[Don’t forget to see the Halacha
Encounters below!]
This week’s Parsha
portends both Golus (exile) and Geula (redmption) - not only the
very first Golus of Mitzrayim, but even the last Golus and Geula
(and all those in between).
The Medrash in Tehillim
(114:3) tells us that the pasuk “The sea saw and fled” refers
to the Yam Suf being confronted with the casket of Yosef
HaTzadik. “It fled because of the one who fled.” In the merit
of Yosef who “Va’Yanos HaChutzah, And he ran outside” –
overcame his natural inclination and fled from the wife of Potiphar,
so too the sea, whose natural state is to flow into itself, split
for the casket of Yosef and for Klal Yisroel.
The expression of “VaYanos
HaChutzah” is repeated four times in the narrative of this
incident with Aishes Potiphar. Why? In fact, such language was
used earlier during the Bris Bain HaBisorim. “VaYaitzai Oso
HaChutzah.” Hashem said: “You, Avrohom will go outside of
your nature (i.e. constellation, as the Medrash notes) and although
by nature you should be unable to produce children, you will in
fact be the forefather of a great nation.”
What produces this
“LeMaaleh Min Hatevah,” (“supernatural”) enabling a person
to avoid his fate? It is the Middah K’Neged Middah (quid
pro quo) of somebody going outside of his own teva
(personal nature). Avraham Avinu did this by fighting his inclination
of mercy in order to fulfill the Will of Hashem at the Akeidah.
Yitzchok Avinu accomplished this by breaking with the trait of
Gevurah (internal strength) as it pertained to his final
relationship with Yaakov and Eisav. And Yaakov followed in their
footsteps by fighting “Titain Emes LeYaakov,” his trait
of truthfulness, for the sake of obtaining the Brochos for the
future of Klal Yisroel.
When we fail to meet
challenges to our middos (personality traits), terrible things
may occur. The Gemora in Sanhedrin (6b) states “Rabbi Meir teaches
that anybody who praises the compromise of Yehuda [(Beraishis
37:26-27) ‘What good will it do to kill our own brother? Let us
sell him to the Yishmaelim.’)] is a blasphemer.” Why is this the
case? If Yosef deserved to die as a rodef (one who is
chasing another person intending to kill him), then he should
have been killed. If in fact he was faultless, then he should
have been brought back to his father. Selling him was not a legitimate
option. Yehuda was the de facto king of the Shevatim (Twelve
Tribes) – he alone had the opportunity to do what was necessary
and correct. He unfortunately did not fully rise to the occasion
and paid a terribly high price for it. On a personal level this
failure (according to the Medrash) led to death of his wife and
children. On a global level it led to Galus Mitzrayim (the
Exile in Egypt). Perhaps Yehuda felt that Yosef did not deserve
to die, however, he also felt he could not stand up to the other
brothers. He fell from the greatness and decisiveness of a king
to the compromise – the moreh heter (finding justifications
for one’s own actions) - of a lesser man. It is only when he was
able to broach no compromise, to stand up at great personal embarrassment
by saying “Tzadkuh Memeni, She is correct!” during the
incident with Tamar, did Yehuda reclaim his status and ensure
that Malchus Bais Dovid (the Davidic Dynasty) would be
his destiny. Yehuda had a plethora of reasons why he could once
again compromise or be moreh heter. After all, how would
it look? He was a very important person. The status of an entire
family would be hurt! Besides, she enticed him, and he
also may have thought that she was the reason his children died.
Yehuda did not give in to these rationalizations and went against
his tevah, with the result of producing Moshiach Ben
Dovid.
The Sefer HaPardes
teaches (starting with pasuk 3) that all of the pesukim in VaYeishev
start with the letter Vav except for eight verses. These eight
pesukim correspond to the eight days of milah. It may seem that
all of the incidents of the Parsha are connected —hence the “Vav”s
in some sort of logical story. It is in fact the eight “Le
Maaleh Min HaTevah” pesukim that bring it all about.
Maybe this is what was meant by the Bris Bain HaBesarim,
which foretold of all the future Golus and Geulas, that brought
Avroham Avinu and all of Klal Yisrael “LeMaaleh Min HaTeva.”
Everything may resemble the tevah of “Vav”, but
by going LeMaaleh from your tevah, by breaking from
your tevah for Hashem’s sake, then you will be Zocheh to
live an existence of LeMaaleh Min HaTevah.
This brings us to the
LeMaaleh Min HaTevah of the eight days of Chanukah, a Yom
Tov that has the aspects of Golus (Yavon) and Geula within it.
May these days of Chanukah finally bring to us both the Moshiach
Ben Yosef and the Moshiach Ben David.
Rabbi
Nudell learns nightly in the Kollel.
