rosh chodesh Teives / Chanukah -- 1 chiyuv to say full hallel, or 2 independent chiyuvim, full hallel + chatzi hallel

When we daven b'tzibur the custom is for the chazan to say out loud the last sentence or two of each section of hallel, similar to other parts of davening when the chazan reads aloud the last line of a bracha or section of tefilah. When chatzi hallel is recited on rosh chodesh, that means the chazan says the concluding sentence of the paragraph that starts "Hashem zicharanu yevareich..." and the concluding sentence of the paragraph that starts "mah ashiv." When we say full hallel, the chazan also says the concluding lines in the paragraphs before these as well, i.e. the paragraph that starts "lo lanu..." and the paragraph that starts "ahavti..." 

I don't understand why we do things this way. "Lo lanu" is the start of a perek.  That perek concludes "v'anachnu nevareich K-h." Why doesn't the chazan read straight through the entire perek and only say out loud that last line, not the last line before "Hashem zicharanu yevareich...?"  "Hashem zicharanu yevareich..." is an independent unit only when we say half hallel because when we say half hallel we skip "lo lanu" and start in the middle of the perek.  But why create that artificial break when we are saying full hallel?   

The simple answer of course is that the chazan is just following the pattern he is used to from the times we say half hallel. But maybe there is more to it than that. 

I saw the following chakirah: when we say full hallel, is there also a chiyuv of half hallel lurking in the shadows, or does the chiyuv of full hallel eclipse the chiyuv of half hallel and so that doesn't exist at all? For example, on rosh chodesh Teives, are there two independent chiyuvim of hallel, i.e. a chiyuv of full hallel because it's Chanukah, and a chiyuv half hallel because of rosh chodesh, or would you say that since there is a chiyuv full hallel, there can't possibly exist a separate chiyuv of half hallel? 

Nafka minos: if someone only knows part of hallel, should they at least say that, even if they don't know the whole thing? If someone said a bracha and omitted a part of hallel, is it a bracha l'vatala?

The same chakira can even come into play on a day like the first days of Pesach. Is there only a chiyuv of full hallel -- all or nothing -- or can you argue that the first days cannot be worse than chol ha'moed, where there is a chiyuv of half hallel?  Just because there is an additional chiyuv of saying full hallel does not negate the lesser chiyuv -- or does it? 

Minhag Sefard is to say the bracha "ligmor es ha'hallel" when reciting full hallel and "likroh" when reciting half hallel, but minhag Ashkenz follows the Maharam Rutenburg who writes that we should always say "likroh." Tur (488) explain that Mahram Rutenburg was concerned lest one leave out a word in hallel, which would render saying "ligmor" a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Berura asks: if the mitzvah is to say full hallel, even if one said the bracha "likroh," wouldn't it be a bracha l'vatala anyway?  Since you missed a word, you didn't do the mitzvah, and the bracha is therefore l'vatalah?  

The MB's question hinges on the chakirah we raised. If there still exists in the shadows a chiyuv of half hallel even on days when there is a greater chiyuv of full hallel, then if one missed a word, one would still be yotzei the lesser chiyuv of half hallel and the bracha would be chal on that chiyuv.  MB must have assumed like the other side of the chakirah, namely, that when there is a chiyuv full hallel, it eclipses and negates the chiyuv half hallel. 

I think the nusach ha'tefilah indicates that even when there is a chiyuv to say full hallel, the chiyuv of half hallel still exists in the shadows and that's why the chazan still sticks in those breaks in the middle to demarcate the same section breaks that are used when we say half hallel.

the Divrei Chaim's practice of preparing the menorah before havdalah

In the Mishnas Sachir on the Moadim, Rav Teichtel writes that he found in a sefer that quotes the practices of the Sanzer Rav, the Divrei Chaim of Sanz, and it is recorded there that on motzei shabbos chanukah one should prepare the oil and wicks in the menorah first, then say havdalah, and then light the menorah.  Once apparently his gabai messed up the order and the Divrei Chaim yelled at him, "Didn't you learn the sugya of tadir v'she'aino tadir?!" and he referenced the Taz in hil Chanukah regarding havdalah.  The Mishnas Sachir writes that he doesn't understand what the Divrei Chaim meant and how he derived from that sugya that the menorah needs to be prepared first, but he hopes to come back to it one day and figure it out.  Sadly, we know that that was not meant to be.

Since there is a tartei l'teivusa here: 1) the sugyos of tadir are inyana d'yoma of daf yomi and 2) this is the Divrei Chaim blog, I thought it worth mentioning.

hadlakas menorah as a kiyum of binyan mikdash

The Ramban famously asks why the torah puts the parsha of hadlakas ha'menorah after the gifts of the nesiim for the chanukas ha'mishkan. He quotes the midrash that presents the opportunity of lighting the menorah as a consolation prize, if you will, to Aharon, because his sheivet did not participate in giving any gifts. Why is menorah the consolation prize and not avodas ha'korbanos? Ramban answers that menorah alludes to the lighting of chanukah, which we retain even in galus. Avodas ha'korbanos is a gift of limited duration, as the mikdash unfortunately was destroyed.

Back in 2012 I quoted a Kozhiglover (I tried to find the exact mareh makom and couldn't find it - sorry I did not link to it then) that there are 2 dinim in hadlakas ha'menorah: 1) hadlakah as an end in its own right; 2) hadlakah as a kiyum in binyan ha'mikdash, as part of constructing a mikdash fit for a king, fit for THE King, is to have a palace that is illuminated.

A proof to this notion can be found in parshas Terumah, which opens with a list of items that were donated to help in the building of the mishkan, among them שֶׁ֖מֶן לַמָּאֹ֑ר. Daas Zekeinim notes that when speaking about most of the gifts, the torah does not say what the gift was used for or what the need for it was, but when it comes to oil, it does.

תימה שכל הפרשה בצרכי בנין חוץ מפסוק זה שהוא צורך שלחן גבוה ואינו אומר חטים ללחם הפנים וכבשים לתמידין ועצים למערכה וי״ל ששלשתן צורך בנין הן שמן המשחה שבו נמשחו ונתקדשו כל כלי המשכן וקטרת נמי שכן דרך מלכים שמבשמין להם הבית קודם שיכנסו לתוכה וכ״ש לפני ממ״ה הקב״ה וכן מצינו שעל ידי הקטרת שכינה נראית דכתיב וכסה ענן הקטרת וכתיב כי בענן אראה. ושמן למאור שכן דרך המלכים להדליק נר לפניהם קודם שיכנסו לבית ואע״ג דלאו לאורה הוא צריך מ״מ הוא כבוד של מעלה.

