been relevant to German Jewry in the 13th century, who suffered greatly from persecutions, as the song was (is) a prayer that G-d would save the people as He had in the past. With this reason the song is not specifically related to Hanukkah and to candle lighting on Hanukkah.

Another answer can be derived from Rav Soloveitchik's (2007, pp. 167-171) discussion of some aspects of the Rambam's comments on Hanukkah. The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah, 3:1) begins his discussion of the laws of Hanukkah with a review of the history of Hanukkah and the question is why. The simple answer is that since the events of Hanukkah are not recorded in the Bible, the Rambam does not assume that people know the events of Hanukkah. However, still the question remains why do people need to know the events of Hanukkah?

Rav Soloveitchik notes that the Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:12) writes that the lighting of the candles is "in order to make known the miracle and to offer additional praise and thanksgiving to G-d for the wonders which he has wrought for us." Rav Soloveitchik explains that there are two aspects to lighting the candles on Hanukkah, the technical aspect of physically lighting the candle and the thoughts that are to accompany the lighting of the candles. Based on the Rambam's comments, these thoughts are to thank G-d for the miracles he has done for us. Furthermore in order for one to be truly thankful, one must know what one is thanking G-d for, and hence the Rambam recorded the history of Hanukkah so that people would know what they are to be thankful for when lighting the candles. Rav Soloveitchik notes that the same idea applies to the Haggadah on Pesach. One must thank G-d for taking the Jewish people out of Egypt, and hence one must review the history of the Exodus. Another example is the prayer al ha-nissim that we recite on Purim and Hanukkah. We do not just say that we are thankful but we recite the history of the different holidays in order to know what we are thankful for.

I did not see that Rav Soloveitchik discussed Ma'oz Tzur, but his idea could apply to why the custom of singing this song began. Maybe the author of the song, Mordechai, wrote this song in order that people would understand the significance to lighting the Hanukkah candles that people are to acknowledge and be grateful that G-d saved the Jewish people in the times of the Hasmoneans. This idea that G-d saved the Jewish people is expressed in the prayer al ha-nissim, but that prayer does not refer to the miracle of the oil and is not said when one lights the candles. Similarly, the piyyut ha-nerot ha-lalu refers to G-d doing miracles for the Jewish people, but also does not specify about the miracle of the oil and does not explain that the people were in dire straits prior to the miracles. Ma'oz Tzur specifically mentions both the miracle of the oil and how difficult the situation was for the Jews prior to G-d's help. Thus, maybe the reason why the custom of singing Ma'oz Tzur was adopted was because the song is way of teaching people that when one lights the Hanukkah candles one should be thankful to G-d for saving the Jewish people. (With this logic, the other stanzas not referring to Hanukkah were added to give more examples where G-d saved the Jewish people. Furthermore, as noted by daughter Talia, with this logic there would be no need to recite Ma'oz Tzur on Purim where we read the Megillah or on Pesach where we recite the Haggadah.)

A different possibility is that the Rama (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 670:2) writes that the custom is to recite zemirot and praises by the meals on Hanukkah and then the meals are considered as being commanded meals, seudat mitzvah. What are these zemirot? Zemirot are songs, but what songs are being referred to? Maybe Ma'oz Tzur, which has a similar form to the zemirot we sing on Shabbat, was written specifically to have a song to sing by the meals on Hanukkah in order to transform a meal on Hanukkah from a regular meal to a seudat mitzvah. With this idea, at some point the song was transferred from being part of the meal to the ceremony by the lighting of the Hanukkah candles. This rationale would also explain why there is no need to recite Ma'oz Tzur on Purim or Pesach since the meals on these holidays are suedot mitzvoth, obligatory meals, which removes the need to add zemirot to the meals.

Bibliography:

Hertz, Joseph H. (1872-1946), 1952, The authorised daily prayer book, revised edition, New York: Bloch Publishing Company.

