Chanukkah To-Go 5774

You can visit their website here, to see previous years' entries.

Individual Articles download Rabbi Kenneth Auman - "From Darkness to Light" Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh - "Chanukah-The Chag of Torah SheB'al Peh" Rabbi Yosef Blau - "The Complex History of the Hashmonaim" Rabbi Joshua Flug - "Practical Halacha Supplement: Yemei Hallel V'Hoda'ah: The Recitation of Hallel and Al HaNissim on Chanukah" Rabbi David Pahmer - "Let There be Points of Light" Rabbi Ezra Schwartz - "My Chanuka while the Beit Hamikdash Stood" Professor Marcy Stern - "Zecharia's Prophecy: The Haftarah for Shabbos Chanukah" Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik - "God's Providence and the United States: A Thanksgiving Reader on Judaism and the American Idea"

The Miracle of Chanukkah

This I heard from my father. The miracle of Chanukkah is recorded in the gemara, in Shabbat 21b, as follows:

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 לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה

In English:

A Cruise of Olive Oil?

What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew²²  [commence] the days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden.²³  For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest,²⁴  but which contained sufficient for one day's lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel²⁵  and thanksgiving.²⁶

The Greeks made all the oil impure. The one cruse of oil was not impure, since the seal of the Kohen Gadol was still on it, unbroken.

However, the "problem" with this evidence for purity is that the cruse of oil could be rendered impure with maga or masa, touching or carrying. Even if the unbroken seal were upon it, how did they know that it was not impure from masa?

And that is the true miracle of Chanukkah -- that no one thought to ask that question!

Yeshiva University Chanukkah-to-Go, 5771 Edition

I just received this via email.

Click on the image below to download this year's YU Chanuka To-Go.

Also, here is a link to YU's site, where you can download the editions from previous years.

And, a run-down of this year's articles:

1. Rabbi Azarya Berzon - "Understanding the Miracles of Chanukah"
2. Rabbi Joshua Flug - "Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: Two Fundamentally Different Approaches to Chanukah"
3. Rabbi Moshe Lichtman - "Chanukah in Hashkafa and Halachah: Pninei Halacha on Chanukah"
4. Rabbi Yona Reiss - "My Chanukah"
5. Rabbi Michael Taubes - "Lighting Chanukah Candles in Shul"
6. Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner - "Chanukah's Pursuit of Beauty"
7. Rabbi Elie Weissman - "Chanuka: The Unheralded Sacrifice"
8. Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank - "The First Hanukah Bush: Entropy, Jewish History and the Meaning of Burning Without Consumption"
9. Collected Insights into Chanuka
10. Insights from Members of the Yeshiva University Torah miTzion Chicago Community Kollel
11. Insights from Members of the Yeshiva University Torah miTzion Beit Midrash Zichron Dov

Is Oil Better Than Wax Because It Burns Longer?

So was informally suggested to me. (See my earlier posts about which is more min hamuvchar.) But here is an interesting Darkei Moshe on the subject matter, which I found fascinating. (Note that this represents only some opinions on the matter. For a broader treatment, see the actual sources inside, and/or Aruch Hashulchan.)

First, the Tur. We see that after the zman elapses, one can blow it out, or make use of its light. (Also see this in the Rif, who is basing himself on the gemara.) The implication is that once one has fulfilled for the shiur, they no longer are nerot chanukkah. (Aruch Hashulchan writes that some have the custom not to blow them out, and if so, hold by it, but the minhag is his area is that they blew them out -- see last seif in that siman, 672.)

On the above Tur (note א), Rama writes the what is pictured to the right. Click on it -- or the above-linked PDF, to see it larger. To summarize, in the Hagahot Semak it is written that Rabbi Shimon said to make the wicks "long." What does this mean? The answer is that there is an opinion, when there was pirsumei nisa outside (as in the time of the gemara), there was a reason to make it last a specific length. But nowadays, when lighting inside, one can take tiny candles which will only burn for, say, a minute, and light them. So then it said in Hagahot Semak to make them "long," it merely meant longer than the tiny ones, such that they would last the required shiur. And he shows how this is mashma from the language there. And if one makes them burn longer, this is not for any need, and it is not even hiddur mitzvah, for after the appropriate shiur, they are permitted in benefit, and there is only hiddur mitzvah at the time of the mitzvah.

(One might counter that since one could light later and still fulfill, this is the time of the mitzvah. But his point, I believe, is that after the shiur, it has been fulfilled, and there is no more mitzvah or "time of the mitzvah" as regards the lighting of these candles.)

Still, see Aruch Hashulchan (again, last seif) who says to use long candles, because this is more noy. Thus, it is an issue of beauty, rather than of length.

So if we rely on this Rama, oil is no better than wax in this regard.

Note: Though I think candles are nicer, for reasons I went into in prior posts, none of this is intended halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Junior's Halachic Objections To His Candle Menorah

So Junior continues to be troubled by halachic problems cropping up in hadlakas neiros. Before, it was that I wasn't saying Adoshem and Elokeinu, as he had been taught in pre-K, but rather Adonai Eloheinu.

But more recently, he was troubled by other problems with his candle-menorah, which he built himself.

The first problem was that he had been taught that a kosher menorah has all the lights at the same level, not with one higher than the other. (He had a worksheet where he had to circle all the non-kosher menorahs.) And yet, ten minutes into the lighting, some candles were shorter than others, because different heat in different areas melted them at different rates. So he was upset that his menorah was not kosher.

My on-the-spot answer, to comfort him, was that the bottoms of the candles were all at the same level, even though the tops were not. (His uncle suggested a contraption which would automatically adjust the candles based on weight, so the tops instead would remain ordered.) And furthermore, hadlaka osah mitzvah, so at the time he lit they were all in order. He was not entirely persuaded, and I am not sure I am either.

I have not researched this halachic point sufficiently, but I did research it a bit further. Need they actually be at the exact same height. Halachic works discuss lighting candles for menorah, so they must have encountered this phenomenon at some point. Does anyone note this? I don't know.

But while I have seen many informal statements that the candles must be the same height when they are in their row (e.g. here and here), I do not see this at all in the Rama, in Mishnah Berurah, or in Aruch Hashulchan. Does anyone have any classic standard source for this requirement, or is it just a (possibly incorrect) extrapolation from what is stated.

What we do have is a statement that they should not be arranged in a circle, because that looks like a medurah (bonfire). And we have the Rama (and in Darkei Moshe and Maharil) saying that (by extension) ולכן יש לזהר להעמיד הנרות בשורה בשוה.

Looking in the Rama in Darkei Moshe, it becomes clear, in his citing of Maharil, and of his citing of Hagahot Maimoniyot citing Semak, that "in a row" is the opposite of in a circle. As Darkei Moshe cites, it was a case of echad yotzei veEchad nichnas, such that it was like a medurah. The idea here is that the lights were not in a row, in terms of depth, not in terms of height, and it was the varying depths that some people found problematic.

And this is how Beer Heitiv explains the word beShaveh in the Rama, as an issue of depth rather than of height.

From the wording of the Mishnah Brurah (seif katan 15), it really appears that he does not consider it to be non-kosher. Rather, it is almost like a gezeira. He writes היינו שלעשות אחד נכנס ואחד יוצא גם כן אינו כדאי שלא יבא לעשות כעיגול. The wording that it is not kedai, such that one does not come to make it in a circle, implies that that is just a way of ensuring this other end. And it is also clear from his words that he knows this means depth.

Meanwhile, the Aruch Hashulchan (the end of seif 12) also records the idea that it should be in a shura, which he also defines as depth -- אחד נכנס ואחד יוצא. But his reason is that someone should not think that each one is a davar bifnei atzmo.