Parshas Terumah is about collecting what is needed to build the mishkan.  The difference between oil and other items is that the hadlakas hamenorah is part of the mitzvah of binyan ha'mishkan, not just an avodah done in the mishkan. A king's palace would be incomplete if it was a dark, uninviting building. The building itself would be missing an essential feature.

The notion also helps resolve a few problems with the Rambam's famous view (Bias Mikdash 9:7) that the menorah in the mikdash can be lit by a zar. Rishonin (e.g. Tos Yeshanim Yoma 24b) are bothered by the fact that the Torah refers to the lighting being done specifically by Aharon ha'kohen, not just anyone. Furthermore, as the Minchas Chinuch asks, if a zar lights the menorah, it would have to be done outside the heichel, in a place accessible to the zar. Wouldn't the menorah then have to be moved to its proper place next to the Shulchan? How can one fulfill the mitzah of hadlakah if it is done in the wrong place?

One can answer that the kiyum of hadlakas ha'menorah can in fact take place anywhere and be done by anyone. The fact that the menorah must be placed next to the shulchan is a din in binyan ha'mikdash, the structure of the bayis, not the mitzvah of lighting per se. Aharon's role was to ensure that the binyan ha'mikdash, as fulfilled through lighting, is done properly by seeing that the menorah is placed correctly.

This yesod helps explain a few chanukah halachos:

The Rambam, unlike just about all other Rishonim, holds that there was a mitzvah to light the menorah in the morning as well as in the afternoon. Rashba attacks this view. One of his questions is from the din that the first lighting of the menorah, the chinuch, must be done in the afternoon. If there is a mitzvah to light the menorah even in the morning, why can't the chinuch be done then?

The answer might be that the mitzvah of lighting in the morning is a din in binyan ha'mikdash, not a kiyum in the hadlakas ha'menorah itself.

This would also explain why we light chanukah menorah only at shekiya and not during the day. If we are commemorating the lighting which took place in the mikdash, why not light in the day as well, since according to Rambam the menorah in the mikdash was lit in the day as well as at night? R' Soloveitchik suggested that since שרגא בּטיהרא מאי אהני there is no "shem ner" on such a light (ayen sham for a different answer). This also explains the strange timing of menorah lighting. Usually mitzvos have to be done either during the day, i.e. from sunrise until sunset, or are done at night, i.e. after tzeis ha'kochavim. By ner chanukah we have the strange phenomenon of not lighting during the day, but, according to Rambam/GRA, not waiting for tzeis and true nightfall either to do the mitzvah. Instead, we light at shekiya, just as bein ha'shemashos starts. According the RYBS, the hesber is that there is a chovas ha'gavra is to light during the day, but we wait until it begins to get dark because otherwise the candle does not have a shem ner as it provides no benefit.

If lighting during the day is not a kiyum of the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah but rather a din in binayan mikdash, then question of why we don't light chanukah candles during the day does not get off the ground. Lighting the chanukah menorah commemorates the mitzvah of hadlakas ha'menorah in the mikdash that is connected with the miracle of the oil, not the binyan ha'mishkan.

This same yesod helps explain an anomoly in the text of al ha'nissim.  Although we omit any mention of the nes of the oil in al ha'nissim, there is one line at the end about "hidliku neiros b'chatzros kodshecha." If Chazal wanted to include the nes of the menorah in our tefilah, why sneak it in in passing and not give it a more prominent mention? R' Avraham Gurewicz, R"Y of Gateshead, writes that this line is not about the lighting as a kiyum of hadlakas ha'menorah. The context has to do with the Chashmonaim repairing the mikdash -- "ti'haru es mikdashecha..." That line has to do with the lighting as a kiyum of binyan ha'mikdash, which is the theme of the tefilah.

Coming back to Ramban's question that we started with, it is davka hadlakas neiros which is the "consolation prize" and not avodas ha'korbanos because Hashem wanted to give Aharon a chance to contribute to binyan ha'mikdash, and it is the mitzvah of hadlakas ha'menorah, not avodas ha'korbanos, which fills that role of being a kiyum in binyan ha'mikdash.  

the "minhag" of adding a bit of water to the cup before putting in the oil for your chanukah menorah

I don't buy those pre-filled cups with oil for my menorah.  I do things the old fashioned way and pour in the oil myself.  Unlike the pre-filled cups, which to the best of my recollection, are completely filled with oil, I always add a little water to the bottom of the cup.  

I never thought of this as a minhag; I thought it's just common sense because I don't want the fire to burn down and char and blacken the cup.  Lo and behold, take a look at this Baal haTurim and the notes in the Oz v'Hadar Mikraos Gedolos:

Baal haTurim writes that the three wells which Yitzchak dug correspond to 1) the Babylonian exile; 2) the complaints of Haman against the Jews who were trying to rebuild the Mikdash; 3) the Greeks, who tried to prevent us from fulfilling the mitzvah of p'ru u'revu by banning the use of mikveh.  

The Greeks failed, says Baal haTurim, because a miracle happened and a spring emerged in every person's home so that each person had a personal mikveh to use.  This is why, says the Imrei Emes, the text of the bracha is "she'asah nisim," in the plural, not nes, in the singular.  The bracha commemorates not only the nes of the oil on Chanukah, but also the nes of the mikveh (but we say the bracha on Purim as well?  You got me.)  

And this is why there is a minhag to add a little water to the bottom of the cup before you fill it with oil.  It's not just to prevent the cup from being blackened, but ir's an allusion to this miracle of the mikveh.

celebration or commemoration?

Why do we have a mitzvah of mishteh and seudah on Purim but not on Chanukah?  I think most people are familiar with the Levush's answer that on Purim, the threat to Jewish life was irrespective of religious commitment.  Even if someone had agreed to convert, Haman would not have spared them.  Since the threat was one of physical annihilation, the celebration is a physical one of eating and drinking.  On Chanukah, the Greeks did not want to kill us; they wanted to force us to abandon Judaism.  Had we given up Shabbos, milah, Torah, they would have left us alone.  Since the threat was to our spiritual lives, the celebration focusses on the spiritual alone, without the physical party.

The Taz does not like this answer.  גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורגו (Bamaidar Rabbah 21, quoted in Rashi).  Spiritual danger is far greater than physical danger.  Therefore, says the Taz, since on Chanukah we faced spiritual danger, we should make the bigger party then.  On Purim we faced the lesser threat of physical danger, and so therefore it should warrant a smaller celebration.  So why is it ונהפּוך הוא?  