Levinsky, Yom Tov, 1956, Sefer ha-Moadim, Tel Aviv: Dvir.

Millgram, Abraham, 1971, Jewish Worship, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Schorsch, Ismar, 1998, A Meditation on Maoz Tzur, Judaism, 37:4, pp. 459-464.

Shinan, Avigdor, 1999, Siddur Avi Chai for the house and family, Jerusalem: Yidiyot Ahranot and Sefer Hemed.

Soloveitchik, Joseph, (1903-1993), 2007, Days of Deliverance: Essays on Purim and Hanukkah, edited by Eli D. Clark, Joel B. Wolowelsky and Reuven Ziegler, Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House.

Dreidels (sevivonim)

One popular custom on Hanukkah is to spin the dreidel, (in Hebrew sevivon). It has been claimed that this custom goes back to the time of the Maccabees that it was a decoy to fool the Greeks that the people pretended to play with the dreidel if the Greeks caught them learning Torah. This claim is quite unbelievable since all the evidence points to the dreidel being from the Middle Ages, where the game was very popular in many Western European countries.

Sidney Hoenig (1976, pp. 264, 265) notes that the world dreidel is from the German dreihen, which means to spin. Furthermore, the sides of the dreidel have four letters, gimmel, nun, shin and heh, and all of these derive from the letters on the spinning tops in Germany. While many are taught that these letters symbolize nes gadol hayah shem, a great miracle happened there, really the letters correspond to the rules of the game. The rules of playing dreidel is that if the dreidel lands on a gimmel, then one gets all of the pot, and in German this was symbolized by a G for the word gantz (all). If the dreidel lands on a heh, then one gets half of the pot, and this is from the letter H which in German stood for the word halb. The letter nun is from the letter N the first letter in the German word, nisht, which signifies that a person gets nothing if the dreidel lands on a nun. Finally, if the dreidel lands on the letter shin, then one has to put money into the pot, as the shin comes from the letter S, which was the beginning of the German word shtel, put.

This gambling source has been almost completely forgotten, and hence in Israel, most of the dreidels have the letter peh instead of the letter heh to declare that the miracle happened po, here in Israel.

Accordingly, there is no religious significance to playing dreidel on Hanukkah, and instead it is an example of how we copied a non-Jewish gambling game.

The dreidel might also be the source of the custom on Hanukkah of giving Hanukkah gelt (money). Hoenig (1976, p. 268) writes that this custom probably originated in the seventeenth century. He writes that the custom is to give the money to the poor, and he suggests that "maybe it is a carryover from the admonition in the Book of Esther of giving gifts to the poor." Yet, he also notes that the giving of Hanukah gelt became popular since it provided children with money for playing dreidel. Probably this is the true source of the custom, as my understanding is that the Hanukkah gelt goes to the children and not necessarily to the poor.

Bibliography:

Hoenig, Sidney, 1976, A Hanukkah Anthology, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Times for lighting Hanukkah candles

The Talmud (Shabbat, 21b) records that one is to light Hanukkah candles from sunset until the time when people stop returning from the market. This statement has led to several arguments concerning the proper time to light the candles and the last time one can light the candles.

The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:5) writes that one is to light the candles at sunset, but if one did not manage to light at sunset then one can light until people finish returning from the market which is around a half hour after sunset. (This time limit of a half an hour comes from the Rif, 1013-1103.) This is the simple reading of the Talmud.

On the other hand, due to Rabbenu Tam’s new definition of when is sunset and ben ha-shemashot (see Arukh Hashulchan 672:4), the Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim, 672) writes that one lights at the end of the sunset, which is usually understood to be when the stars come out, tsetz ha-cochavim, see Mishnah Berurah 672:1. According to Rabbenu Tam’s definitions of sunset and ben ha-shemashot, this would be 72 minutes after sunset. The Shulchan Arukh (672:1) follows the Tur and not the Rambam.