But I do not see any definition of this as having varying heights. Perhaps this is explicit elsewhere where I haven't seen (and have not seen cited). Or perhaps it is an extrapolation. But is the extrapolation correct? With varying depths, it starts to approach being arranged in a circle, if that is indeed the concern (and indeed that is what it seems, looking at the early sources of this). But this will not be if the candles are on different levels, either at the top or at the bottom.

On the other hand, if the concern is like Aruch Hashulchan, that they look like each is a separate thing, then perhaps one could apply it here. But this type of concern is extremely subject to the metzius. See the discussion about lamps (lampa), and distance between one and the other, and whether there are concerns one we add a mitigating factor of partitions between lights, and so on and so forth. In a single chanukkiah, even if the bottoms were not lined up, perhaps it is clear that they all of one person, and do not look like a medurah. And certainly if the bottoms are lined up, and they are all in a row, but just the flames do not correspond to one another -- everyone knows that they are all of one person.

But if there is any source I am missing here -- e.g. discussions of the bottoms not lined up -- please comment, and help me out.

Junior's second problem was that despite putting more tiles to elevate the shamash, it ended up either parallel to the other candles, or even lower. He thought it always had to be higher. I told him lower was not a problem. I am not sure about when it is on the same level (again, because of varying heat levels causing varying melting rates; but also because you use the shamash to light, it is lit longer, and also melts faster because you hold it horizontally rather than vertically). But we gave a taller candle for the shamash, apart from the base differential, and the resulting menorah looked much nicer. Does anyone have any insights into this issue?

Note: Not intended halacha lemaaseh, but just exploring a halachic topic. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi for any practical guidance.

Why we should ban playing dreidel, pt ii

Continuing the previous post about gambling and dreidel playing, we have some further sources to present. Firstly, from the Zchus Avos blog, we have that playing cards and klipos is well connected. I do not believe that they are really well connected, on a spiritual level. If playing cards for money is problematic, it is because of halachic violations involved, or developing certain negative middot from the type of attitude one must take in playing cards. And whether or not the specific rabbonim believed their statements about klipot and connection to satan, etc., or whether this was a poetic way of expressing their opposition, in the end, at the least, the opposition is the same.

Thus, the Bnei Yissasschar found an appropriate gematria to satan, but one can easily come up with gematrias that fit. He knew to look for this gematria (and to choose this particular word of קרטן and switch the kuf and resh for the numerically equivalent sin) because he knew it was bad to do. But you obviously cannot argue that tennis is similarly forbidden because כדור טניס is the same gematria (359). And he knew that one could not argue that it is an appropriate way of having simchat Yom Tov on Chanukkah, because the same is the gematria of חג שמח. (The same Bnei Yissasschar speaks of mystical aspects of the dreidel.)

And connecting it to klipot -- how can one write a post on the subject without making the obvious connection between klafim (from klaf, parchments, thus playing cards) to klipot. Perhaps because it was so obvious. But it is best made overt. And when the words are the same, except for the feminine vs. masculine ending, is there to wonder that R' Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev made the connection and said that in each card there is a big klipah?

But moving on. Card play = bad. Dreidel = good, for the most part.

But dreidel is a fairly modern invention. To cite the seforim blog (Dan Rabinowitz), from 2005. After giving all sorts of mystical explanations for features of dreidels:

Despite all of these explanations, in truth, dreidel is not Jewish in origin. Rather, driedel is really the rather old game of teetotum. Teetotum, which uses a top with four sides and four letters is one and the same with dreidel. The letters that appear on the dreidel are really just the Hebrew letters that appear on a German or Yiddish teetotum, G, H, N, S. G= ganz (all), H halb (half), N nischt (nothing) and S schict (put). Teetotum dates back to at least the 16th century long before we have any Jewish allusions to dreidel(it was originally totum or top, but became TEEtotum due to the use of T for take all, on the top). The well-known depiction of children's games done by Brueghel in 16th century includes Teetotum(see here and here for the complete painting). The earliest Jewish mention of dreidel or the significance of it dates to the late 18th century.

The story connecting dreidel to the ruse of the Maccabis was first published in the book Minhagi Yeshurun, which was first published in 1890 (the name was changed to Otzar Kol Minhagi Yeshurin in the third edition, which is available online here from Hebrewbooks.org . The author included a nice picture of himself at the beginning, although he was a Rabbi in Pittsburgh at the turn of the twentieth century, he is holding a quill pen.) His source is a contemporary of his. [As an aside, although his explanation of dreidel is well-known he offers a similar explanation for playing cards on Chanukah, i.e. that the Maccabi did so. However, that one is not nearly as well know (sic).]

Since the time that blog post was published, many of the links have become defunct. Including the one to HebrewBooks.org, and a search could no longer locate that sefer at that site. Lucky for us, we still have archive.org, which maintained several copies. (See page 95 in the PDF.)

{Update: Thanks to an anonymous commenter who provided the following new links on HebrewBooks.org, here and here.}

I am pretty sure I disagree with the Seforim blogger's categorization of Ozar Kol Minhagei Yeshurun's explanation playing of cards. I present it here for your consideration (see right). He uses the term naaseh heter, with the implication that it is not really permitted. And he says mishum shechoshvim -- that they believe -- though it is not really so. And that they believe it is a zecher of the wars that the Maccabees did in those days. Not that it is a zecher to the wars, because the Maccabees did this (playing cards), which is apparently how the Seforim blogger is reading it. (Unless my reading is off.) And therefore it has no basis in out religion and faith. And it is sufficient (??) for gentile children. And in a footnote, a haarah that it was created as a game for the many wives of a certain king.

So it is not the case that he offers a similar explanation for playing cards.

However, this is apparently the first written source for dreidel, in seif 4. To see that again:

"4: The children play on Chanukkah with a game of tops (dreidel).
The reason is that they decreed that they should not learn Torah, just as we say in Al HaNisim, 'to cause Your Torah to be forgotten,' and at that time, they all learned orally, and in one band, in order that each person should remind his brother, lest he forget a matter. And the decree was that they should not gather in a single place in bands. The Sages found, at the time of the decree, a wondrous suggestion, in this that they made the game of dreidel to show their enemies if they were discovered, that they were playing with the game of tops, and that they were not learning. And with this development like this they were able to learn and teach. Therefore, it remains for us this game, as a remembrance of the miracle, that because of it the Torah of Hashem was not forgotten, that it stood for our fathers and us. (In the name of the rav, the author (?) of sefer Avodat Eved and the sefer Tiferet Tzvi, and the Rav Ziw (?) brings it down.)

I would guess, if the author of Avodat Eved is his contemporary, that this is the sefer being referenced, printed in 1877.

Of course, if the dreidel is known to have been invented much later than the Chashmonaim, then this is a spurious etiology of the practice.

Indeed, it calls to mind the rather similar story with Rabbi Akiva and his students, going hunting with bows and arrows as a pretext for going off together, where the real intent was to learn and teach Torah. So I would doubt this explanation. And rather, just as they played one form of gambling -- card playing -- they played this other form of gambling as well, and then all sorts of mystical explanations were attached to it in the 1900s. So one false explanation failed, and one took off. But such that there is no real distinction between playing cards for pennies or playing dreidel for pennies.

Meanwhile, here is another writeup of the practice of playing dreidel.

Note: I see nothing wrong with playing dreidel on Chanukkah, but this post was not intended as halacha lemaaseh. If you really have questions on how to act, consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Don't Transform the Mitzvah of Hadlakas Neros into a Segulah!

In Pirkei Avos, we learn:

אנטיגנוס איש סוכו קיבל משמעון הצדיק. הוא היה אומר, אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב, על מנת לקבל פרס, אלא הוו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב, על מנת שלא לקבל פרס; ויהי מורא שמיים עליכם.