Taz answers that instead of looking at the threat, we need to look at the salvation, the miracle.  Everybody was aware of what Haman planned to do and everybody celebrated his defeat and our lives being spared, so we in turn make a big party.  The miracle of the oil for menorah was different.  We got to do a mitzvah properly that we otherwise might have missed out on, and so we have a spiritual celebration, but that does not generate the same public excitement and merriment that having one's life spared does.

R' Shimshon Pincus (Tiferes Torash siman 19) explains the nekudas ha'machlokes here very nicely. According to the Taz, Chanukah and Purim are days of celebration, yamin tovim derabbanan.  The question is why the "shiur" of celebration is greater on one than the other, and so the Taz comes up with a sevara.  According to Levush, Chanukah and Purim are days of commemoration.  The days are inherently ymei chol, but there is a chovas ha'gavra to commemorate the nes.  גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורגו is not relevant because גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורג speaks to what the threat was, not what the nes was.  On Purim, the nes was physical salvation, so it gets commemorated with a physical party; on Chanukah, it was spiritual salvation, and so there is no physical celebration involved.  

Tos shita on mehadrin min ha'mehadrin - a question that has me stumped

The gemara writes that there are three possible levels to fulfill the mitzvah of neiros Chanuka:

1) ner ish u'beiso - one candle lit every night for the entire household

2) mehadrin - every person in the household lights one candle each night 

3) mehadrin min ha'mehadrin - add one candle every night.  Tos' and the Rambam disagree whether this level builds on the level of mehadrin, i.e. every person in the house lights and adds an additional candle every night, or whether this level builds on ner ish u'beiso, i.e. one person in the household lights and adds an additional candle each night

Tosfos argues that the latter interpretation must be correct.  The whole point of adding the additional candle each night is to demonstrate which night of Chanuka it is.  If every person in the household lights, there is no way the viewer can figure that out.  If, for example, you see 4 candles burning in the window, does that mean it's the first night of Chanuka and there are 4 people in the house each lighting, or does that mean it is the second night of Chanuka and two people are lighting, or is it the fouth night of Chanuka and there is only one person lighting?  The only way the lighting can reflect the day is if we assume one and only one person in the household lights.

I'm not interested in how to answer this question and justify our minhag.  I'm interested in how minei u'bei Tosfos makes sense.  Even if mehadrin min ha'mehadrin means only one person per household lights, still, how can I know what night of Chanuka it is?  Remember, there are three possible levels of fulfilling the mitzvah.  If I see 4 candles burning in the window, how do I know that that home lit mehadrin min ha'mehadrin and it therefore is day 4 of Chanuka?  Maybe in that household they only keep the mehadrin level.  Mehadrin means every member of the house lights one candle.  4 candles might means four people at home, each lighting one candle like the mehadrin custom?  Tos' hasn't solved their own problem!

I've learned this sugya multiple times over the years and for whatever reason, this never occurred to me before.  It's a simple pshat question and I am stumped.  I keep thinking I must be missing something, but I've asked a few people and so far no one has come up with a real answer.  To say that Tos' assumed everyone lit mehadrin min ha'mehadrin seems like a big dochak.  The gemara gives three levels and Tos' comment has to be taken in that context. Anyone have a good idea?  

kislev - month of geulah

Meant to post for Rosh Chodesh Kislev, but better late than never and it's good the whole month anyway.

The navi Zecharya (ch 7) raised the following shayla in the month of Kislev:

וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ הָיָה דְבַר⁠ ה׳ אֶל⁠ זְכַרְיָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִי בְּכִסְלֵו.

 וַיִּשְׁלַח בֵּית⁠ אֵל שַׂרְאֶצֶר וְרֶגֶם מֶלֶךְ וַאֲנָשָׁיו לְחַלּוֹת אֶת⁠ פְּנֵי ה׳

 לֵאמֹר אֶל⁠ הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית⁠ ה׳ צְבָקוֹת וְאֶל⁠ הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הַאֶבְכֶּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי הִנָּזֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים.

Would he have to fast the upcoming Tisha b'Av?

Radak provides the context:

כי עדיין לא היו מאמינים בבנין הבית מפני האויבים שהשביתו את המלאכה כמה שנים ועתה אף על פי ששמעו כי היו בונים היו קטני אמנה ולא היו רוצים לעלות מבבל כי לא היו מאמינים שישלם בנין הבית ויעמד מפני הצרים אותם ושאלו אם יצומו בתשעה באב כמו שעשו שבעים שנה

The rebuilding of Beis haMikdash had started, but the enemies of the Jewish people had caused work stoppages.  It looked far from certain that the project would ever come to completion.  The vast majority of the Jewish people remained in exile in Bavel, waiting to see what would happen, uncertain as to what the future might hold.  

Zecharya wanted to know whether the fact that there was at least something of a Mikdash standing was enough cause to suspend the fast of Tisha b'Av.

Why did he raise this question in Kislev, months and months before it would be relevant l'maaseh?  Why not wait until the three weeks, or some other time closer to Av? 

The Midrash writes at the beginning of Behaaloscha that Aharon was upset because he was left out of the chanukas haMishkan, as all the nesiim brought gifts and korbanos and he did not participate.  Hashem responded that his portion is even greater, as he is tasked with lighting the menorah.  

Ramban explains that the lighting the menorah in our homes in celebration of nes Chanukah is a continuation of the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah.  Aharon's mitzvah of menorah thus continues even after the churban, while the mitzvah of offering korbanos is no longer practiced.  

R' Noson Gestetner writes that when Kislev rolled around, Zecharya sensed the future holiday of Chanukah that would come in 200 years.  Even though he knew there would be a churban ha'bayis of the second Mikdash, he saw in Chanukah a spark of geulah, a spark of the Mikdash that would remain, as the mitzvah of menorah is still with us.  Since the geulah of Bayis Sheni would not completely be extinguished, he wondered whether Tisha b'Av would still be necessary. 

zos chanukah; a beautiful diyuk from R' BenTzion Mutzafi that teaches us how to settle arguments

1) Today is the last day of Chanukah, known as "zos Chanukah."  Rashi in parshas Matos comments on the pasuk at the beginning of that parsha  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ that משה נתנבא בכה אמר ה׳ כחצות הלילה וגו׳ (שמות י״א:ד׳), והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר, מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר.  What's the difference whether the word כה or the word זה is used?  Maharal explains in Gur Aryeh: 

ונראה, כי ענין זה הוא תולה בנבואת משה רבינו עליו השלום ומדריגתו, כי הנבואות הם שתים; האחת הוא שנתנבאו בה כל הנביאים על מעשה ה׳ והנהגתו בעולם, לכל אשר נעשה בעולם. והמדריגה של משה היה כולל זה, וכולל גם כן להתנבאות על המצות והתורה שצוה לו השם יתברך מפיו. וזאת המדריגה היא אינו דומה לראשונה, כי המדריגה הראשונה בדברים אשר יחדש ויעשה בעולם, והמדריגה של משה רבינו עליו השלום היא התורה מה שהשם יתברך רוצה שיהיה נוהג תמיד בעולם מבלי שינוי, והוא סדר מציאות כללי בעולם. כי בתורה אשר נתן השם יתברך על ידי משה, סידר את ישראל בסדר כללי, לא בענינים המתחדשים בפרטים מן הסבה הראשונה, שזה אין המדריגה כל כך. 

