Chanukah
1. At the conclusion of the Laws of Chanukah1, the Rambam says: "הי׳ לפניו נר ביתו ונר חנוכה או נר ביתו וקדוש היום, נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו, שהרי השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו. גדול השלום שכל התורה ניתנה לעשות שלום בעולם, שנאמר דרכי׳ דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותי׳ שלום" ("If one has before him the lamp of his home and the Chanukah lamp, or the lamp of his home and the Sanctification of the Day [Kiddush], the lamp of his home takes precedence, because of the peace of his home; for the Divine Name is erased in order to make peace between a man and his wife. Great is peace, for the entire Torah was given to make peace in the world, as it says: 'Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace'")2.
The source of this halachah is in Tractate Shabbos3, but there it says only: "נר ביתו עדיף משום שלום ביתו" ("The lamp of his home is preferable, because of the peace of his home"). We therefore need to understand:
What compels the Rambam to add a proof, "for the Name is erased in order to make peace etc."?4
And it especially requires explanation why, after the proof "for the Name etc.," he adds yet another, new matter: "Great is peace, for the entire Torah was given etc."5?
[It is very forced to say that the reason the Rambam adds at the end "Great is peace etc." is in order to conclude with something good6 — for the matter of "to make peace between a man and his wife" is also something good. And even if we were to say that, because of the matter of "the Name is erased," it is not considered something good, he could have changed the order and said: "The peace of his home takes precedence, for the Name is erased to make peace etc., and therefore the lamp of his home takes precedence," and the like7.]
2. We also need to understand:
a) The proof itself: As it is learned in its simple sense, the Rambam intends to bring out with "for the Name is erased to make peace etc." the great virtue of peace — that it overrides even so severe a matter in the (Torah and) mitzvos as the erasing of the Name; all the more so, then, does the lamp of the home override the Chanukah lamp. But seemingly the case is not comparable to the proof. "To make peace between a man and his wife" (regarding a sotah) speaks of permitting a wife to her husband — a "peace" that affects the very existence of family life and "שכינה שרוי׳ ביניהם" ("the Shechinah dwells between them")7*, in contrast to [divorce, over which] "the Altar sheds tears" etc.8 For all these reasons it outweighs the severity of erasing the Name. By contrast, the peace involved in the lamp of the home (which comes only to guard "שלא יכשל בעץ או באבן" ("that he not stumble over wood or stone")8*, or because "בני ביתו מצטערין לישב בחושך" ("the members of his household are distressed sitting in the dark")9) — what proof is there that such peace should override another mitzvah, (and especially the publicizing of the miracle of) the Chanukah lamp?
b) In the law itself, the Rambam abbreviates and changes the wording of the Gemara: (i) In the Gemara this appears as two cases: "The lamp of his home and the Chanukah lamp — the lamp of his home is preferable, because of the peace of his home; the lamp of his home and the Sanctification of the Day — the lamp of his home is preferable, because of the peace of his home"10; whereas the Rambam includes them both in one clause11. (ii) The wording of the Gemara is "the lamp of his home is preferable (עדיף)," while the Rambam changes it and writes "the lamp of his home takes precedence (קודם)"12.
3. This will be understood by first noting: It is known that even the place where the Rambam sets down a halachah is precise. The question then arises: Why did he place the law that the lamp of the home takes precedence over the Chanukah lamp in the Laws of Chanukah, and not in the Laws of Shabbos13?
Although this is not a law that is relevant every Shabbos, but only on Shabbos Chanukah, it is nevertheless a law in which the emphasis and the decisive factor is the (lamp of) Shabbos — that the virtue of the (home) Shabbos lamp takes precedence over the Chanukah lamp. Seemingly, then, he should have written it in the Laws of Shabbos14.
The question becomes even stronger in light of the second law, "the lamp of his home and the Sanctification of the Day," which has no connection at all to the Laws of Chanukah, only to the Laws of Shabbos — and he brings it here only "incidentally" to the first law ("the lamp of his home and the Chanukah lamp"). Seemingly it is all the more reasonable that he should have placed both laws in the Laws of Shabbos, and not in the Laws of Chanukah.
Moreover: in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch15 we indeed find the law that the Shabbos lamp takes precedence over the Chanukah lamp in both places — both in the Laws of Shabbos16 and in the Laws of Chanukah17.