That does not mean that there is no reward; rather, there certainly is sechar veOnesh -- and that is part of why reality is just -- but that should not be your reason for performing mitzvot.

So why take a mitzvah that people are going to be doing anyway, and transform it into a segulah?! From Zechus Avos, about Chanukkah segulos:

The Gemara (Shabbos 23b) says that one who habitually lights candles will have sons that are Talmidei Chachomim. Rashi explains that the posuk (Mishlei 6, 23) says כִּי נֵר מִצְוָה וְתוֹרָה אוֹר - "the candle is a mitzvah and the Torah is light". By lighting candles of mitzvah, Shabbos candles and the Chanuka Menorah, one will merit what the Gemara says.

And we have the Rif giving the same explanation. Bli neder, my own (divergent) explanation in a subsequent post.

But what frum Jewish woman does not light neros Shabbos? (Though see Tosafot, about two lights and two talmidei Chachamim.) And what frum Jewish man does not light neros Chanukkah for his household? And yet, even after this ritualization of neros Shabbos, not everyone is a talmid chacham, even from frum families. Why?

But forget about the why not every family has talmidei Chachamim. Let us focus elsewhere.

Specifically, everyone is going to do it anyway. Why give this as a Chanukkah segulah? Is there going to be anyone who will say, "well, I wasn't planning on fulfilling this mitzvah, but now that it is a segulah, I will certainly perform it?" I would hope not -- that would be very depressing.

To label a mitzvah a "segulah" cheapens it, IMHO. The mitzvos are not witchcraft, where the focus is to acheive (magically) some aim. They are fulfillments of Hashem's command, or else the Rabbis' command, to acheive specific aims -- to publicize the nes Chanukkah and perhaps internalize and spread the message behind Chanukkah. And the lighting of Shabbos candles is for the purpose of Shalom Bayis.

IMHO, if person A lights Chanukkah candles to fulfill the mitzvah, and person B lights candles as a segulah for having specific types of sons, I would say that person A has fulfilled the mitzvah better, and perhaps is even more likely to see the promised reward than person B. Because the pasuk says "Ki Ner Mitzvah veTorah Or." It does not say "Ki Ner Kishuf veTorah Or."

Another segulah, associated with lighting candles, is to turn a specific kepittel of Tehillim into an incantation, by making ritual repetition in a specific context a method of guaranteeing some practical aim. Perhaps as Bilaam used repetitions of 7 to try ensure some result, and as we see in all sorts of ANE and modern incancations.

The Baal Shem Tov to say וִיהִי נֹעַם and יֹשֵׁב בְּסֵתֶר עֶלְיוֹן, (last posuk of Tehilim 90, and the whole Chapter 91, with the last posuk of chapter 91 repeated twice) 7 times after lighting the Menorah. This is a segula to protect from many calamities. (Ramban says to say each word 7 times, but I haven't seen anyone do it like that. I've only seen people saying the whole chapter 7 times.)

When the Baal Shem Tov said it, or when the Ramban said it -- I would not label that a magical incantation. (Though I would like to see that Ramban inside, to try to understand it -- where is it?? repeating each word individually 7 times has the general effect of taking it out of its context, making it more of a magic word rather than saying a pasuk in praise or prayer to Hashem.) They were operating within a specific mystical system, and so they attributed specific meanings to this. But to promulgate this to followers of segulahs (who seek out segulas for all occassions), among lists of many other segulahs to be ritually performed as kosher magic -- I find that more problematic.

The eating of a festive meal also gets transformed into a segulah, for healing:

In Shulchan Aruch (570, 2) it says that eating a meal for Chanuka is a סעודת הרשות, a non-obligatory meal. Chazal (Berachos 60a) say that Hashem gave רשות (permission) for doctors to heal. This is what סעודת הרשות alludes to; eating a special meal in honor of Chanuka, which is a special time for healing, can bring about healing. (Shaar Yisaschor, Yimei Orah 72)

It is extremely unlikely that this is what the Shulchan Aruch meant. This is just free association. Much more likely, it means something along the lines of this.

posts so far for Chanukka

2008

1. Why we should ban playing dreidels, pt i.
   
2. How Rav Kanievsky said that in Israel people would be in bomb shelters for Chanukkah. The possible implications. Then why I doubted he said it, and how he did not say that.
   
3. The Zohar did not predict Mumbai and Moshiach on the eighth day of Chanukkah.
4. An ad I posted up for Oh Nuts for gifts for Chanukkah, and a brief discussion of giving nuts as gifts to children on Chanukkah.
   

2007

• Which is Min HaMuvchar? Wax Candles or Oil Lamps?
• I say wax candles, based on my reading of the gemara.
• What is the Idea of Preferring Poppy Seed Oil or Olive Oil?
• Slightly homiletic, but perhaps true. Are we celebrating the miracle of the length of burning, such that we should optimize length of time? Or are we celebrating holiness and purity, and therefore clarity, such that we should optimize clarity explicitly as the expense of burning time?
  

2006

• The Shifting, Shifting Miracle of Chanukka
• An analysis of the sources in DovBear's popular post on the subject. The sources actually go in opposite chronological order than what was thought.
• Mai Chanukka? What Is the Question?
• It is quite possible that it is "What is Chanukka which is mentioned in the Tannaitic source of Megillat Taanit which states...," rather than "What is Chanukka?" This comes down to whether the brayta is part of the question or the answer, and whether the miracle of the oil is part of the brayta, or whether the Hebrew gloss was added later.
• Is the Bet Yosef's Question So Good?
• I don't think so. It is obvious why it was for 8 days, even though the miracle was that it extended an additional 7. We are humans, reacting to the miraculous span of time, not anal-retentive accountants. And neither were Chazal.
• The reaction to the Shifting Miracle of Chanukka
• And how it could have been presented, without uproar. And along the way, I think I give a pretty decent homiletic interpretation of the aggada of the miracle, such that this might even be the intent. But also why different people may have reacted the way they did.
  
• Rif Yomi, Chanukka Edition

2005

• Are These (Chanukka) Lights Indeed Sanctified?
• A reading of the gemara. It appears that the lamps are in fact not kodesh. Rather, the issue is bizui mitzvah. And it is also slightly inaccurate that we do not have any permission to make use of them, except to see them -- we pasken that we can use one lamp to light another, though the Rishonim clarify (or restrict) it to via an intermediary. For me, the song which states otherwise is no problem, because my family sings a nusach that omits these offending phrases.
• The Shitta of Rav About Making Use of Chanukka Lamps
• A further discussion of what was begun in the post above. This explores Rav's opinion (rather than Shmuel's, which we rule like). And a lot of girsology, to practical effect.
• How to Spell Chanukka - And Why
• The Etymology of Sufganiyot
• From sponge. And where the "n" comes from.

2004

• Jewish Might
• Really on Vayigash. On one level, Yehuda seems supplicative. But beneath the surface, there is unstated threat. And how this can be read concretely into at least one pasuk.
  

2003

• Shemen Sreifah for Chunukka Lamp
• the Yerushalmi says one may use it. But what about the shamash?