The word זֶ֣ה means you can always point to the thing; it's axiomatic, true for all eternity, in all times and places. כה is what is true in a particular context, based on circumstance.  

וזאת התורה אשׂר שׂם משׂה.  Only Moshe had the level of nevuah of זה and not just כה that was needed to gives us זאת התורה , a Torah that is eternal.  

Chanukah is not just about what happened centuries ago when we needed to be saved from the Greeks.  זאת חנוכּה, it is an eternal truth, it's about the salvation of the Jewish people in all times and in all places, now as well and then.

2) R' BenTzion Mutzafi has a beautiful diyuk in Rashi in our parsha.  The parsha tells us that Yosef imprisoned Shimon and allowed the other brothers to return home (42:24).   וַיִּקַּח מֵאִתָּם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן וַיֶּאֱסֹר אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם  Rashi explains that it was only in the other brother's presence, לְעֵינֵיהֶם, that Shimon was locked up, but once the brothers were gone, Yosef released him and gave him food and drink לא אסרו אלא לעיניהם, וכיון שיצאו, הוציאו ומאכילו ומשקו.  We understand that Yosef would release Shimon from jail once the coast is clear, but why does Rashi add that Yosef also fed him and cared for him?  Why are those details important and deserving of mention here?  Rashi is based on the Midrash: רַבִּי חַגַּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר לְעֵינֵיהֶם אֲסָרוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לָהֶם הָיָה מַאֲכִילוֹ וּמַשְׁקוֹ מַרְחִיצוֹ וְסָכוֹ.  I am not sure why Rashi cut off the last words מַרְחִיצוֹ וְסָכוֹ, but the point remains the same.  Furthermore, did Yosef really need to be personally involved?  Didn't Yosef, as the head of Egypt, have servants who could take care of preparing the food, or bathing Shimon?  Later in the parsha when Yosef hosts all the brothers, the Torah tells us that Yosef told others prepare the food  וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ בֵּיתוֹ הָבֵא אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַבָּיְתָה וּטְבֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן כִּי אִתִּי יֹאכְלוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים בַּצׇּהֳרָיִם, so why not here as well?   

We learned 2 years ago a yesod from R"Y Salanter, which the Netziv develops as well, on the pasuk (Mishlei 17:13)  מֵשִׁיב רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה לֹא תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ.  The way most people understand that pasuk is not to repay a kindness by doing wrong to someone.  The Netziv, however, says that's not the pshat.  The idea of 'hashava' means returning something owed, like the Torah says in the case of theft, "v'heishiv es ha'gezeilah" -- you stole something, you have to repay it back.  If someone does you a favor, you obviously don't owe it to them to wrong them in return.  What the pasuk is talking about, explains Netziv, about is a case where someone wronged you.  In that case, tit-for-tat, you do owe them back wrongdoing, just like they gave you.  You might even think that this is the way to end the fight -- you wronged me, I wrong you back, now we're even and life goes on.  But it doesn't work that way.  What happens in that case is that the first party sees it as an escalation and responds in kind, and the cycle continues.   

The way to settle things is instead of responding to wrongdoing in kind, respond by doing a kindness.  Do something good for the other person who harmed you and their animosity will melt away and that will mend the broken bridges. 

This is what Mishlei is teaching us: you might think that מֵשִׁיב רָעָה, repaying a wrongdoing tit-for-tat in kind, evening the score, is the way to settle things תַּחַת טוֹבָה, instead of following this strategy of doing kindness; kah mashma lan לֹא תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ, if you do that, the fight will never end.  The score will never be perceived as even and the argument will continue.

Shimon was one of the ringleaders in selling Yosef. Therefore, Yosef went out of his way to personally do good by him.  Yosef wanted to settle the quarrel and have peace.

R' Chaim's chiddush re: al ha'nissim said alongside yaaleh v'yavo instead of in its proper place

The Pninei Halacha from the Mir Yeshiva quotes the following shayla that R' Moshe Shapira heard the GRI"Z quote b'shem R' Chaim: someone in their davening on Rosh Chodesh Teives accidentally said al ha'nissim alongside yaa'eh v'yavo before v'techezena eineinu... and wanted to know whether they have to repeat shmoneh esrei or not.  R' Chaim told the person to ask his FIL R' Raphael Shapira, and to mention that he holds that yaaleh v'yavo is in place of retzei.  

R' Raphael Shapira paskened that since the person said yaaleh v'yavo first and then al ha'nissim, he has to repeat.  Had it been the other way around, he would be yotzei.

The whole thing sounds like a riddle.  The shayla was whether al ha'nissim is a hefsek, but R' Chaim's response was about yaaleh v'yavo being part of the bracha of retzei.  Somehow that led R Raphael Shapira to say it depends on what was said first, with no further explanation.

What's going on?

Here is the mehaleich that they put together to unravel the conundrum:

Since al ha'nissim is not part of the bracha of retzei, it would seem to be a hefsek (see O.C. 108).  

As a result of the hefsek, it is as if the beginning of the bracha is cut off from the end.  

If in theory the end of the bracha could stand on its own, then this would be like an interruption in between two brachos, which b'dieved does not negate the entire shmoneh esrei.  

However, since v'techezena... onward does not reflect the theme of avodah or korbanos, which is the essence of the bracha, it therefore cannot stand on its own -- it's an end with no beginning.  The entire shmoneh esrei is therefore lost.

What R' Chaim was mechadesh to his FIL was that in the case where you say yaaleh v'yavo, things are different. See Rashi (Shabbos 24a) who writes אומר מעין המאורע בעבודה. לבקש רחמים על ישראל ועל ירושלים להשיב עבודה למקומה לעשות קרבנות היום:  Yaaleh v'yavo does reflect the essence of the bracha.  So long as you can attach it to v'techenza... onward, you have a complete bracha.  

