Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage
The gemara (Shabbat 21b) concludes its brief encapsulation of Chanukah ("mai Chanukah") by noting that these eight days were formulated ("kevaum ve-asaum") as "yamim tovim be-hallel ve-hodaah". The depiction of Chanukah as a "yom tov" in this context is noteworthy. The term is generally reserved for Biblical festivals and is particularly identified with kedushat ha-yom and the associated prohibition to engage in melachah (as in Emor ch. 23 - "mikra kodesh kol melechet avodah lo taasu" etc.), neither of which is applicable on Chanukah. What, then, does the Talmud intend to convey by this usage? Notwithstanding its far more extensive treatment of Purim, the Talmud does not characterize this parallel festival in quite the same way. Indeed, the gemara (Megilah 5b) specifically underscores that Megillat Esther reversed its initial characterization of Purim as a "yom tov" (Esther 9:19, 22), thereby eliminating issur melakhah. The depiction of hanukah as a "yom tov" despite the absence of issur melakhah in this light assumes even greater significance.
Rashi (Shabbat 21b) directly addresses this issue. He remarks that the gemara did not establish Chanukah as a yom tov in the conventional meaning, as this is contingent upon the aforementioned issur melachah, but intended to emphasize Chanukah's function as a yom tov for hodaah and hallel! Assigning Chanukah "yom tov" status on this basis certainly reflects its elevated stature. Moreover, the very notion of a hodaah-hallel defined yom tov bespeaks of the prominence of these themes and the special focus of Chanukah.
The Maharam of Rothenberg (see Tur Orach Chaim, no. 670) ruled that festive meals on Chanukah do not constitute a seudat mitzvah, as the scope of Chanukah did not also include "mishteh ve-simchah" (the phrase in Megillat Esther) alongside "hallel ve-hodaah". The Bach addresses the discrepancy between these two rabbinic commemorations. He (ad loc) explains that Chanukah and Purim celebrate and embody very different values. Purim focuses on the physical salvation of the Jewish people whose very existence was in jeopardy. Consequently, it is experienced in a very physical manner, by an elaborate feast that stimulates joy (mishteh ve-simchah). The crisis of Chanukah, however, is attributed to insufficient commitment to the avodah in the Mikdash, and insufficient appreciation of the importance of Divine-directed mechanisms of avodat Hashem, generally. The emphasis on the miracle and mitzvah of the neirot is totally consistent with this more spiritual motif. While the Bach himself disputes Maharam's conclusion, he argues that this perspective underpins Maharam's aforementioned ruling. The proper articulation of thanksgiving and praise that reflects a profound acknowledgment of the broader importance of avodat Hashem (rather than Purim-like physical feasting) is the proper method of celebrating Chanukah. It is noteworthy that while we do insert Al hanisim on Purim, as well, the extra emphasis on hodaah in the text celebrating Chanukah ("le-hodot u-le-hallel le-shimcha ha-gadol") does not have its parallel in the shorter Purim rendition.
Rashi explains that hodaah is accomplished by inserting the passage of "al ha-nisim" in the already existing hodaah frameworks of tefilah (modim) and birkat ha-mazon (nodeh lecha). [It seems that Rashi is not merely describing where to insert, but is defining the contribution of al ha-nisim by virtue of its enhancement of these well established critical components. We cannot elaborate this point at present, but it is possibly central to the Torah's singular view on hodaah. We should also note that the Rambam (Hilchos Chanukah 3:3, 4:12) renders both "yom tov" and "hodaah" in the gemara (Shabbat 21b) quite differently than Rashi. He evidently understood that Chanukah as a "yom tov" refers to simchah. See, also, Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 7:37) regarding the implication for seudat mitzvah. This should also be assessed in light of Rambam Hilchod Yom Tov (6:17). I hope to discuss these issues at another time.] The gemara (Shabbat 24a) raises the question whether the section of al ha-nissim should also be integrated into the birkat ha-mazon. Rashi (ad loc) explains that the gemara was more certain that this elaborate expression of hodaah was indispensable to Chanukah prayer. At first glance, this distinction seems arbitrary, even counterintuitive. While hodaah is one of three components in tefillah (along with shevach and bakashah), the primary motivation and objective of birkat hamazon is hodaah. Surely, the insertion of al ha-nissim in such a context is compelling. However, the Bach's insight, and certainly Maharam's ruling, justify the potential distinction between tefillah- avodah she-belev and birkat ha-mazon, a halachic response to physical pleasure. The perspective remains valid despite the halachah's inclusion of al ha-nissim in birkat ha-mazon, as well. [See the view of Ravyah, also cited by the Bach, that one who omits the insertion must repeat the birkat hamazon!]
That Chanukah primarily focuses on the capacity and opportunity for avodat Hashem is expressed by other authorities, as well. The Levush (Orach Chaim no. 670:1,3) explains that one is prohibited from eulogizing on Chanukah (Shabbat 21b), apparently not merely because it is included in megillat taanit (see also Rosh Hashana 18b), but because this would distract from the objective of "hachna'at ha-lev ba-avodat Hashem" (a disciplined and rigorous commitment to Divine Service) which requires an atmosphere of joy (simchat ha-lev to ensure hashraat ha-shechinah).
Chanukah emerges from these sources (and many others) as a period that demands and that inspires serious contemplation about the centrality of avodat Hashem, the indispensability of its halachically ordained structures, and the inconceivability of their absence or diminution. Thus, the hodaah and hallel themes that define Chanukah as a yom tov, albeit an unconventional one, require serious study and application. They certainly should not be treated casually, merely as seasonal insertions to tefillah or birkat ha-mazon.
While Chanukah has no kedushat ha-yom, it is truly a yom tov in that it revisits urgent motifs in avodat Hashem. It is the yom tov of hallel and hodaah writ large.