Why we should ban playing dreidels

Or perhaps not. Here is the Aruch ha-Shulchan on the matter. He writes, in Orach Chaim Siman 670, Seif 9:

סימן תרע סעיף ט

ריבוי הסעודות שמרבין בהם – הם סעודות הרשות. שלא קבעום למשתה ושמחה כפורים, משום דגזירת המן היתה על הגופים: "להשמיד להרוג ולאבד" – לכך צריכין לשמח הגוף. אבל גזירות אנטיוכס היתה ביטול תורה ומצות. ואף שזה גרוע מגזירת הגוף, מכל מקום סוף סוף הם גזירות הנפש, לכך צריכין לשמח הנפש בהלל, ותודה, וזמירות, ושירות ותשבחות, ואין להגוף עניין בזה (ומתורץ קושית הט"ז סעיף קטן ג).מ

ומכל מקום יש אומרים שיש קצת מצוה להרבות בסעודות. חדא: דשמחת הנפש תלוי קצת גם כן בשמחת הגוף, כמושג בחוש. ועוד: לזכר חנוכת המשכן, שקבעום למשתה ושמחה. וגם יש לומר שירות ותשבחות בהסעודות, ואז וודאי הוי סעודת מצוה.

אבל השוחקים בקלפים – עונשן רב, ובעונותינו הרבים נתפשטה נגע צרעת הזה בבית ישראל. אוי לנו שעלתה בימינו כך, וכמה מיני עבירות תלויות בזה! והוא רחום יכפר עון. ומי שביכולתו לבטלה – שכרו מרובה מאד.

The increasing of festive meals which people increase, they are optional meals. For they {=Chazal} did not establish it {=Chanukkah} for parties and rejoicing, like Purim. For the decree of Haman was upon the bodies - "to obliterate, to kill, and to destroy" -- therefore, we are required to make the body rejoice. But the decrees of Antiochus was the nullification of Torah and Mitzvot. And even though this is worse than a decree against the body, still, at the end of the day, they were decrees against the soul. Therefore we are required to make the soul rejoice with Hallel, praise, Zemirot, Shirot veTishbachot, and the body has no connection to this. (And this answers the question of the Taz in seif katan 3.)

And still, there is to say that there is some amount of mitzvah to increase in festive meals. Firstly, that the rejoicing of the soul is somewhat connected as well in the rejoicing of the body, as is intuitively felt. And further, as a remembrance to the dedication of the Mishkan, which they established for festive meals and rejoicing. And also, there is to say Shirot and Tishbachot within those meals, and then certainly it will be a seudat mitzvah.

But those who play with cards -- their punishment is great, and in our great sins this disease of leprosy {of card-playing} in the House of Israel. Woe to us that such arises in our days! And how many types of sins are suspended from it! And He is merciful and forgives iniquity. And he who has in his ability to nullify this -- his reward is incredibly great.

The idea is that Chanukkah is not about fun. So favorable or unfavorable comparisons to Christmas, as occur on the Daily Show or South Park, are irrelevant. The point is the Hallel, and the praising of God. And physical rejoicing is only really relevant as a means to that end. So who cares how many presents you get, or if a Christmas tree is "cooler" than a menorah. The very comparison misses the point.

So too, playing with dreidel. It is an OK game, to entertain, especially kids. But if we turn dreidel into a card-game, played for high-stakes, then it is missing the point. If we make it into a game of poker, but played with dreidels, then it is certainly missing the point. And the Aruch HaShulchan would decry it.

And here is an article in the Jewish Week, about how an intermarried couple "fixed" the game of dreidel so that it is fun for adults, by adding elements of Texas Hold 'Em:

I’ve taken our ancestral Hebrew-adorned tops for many a spin.

But a full-fledged dreidel match, one in which competitors vie for the pot of gelt?
Let’s just say that the one time I tried it with a group of adults — back when my husband and I were 20-something, child-free and regular poker players — we were all bored well before the candles had burnt down low.

The simple parameters of take all, take half, take nothing or ante up may entertain small children like my daughters, who recently whiled away an afternoon doing the same 12-piece jigsaw puzzle over and over. But clearly dreidel is not much of an adult game.

So I was excited when I found out about No Limit Texas Dreidel, which entrepreneur Jennie Rivlin Roberts and her non-Jewish husband Webb Roberts dreamed up three years ago as they were driving from Florida to their home in Atlanta.

Their annual Chanukah party was coming up and Rivlin Roberts, now 37, recalls saying, “There really must be a way to make dreidel more fun.”

Since the two were poker enthusiasts, they livened up the traditional Gimel - Hey- Nun- Shin with elements of “No Limit Texas Hold ’Em.”

In the resulting product, players use multiple dreidels to create their best “hand” — a combination of communal and individual spins — and are then encouraged to bet.

And so on. See the whole article.

Note: This post is not intended halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Did the Zohar predict Mumbai, and the Redemption on the eighth day of Chanukka?

What happened in Mumbai, to both Jews and non-Jews, was a terrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.

In the wake of such tragedies, one coping mechanism is to try to find meaning to the deaths. Thus, a close friend of some of the victims came up with a tenuous devar Torah involving gematrias, connecting their deaths to geulah. (See here at the Yeshiva World.)

And more recently, there is a claim that the Zohar predicted this attack in Mumbai, and that 32 days from the attack, which comes out to the 8th day of Chanukkah, Moshiach will come. (And connecting specific Yamim Tovim to the redemption is also trendy.) The relevant Zohar is here:

זוהר חדש כרך א (תורה) פרשת בלק דף צב עמוד א

. כיון דינדעון אבהן דפקיד הקב"ה לאיילתיה ולעמיה כמה חידו על חידו בהאי יומא. בארעא דצפון מלכותא דתימן כמה עאקו על עאקו יתערון בהאי יומא על עמא דישראל ותתקבל צלותהון ברעווא. ובפנייא דהאי יומא תהדר שכינתא לגו ביתא ומשיח לאתריה ואבהן לגו מערתא דילהון שכינתא תהך ותהדר לגבי משה שבעין יומין. לסוף שבעין יומין סליק נאקו דישראל לקמי מלכא קדישא דיהון מעיקין לון בכל סטרין דעלמא וכנישתא חדא לצד דרומא יתאביד ויתחריב. וחמשה זכאי קשוט יתקטלון בינייהו. כדין לסוף תלתין ותרין יומין דיקטלון לכנישתא ההיא ילבש קב"ה קנאה לההוא שופר זעירא. וההוא משיח בריה דאפרים יפרוש פרישא כחד (טור) [תור] דקרנוי סלקין כקרנוי דראם
וההוא שופר זעירא יתקע תרועה תקיעה ותרועה תלת זמנין בריש טורא כמלקדמין כדין נטלין דההוא משיח ויפול רעשא על עלמא באינון קלין דשופרא וכל אינון בני עלמא ישמעון ויחמון כמד"א [ישעיה יח] כל יושבי תבל ושוכני ארץ כנשוא נס הרים תראו וכתקוע שופר תשמעו. וכדין יתבערון גלולין מן ארעא קדישא. ותלת קרבין יעבדון בני ישמעאל בהדי משיח דא ואינון ייתין ויסגדון למארי עלמא בטורא דקודשא בירושלים ואילין קרבין יהון באלף שתיתאה [בשיתסר יומין לירחא שביעאה לזמן חמשין ותשע שנין לאלף שתיתאה. הרנ"ש]ש

And a writeup is available at Dreaming Of Moshiach (see here).

The Divine Spirit will go and return to Moshe (Rabenu, zs'kl) for 70 days. At the end of the 70 days, the pain of Am Israel will ascend to the Holy King. One Synagogue in the South will be destroyed and lost and five true Tzaddikim will be amongst the dead.
...
At the end of the 32 days since the murder of the people in that Synagogue, HKB'H will put on a garment of outrage to the little Shofar (the Kingdom) and Moshiach ben Efraim will spread, like a ram whose horns go upwards.

A bit later, she mentions how 70 days previous was the attack on the US embassy in Yemen, and where the stock market plunged 449 points. This is presumably to explain what the 70 days means, and what connection there is to Teiman (namely, it must refer to Yemen). But the stock market, a few days earlier, plunged more that 500 points. Why choose that specific day, of 449 points, and why is that particular plunge in the middle of a series of plunges significant? And the attack was on the US embassy, not on Israel or Jews, while the Zohar says בארעא דצפון מלכותא דתימן כמה עאקו על עאקו יתערון בהאי יומא על עמא דישראל ותתקבל צלותהון ברעווא.

