Chanukkah question

[aygart]

He obviously started with an assumption of how the metzius was which would lead one to think they should have made seven days. Or, allowed for more than one possible metzius, but thought they were all shver.

Which begs the question: since he presents three possibilities of the metzius, all of which answer the kashya, what metzius did he originally assume in the kashya?

Here is a link to the B"Y (cbc's image is fuzzy to me): http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x2790

ask any kid in kindergarten what the story was and you will know what the assumption was.

Thanks @Cheesecake for helping out, I really didn't think that we still have ppl around that don't know the difference between a question and a kashua

Lol. Let's see if you can explain the difference.

Stop trying to be so lomdish and you will see that your question doesn't start.

[chinagel]

He obviously started with an assumption of how the metzius was which would lead one to think they should have made seven days. Or, allowed for more than one possible metzius, but thought they were all shver.

Which begs the question: since he presents three possibilities of the metzius, all of which answer the kashya, what metzius did he originally assume in the kashya?

Here is a link to the B"Y (cbc's image is fuzzy to me): http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x2790

he originally thought they lit it on day 1 and it burned the oil on day 1 and then stayed lit thru day 8, my dear watson!

[Cheesecake]

he originally thought they lit it on day 1 and it burned the oil on day 1 and then stayed lit thru day 8, my dear watson!

Isn't there a mitzvah to light in the Bh"m every day?
Also, how is that worse than the third terutz?

[Baruch]

@aygart, take a second to think about bukboy's question, it's a very good question.

The Bais Yosef asks a kashya that there seems to be no nes, because there was enough oil for 1 day. if there's no heicha timtze to have a nes for 7 days, without there also being a nes on the first day, kushya mei'ikara lesa. And the way the Bais Yosef shouldn't be worded as a kashya.
It is very obvious to the experienced learner (as I assume bukboy is), that the Bais Yosef seemed to have a premise about how the nes occured, and according to that premise there should have only been 7 days of nes.

I think the Bais Yosef's premise was like chinagel, but it's a shvere premise, because, if it burned from day 2 thru 8 without oil, it wouldn't be a flame from oil, and would be pasul.

[chinagel]

Isn't there a mitzvah to light in the Bh"m every day?
Also, how is that worse than the third terutz?

is there? as far as the third teirutz i dont have it in front of me but iirc that was that there was another nes besides the neiros and if true than you can say he understood in his kasha that chanuka was מתוקן because of the nes of neiros only

[chinagel]

Isn't there a mitzvah to light in the Bh"m every day?

it could be they put it out and relit it everyday

[Cheesecake]

is there? as far as the third teirutz i dont have it in front of me but iirc that was that there was another nes besides the neiros and if true than you can say he understood in his kasha that chanuka was מתוקן because of the nes of neiros only

I linked it above.

The third terutz is that they filled the menorah with all of the oil and in the morning found the menorah still full.

How is that any different as far as answering the kashya than what you suggested?

[Cheesecake]

Here is (a hopefully clearer) image of the B"Y.

[aygart]

Okay, now I see where you guys went wrong. The B"y only gives TWO teirutzim! His first teirutz is that the hadlaka of the first night also included a nes since they did not put enough oil to light for long enough but it did anyhow. The second teirutz is that even though there was no nes involved in the hadlaka of the first night, since the nes for the second night was visible already on the first night that is still a reason to include that in CHanuka. This second teirutz could have happened in two ways. Either by the oil remaining in the menora after it burned out or that oil remained in the pach after filling the menora. This is why the B"y writes yesh lomar, od yesh lomar, and then iy nami since the iy nami is just another way of getting to the second teirutz.

As such, in the first teirutz he is change=ing the story from what we would have typically assumed happened while in the second teirutz he is staying with the same basic story and explaining why even so it would be a reason to have the first night as a part of Chanuka.

Is this what you mean by this?

is there? as far as the third teirutz i dont have it in front of me but iirc that was that there was another nes besides the neiros and if true than you can say he understood in his kasha that chanuka was מתוקן because of the nes of neiros only

[AsherO]

Tell him they made very small wicks, and the nes was that the flame was as high as it normally would be, yet it lasted a whole day.