Even if we were to say that it is not the Rambam's way to place the same law in two places — as we find in the rules of the Rambam18, that his way is "לפרש דבריו במקום אחד ובמקום אחד סותם דבריו" ("to explain his words in one place, and in another place to state his words without elaboration"), because he "relies .. on what he already wrote in another, earlier place"; whereas in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch we do not find this rule, and on the contrary, as mentioned, in our case it is stated twice —
(For as to the reason for the difference: the Shulchan Aruch is as its name implies — "prepared" laws, so that one knows what to do when the actual situation arises — and for this reason it can be that certain laws appear twice. So it is in our case, since the law that if one cannot afford to buy both a Shabbos lamp and a Chanukah lamp is relevant in actual practice both to (the Laws of) Shabbos and to (the Laws of) Chanukah;
whereas the Rambam's Sefer HaYad is (as he writes in his introduction) "חיבור זה מקבץ לתורה שבעל פה כולה .. שאדם קורא בתורה שבכתב תחלה ואחר כך קורא בזה ויודע ממנו תורה שבעל פה כולה ואינו צריך לקרות ספר אחר ביניהם" ("this compilation gathers the entire Oral Torah .. so that a person reads the Written Torah first and then reads this, and knows from it the entire Oral Torah, and need not read any other book between them .."). Since the intent of his book is to know (the laws of) the Torah, once one already knows [a law] there is no place to repeat it again) —
nevertheless, one cannot say this in our case — that he "explains his words in one place" and relies on that — because that "one place" should have been in the Laws of Shabbos, which come earlier, and not in the Laws of Chanukah. Especially since the fact that the Shabbos lamp overrides the Chanukah lamp emphasizes etc. Shabbos, as mentioned above.
4. This may be explained as follows: Regarding the obligation and definition of the Shabbos lamp, the Rambam says in the Laws of Shabbos that it is "בכלל עונג שבת" ("included in the delight of Shabbos")19 and "לכבוד שבת" ("in honor of Shabbos")20. But he does not write in the Laws of Shabbos that it is because of the peace of the home21 ("that he not stumble over wood or stone," or because "the members of his household are distressed sitting in the dark").
Seemingly this is most puzzling: Since the Rambam holds (in the Laws of Chanukah) that the essence of the Shabbos lamp is "the peace of his home," he should first and foremost have said so in its proper place, in the Laws of Shabbos!
From this it is understood that according to the Rambam, the essential obligation of the Shabbos lamp is (not because of the peace of the home22, but) because of honor and delight23. And although through the Shabbos lamp the matter of peace in the home is in fact accomplished, that is not the definition and reason of the mitzvah24.
According to this, however, the law "the lamp of his home is preferable, because of the peace of his home" becomes difficult — "the peace of his home" is not the definition of the obligation and the mitzvah!
The Rambam resolves this by placing the law (not in the Laws of Shabbos, but) in the Laws of Chanukah, and by adding the proof, "for the Name is erased etc." With this he introduces a novel point: that "the lamp of his home takes precedence because of the peace of his home" is
[not a definition within the (lamp of) Shabbos — that the superiority of the Shabbos lamp consists of this, and with it it overrides the Chanukah lamp; for, as said earlier, the peace of the home is not the definition of the obligation of the mitzvah of the Shabbos lamp25 — but rather]
because of the great virtue of peace in general. And when a mitzvah is set aside because of the matter of peace, this is not in the category of a mitzvah being overridden; rather, one thereby fulfills something akin to that very mitzvah26 (which is in practice set aside because of peace (as will be explained in Section 5)).
And in our case: the fact that "the lamp of his home takes precedence because of the peace of his home" is also on account of the definition and content of Chanukah (which is part of "the entire Torah that was given to make peace"). For this reason the Rambam placed the law in the Laws of Chanukah — to negate the notion that it is an overriding of Chanukah; rather, this is what the matter of Chanukah itself also requires.
And for this he brings a proof from the fact that "the Name is erased to make peace between a man and his wife": peace is not only so great that for its sake one overrides the severe prohibition of erasing the Name; rather, one writes the Name from the outset in order to erase it — so as to make peace between a man and his wife. The mitzvah of writing the Name, in its holiness and force, is accomplished and revealed through its being "erased," since this brings peace between a man and his wife.