Let me explain why I do not think this is significant in any way.

1) The indications are that the deaths in the Nariman house were on Thursday, November 27th, not Wednesday, December 26th. Still, 32 days later would be December 29th, which would be the 8th day of Chanukkah. So OK.

2) There were six people who died in the Nariman House, so the number 5 is wrong:

Name	Age
Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg	29
Rebbetzin Rivka Holtzberg	28
Bentzion Kruman	26
Rabbi Leibish Teitelbaum	37
Yoheved Orpaz	62
Norma Shvarzblat Rabinovich	50

Which of the six murdered kedoshim will we refuse to consider a tzaddik, in order to arrive at the 5 needed to make this Zohar "work"?

3) Was the Nariman House a synagogue? It included a synagogue, but was also a Jewish center and hostel. It was a Chabad house. OK, this is not too much of a kvetch.

4) Does the Zohar actually say that one synagogue will be destroyed? It states וכנישתא חדא לצד דרומא יתאביד ויתחריב. What is the meaning of kenishta? The word typically means "assembly," or עדה. But it could actually mean synagogue. This would often be written as bei kenishta, a house of assembly, a bet kenesset, but sometimes just the word kenishta is used. E.g. Yerushalmi Moed Katan has קומי חדא כנישתא. So which of the two is meant? The gathering/assembly, or the synagogue/Esnoga?

Well, if it means a bet kenesset, was the actual structure destroyed and demolished? Not that I heard of. Yet Zohar states וכנישתא חדא לצד דרומא יתאביד.

Furthermore, the Zohar states later that וחמשה זכאי קשוט יתקטלון בינייהו. The key word here is beinayhu, which means "amongst them." Amongst who? The obvious referent is the kenishta. And it does not have the equivalent of betocha, within it, but rather amongst them. The idea is that a large congregation of people -- the context indicates that it is a large congregation of Jews, but let us leave that alone for a moment -- will be destroyed, and amongst that large congregation/assembly will be 5 truly righteous people.

So let us assume that this means the many non-Jewish assembly in Mumbai, to try to save this peshat. If so, there is no mention of a synagogue at all. And the Zohar got the number of people wrong.

5) The context is also that the Jews will be attacked all over the world. Thus,
דיהון מעיקין לון בכל סטרין דעלמא
וכנישתא חדא לצד דרומא יתאביד ויתחריב
While what happened in Mumbai was a tremendous tragedy, it was not part of a global campaign against the Jews that was being conducted at that time, that from all sides of the world, Jews were being attacked. So the context is a different context from what existed in the world at that time.

6) The Zohar says a lot of things, and has a lot of predictions. Such that any situation can be kvetched to match something stated in Zohar or elsewhere. Need I remind you of the failed kvetch of a Zohar (which turned out to be a Ramchal) to be that President Gog Bush was going to cancel the US elections?

7) There is nothing to indicate that this event will take place in this year, as opposed to any other. The particular prediction in Zohar had a lot of details, and the two details that matched were the number of victims (five) and the location (synagogue), but as we saw, even those details do not match. And how many other instances were there of destructions of assemblies, in which five people could be stated to be tzaddikim? And how many synagogues were destroyed over the years, with how many victims? For example, in Tunisia in 2002, a synagogue was bombed and there were also 6 Tunisian victims (and 14 German victims), though they were all (IIRC) non-Jews. How do we know which destruction of a synagogue was meant, even if a synagogue was meant? In 1980, a Paris synagogue was bombed, with 4 victims (also one off from 5).

8) See the gloss there which connects this specifically to the 7th month, and thus Pesach, rather than to Chanukkah.

9) Finally, if the Zohar was not written by Rashbi, but was a late forgery of Rabbi Moshe de Leon, or by Avraham Abulafia, then I would not expect its predictive qualities to be worth anything.

Update:
Also,
10) I did not note that it states in the verb דיקטלון לכנישתא ההיא. A synagogue is not killed. An assembly can be killed.

See the comment section, for a possible alternate interpretation by Gilui, and his webpage, where he translates the whole section there.

Update 2: As Yaak of Yeranen Yaakov points out in the comment section, in the commentary of R' Ashlag, the Sulam (see picture to the right), he translates kenishta as bet kenesset.

I am no expert on kabbalah or Zohar, so I am no bar plugta of R' Ashlag in this field. But it does seem to be a mere matter of a dispute in the havana of the words of passage, rather than in kabbalistic concepts. How does he deal with the issue of בינייהו and of דיקטלון לכנישתא ההיא?

I understand why he would say bet haknesset -- it makes sense given the words יתאביד ויתחריב. Or more precisely, ויתחריב. (But the word יתאביד is perhaps slightly awkward.) And since kenishta could mean either assembly or shul, he chooses the latter. But it could apply quite well to a specific assembly -- they can be lost (in battle, of the ten tribes fighting in all corners of the world) and thus destroyed.

In terms of בינייהו, he indeed translates it ביניהם. But there is the problem of the missing referent. Amongst whom? There must be more than five killed, and the implication is much more. And this was not mentioned earlier, if you render it as shul instead of assembly.

He translates דיקטלון לכנישתא ההיא by inserting לאנשי in there, because a synagogue cannot be killed.

I still believe that there is some awkwardness in it.

But even if Rav Ashlag is correct, we still are missing everything else. The number of victims is wrong, and Jews worldwide were not being oppressed 70 days previous, and the synagogue was not destroyed, such that there is no reason to assume that it was the Zohar was referring to.

Update: I did not read the perush carefully enough. I just fixed the above update with a stealth edit, based on "yaak"'s correction. (Thanks!) But as I note, I still believe that there is some extreme awkwardness in it.



Update: And to further clarify and reiterate, when it comes to a matter of perush hamilim, based on context, as opposed to kabbalistic concepts, I will indeed consider myself a valid bar plugta of Rav Ashlag. And in context, I think it is extremely difficult and awkward to translate it as Bet Knesset.

Does Rav Ashlag know that knishta can mean either knesset or bet knesset, that is community or synagogue? If he does not realize that the word can take either meaning, then he might feel coerced into the more difficult peshat. We should see how he translates in every place in Zohar that the word kenishta appears. For example, in Zohar Chadash on parshat Noach, he does the same thing, I think leading to an awkward peshat, IMHO. Here is the Zohar:

The discussion starts in kuf-mem-gimel, but the relevant words appear in kuf-mem-heh, with reishei kenishta and then chada kenishta.

Rabbi Eliezer says that for all the exiles, Hashem has set a time for redemption for Knesset Yisrael, except the last, but it is rather dependent upon repentance. The question, by Rabbi Akiva is how the redemption will happen. How will all communities across the globe simultaneously do teshuva.

Rabbi Eliezer's reply is that we just need one community, one kenishta, or else the heads of that one community, to do teshuva, and then the entire Diaspora will be redeemed.

This is the simple meaning of the passage, selecting community from the set of {community, shul}.

But Rav Ashlag translates it as the heads of a bet haknesset, or one synagogue doing teshuva {presumably the people in one synagogue, because a shul structure is incapable of doing teshuva}. This is awkward, because the logical {IMHO} and straightforward division of the entirety of the Diaspora is one community in one location, one knesset within the whole of knesset yisrael. And it is even more awkward (IMHO) in parshat Balak, as discussed above. So the question is, is this a deliberate choice -- does Rav Ashlag ever translate knishta as community? (I do not know the answer to this question -- I just searched for kenishta and looked up the first instance and translation I encountered.)