However, by lighting Shabbat candles, the Tur (261) seems to follow the Rambam’s definition of sunset, which is when the sun goes sunder the horizon. The Arukh Hashulchan notes (261:8,672:4) that the common practice in his times is to follow the Rambam’s definition of sunset by lighting Shabbat candles by or prior to sunset but to follow the Tur’s opinion with regard to Hanukkah candles to light when the stars come out. My impression is that in the 21st century this is still the common practice, but most people do not wait 72 minutes after sunset to light Hanukkah candles but rather around twenty minutes after sunset. Why did the Tur follow Rabbenu Tam’s definition of sunset by Hanukkah candles?

Maybe (see Bach, 1561-1640, Poland, on the Tur 672) the Tur’s opinion to light the candles when the stars come out is because this is when the candles will be most visible since by sunset there is still a lot of sunlight. The Rambam would then have to argue that either it is sufficiently dark by sunset to see the lights and/ or that people did not return from the market after the stars come out because it was too dark. According to this latter possibility, one could not light when the stars come out even if it made the lights more visible since there were no people outside to see the lights, and hence one could only light at sunset and the period following sunset.

A different possibility is that the Tur believes that people are still returning from the market even after the stars come out, and then the argument could be about the life style of the people in the time of the Talmud, when did they return from the market, after sunset or after the stars come out? Or, maybe, in the times of the Talmud people returned from the market after sunset and not when the stars came out (like the Rambam), but by the (end of the?) Middle Ages, people went out later in the dark than in the times of the Talmud. Accordingly, the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh would say to light when the stars come out because then the lights would be more visible, and people were still in the streets.

A different but related questions is what is the latest time a person can light Hanukkah candles at night?

The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:5) writes that one cannot light Hanukkah candles after people are no longer walking in the streets, which is assumed to be a half hour after sunset. This again is the simple reading of the Talmud Shabbat 21b.

The Rambam’s opinion was not accepted in Medieval France. Tosafot (Shabbat 21b, Deei) quotes R. Yosef Poras (Troyes, France, 12th century) that while one should light immediately at night (apparently he means when the stars come out) if one did not, then one lights later out of doubt. Tosafot continues and quotes the Ri (France, 1120-1200) that nowadays one does not have be concerned what time at night one lights since one lights inside for the people in the house and not for the people returning from the market. The Meiri (Provence, 1249-1306, on Shabbat 21b) writes that according to this latter opinion, the “giants of France” allowed the people to light until daybreak, and the practice of the yeshiva students of France was to light after they finished learning.

The Tur (672) attempts to compromise between the opinions of the Ri and the Rambam. He first writes that we do not follow the Rambam and then one can light the whole night. However, he ends by writing that one should be careful not to delay lighting the candles in order that people who are passing by can see the lights. Similarly, the Rama (16th century, Poland, 672:2) first writes that since today people light inside one does not have to be careful when one lights but then he quotes the Maharil (1365-1427, Germany) that still one should try to light at the right time.

R. Yosef Caro (1488-1575, 672:1,2) in the Shulchan Arukh also seems to compromise between the two positions. He first writes that ideally one should light at the end of sunset (when the stars go out), but if one did not light then, then one can light until a half hour after the stars go out. This is the Rambam’s position according to Rabbenu Tam’s definition of when is sunset, but then R. Yosef Caro adds that one can light the whole night, which is the Ri’s opinion.

The Magen Avraham (1637-1683, Poland, 672:6) notes that the Shulchan Arukh did not mention whether one lights with a blessing if one lights after the half hour period. However, he notes that in the Bet Yosef, R, Yosef Caro writes that the Rambam’s opinion is not completed rejected, and hence one would only light after the half hour period based on doubt what is the correct opinion. This implies that according to R. Yosef Caro if one lit after the half hour period then one should not say a blessing on the lighting. The Magen Avraham then conditions the saying of the blessings as to whether there are people awake in the house when one lights. If yes, then one would say the blessings even though one is lighting after the half hour period, but if nobody is awake, then Magen Avraham writes that one should not say the blessings if one lights after the half hour period.