Accordingly, we can appreciate why the Rambam is precise to write "the lamp of his home takes precedence," differing from the Gemara's wording, "the lamp of his home is preferable." "Preferable" could be interpreted to mean that the one mitzvah (the Shabbos lamp) has a superiority over the other (the Chanukah lamp), and therefore overrides the other mitzvah27.
The Rambam therefore makes clear that "preferable" here means merely "takes precedence": the Gemara intends by this only to state the law that in the actual lighting (when he has [money] for only one of them), the lamp of the home comes first28.
5. In order to explain this matter — that when peace is involved, it is not a case of one mitzvah (or prohibition) being overridden by the superiority of another mitzvah (or prohibition), but rather that this is also in keeping with the content of the other mitzvah — the Rambam continues and explains: "Great is peace, for the entire Torah was given to make peace in the world."
Since the entire Torah (every mitzvah) is, in its essence, meant to make peace in the world, it is understood that when there is a mitzvah connected with peace in the literal sense, one cannot say that the mitzvah that brings about peace overrides the other mitzvah (whether a Torah mitzvah or a Rabbinic one). For through fulfilling the mitzvah that actually brings peace, the intent behind the giving and commanding of the other mitzvah is also carried out (to make peace).
With this we also understand why the Rambam included the two matters — that the lamp of the home takes precedence over the Chanukah lamp and over the Sanctification of the Day — together, and not as separate cases as in the Gemara: to emphasize that they are not two separate details and commands (that the lamp of the home a) overrides the Chanukah lamp, and b) overrides the Sanctification of the Day); rather, it is one and the same law. Since peace is the overall intent of the giving of the Torah and all its mitzvos ("the entire Torah"), including also the Chanukah lamp and the Sanctification of the Day, the common factor between them requires the precedence of the lamp of the home29.
6. We can further appreciate the connection between the virtue of peace of "the entire Torah" and the Laws of Chanukah30: For Chanukah is not merely a detail within "the entire Torah" that "was given to make peace in the world"; rather, Chanukah is connected with "the entire Torah,"
as the Rambam elaborates at the beginning of the Laws of Chanukah regarding the reason for the establishment of the days of Chanukah: "בבית שני כשמלכו יון גזרו גזרות על ישראל ובטלו דתם ולא הניחו אותם לעסוק בתורה ובמצות כו׳ עד שריחם עליהם אלקי אבותינו והושיעם כו׳ ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת ימים האלו .. ימי שמחה והלל" ("In the [era of the] Second Temple, when the Greeks ruled, they issued decrees against the Jewish people, abolished their faith, and did not allow them to occupy themselves with Torah and mitzvos etc., until the G‑d of our fathers had mercy on them and saved them etc. Because of this, the Sages of that generation ordained that these eight days .. be days of joy and Hallel") —
that is to say, the content of Chanukah does not consist only in its coming about through a particular event and having particular mitzvos, like the other festivals and mitzvos (whether Rabbinic or from the Torah). Rather, even more: on Chanukah there took place the salvation from general decrees — against the entire "faith" of the Jewish people and the whole of the occupation with Torah and mitzvos.
7. According to the above, the connection of the law "the lamp of his home takes precedence" to the Laws of Chanukah is only on account of the connection of the virtue of peace to "the entire Torah" — merely that Chanukah is a part of "the entire Torah," as mentioned.
However, since the Rambam elaborates on the matter of peace specifically in the Laws of Chanukah, it is reasonable to say that the matter of peace has a special connection to the content and theme of Chanukah31.
This will be understood by first noting what we find: that the service and accomplishment of Torah and mitzvos is expressed in two general categories: a) "אנכי ה׳ אלקיך גו׳" ("I am the L‑rd your G‑d…") — a positive command, an action of affirmation; b) "לא יהי׳ לך אלקים אחרים" ("You shall have no other gods") — a negative command, an action of negation.
In general, this is the difference between positive mitzvos and negative mitzvos. The Rabbinic mitzvos, however — which are all specifically [fulfilled] by actively doing32 — their cause and intent is the repelling and negation of evil, as explained at length elsewhere33.