I just saw the Beis Halevi writes the opposite. Had they gone ahead and used narrower wicks (1/8th of the usual thickness), they would naturally had enough oil for eight days. They only merited the miracle because they insisted on using the regular width wicks.

[Cheesecake]

I just saw the Beis Halevi writes the opposite. Had they gone ahead and used narrower wicks (1/8th of the usual thickness), they would naturally had enough oil for eight days. They only merited the miracle because they insisted on using the regular width wicks.

I think someone says what I said.

[Cheesecake]

Okay, now I see where you guys went wrong. The B"y only gives TWO teirutzim! His first teirutz is that the hadlaka of the first night also included a nes since they did not put enough oil to light for long enough but it did anyhow. The second teirutz is that even though there was no nes involved in the hadlaka of the first night, since the nes for the second night was visible already on the first night that is still a reason to include that in CHanuka. This second teirutz could have happened in two ways. Either by the oil remaining in the menora after it burned out or that oil remained in the pach after filling the menora. This is why the B"y writes yesh lomar, od yesh lomar, and then iy nami since the iy nami is just another way of getting to the second teirutz.

As such, in the first teirutz he is change=ing the story from what we would have typically assumed happened while in the second teirutz he is staying with the same basic story and explaining why even so it would be a reason to have the first night as a part of Chanuka.

Is this what you mean by this?

I think that is probably p'shat, (although I think #3 is more different than #2 than you are saying) but it's not the pashtus in B"Y, and you should not have dismissed the question.

[aygart]

I think that is probably p'shat, but it's not the pashtus in B"Y, and you should not have dismissed the question.

What should I tell you, this is how I always understood the simple reading of the BY. It was only when the discussion started talking about a third answer that I realized that it was being understood differently.

[good sam]

I think that is probably p'shat, (although I think #3 is more different than #2 than you are saying) but it's not the pashtus in B"Y, and you should not have dismissed the question.

It's the pshat but not the pashtus.

Reminds me of the story about the old lady getting upset about yeshiva guys coming onto her property during shmittah. "It's hefker" they said. She responds "Yes it's hefker, but it's not hefkeirus!"

[Cheesecake]

What should I tell you, this is how I always understood the simple reading of the BY. It was only when the discussion started talking about a third answer that I realized that it was being understood differently.

I don't think they're one terutz. The fist part says the heker was for the first night, the second says it was for every night (which I don't quite understand; why would the oil remain full on the last morning?).

[aygart]

I don't think they're one terutz. The fist part says the heker was for the first night, the second says it was for every night (which I don't quite understand; why would the oil remain full on the last morning?).

Of course it didn't stay full the last night. You only need to come on to the heker for the first night

[Cheesecake]

Of course it didn't stay full the last night. You only need to come on to the heker for the first night

See last line of B"Y.

[aygart]

See last line of B"Y.

Right, that is how it happened.

[Cheesecake]

Right, that is how it happened.

Why does he mention that it occurred every night if the whole point is the first?

(Also, technically, it wasn't *every* night).

[churnbabychurn]

@aygart, take a second to think about bukboy's question, it's a very good question.

The Bais Yosef asks a kashya that there seems to be no nes, because there was enough oil for 1 day. if there's no heicha timtze to have a nes for 7 days, without there also being a nes on the first day, kushya mei'ikara lesa. And the way the Bais Yosef shouldn't be worded as a kashya.
It is very obvious to the experienced learner (as I assume bukboy is), that the Bais Yosef seemed to have a premise about how the nes occured, and according to that premise there should have only been 7 days of nes.

I think the Bais Yosef's premise was like chinagel, but it's a shvere premise, because, if it burned from day 2 thru 8 without oil, it wouldn't be a flame from oil, and would be pasul.

-1

The BY's is crystal clear.  The question is simple. There was no nes on the first night because there was enough oil to light.

The nes in the hava amina was in the Pach! Whether the pach remained full on the first night while pouring, or was miraculously full in the morning is debatable. But there was no nes in the neros on the first night. 


Apologies if someone already explained this.. didnt read all the way though yet.

ETA, noone. Im surprised. its pretty simple imho though. No?
The Hv'a was a nes similar to the regular nes of the oil with the novi where the kli remained full... Not a nes in the actuall neros.