Therefore, concluded R' Raphael Shapira, if al ha'nissim was recited first, you are left with yaaleh v'yavo + v'techezena... and have a complete bracha and are yotzei.  If, however, yaaleh v'yavo was recited first and then al ha'nissim, it creates a break in the middle of a bracha, in which case the bracha is lost and shmoneh esrei must be repeated. 

Kislev and the tribe of Gad

Shem m'Shmuel writes (Chayei Sarah 5672) that if you pair the order in which the  shevatim were born with the months of the year, the month of Kislev connects with the tribe of Gad who was blessed with courage and might:

הנה לפי סדר לידת השבטים מתיחס חודש כסלו לגד,..., והנה גד מתברך מיאע"ה וממרע"ה בגבורה ובניצוח האויבים, גד גדוד יגודנו והוא יגוד עקב, ברוך מרחיב גד כלביא שכן וטרף זרוע אף קדקוד, והרמב"ן במדבר הביא מדרש בענין דגל ראובן, ראובן בתשובה וגד בגבורה ושמעון באמצע לכפר עליו

This is why the Chashmonaim were victorious in this month, and IY"H we will emerge victorious in our current battle.

I would suggest that there is another connection as well.  We read in Zos haBracha (33:21) regarding Gad  וַיַּ֤רְא רֵאשִׁית֙ ל֔וֹ כִּי־שָׁ֛ם חֶלְקַ֥ת מְחֹקֵ֖ק סָפ֑וּן.  Rashi explains

 ראה ליטול לו חלק בארץ סיחון ועוג, שהיא ראשית כיבוש הארץ, כי ידע אשר שם בנחלתו חלקת שדה קבורת מחוקק הוא משה   

Gad wanted their portion of land to be in Eiver haYarden because they knew this would be the burial place of Moshe.  It's not that Gad knew that a burial plot near the Rebbe was worth a premium price.  When we read in Matos that וּמִקְנֶ֣ה׀ רַ֗ב הָיָ֞ה לִבְנֵ֧י רְאוּבֵ֛ן וְלִבְנֵי־גָ֖ד, what it means, says R' Bunim m'Peshischa, is that Reuvain and Gad had a kinyan, an attachment, to the רַ֗ב, to Moshe Rabeinu.  They did not want to leave his presence even after Moshe was no longer in this world. (I don't know how you read the whole rest of that parsha that seems to focus on the sheep and cattle, unless maybe it was all a smokescreen.)  It is this powerful connection to Moshe Rabeinu that Gad had which is the antidote to להשׁכּיחם תורתך, the aim of Yavan. 

lomdus: maror and bracha on a partial mitzvah

1) Rosh writes that we eat a k'zayis maror because we say a bracha of "al achilas maror" and the shiur achila is a k'zayis.  Shaagas Aryeh asks why the Rosh needs to use the nusach of the bracha to prove his case.  Why doesn't he just say that since the mitzvah is to eat and achila=k'zayis, that must be the shiur?  

R' Hershel Shachter in his Eretz Tzvi suggests that the mitzvah of maror is not a mitzvah of achila, but is a mitzvah of making a zecher l'mikdash to the maror that was eaten with the korban pesach; therefore, absent the nusach ha'bracha, maybe a k'zayis would not be required.

(See Aruch haShulchan 477:3 -- 

מיהו בשני בני אדם שאין להם רק כזית אחד מצה, נראה דמוטב שיאכל אחד מהם כזית ויקיים המצוה כתיקונו, משיאכל כל אחד חצי זית. וכיצד יעשו יטילו גורל.

וזה פשוט שאם יש להם שני זיתים – יאכל כל אחד כזית ל"המוציא" שהיא עיקר המצוה, ולא יאכלו אפיקומן שהוא לזכר בעלמא. ואם יש להם שלושה זיתים – יאכל כל אחד כזית ל"המוציא", והכזית השלישי יחלקו ביניהם לאפיקומן, דלזכר די בחצי זית בשעת הדחק.)

I am not so sure this chiddush fits the shitas haRambam (Ch"M 7:8):

בזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן אחר שמברך המוציא לחם חוזר ומברך על אכילת מצה. ומטבל מצה בחרוסת ואוכל. וחוזר ומברך על אכילת מרור ומטבל מרור בחרוסת ואוכל. ולא ישהה אותו בחרוסת שמא יבטל טעמו. וזו מצוה מדברי סופרים. וחוזר וכורך מצה ומרור ומטבל בחרוסת ואוכלן בלא ברכה זכר למקדש.

Notice that the Rambam calls maror מצוה מדברי סופרים but calls koreich  זכר למקדש.  Seems to be two different gedarim.

2) The Brisker Rav is quoted as explaining that the Rosh holds that there is in fact no independent chiyuv of eating a k'zayis of maror even when there is a beis ha'mikdash.  The mitzvah is "al matzos u'merorim yochluhu," to eat the korban pesach with side dishes of matzah and maror.  

Rambam paskens (7:6):

 ואחר כך כורך מצה ומרור כאחת ומטבל בחרוסת ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת מצות ומרורים ואוכלן. ואם אכל מצה בפני עצמה ומרור בפני עצמו מברך על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו

According to the Brisker Rav, it comes out that even though there is no mitzvah of achilas maror in its own right -- it is just part of the larger mitzvah of "al matzos u'merorim yochluhu" -- one can still recite a bracha on achilas maror.  We see from here that you can recite a bracha on what is only a partial mitzvah.

Birchas Avraham brings two additional proofs to this idea:

a) Tos and BH"G have a machlokes whether you can continue counting sefira if you miss counting one day.  Minchas Chinuch explains that the issue hinges on whether the 49 days of sefira are one mitzvah, in which case if you miss a day you are done, or whether they are 49 independent mitzvos, each day a mitzvah in its own right.

Even though BH"G holds all 49 days are one big mitzvah, we still recite a bracha on counting each individual day, on each part of the mitzvah.

b) If you say the bracha "al netilas lulav" and then pick up the 4 minim each one at a time, you are yotzei.  Rama in Hil Sukka (651:12) writes that if you interrupt in the middle, you would recite a new bracha on whatever min you have left to pick up, e.g. if you picked up 3 of the minim and then interrupted what you were doing before picking up the aravos, you would say a bracha of "al netilas aravah."  Even though the 4 minim are one mitzvah, you can say a bracha on doing part of the mitzvah independently.