8. And this, in general, is the difference between the definition of the theme of Shabbos and the definition of the theme of Chanukah34:
The essence of Shabbos is in the manner of affirmation, as the Rambam says right at the beginning of the Laws of Shabbos: "שביתה בשביעי ממלאכה מצות עשה שנאמר וביום השביעי תשבות" ("Resting from labor on the seventh day is a positive commandment, as it says, 'And on the seventh day you shall rest'"). Although most of the laws of Shabbos are in the category of negative mitzvos — the thirty-nine primary categories of labor forbidden on Shabbos, etc. — nevertheless (the Rambam begins with the positive mitzvah, because) its content and essence is the matter of affirmation — cessation and rest. For the matter of rest on Shabbos is not a matter of absence, but a positive matter35; and as it was at the beginning of Creation, as our Sages say36: "The world was lacking rest; Shabbos came, rest came."
On the other hand, the content of Chanukah — as the Rambam elaborates at the beginning of the Laws of Chanukah (as mentioned above): "גזרו גזירות כו׳ ובטלו דתם ולא הניחו אותם לעסוק בתורה ובמצות כו׳ ולחצום כו׳ וגברו בני חשמונאי כו׳ ואבדום" ("They issued decrees etc., abolished their faith, and did not allow them to occupy themselves with Torah and mitzvos etc., and oppressed them etc., and the sons of the Chashmona'im prevailed etc. and destroyed them") — is a negative matter: the decrees etc. — the opposition to Torah and mitzvos — were nullified.
Afterwards there came from this "שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות וכו׳" ("joy and Hallel, and on them the lamps are lit etc.") — a positive action; but its cause and essence is the destruction of the opposition, as mentioned37.
9. Accordingly, it is also understood regarding the lamp of the home and the Chanukah lamp: The definition of the Shabbos lamp is like the theme of Shabbos as a whole — affirmation, delight etc. This is why the Rambam says in the Laws of Shabbos that the Shabbos lamp is [a matter of] delight and honor — adding to the delight and honor.
In actual practice and reality, however, since the Shabbos lamp is an illuminating light, it also accomplishes (peace in the home) — the negation and repelling of the opposition38: it negates and prevents the members of the household from being "distressed sitting in the dark," and [ensures] "that he not stumble over wood or stone" (unlike the Chanukah lamp, whose light it is forbidden to use39).
The Chanukah lamp, although its mitzvah and function is "להראות ולגלות הנס" ("to show and reveal the miracle")40 — publicizing the miracle in the world, an affirmation — and for this reason "צריך אדם להזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח הא־ל והודי׳ לו על הנסים שעשה לנו" ("a person must be careful with it, in order to make known the miracle and to add to the praise of G‑d and thanksgiving to Him for the miracles He performed for us")41; on the other hand42, the cause and content of the events that brought it about was a matter of absence and negation: the opponents who "issued decrees etc. and did not allow them to occupy themselves with Torah and mitzvos" were nullified, and "הושיעם מידם והצילם וגברו בני חשמונאי" ("He saved them from their hand and rescued them, and the sons of the Chashmona'im prevailed") — the opposition to Torah and mitzvos was removed, which in general is the matter of peace.
[And this point too is revealed through the lamps43, as in the words of the Rambam cited above, and as we say at the lighting of the Chanukah lamp: "הנרות הללו אנו מדליקין על התשועות ועל הנסים ועל הנפלאות" ("We kindle these lights for the salvations, the miracles and the wonders")44.]
Therefore, when the question arises of "the lamp of his home and the Chanukah lamp, or the lamp of his home and the Sanctification of the Day," the "Laws of Chanukah" say that "the lamp of his home takes precedence": since the function of the lamp of the home is that it illuminates and brings about the matter of the peace of his home in a physical sense, it follows that through it the content and theme of peace is accomplished more than through the Chanukah lamp. Consequently, it emerges that by the law (with its content explained above) of Chanukah itself, "the lamp of his home takes precedence — because of the peace of his home."
10. For this the Rambam brings a demonstration and proof that the fact that the matter of peace (the negation of opposition) outweighs affirmation (the addition of light and holiness) is not merely a particular matter within Chanukah, but a general matter and the purpose of the entire Torah: "for the Name is erased to make peace between a man and his wife." The most exalted level in the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is the Name Havayah, which is the Essential Name45, the Explicit Name46 and the Unique Name47. When His Holy Name is written in ink on physical parchment, this is the highest manner of drawing down and adding holiness in the world. Nevertheless, we see that one writes the holy Name from the outset with the intention of erasing it and bringing peace between a man and his wife — so that the entire purpose of the positive action of adding holiness in the world is for the sake of peace — a negation: that there not be separation between a man and his wife.