On the other hand, perhaps I am wrong. Rav Ashlag seems to be joined in his understanding of this Zohar by the Arvei Nachal (elsewhere on the Web attributed to Zohar, as if Zohar had itself used these words -- please point out where it exists in Zohar, if it does, but a Bar Ilan search only has it in Arvei Nachal):
אפילו אי בי כנישתא חדא יתובון בתיובתא שלימא או אפילו בר נש חד יתוב אזי יוכל לזכות את כל בני דורו.

I would still maintain I am correct. Kenishta occurs (based on a Bar Ilan search) 29 times in Zohar. Except in 4 locations, it is always Bei Kenishta, and so this is what Zohar uses when it wants to say "shul." We have seen two instances above, where I argued that context strongly suggests it means community.

The other two times are when in construct form with Yisrael:
זוהר כרך ב (שמות) פרשת שמות
והוא נסיב לחולקיה כנישתא דישראל הדא הוא

and

זוהר כרך ג (במדבר) פרשת בלק
רבי אבא פתח (שיר א) אם לא תדעי לך היפה בנשים צאי לך בעקבי הצאן, כנישתא דישראל אמרת לגבי מלכא עלאה, כנישתא דישראל מהו כנישתא דא איהו עצרת כנישו כמה דאת אמר (במדבר י) מאסף לכל המחנות, מאן דכניש לכל משריין עלאין לגביה, ומגו דלזמנין נוקבא אקרי כנישתא

this latter example shows that sometimes women are called kenishta, and it obviously does not mean synagogue.

Interestingly, in English both Synagogue and Church can refer to either the building of to the assembly.

Regardless, I will still maintain that it means community in both these instances. And that even if it means synagogue, the rest of the details in the Zohar do not match Mumbai as discussed.

Sponsored Message -- Oh! Nuts Chanukkah Gifts

This Chanukah, treat your guests with Hanukkah candy thank your host with a Hanukkah gift Baskets and delight your kids with Chanukah Gelt or with Hanukkah gifts for kids. All from Oh! Nuts. As the leading source for kosher candy, chocolates, nuts and gifts, Oh! Nuts is fully stocked with all your Chanukah party and Chanukah gift needs.

---

Josh writes: I looked at the links above, and they have various Chanukkah gifts composed of chocolate, candy and dreidels. But there are several pages of gifts and things (on the sidebar), so thus is not a complete summary. I know that for certain other holidays, some Tannaim were accustomed to give nuts and roasted grain -- e.g. on Pesach to keep the kids up, or as the method of providing children with Simchas Yom Yov. Thus,

Pesachim 109a

ת"ר הכל חייבין בארבעה כוסות הללו אחד אנשים ואחד נשים ואחד תינוקות א"ר יהודה וכי מה תועלת יש לתינוקות ביין אלא מחלקין להן
קליות ואגוזין בערב פסח כדי שלא ישנו וישאלו אמרו עליו על רבי עקיבא שהיה מחלק קליות ואגוזין לתינוקות בערב פסח כדי שלא ישנו וישאלו

Yerushalmi Pesachim 68b

דף סח, ב פרק י הלכה א גמרא: רבי יודה אומר נשים בראוי להן וקטנים בראוי להם נשים בראוי להן כגון מסנים וצוצלין וקטנים בראוי להן כגון אגוזין ולוזין

In planning, a post on the Aruch HaShulchan's take on Chanukkah, whether it is lachem or laHashem, and how the lachem can help fulfill the laShem. Also related, see my posts about egozim.

Daf Yomi Nedarim 53a: The Common Local Oil As Min haMuvchar

As discussed in a previous post about what oil, wax candles, and min hamuvchar, the gemara in Shabbat 23a reads:

א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל השמנים כולן יפין לנר ושמן זית מן המובחר אמר אביי מריש הוה מהדר מר אמשחא דשומשמי אמר האי משך נהורי טפי כיון דשמע לה להא דרבי יהושע בן לוי מהדר אמשחא דזיתא אמר האי צליל נהוריה

R. Joshua b. Levi said: All oils are fit for the Hanukkah lamp, but olive oil is of the best. Abaye observed: At first the Master [Rabbah] used to seek poppy-seed {/sesame} oil, saying, The light of this is more lasting; but when he heard this [dictum] of R. Joshua b. Levi, he was particular for olive oil, saying, This yields a clearer light.

Before considering justifications of each practice as locally proclaimed in the gemara Shabbat (both reasons being offered by Rabba), there is perhaps another factor in play. And this is what we find in our local gemara in Nedarim, 53a:

תניא הנודר מן השמן בארץ ישראל מותר בשמן שומשומין ואסור בשמן זית ובבבל אסור בשמן שומשמין ומותר בשמן זית

מקום שמסתפקין מזה ומזה אסור בזה ובזה
פשיטא
לא צריכא דרובא מסתפקין בחד מנהון מהו דתימא ניזל בתר רובא
קמ"ל ספק איסורא לחומרא

They learnt {in a brayta}: If one vowed from oil, in Eretz Yisrael, he is permitted sesame oil and forbidden olive oil. And in Bavel he is forbidden sesame oil and permitted olive oil.
In a place where they are both commonly used, he is forbidden in this and that.

Thus, according to this brayta, what was commonly called "oil," based on what was commonly used, was dependent on locale. In Bavel, shemen shumshemin, or sesame or poppy-seed oil, was commonly used. In Eretz Yisrael, shemen zayit, or olive oil, was commonly used. And this is a brayta, which is Tannaitic.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was a fairly early Amora, and was based in Eretz Yisrael. His preference was this classic Eretz Yisrael preference. Rabba was later, and was an Amora of Bavel. He initially had the Babylonian preference, but switched based on this dictum, and reanalysis as to the best quality of the oil.

Interesting.

Chanukka: What Is The Idea of Preferring Poppy-Seed Oil Or Olive Oil?

On Shabbat 23a:

אמר רב ששת אכסנאי חייב בנר חנוכה א"ר זירא מריש כי הוינא בי רב משתתפנא בפריטי בהדי אושפיזא בתר דנסיבי איתתא אמינא השתא ודאי לא צריכנא דקא מדליקי עלי בגו ביתאי: א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל השמנים כולן יפין לנר ושמן זית מן המובחר אמר אביי מריש הוה מהדר מר אמשחא דשומשמי אמר האי משך נהורי טפי כיון דשמע לה להא דרבי יהושע בן לוי מהדר אמשחא דזיתא אמר האי צליל נהוריה טפי ואריב"ל כל השמנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר איבעיא להו לגבל או לעשן ת"ש דתני רב שמואל בר זוטרא כל השמנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר בין לגבל בין לעשן רב שמואל בר זוטרא מתני הכי כל העשנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר אמר רב הונא כל השרפין יפין לדיו ושרף קטף יפה מכולם:

As Soncino translates:

R. Joshua b. Levi said: All oils are fit {for the Hanukkah lamp}, but olive oil is of the best. Abaye observed: At first the Master [Rabbah] used to seek poppy-seed oil, saying, The light of this is more lasting; but when he heard this [dictum] of R. Joshua b. Levi, he was particular for olive oil, saying, This yields a clearer light.

R. Joshua b. Levi also said: All oils are fit for ink, and olive oil is of the best. The scholars propounded: for kneading or for smoking? — Come and hear: For R. Samuel b. Zutra recited: All oils are fit for ink, and olive oil is of the best, both for kneading and for smoking. R. Samuel b. Zutra recited it thus: All soots are fit for ink: and olive oil is the best. R. Huna said: All gums are good for ink, but balsam gum is the best of all.