This opinion of the Magen Avraham is quoted by the Mishnah Berurah (1907, 672:11) and the Arukh Hashulchan (672:7), but is difficult. The Mishnah Berurah in the Shaar Tzion (672:17) quotes the Chemed Moshe (R. Gedaliah Moshe b. Tzvi Hirsch) that the Magen Avraham’s opinion implies that if a person lives alone and lights in the house, then he/ she would not recite the blessings, but this is not the accepted practice. Thus, the Chemed Moshe writes that even if everybody in the home is asleep and cannot be woken, still one lights and says the blessings, and the Mishnah Berurah in the Shaar Tzion concludes that one can follow either opinion to say the blessings or not.

It seems to me that the Magen Avraham is contradicting the Rama, as the Rama writes that one does not have to worry about the times, which means that one recites the blessings, and in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh he makes no mention of a need for somebody in the family to be awake. Thus, following the Rama and Chemed Moshe, I would think that if one returns home late from work and everybody is sleeping in the house, then one should light and say the blessings.

In addition, in modern times with the advent of electricity it could be argued that the time period of returning from the market has changed. Today, people are in the streets until late at night (10 PM? 11PM?), and then maybe this period would still be considered within the proper time frame even for the Rambam. If this is true, then if one lights late at night and everybody is asleep in the house but some people still pass in the street, then one should be able to light and say the blessings according to all opinions. Yet, if this change in the definition of when people return from the market is correct, then might create a stringency that the candles should need to burn for the longer time period and not just for a half hour.

A new question in the 21st century, is what if a person lives by him or herself, or other people in the house are sleeping but the person can send a live video of the candles burning. Would this be enough that even the Magen Avraham would agree that the person could light with a blessing? If this is true, then what if the video is sent with a delay? How long a delay?

How many lights to light on each night of Hanukkah?

The Talmud (Shabbat 21b) records that the basic obligation to light Hanukkah candles is to light one candle each night. The Talmud adds that a better approach is to light per the number of people in the house, and that an even better approach is to change the number of candles each night. Within this third possibility, there is an argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel and we follow Bet Hillel to start with one candle and to add a candle each night.

R. Zevin (1956, p. 165) notes that this double possibility of doing more than the basic requirement is unique in Jewish law. For example, we do not have that a law that a person can read six chapters of Megillat Esther, and better to read eight chapters and even better to read ten chapters. Why did Chazal institute a three level possibility of fulfilling the law of lighting candles on Hanukkah? Maybe Chazal was concerned how much money it would cost people to light Hanukkah candles. Accordingly, they set the minimum amount was just one light/ candle, and then if people had more money, then they could light more lights/ candles.

There is an interesting argument amongst the medieval commentators as to the relationship between the three approaches mentioned in the Talmud. The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:2) understands that the third approach builds upon the second approach, and hence the preferred method of lighting candles is to light based on the number of people in the house times the number of nights. This would seem to be the simple reading of the Talmud.

However, Tosafot (Ve-Hamehadrin on the Talmud) quotes the Ri that the Rambam’s opinion is confusing since a person looking at the candles will not know which day of Hanukkah it is from the number of candles. For example, a family of four on the fourth night lights 16 candles according to the Rambam, but a person looking at the candles, might think that it was the second night of Hanukkah and there were eight people in the family, or that it was the eighth night of Hanukkah and there were two people in the family. Thus, the Ri maintained that a family should light just based on the number of nights and not based on the number of people in the house. Maybe according to the Rambam it was not important if people outside could figure out the number of nights from the candles as long as the people who did the lighting knew what was correct night.

According to the Ri, there is no connection between the second and third approaches in the Talmud. The third approach builds upon the basic obligation of one candle, and apparently it is preferred to add more lights based on the number of nights (the third approach) than based on the number of people in the house (the second approach).