And the Rambam continues and adds an explanation of this: that "great is peace" because "the entire Torah was given to make peace in the world." The fact that "the Torah was given" — given below in this world — is not (only) in order to add light and holiness in the (lower) world as well, but "to make peace in the world"; and peace is needed only where there is separation and strife that must be nullified.
That is to say, "the entire Torah" — the whole Torah, all the mitzvos, including also those whose revealed theme is the affirmative matter of adding to and revealing light and holiness — in them too the main intent and goal is "to make peace in the world," to nullify that within the world which opposes holiness48.
11. The explanation of this in greater depth:
The truth and perfection of peace is not merely that the opposition of the other is nullified and there comes to be peace, but that a state comes about in which there is altogether no (and there cannot be any) existence of an opponent. That is, it is revealed that the other's existence is not opposed (and, more perfectly) — not different from one's own existence.
And this is the inner meaning of "the Torah was given to make peace in the world"49: that the true existence of the world is Torah, G‑dliness — not only because G‑dliness is the entire cause of its coming into being and its continued existence, as the Alter Rebbe explains at length50 that the Al-mighty creates the world constantly, every moment, ex nihilo; but because the very existence of the "created being" is the "true Being"51.
The world (olam, from the term helem, "concealment"52), of itself, conceals the G‑dly light, which is not seen openly in the world. On the contrary, the world appears as an independent existence53, so that one might think not only that its existence is not G‑dliness, but also that it does not, Heaven forbid, need the word of G‑d to give it life and sustain it — that the world is, Heaven forbid, cut off from G‑dliness: "בירה זו בלא מנהיג" ("this palace without a master")54, Heaven forbid. And for this reason the Torah was given — "to make peace in the world," to make peace between the world and, so to speak, the Al-mighty, so that it be recognizable and felt (not only that the existence of the world is not opposed to and does not contradict G‑dliness, Heaven forbid, and more than that — that it constantly needs the Al-mighty, but) that the entire existence of the world itself is the "true Being," as mentioned.
Accordingly, it is understood that although in Torah and mitzvos there are both lines and modes of service — affirmation (adding to the drawing down of light) and negation (removing the opposition) — the intent and goal of the entire Torah (of both lines) is "to make peace in the world": to reveal that the true existence of the world is G‑dliness. This comes about through nullifying the untruth of the world, in that the world conceals G‑dliness; then, as a matter of course, the true existence of the world — G‑dliness — is revealed.
12. And this is connected with the overall content of (the Laws of) Chanukah: The victory of the Jewish people and the nullification of the situation in which "they issued decrees against the Jewish people, abolished their faith, and did not allow them to occupy themselves with Torah and mitzvos" came about through the fact that the Chashmona'im, in those days, gave up their lives for the sanctification of G‑d's Name55. Self-sacrifice derives from the Yechidah of the soul, and this is the level from which the true matter of peace comes — that from the outset there is no place at all for an opponent (as the Mitteler Rebbe explains at length56).
Consequently, this also came down in actual practice, literally, that "גברו ישראל על אויביהם ואבדום" ("the Jewish people prevailed over their enemies and destroyed them")57 and "חזרה מלכות לישראל" ("sovereignty returned to the Jewish people")58 — peace and tranquility for the Jewish people in the literal sense.
* * *
13. From all the above it is understood that if throughout the entire year there must be a great effort in the mitzvah of lighting the Shabbos candles — that every Jewish daughter (even before marriage, from the time she reaches the age of education) should light Shabbos candles, as has been discussed at length many times58* — this is all the more pertinent during the days of Chanukah: that one should utilize the days of Chanukah in particular, with the utmost possible effort, not only for the Chanukah lamp campaign, but also to strengthen the "Shabbos candles campaign,"
which must also give an added strengthening to the effort and resolve that one "takes along" from the days of Chanukah into the days that follow Chanukah.