I would add one additional case to this discussion.

c) R' Akiva Eiger (Tinyana 13) has a safeik whether one can still recite the brachos on ner chanukah if one remembered to do so only in the middle of lighting.  Many explain the nekudas ha'safeik revolves around whether the additional candles lit for the sake of hidur are part of the mitzvah of hadlaka or whether hidur is its own kiyum.  

Even if hidur is not an independent kiyum but is part of the mitzvah of hadlaka, I would think that it is at best a partial kiyum hamitzvah.  RAK"E must assume, like these other sources indicate, that one may recite a bracha on a partial kiyum.

it's all one dream

Why was Yosef able to recognize his brothers but they unable to recognize him?  The Sanz-Klausenberger Rebbe, a tzadik who, as a Holocaust survivor, was no stranger to hardship, explains that holiness has a way to etching itself on a person's face.  All 12 of the shevatim were tzadikim, but none of them had suffered the way Yosef had suffered in prison, none of them had been challenged with the trials and tests Yosef had been challenged with, none of them had overcome what Yosef had overcome.  Those experiences gave him an air of holiness that was beyond them, and beyond what they could imagine the brother they last saw as a teenager would attain.

This same idea is reflected in the name of sheivet Dan.  The 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim, and the incoming month of Teives, according to some, corresponds to sheivet Dan.  Why was Dan given that name?  When Bilha, who Rachel had given to Yaakov as a surrogate because she was unable to have children, had a child, Rachel named him Dan because

דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי. דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ״ט:ל״א): וְרָחֵל עֲקָרָה. דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ל׳:ו׳): וַיִּתֶּן לִי בֵּן.(Midrash) 

It is not just being validated ,  דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי, that Rachel celebrates in the name.  She also celebrates her prior suffering, דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי.  The fact that she did not have it easy caused her to grow, and that was the catalyst for her eventually having children.

Like we said last week, ביקש יעקב לישב שלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף, the רוגזו של יוסף is not a punishment, but it's a means to an end. True שלוה does not come from avoiding difficulties; it comes from achieving success in dealing with them.  

Yosef stresses to Pharoah the the dream of the skinny cows and the skinny sheaves and the fat cows and fat sheaves, it's all one dream, חלום אחד הוא.  L'mai nafka minah?  What difference does it make if it's one dream or two dreams or four different dreams?

Sefas Emes (5632) teaches:

חלום פרעה שנא' בתורה וגם כתיב חלום אחד הוא. נראה שיש ללמוד ממנו לעבודתו ית' שהוא ממקום האחדות והפנימיות.

We think of the good parts of life as a like a pleasant dream, and the problems are like a nightmare.  Two separate experiences.  Not true --  חלום אחד הוא.  The latter goes hand in hand with the former.

The Ch' haRI"M, like we once discussed, explains the name of the month Teives from the words "hatavas ha'neiros."  When we think of Chanukah what comes to mind is the beautiful light of the menorah.  In order to have that light someone needs to stick their finger in and clean out the greasy old wicks and set everything up for lighting. דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי.  That too is part of the lighting, חלום אחד הוא.  

kindling a fire: hil shabbos vs lighting a menorah

A long time ago we discussed R' Chaim Brisker's question on the Midrash Tanchuma that says that in the days of R' Chanina Sgan haKohanim the menorah miraculously burned from Rosh haShana to Rosh haShana.  How then did they fulfill the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah?  R' Chaim posed this question to to the Imrei Emes when they met.  The Imrei Emes responded by quoting the din (Beitzah 32) that if you add a drop of oil to a burning lamp you are chayav on shabbos for mav'ir.  Based on this, even if menorah continued to burn on its own, the kohanim could have fulfilled the mitzvah of hadlakah by simply adding a drop of oil.

R' Chaim was supposedly very taken with this answer, but R' Wahrman's in his She'eiris Yosef (vol 3) raises an objection.  The Rosh writes that since hadlakah oseh mitzvah there has to be enough oil present in the menorah at the time of lighting to burn for the required shiur.  If not, one has to put out the menorah and relight.  Why should this be necessary?  If adding oil counts as an act of hadlakah, all one should need to do is add the needed amount of extra oil that addition itself should count as a new hadlakah, one now done with the proper amount of oil present!

R' Wahrman asks the question on R' Chaim/the Imrei Emes, but I chanced across seeing that the Chidusehi Ben Aryeh, R' Gershon Edelstein's grandfather, flips things around and asks the question on the Rosh.  How did the Rosh deal with the gemara in Beitzah?  It is a longish piece, but the yesod that he tries to develop is that there is a difference between the definition of the melacha of mav'ir with respect to hil shabbos and the definition of mav'ir/hadlakah with respect to menorah, or other areas of halacha.  Adding oil is a melacha of mav'ir, but not more than that.  You would think that this is classic Brisker thinking -- you have what appears to be the same concept of mav'ir in different contexts, but tease out that it's really tzvei dinim chalukim b'yesodam.  That's what makes the fact that R' Chaim applauded the answer of the Imrei Emes so interesting -- instead of distinguishing between the sugyos, it lumps the concepts together into one.  

haste makes waste, Reuvain's response to the mob, and the idea behind the minhag of Chanukah gelt

 וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ׃

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃

Why do we need the words וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮  in the second pasuk when the first pasuk already introduced Reuvain as the speaker, וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן...  וַיֹּ֕אמֶר opening the quotaton marks, if you will, before the words  לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ?  

Netziv explains that the first pasuk was an exclamation, a shout meant to cause everyone to stop and pay attention. Only once the momentum was slowed could the conversation and deliberation which started with the second pasuk, take place.

Seforno adds: ויצלהו מידם – במניעת הפועל הפתאומי המוליד ״מעות לא יוכל לתקן״ (קהלת א׳:ט״ו), שיפול בכמוהו גם הצדיק לפעמים, כענין ראובן עם בלהה, כאמרו ״פחז כמים״ (בראשית מ״ט:ד׳)  Reuvain was the one who spoke out in this way because it was Reuvain himself who knew more than anyone the danger of acting precipitously!  Yaakov blamed Reuvain's sin in moving his bed on ״פחז כמים, Reuvain's haste to take action.