Despite the post-Talmudic suggestion, I do not agree with the assertion that olive oil is better for lighting the Chanukkah menorah because the miracle was done with olive oil. I do not think that this is readily read into the gemara, and furthermore that the gemara gives its own explicit reasons.

But why, pray tell, are these reasons persuasive. Frankly, who cares that poppy-seed oil lasts longer? Who cares that olive oil is clearer?

The answer (assuming that the context is indeed the Chanukkah lamp rather than the Shabbat lamp), is perhaps some issue of pirsumei nisa, publicizing the miracle. If it lasts longer, it reaches a wider audience. If the light is clearer or brighter, it is more noticeable.

But then, why exactly are we choosing one over the other. Each oil optimizes some aspect.

A digression -- I would suggest that both poppy-seed oil and olive oil are min hamuvchar, that is, preferable, in some way. Each oil optimizes some worthy aspect, and there is no oil which will optimize all aspects at once, over all other options. Rabba independently came up with this idea, which was a good idea. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi independently came up with a different idea. But the matter appears to be one of personality. Rabba was humble, and greatly admired Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and wished to emulate him, and follow his halachic tradition about optimality. Rabba then offered a reason why olive oil is very good in this respect. I am not certain that this is a matter of pesak, such that someone who chooses poppy-seed oil, or some other oil for its own positive aspect, is not fulfilling the precept in a min hamuvchar fashion, at least to some extent, and such that every other person has some obligation to follow Rabba's new lead.

In terms of human beings as well, different people have different strengths, and we should not judge a person's value just on one criterion. Not everyone is the best Talmudic scholar, but others optimize other traits, such as artistic expression, honor, etc. Ner Hashem Nishmat Adam,
and these lamps might be min hamuvchar in different ways.

Now that we are done with that homiletic digression, we may return back to the point of this post. Why should these specific aspects be optimized, and why might we say that the optimization inherent in olive oil is a better optimization inherent in poppy-seed oil?

I think the answer might lie with a determination of which best captures the spirit of the nes chanukka being publicized by these lamps. According to the gemara, the miracle of Chanukka was that a small cruse of oil lasted a full eight days. Thus, according to Rabba's initial suggestion, poppy-seed oil is quite appropriate. Of all oils, it burns the longest, and so we can commemorate that particular aspect of the miracle. This is min hamuvchar.

But then, why not use impure oil? Tumah hutra beTzibbur, so it is quite likely that they could have. But the whole point was avoiding Hellenic influence, and they sought only the pure oil. It was this insistence on purity that led to the entire situation of lacking oil, which in turn necessitated the miracle. Therefore, it is perhaps even more appropriate that one should use olive oil, even though it will burn more quickly, if one chooses this in order to optimize the aspect of צליל, clarity and purity.

Sorry for the abundance of homiletics in this post, but this might actually be so.

Chanukka: Which Is Min HaMuvchar? Wax Candles or Olive Oil?

Note: Not Intended Halacha LeMaaseh

I would say wax candles! Of course, current practice and perception is that oil, and specifically olive oil, is better. But from an halachic perspective, I would say the opposite (at least for floating cork wicks -- but standing wicks may well be a different story).

Firstly, is there any halachic imperative to prefer olive oil over any other oil? The source for this is Shabbat 23a:

אמר רב ששת אכסנאי חייב בנר חנוכה א"ר זירא מריש כי הוינא בי רב משתתפנא בפריטי בהדי אושפיזא בתר דנסיבי איתתא אמינא השתא ודאי לא צריכנא דקא מדליקי עלי בגו ביתאי: א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל השמנים כולן יפין לנר ושמן זית מן המובחר אמר אביי מריש הוה מהדר מר אמשחא דשומשמי אמר האי משך נהורי טפי כיון דשמע לה להא דרבי יהושע בן לוי מהדר אמשחא דזיתא אמר האי צליל נהוריה טפי ואריב"ל כל השמנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר איבעיא להו לגבל או לעשן ת"ש דתני רב שמואל בר זוטרא כל השמנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר בין לגבל בין לעשן רב שמואל בר זוטרא מתני הכי כל העשנים יפין לדיו ושמן זית מן המובחר אמר רב הונא כל השרפין יפין לדיו ושרף קטף יפה מכולם:

As Soncino translates:

R. Joshua b. Levi said: All oils are fit for the Hanukkah lamp, but olive oil is of the best. Abaye observed: At first the Master [Rabbah] used to seek poppy-seed oil, saying, The light of this is more lasting; but when he heard this [dictum] of R. Joshua b. Levi, he was particular for olive oil, saying, This yields a clearer light.

R. Joshua b. Levi also said: All oils are fit for ink, and olive oil is of the best. The scholars propounded: for kneading or for smoking? — Come and hear: For R. Samuel b. Zutra recited: All oils are fit for ink, and olive oil is of the best, both for kneading and for smoking. R. Samuel b. Zutra recited it thus: All soots are fit for ink: and olive oil is the best. R. Huna said: All gums are good for ink, but balsam gum is the best of all.

Very important to note -- although Soncino translates, "All oils are fit for the Hanukkah lamp," the gemara itself does not specify Chanukka. It is indeed a logical deduction that this refers to the Chanukka lamp, and Tosafot indeed makes this deduction, on the side of the gemara, but one might otherwise interpret this as referring, e.g., to the Shabbat lamp.

There are a few things we might derive from this gemara. The first important thing to note is that Rabba initially used non-olive oil, for practical purposes. There was no emotional connection to one specific type of oil, but rather it was a cold calculation of which was the best kind of oil for this purpose. And poppy-seed oil seemed to be best, because it burned for longer.

Furthermore, once he heard this dictum of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he instead went after olive oil preferentially, giving a different reason -- that it burns brighter. One needs to question whether this is really his reason for preferring it. Is brighter better? Or is longer better?

One might well make a homiletical point out of this, and one might even connect it to the nes of the pach shemen. Yet leaving that aside, it certainly seems plausible that Rabba knew well before this that different oils have different properties, and while one may be good in one respect, another might be better in a different respect. Yet he reverses his initial practice when hearing this statement by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. This might be because he wishes to conduct himself in accordance with this tradition from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and thus now states a factor that would weigh in favor of olive oil. Or alternatively, now that he heard this statement in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he deduces what aspect of kindling the lights should be prioritized, and apparently that is brightness rather than duration.

Now compare wax candles to olive oil. Which burns longer? Which burns brighter?

This past Chanukka (and previous years as well), we lit olive oil in floating wicks next to wax candles. My father always has lit oil. Yet we kids most often lit candles, initially because these were the projects we came home from school with. This year, I lit olive oil, and Meir came from nursery school with a candle menorah he had made (or more specifically, glued black and white buttons on in order to decorate). So I have had opportunity to compare them side by side.

It seems to me that the flames on wax candles are slightly whiter, while olive oil is a bit more tinged yellow. But this is hardly noticeable. However, this is only true at the very beginning of lighting. As time progresses, the wax candles are much, much brighter than the oil with floating wicks.

Why is this? Well, the size of the flame is based in large part on the amount of oxygen that gets to it. At the start, wax candles and oil cups are equivalent, since the oil is at the top of the cup and so it gets about the same amount of oxygen. (Although, of course, even then, the candles get oxygen from below as well as from above, while the oil only gets from above.) However, as the oil is consumed, the floating wick drops lower and lower in the cup, and less and less oxygen gets to the flame. At this point, the wax candles are much brighter than the oil cups. Indeed, sometimes the flames go out before all the oil is consumed. This may be because the floating wick capsized, but also because not enough oxygen gets to the flame when the floating wick is so low in the cup.