And when all these lamps of mitzvah (the Shabbos lamp and the Chanukah lamp) are gathered together, they become a great torch, which illuminates the darkness of exile, and the Redemption comes through Moshiach Tzidkeinu, when there will actually be "peace in the world": "באותו הזמן לא יהי׳ שם לא רעב ולא מלחמה ולא קנאה ותחרות" ("In that era there will be neither famine nor war, nor envy nor competition")59, for Moshiach Tzidkeinu will perfect "את העולם כולו לעבוד את ה׳ ביחד שנאמר כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא כולם בשם ה׳ ולעבדו שכם אחד" ("the entire world to serve G‑d together, as it says: 'For then I will transform the nations to a pure language, that they all call upon the Name of G‑d and serve Him with one accord'")60, and there will be fulfilled "מראה לכם נרות של ציון" ("I will show you the lights of Zion")61 — the kindling of the lamps in the Third Beis HaMikdash.
(From the sichos of 19 Kislev and Shabbos Parshas Vayeshev and Mikeitz, 5736)
Notes
1) Note the special connection of the (lamp of) Chanukah and the (lamp of the home — of) Shabbos this year (5740) — in which there are two Shabbosos during Chanukah (so that the above law is relevant twice). These days are: a) the beginning of the days of Chanukah, since the essence of the miracle was on the first day (when they found the cruse of oil), and all the days of Chanukah are included in the first day (Sha'arei Orah, maamar "Bekaf-hei BeKislev," ch. 42; maamar "Ki Atah Neiri," ch. 17); and consequently b) the conclusion and seal (see Berachos 12a) of the days of Chanukah, the completion of the miracle, the eighth day, the completion of all the days (see Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 318, in the notes there; vol. 28, p. 244 ff.).
2) On the source of these words of the Rambam, see Likkutei Sichos vol. 8, p. 349 ff.
3) 23b. Here too the connection between Chanukah and Shabbos is emphasized, since the entire discussion of Chanukah is in Tractate Shabbos (even though it seemingly comes there only incidentally to the Mishnah's mention of the wicks and oils with which one may light on Shabbos).
Note also the saying of our Sages (Sefer Yetzirah 1:7) that "their beginning is wedged in their end and their end in their beginning" — and the Rambam's Sefer Zemanim begins with the Laws of Shabbos and ends with the Laws of Chanukah. See below in the text.
4) Especially since in the Gemara [it says], "Rava said: It is obvious to me," so why did the Rambam need a proof and demonstration?
5) Note that in one of the manuscripts of the Rambam (cited in the Yalkut Shinuyei Nuschaos in the Frankel edition of the Rambam), "Great is peace etc." is a separate halachah.
6) Except that it is the Rambam's way to conclude each of the fourteen books of the Yad HaChazakah with a fundamental, general matter, which depends on the intent of the heart, etc.
7) In addition to the main point, that (apparently) the Rambam is not particular to conclude the laws in his work specifically with something good (see the conclusion of Sefer Nashim in the Rambam, and elsewhere). See also the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz 5744.
7*) Sotah 17a.
8) End of Gittin.
8*) Mordechai, Shabbos, ibid., sec. 294 (it is only so that he not stumble etc.). Similarly in Rashi, ibid., 25b (s.v. hadlakas). Cited as halachah in Magen Avraham sec. 263, subsec. 4; Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, beginning of sec. 263. But in all of the above this is not cited as the reason why the Shabbos lamp takes precedence.
9) Rashi, ibid., 23b, s.v. shalom beiso; Ran, ibid. (on the reason the lamp of the home takes precedence). Cited in Magen Avraham, beginning of sec. 678. Similarly in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, sec. 263, par. 4 (on the reason the Shabbos lamp takes precedence over the Sanctification of the Day).
10) Also in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, ibid., par. 3, where the reason "because of the peace of the home" is stated once, at the end of the matter, the law that the Shabbos lamp takes precedence is in two clauses — unlike in the Rambam.
11) Similarly in Rabbeinu Chananel, Shabbos, ibid.
12) Especially since with this wording ("takes precedence") one might err [and think] that the intent is (only) that he should light them first when he has both (see Eliyahu Rabbah (and Eliyahu Zuta), sec. 678, subsec. 3 (subsec. 1)). This is unlike the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, ibid., which preface: "If he cannot afford to buy etc." (But in the Rambam, in the preceding halachah, he writes: "If he has only etc." See below, note 31.)
*) Except that there they wrote that for this reason the Rambam added "or the Sanctification of the Day" (even though this is already obvious from the preceding halachah) — in order to negate this possible misunderstanding.