When Reuvain later returns to the pit to pull Yosef out and sees that Yosef is gone, he says in anguish  הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃.  (See Friday's post for one interpretation of these words.)  Abarbanel writes that Reuvain could not have been protesting against the sale of Yosef here.  Rashi earlier interprets the words לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃ above not as Reuvain's words, but as ruach hakodesh testifying as to Reuvain's intentions.  Sifsei Chachamim explains that Rashi must be correct: דקשה לרש״י היאך יתכן לומר שראובן עצמו אמר שישליכו אותו לבור כדי שהוא ישיב אותו אל אביו דאם היו יודעין לא היו מניחין את ראובן  The brothers would surely have rejected any suggestion to simply bring Yosef home and leave him alone, so Reuvain would dare not have voiced his plan aloud.  Therefore, he is not the speaker.  So too in our pasuk, according to Abarbanel, had Reuvain  been protesting what had happened to Yosef, it would give away the game and reveal that everything he had said earlier was merely a ruse, so this cannot be what he meant. 

What then was Reuvain's intent?

Abarbanel explains that Reuvain was saying to his brothers that if they can act so cruelly and plot to destroy Yosef, whom he calls here a יֶּ֣לֶד, just a child, someone immature, someone not fully aware of his actions and words, then what hope is there for Reuvain himself, the eldest?  How can he live among them knowing that if they can turn against innocent Yosef, they can just as easily if not more easily come to turn on him as well?

Oh what a lesson for modern times when various "woke" rabble rousers one day are the leaders of the pack driving the mob against some innocent victim only to find themselves a day later pursued and harasses by the very same mob.  Only a fool tries to stay one step ahead of the hungry alligator that eventually will consume everyone, but we live in a generation of fools.

Lastly a note on Chanukah: What is this minhag of Chanukah gelt all about?  My wife suggested as follows: the Rambam explains that the holiday of Chanukah is about the restoration of Jewish sovreignty.   וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתים שנים עד החורבן השני:  One of the rights of a king, of a government, is to coin money.  The gemara (Meg 14) writes that Avigail told David that he has no right to judge someone as a moreid b'malchus yet because  אמרה לו עדיין שאול קיים ולא יצא טבעך בעולם .  We once heard from R' Yosef Carmel, Rosh Kollel of Eretz Chemdah Institute, that לא יצא טבעך  means that David's coins were not yet in circulation -- only a true king can mint and circulate his own coins.  There are coins that come from the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion because one of the ways that Bar Kochba showed that Israel was no longer subject to Roman authority was by minting his own money.  Perhaps the Chashmonaim did the same when they won their independence from the Greeks, and Chanukah gelt, chocolate coins and the like, are a zeicher to this statement of independence.

the holiday of preparation

On Chanukah we lein the parsha that speaks about the gifts the nesi'im brought for chanukhas ha'mishkan, but those gifts were actually brought in Nisan, when the mishkan was dedicated, not now.  Why is this the reading chosen for Chanukah?

In last week's parsha we read how Yosef instructed his household to prepare for the meal he would eat with the shevatim, וטבח טבח והכן.  It seems to be an unnecessary detail -- just tell us they ate together, who cares about the instructions to the staff to prepare? -- yet the Torah goes out of its way to mention it.  According to one view in Midrash the preparations here are preparations for Shabbos.  You can't just waltz into Shabbos; there is a mitzvah on Friday to prepare.  

It's probably not a coincidental that the letters of  טבח והכן spell out chanukah.  According to the Midrash even though the inauguration of the mishkan took place in Nisan, it was finished on 25 Kislev; everything was prepared and ready to go, including the gifts of the nesi'im.  Nisan was like kabbalas Shabbos; what took place in Kislev was like the mitzvah of hachanah for Shabbos.

We don't have a beis ha'mikdash, we don't have the menorah of the mikdash to light.  But, says the Sefas Emes (last section on Chanukah), we can still prepare ourselves to light, we can yearn to light.  וטבח טבח והכן, the mitzvah we have is to make hachanos, to prepare for what we hope the future will bring.  

birchas ha'roeh

If for some reason a person cannot light menorah, there is a takanah that he can recite the bracha of she'asah nisim when he sees someone else's menorah burning - birchas ha'roeh.  B'pashtus, this bracha is a hoda'ah on the miracle of chanukah.  Even if a person cannot do the actual mitzvah of lighting and recite the birchas hamitzvah on the hadlakah, he still can recite this birchas ha'shevach on the nes.

When we light menorah we recite this same bracha of she'asah nisim.  Yesh lachkor: is this the same birchas ha'shevach on the nes that is recited by someone who cannot light, or does the fact that it is recited while lighting link it to the birchas ha'mitzvah on the hadlakah?

It could be that this issue hinges on a dispute between Rama and Mes Sofrim.  Rama paskens that all the brachos -- l'hadlik ner, she'asah nisim, she'hechiyanu -- should be recited before the hadlaka.  Mes Sofrim writes that only the bracha of l'hadlik ner is recited before the lighting; the other brachos are recited afterwards.  

A birchas hamitzah always has to be recited over l'asiyasan, before the mitzvah.  Since Rama requires that all the brachos ideally be said over l'asiyasan, it seems to indicate that all the brachos, including she'asah nisim, are linked to the mitzvah of hadlakah.  According to Mes Sofrim, the bracha of she'asah nisim stands on it's own; whether you are not lighting and just seeing someone else's candles or whether you are lighting and seeing your own candles, it is the same birchas ha'shevach.  

The Rishonim debate whether a traveler who has someone lighting for him at home, e.g. the person's wife, recites a birchas ha'roeh or not.  If the bracha is purely a birchas ha'shevach, then the fact that someone else lit in the person's home should not impinge on their obligation to give hoda'ah for the nes.  But if the she'asah nisim on lighting is like a birchas ha'mitzvah, then when the person's wife lit, she was already motzi him in the lighting and all the brachos.  

So far so good.  Now for the fly in the ointment:

R' Akiva Eiger (Shu"t, MhT #13) discusses whether someone who forgot to say the brachos on ner chanukah before lighting can do so afterwards.  Lichorah, this should depend on the two sides of our chakirah.  If she'asah nisim is treated like a birchas hamitzvah, then the opportunity was lost; if it is like the birchas ha'roeh and is shevach on the nes, then it can still be recited.  Yet R' Akiva Eiger writes that even according to the view  that holds that if a traveler's wife lights for him he is yotzei all the brachos, i.e. she'asah nisim in that context is like a birchas hamitzvah,  he can still say the bracha after lighting if he forgot to do so beforehand.  How do you get those two views to square together?

no obstacle too great

The miracle of ner chanukah is that even though there was not enough oil for eight days, it was not an obstacle to lighting.  So too in our times, writes the Sefas Emes (5631), even though we don't have a beis ha'mikdash, even though we don't have the menorah of the mikdash, it's not an obstacle either.  The light that shines from our menorah is the light of that hadlakah in the mikdash. 