Halacha Encounters
Using Electric Lights for the Chanukah Menorah
Rabbi Avi Weinrib
One of the most amazing
aspects of Halacha is that although our world is changing and
advancing at a dizzying pace, Halacha needs no advancement. The
job of our Poskim (Halachic deciders) is merely to apply
age-old principles to the inventions of the day. In this week’s
Halacha Encounters, we will discuss the fusion of Chanukah
and electricity, by examining if and when the use of electric
lights for the lighting of the menorah would be permitted.
There are a number
of issues raised by the Poskim regarding the use of electric
lights for the menorah. HaGaon Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l,
in his classic work on electricity, Me’orei Aish [chap.
5, section 2] raises the following points. Our lighting of the
menorah, he writes, is to commemorate the great miracle of the
oil in the Beis HaMikdash (Temple) which miraculously burned
for eight days when there was only enough oil to burn for one
day. It would follow that our menorah should therefore be similar
to the menorah lit in the Beis Hamikdash. In an oil menorah,
the fire consumes the fuel, whereas using electricity consumes
no “fuel.” Additionally, electric menorahs lack a flame, the
most basic trait of an oil menorah. Thirdly, a basic trait of
an oil-burning light is the function of a wick – used to draw
up the fuel for the flame. We do permit using candles, as there
the wick is seen as being fueled by the wax or paraffin. In electric
light the electricity flowing through them is merely lighting
up the wires. This would be similar to a person heating up rods
of iron, which give off a light that according to all opinions
would not be valid. See also HaGaon Rav Y. Henkin zt”l
in Edus Liyisroel Page 122 Kaf Hachaim 673-19 and Sha’alos Vitshuvos
Maharshag Volume 2 Siman 107, who give similar reasons. There
are Poskim who take issue with the above reasons. They contend
that since the Shulchan Aruch [O.H. 673-1] rules that all oils
and wicks are acceptable for one’s menorah (albeit olive oil being
the most preferable fuel), we see there is no requirement to imitate
exactly the Menorah in the Temple. [See Beir Yitzchok Y.D. Volume
2 Siman 31 Tzitz Eliezer Volume 1 Siman 20 Chapter 12].
Another issue raised
by Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank zt”l [HaMa’ayan
Journal Tevet 5732] is as follows. The Shulchan Aruch [675-2]
rules that since the mitzvah is the actual kindling of the flame,
then one is obligated to have the required amount of oil [enough
to burn for half an hour] in the menorah at the time. If one would
light and then add the required amount he did not fulfill his
obligation. Regarding electricity, there is no fuel present during
the lighting. It is being constantly generated. This would be
similar to lighting and then adding afterwards. If one would use
a battery- powered menorah, he would avoid this problem.
Another issue raised
by the Tzitz Eliezer [ibid.] is that the Shulchan Aruch rules
that one can only fulfill his obligation with a single flame,
and not a “medurah” [blaze of fire]. He contends that since
incandescent bulbs contain an arc shaped filament this would have
the status of a “medurah” rather than a single flame.
Additionally in Sha’alos
V’tshuvos Bais Yitzchok, Rav Yitzchok Shmelkish rules that
one cannot use electricity for an additional reason. The Rema
[671-7] rules that one should not light his menorah in a place
where he lights throughout the year, as it will not be recognizable
that he is lighting now especially for Chanukah. Regarding this,
if one would have an electric menorah where it is clear that the
sole function is for Chanukah, then this problem would not exist.
In summation, based
on the above reasons one should not use electric lights in any
situation where one has the option of using oil or candles. What
should one do if he is in a situation where lighting a flame is
not allowed [i.e. a hospital or one on a long flight through the
night where there is no option of lighting when one arrives]?
There are Poskim who suggest lighting a flame for an instant and
then blowing it out. Their reasoning is that since the flame
in and of itself has the ability to burn for a half an hour, even
though one decided on his own to extinguish it, one would have
fulfilled the obligation. HaRav Dovid Zucker, shlit’a,
rules that this should be strongly discouraged. Besides the obvious
danger, there is the tremendous potential for a Chillul Hashem
[desecration of G-d’s name] and an additional issue of Mitzva
Haba Biaveira [a commandment fulfilled through illegal means].
The best practical solution would be for one to bring, corresponding
to the day of Chanukah, that amount of flashlights and have them
burn for one half-hour. One should not make a bracha, being that
many render even this method invalid. One should make sure not
to hold the flashlights in his hand, but to set them up on a table
or similar place [see Shulchan Aruch 675:1]. As an aside, there
is an extensive discussion among the Poskim when one is not in
his “home” if and when one is required to light, which is beyond
the scope of this article. As a final point, HaGaon Rav Elyashav,
shlit”a, (Shvus Yitzchak Ner Shabbos Chapter 3 Footnote
11) says this entire discussion would only apply to incandescent
bulbs. Regarding fluorescent lights, all would agree one might
not use such a bulb for Chanukah, as it does not have the halachic
status of “aish” (fire).
Rabbi
Weinrib learns full time in the Kollel and is a frequent contributor
to Halacha Encounters.