On the other hand, olive oil lasts much, much longer. But which is preferable? I believe the gemara addressed this issue. Rabba initially favored poppy-seed oil, thinking that because it burns longer, it is preferable, but reversed himself when he heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement, and now held that olive oil was preferable because it burns brighter. We may walk away from this gemara with the conclusion that brightness is better than duration. And so, wax candles are better than oil, when the oil is being used with floating wicks.

There is another reason, brought down by Mishnah Brurah, that olive oil was used in the nes of the pach shemen, and is thus preferable. However, this is an additional reason, supplementing the reason given in the gemara. Rabba did not give this reason, and did not even consider this reason initially, when he preferred poppy-seed oil. Should we give precedence to that which is defined as min hamuvchar by the gemara, or to something put forth by Rishonim and Acharonim, who are post-Talmudic, and what was a supplemental reason to boot? I would say that we should give precedence to the gemara.

{Update: To clarify, there are many who said that olive oil is preferable for this reason -- though they would seem to be operating on the assumption that olive oil burned just as brightly as a candle. Some examples: Meiri, Mahari Brona, Mishna Berura, Aruch haShulchan who say this, that olive oil is preferable over wax for this reason, and Kolbo and Levush that this is a reason that olive oil is Min haMuvchar. Others think wax is invalid for other reasons, but many people use wax and do not hold like this opinion.

To cite Encyclopedia Talmudit:

אנציקלופדיה תלמודית כרך טז, [חנכה] טור שכו

מהדר - לנר חנוכה - אחר שמן שומשום שאורו רב יותר - או שאינו ממהר לכלות כשמן זית - כיון ששמע דברי ר' יהושע בן לוי התחיל להדר אחר שמן זית שאורו צלול יותר. ופסקו ראשונים שמצוה מן המובחר בשמן זית, וכשאינו מצוי, מצוה בשמנים שאורם זך וצלול, וצריך לחזר אחרי שמנים אלו. נרות של שעוה, יש שכתבו שהם מצוה מן המובחר כמו שמן זית, כיון שאורם צלול, ויש ראשונים שכתבו שאף על פי שנרות של שעוה מותרים, נוי מצוה להדליק בשמן, מאחר שהנס היה בשמן. יש מהראשונים שכתבו בטעם שמצוה מן המובחר בשמן זית, לפי שבו היה הנס, ולפיכך מצוה בשמן זית יותר מבנרות שעוה. וכתבו אחרונים שאין צריך לחזר אחר שמן זית, ויש שכתבו שמצוה להדר אחר שמן זית אפילו אם הוא ביוקר. ויש שכתבו שמצוה מן המובחר בשמן זית, ואם אינו מצוי, מצוה בשאר שמנים, ואם אינם מצויים, נרות שעוה מהודרים יותר משומן או חלב.

ויש מן האחרונים שחולק וסובר שנר של שעוה או של חלב הכרוכים על הפתילה פסולים לחנוכה, לפי שהנס נעשה בנר, ואינו קרוי נר - בלשון התלמוד - אלא כשיש בו שמן, שאין האור שולט בכל השמן אלא בראש הפתילה ומושך משם את השמן אליו, אבל של שעוה או של חלב אינו קרוי נר אלא אבוקה, שכיון שהאור הולך אחר הפתילה, נמצא שהאור והלהבה שולטים בכל השעוה, ואבוקה פסולה לנר חנוכה

}

Perhaps since the gemara (namely, Rabba) maintains that olive oil is min hamuvchar because it is brighter, we should say that olive oil, throughout its burning, is bright enough to be considered min hamuvchar, and more than that does not add anything? While possible, I would not say this, in part because poppy-seed oil is also (presumably) bright enough, but since there is something brighter, it is better to go after that type of oil. That is, we seek after more brightness -- quite possibly because this increases pirsumei nissa -- and choose the one brightest from all that is available to us. Keeping with this goal, we should prefer wax candles over olive oil.

Perhaps this idea of being brighter is just Rabba's explanation, but the real reason is unknown, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was thinking in terms of the fact that it was that oil which was involved in the nes of the pach shemen. Perhaps, but nowhere is that stated in the gemara, and furthermore, his related statement about ink belies that, making it more plausible that he is dealing with practical properties of the oil.

Not that I think that people lighting oil are acting incorrectly. Just that what is considered min hamuvchar should switch.

Aluminum Wick Holders
The alternative to floating wicks are standing wicks, using metal wick holders. Floating wicks float on the surface of the oil, and so drop lower and lower in the cup as the oil is consumed. A standing wick has a base at the bottom of the cup and extends to over the top of the cup. The wick seems encased in a metal sheath, such that only the portion of wick coming out of the metal will burn, but meanwhile it draws oil from the bottom. Thus, the flame stays in place over the surface of the cup, rather that getting lower and lower as the oil is consumed. This would seem preferable to floating wicks.

Perhaps it would also be preferable to wax candles, for the Mishna Berura's reason of the nes having been with shemen zayit. I am not so convinced that this is so, since the nes shemen was not mentioned by the gemara, and our only consideration should be respective brightness.

However, I would consider the following important. Rabba initially preferred poppy-seed oil because of its duration, but then switched to preferring olive oil, based on Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement and giving the reason that it burns brighter. It is quite possible that, given two fuels that burn with equivalent brightness, duration would once again become a reason for preference.

Also, I don't know whether to trust my own eyes. I think wax burns a bit brighter, or maybe equally brightly, even when the flame is on the surface, but perhaps I am incorrect in this regard. I also would need to compare these standing wicks side by side with wax candles.

I've also seen these in the $25 to $30 sets you can pick up in Judaica stores, which have the oil already in it. In terms of the prefabricated sets, some have said that the flames on these are not to good. However, Rabbi Gil Student notes in a comment in the comment section of his blog, Hirhurim:

As to the flame on these not being too good, that's only if you don't know the trick. You have to pull the wicks out a bit so that there is a good 1/4-1/2 inch of external wick that has been soaked with oil.

There is also the apparent danger posed by one particular prefab set, as well as the difference in cost ($1 for a box of candles, $1 for floating wicks plus cost of oil, similar price for the standing wicks.)

The Eighth Day of Chanukka
One possible problem with using candles rather than oil lamps is that on the last days of Chanukka, due to the heat coming from the other candles, the candles might not burn the required half hour. This is a perception that has some basis in reality.

Specifically, it is a problem at Yeshiva University (YU) where, due to fire hazard concerns, they request that everyone light the Chanukka menorah in a common area (e.g. by the entrance of Rubin Hall, or of Morgenstern Hall), rather than in individual rooms. This common area is a (figurative) furnace, because of the hundreds and hundreds of candles (and oil lamps) burning in close proximity.

However, when we lit Meir's wax-candle menorah on the eighth night (which was Shabbat Chanukka) for chinuch purposes, all the candles lasted at least 35 minutes (and the last of them went out at about the 45 minute mark.) So, assuming the surrounding area is not too hot, candles should be fine for even the eighth night (assuming it is not Shabbat).

There are also practical measures one can take to make the candles last longer, the same as we do for Shabbat Chanukka: Use bigger or longer candles, freeze the candles, or move your menorah and light at a distance from other menorahs.

What if someone lights close to your menorah afterwards and so it ends up not lasting 30 minutes. I would think it would be no worse than if someone blew them out, since hadlaka oseh mitzvah? Indeed, perhaps one can even argue that within a single menorah, for the first few candles lit, before the final candles are lit.

Shabbat Chanukka
Shabbat Chanukka is another difficult situation when using candles rather than oil, since the Chanukka candles need to be lit before Shabbat candles and need to last 30 minutes past nightfall, rather than just 30 minutes.

However, there are solutions to this problem: Use larger/longer candles, and it can't hurt to freeze the candles as well.