Putting aside the whole discussion of why you need a nes chanukah when tumah hutra / dechuya b'tzibur and the kohanim could have lit the menorah with tamei oil, the Sefas Emes (5641) asks a more basic question: Hashem could just as easily have made it possible to find eight jugs of tahor oil as one.  Even if you need shem zayis tahor to light, there didn't have to be a nes.

He answers that from the perspective of fulfilling the mitzvah of hadlakah, ain hachi nami, there didn't have to be a miracle. Hashem made a miracle not because hadlakas ha'menorah required it, but rather because we, the Jewish people, required it.  We needed a reminder that, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your [Greek] philosophy."  A military victory is not enough to establish that, nor is political and religious control of the mikdash enough; there has a to be change in mindset, an acceptance that what teva says is possible or impossible is not the final word on the matter, at least not for us.  We needed a miracle to remind us of that.

mei'erev ad boker - tnai in the mitzvah of hadlakah or a new din?

The gemara (Menachos 89) derives from the words "mei'erev ad boker" that menorah needs to have 1/2 a lug of oil per ner so that it can burn the entire night.  

Is this a tnai in the chiyuv hadlakah, that unless there is enough oil one has not fulfilled the mitzvah to light the menorah, or is it a separate chiyuv, i.e. there is a chiyuv hadlakah to light the menorah, which we learn from "l'ha'alos ner tamid," and on top of that there is a new chiyuv of "mei'erev ad boker" to see to it that the menorah burns throughout the night?

Nafka mina: what if the menorah was originally lit with less oil, but the kohen added more oil later so the ner burned through the night?

If the shiur of 1/2 lug is a din in hadlakah, it's not a good hadlakah.  If it's a new din, then the hadlakah was good, and "mei'erev ad boker" is fulfilled so long as the ner burned until morning.

Tos Rosh (Shabbos 21) writes that when the Chashmonaim found that one jug of pure oil, they divided it into 8 portions to last 8 nights.  He then asks how they could do this -- don't you need 1/2 a lug to light?  Tos Rosh answers that that requirement is mandated only when possible, but is not m'akeiv b'dieved when there is no other way to light.

R' Noson Gestetner explains that the Tos Rosh holds like the second tzad of our chakirah, that there are two dinim, a din hadlakah and a separate din of mei'erev ad boker.  By dividing the oil into 8 parts there could be at least a kiyum of hadlakah on each night, even if that second kiyum of burning the entire night would not have been fulfilled if not for a miracle.

ha'neiros l'olam ya'iru

1) The Midrash Rabbah (parsha 22) writes that the episode of Kayin and Hevel -- the first time offerings were offered on a mizbeiach -- took place 50 days after creation.  50 days after 25 Elul = 25 Kislev = chanukas ha'mizbeiach. 

2) Ramban writes at the beginning of B'Ha'aloscha:

וראיתי עוד בילמדנו (תנחומא בהעלותך ה׳), וכן בבמדבר רבה (במדבר רבה ט״ו:ו׳): אמר לו הקב״ה למשה: לך אמור לאהרן: אל תתירא, לגדולה מזאת אתה מוכן, הקרבנות כל זמן שבית המקדש קיים הן נוהגין, אבל הנרות לעולם אל מול פני המנורה יאירו.

Sefas Emes writes that the word "olam" = "he'elem," that which is concealed.  The light of the menorah "l'olam ya'iru,"  can pierce the darkness of galus that covers and conceals ruchniyus.

hadlakas menorah as a kiyum of hodaah

The gemara tells the story we all know of the Chashmonaim finding a single jug of oil that miraculously burned for 8 days:

 מאי חנוכה דתנו רבנן בכ"ה בכסליו יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון שכשנכנסו יוונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים 

The next year, says the gemara, they declared a holiday.  You would expect that since this whole story is talking about oil and the menorah, the gemara would say that next year the the Chachamim instituted lighting menorah.  But that's NOT what it says:

לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה

Hallel and hodaah?  What about the takana to light menorah?

Rav Bakshi Doron in his sefer on Moadim answers that the hodaah Chazal are speaking of **is** the lighting of the menorah.  

The Rambam says this very clearly (Chanukah 4:12):

מצות נר חנוכה מצוה חביבה היא עד מאד וצריך אדם להזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח האל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה לנו.

Rambam quotes the halacha to be extra careful in lighting because the lighting is "shevach haK-l v'hodaah."  

Similarly, Rambam writes earlier (3:3)

ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת ימים האלו שתחלתן כ"ה בכסליו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס.

"Madlikin ba'hen neiros" is an extension of the takana of "simcha v'hallel."  The lighting is the means by which we give praise and thank Hashem for the miracle.

We say in neiros ha'lalu that "ain lanu l'hishtamesh ba'hem," we can't have hanaah from the candles not because they are huktzah l'miztvaso, but rather because "k'dei l'hodos u'lhallel l'shimcha ha'gadol," because we need to demonstrate that these candles the means of giving hallel to Hashem, not ordinary lights. 

There is a fascinating teshuvah from R' Shlomo Kluger (this is not quoted by R' Bakshi Doron -- it is in HaEleph Lecha Shlomo #114) in which he distinguishes between the "af hein ha'yu b'oso ha'nes" that obligates women in ner chanukah, megillah, and 4 kosos on pesach and the "af hein ha'yu b'oso ha'nes" of experiencing the nes of the yeridas ha'mon that creates the chiyuv of 3 seudos on shabbos.  In the former examples, the takanos were instituted to give hodaah for the nes.  Everyone, including women, is obligated to thank and praise Hashem.  The latter takanah is just a zecher to the mon, not hodaah, and therefore women are not obligated to have 3 seudos on Shabbos.  (This is quite a chiddush because not only do the Rishonim write that women *are* obligated in 3 seudos of shabbos, but the Ran says explicitly that the reason why is because "af hein ha'yu b'oso ha'nes."  You have to do a lot of explaining things away to accept R'Sh"K's chiddush.  To be fair, he was only trying to justify the common practice of women being lenient, not suggest this as a lichatchila.)  

Now that we laid the groundwork that hadlakas hamenorah is a kiyum of hodaah, here's Daughter #1's question: we say modim derabbanan and do not rely on hearing modim from the shat"z because you can't say thank you through shlichus -- thanks has to be a personal expression of gratitude.  So how is it that all the members of the family can be yotzei menorah with the lighting of the baal ha'bayis?  How can a guest be yotzei lighting through being mishtatef with a perutah?  If hadlakah is all about hodaah = giving thanks, why doesn't each individual have to light for him/herself?