Which is the accepted opinion? The Rambam (12th century, Laws of Hanukkah 4:3) notes that his opinion is not the accepted opinion since the practice amongst Sefardim was to light just based on the number of nights and not family members. The Maggid Mishnah (14th century, Spain) in his comments on the Rambam, writes that this was the custom in his time as well. The Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim, 671) writes that one lights according to the number of nights as argued by the Ri, and that even if there are many people in the house one should not light more candles. The Bet Yosef (1488-1575) in his comments on the Tur writes that the practice is to light according to the number of nights, and he quotes this opinion in the Shulchan Arukh (671:2).

We see that in the Middle Ages, amongst Sefardim the accepted opinion was the Ri’s and not the Rambam’s, and this has remained until today. (The Taz notes that this is unusual, though not unique, see Zevin, 1956, p. 166 footnote 15.) Furthermore, the fact that the Tur, who was well aware of Ashkenazi practice, did not mention that Ashkenazim lit according to the number of people and nights, implies that in the Middle Ages the Ashkenazim also accepted the Ri’s opinion.

Ashkenazi practice changed apparently around the time of the Rama (16th century, Poland, 671:2) who wrote that the common practice amongst Ashkenazim was for everybody in the house to light and this was in addition to lighting extra candles each night. Why did Ashkenazim change their custom? Maybe it was due to Ashkenazim lighting the Hanukkah candles inside. The Rama in his comments on the Tur, the Darkei Moshe, quotes, maybe the Maharal of Prague (1520-1609), that since people light indoors they can light more candles than the number of nights for two reasons. One, within the house everybody knows the number of people so they can determine which night of Hanukkah is by looking at the candles, and two when lighting in the house everybody can light in a different area. The Rama in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh quotes this second rationale, but my own experience is that families light in the same place even when lighting inside. Another possible reason for the change in the custom is maybe the Rama felt that Ashkenazi Jewry was sufficiently wealthy and/ or that the price of candles had decreased which could allow people to light more candles. Also, by lighting candles on Friday night, the Rama (Orah Chayyim 263:1) added the number of candles to be lit, which could be for the same reason.

In the printed Shulchan Arukh, by the Rama’s ruling, in parenthesis it is written that the Rama is following the Rambam, but, as noted by the Arukh Hashulchan (19th century, 671:9,15), this is not true. According to the Rambam, the number of people includes the wife, but I think the common practice among Ashkenazim was/is (?) that the wife does not light (see Mishnah Berurah 671:9), though I know families where the wide does light separately. In addition, while the Rama follows the Rambam with regard to the number of candles or lights to be put on the Hanukiyah, according to the Rambam only the head of household lit all the candles, while according to the Rama, each person in the family lights. (The Arukh Hashulchan even quotes an opinion that it is a bracha le-vatalah when more than one person in a household lights and says a blessing.)

Accordingly, the common Ashkenazi practice today of having many people light in one house, which follows the Rama, is a variation on the Rambam’s opinion. From the perspective of the family, the family is basically following the Rambam’s opinion since in total the number of candles lit in the house approximately equals the number of people times the number of nights (not counting the wife, if she does not light). However, from the individual perspective, the person is following the Ri’s opinion to light one more candle for each night, though according to the Ri only one person in the family should light.

To summarize, if a person lives by him or herself, and adds one candle per night, then he/ she is fulfilling both the Rambam’s and the Ri’s opinion. With regard to a couple, if only one person lights and adds one candle each night, then they are following the Ri and not the Rambam since according to the Rambam they need to light two times the number of nights. With regard to a family of four, where the husband and children light, then they are following neither the Rambam (who said that one person should light 16 candles) nor the Ri (who said that one person should light four candles), and they should light in different areas. If they light in the same place, then they are relying on the Maharal’s logic, that the people in the house who know how many people lit candles will know what day of Hanukkah it is.

Bibliography:

Zevin, Shlomo Yosef (1890-1978), 1944, first edition, 1956, seventh edition, Ha-Mo'adim ba- Halakhah, Jerusalem.

Latkes, levivot and sufganiyot

On Hanukkah there is a custom to eat latkes, levivot, fried potatoes, or in Israel, sufganiyot, fried jelly doughnuts. While this custom is mentioned in two songs from the Middle Ages (see Levinsky, 1956, vol. 5, pp. 279, 284) it is not mentioned in halakhic works until the twentieth century.

One modern writer who refers to this custom is Eliyahu Kitov (1978, vol. 1, p. 282) and he claims that the reason we eat these foods is because they are fried in oil, which is to remind us of the miracle of the menorah. Hayyim Simons (1995) notes that this explanation has no pre-modern source, and he claims that the eating of latkes is based on the custom of eating cheese on Hanukkah.

The Rama (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim, 670:2) quotes that there is a custom to eat cheese on Hanukkah. This custom is first quoted in the Middle Ages, by the Ran and Kal Bo (both 14th century?), who base it on a story that a woman named Judith gave cheese to a Greek general, which caused him to  fall asleep and then she proceeded to decapitate him (see Mishnah Berurah 672:10). The source for this story is murky. Most likely it is from the book of Judith, part of the Apocrypha, and even if true, it is unrelated to the Maccabees (see R. Yaakov Emdem, Mor U-Ketzia). It seems that by the year 1000, the story was connected to Hanukkah (see Rashi on Shabbat 23a). My guess is that this occurred since Judith was a popular figure amongst the Christians and the Jews wanted to “reclaim” her, as Encyclopedia Judaica (1971, vol. 10, p. 459) writes that “Judith has attracted more writers, artists and composers than any other figure in the Apocrypha.” She was/ is so popular that there are menorot with an image of her holding the head of the Greek general, see picture in Sperber, 1995, p. 131 of a menorah from first the half of the 18th century from Germany. This story is also conflated with the very similar incident of Yael and Sisera, as in the book Judith, Judith gave the Greek general wine, which makes one drowsier than cheese, while Shoftim 4:19 records that Yael gave Sisera milk. Independent of this story, cheese was/ is a distinctive food in Northern Europe, and eating cheese again arises as an Ashkenazi custom by Shavuot, see the Rama on 494:2.

Simons suggests that the eating of cheese is the source of eating latkes since initially the cheese was eaten together with some dough that was fried, (blintzes? crêpes?). This connection is stated explicitly by Menachem ben Judah de Lonzano in the early 17th century. Even earlier there is another reference to both of these foods, as a manuscript from 1402 of the book of Judith records that she also fed the Greek general levivot. Furthermore, when the Kal Bo records the custom of eating cheese, he states that one is to eat a cooked dish with cheese, and Simons suggests that this reference to a cooked dish meant fried food that was filled with cheese.

At some point, potatoes replaced cheese but since potatoes only “arrived” in Eastern Europe around the 17th century, this change could have only occurred starting from the 17th century. Probably this change occurred since potatoes were cheaper and more available than cheese in the middle of the winter, so people started to fry potatoes, latkes, instead of or in addition to frying dough with cheese.

Over time the connection between the fried food and the cheese was lost, and we are left today with two separate customs one of eating cheese and one of eating fried foods. Furthermore, while the eating of the fried foods was initially auxiliary to the eating of cheese, today, to the best of my knowledge, the custom of eating cheese is neglected while the eating of latkes and sufganiyot is very popular on Hanukkah.

Bibliography:

Kitov, Eliyahu, 1978, The Book of Our Heritage, Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers.

Levinsky, Yom Tov, 1956, Sefer ha-Moadim, Tel Aviv: Dvir.

Simons, Hayyim, 1995, Eating cheese and latkes on Hanukkah, Sinai, 115, pp. 57-68.

Sperber, Daniel, 1995 (vol. 5), Minhagei Yisrael: Sources and history, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.