13) For an explanation of the Rambam's words (and why he wrote this in the Laws of Chanukah) according to the inner dimension of the matters, see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 810 ff.; the sicha of Shabbos Chanukah 5735; and elsewhere.
14) One could still ask regarding the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, which does not cite it in the Laws of Shabbos. It may be said that his view is that its place is in the Laws of Chanukah (which are not in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe).
15) So too in the Levush.
16) Sec. 263, par. 3.
17) Sec. 678.
18) Yad Malachi, Rules of the Rambam, sec. 6.
19) Beginning of ch. 5, ibid.
20) Ch. 30, halachah 5, ibid.
21) It is very forced to say that the Rambam's intent in writing "the peace of his home" is on account of the matter of "delight of Shabbos," which he wrote in the Laws of Shabbos (see Levush, Orach Chaim, beginning of sec. 263; and note Perishah, ibid., subsec. 2), for then he should have explained it.
22) This is unlike the view of the Alter Rebbe, who writes and emphasizes explicitly at the beginning of the Laws of the Shabbos Lamp (beginning of sec. 263): "The Sages instituted etc. because of the peace of the home, so that one not stumble etc." See also there, par. 9.
23) That is, their very essence is delight and honor; whereas according to the view of the Alter Rebbe in the Shulchan Aruch, ibid., it is only a contributing factor to the completeness of the delight of eating, i.e., a detail in the delight of the meal* (in accordance with the view of Tosafos, s.v. hadlakas — Shabbos 25b). It may be said that this is why he does not cite it at the beginning of sec. 242, among the laws of delight of Shabbos (see on all this the letter of Erev Shabbos Kodesh and Chanukah 5736, in the note — printed below, p. 528).
It may be said that according to the view of the Alter Rebbe, this is proven from this very Gemara, "The lamp of his home and the Chanukah lamp — the lamp of his home is preferable, because of the peace of his home," and it does not say "because it contains honor and delight." According to the Rambam, this is no proof, because on that account alone it would not be sufficient to override the Chanukah lamp, since in his view the Chanukah lamp too includes several details besides the commemoration of the miracle of the lamps (see there, ch. 4, halachah 12, "for the miracles He performed for us"; and see Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Rambam, ibid., ch. 3, halachah 3, and below in the text).
This is unlike the view of the Alter Rebbe (who, in the simple sense, rules like the Shulchan Aruch etc.), that the entire establishment of Chanukah is on account of the miracle of the lamps, and only this is the publicizing of the miracle of the Chanukah lamp. He does not hold like the Rambam that the establishment of Chanukah is also on account of the victory and miracle of the war, for which reason "the Sages ordained .. days of joy etc." — since this is not stated in our Gemara (and the Rambam's source for this is the Midrash on Chanukah). See Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 142 ff. This is not the place to elaborate.
*) Unlike the Rambam, ibid., beginning of ch. 5, who writes "even if he has nothing to eat," and in halachah 1 [?] there, "and he is obligated to sit by the light of the lamp," and does not write "to sit and dine" (as in Tosafos, ibid.). See also Hagahos Maimoniyos, ibid.
But note that the source of the Alter Rebbe, ibid., pars. 2 and 3 ("included in the delight of the evening meal," "and the bread takes precedence over the lamp, since it is the main mitzvah of the meal"), is from the Magen Avraham, ibid., subsecs. 4–5, who explains thus the words of the Mechaber (ibid., par. 2): "Even if he has nothing to eat .. for this is included in the delight of Shabbos" (which are the very words of the Rambam cited above, beginning of ch. 5) — even though this is not the plain meaning of the wording of (the Rambam and) the Shulchan Aruch. This is not the place to elaborate.
24) The Rambam's reasoning in holding that the Shabbos lamp is on account of delight and honor may be explained as follows: this accords with the overall content of Shabbos, whose main theme is affirmation — rest, as explained below in the text, Section 8. He therefore explains according to the plain meaning of our Sages' saying (Tanchuma, beginning of Parshas Noach): "The lighting of the lamp — as it is written, 'And you shall call Shabbos a delight' — this is the lighting of the lamp on Shabbos." Accordingly, this is in keeping with the plain wording in Shabbos 25b: "Lighting a lamp on Shabbos is an obligation."
25) Accordingly, we can appreciate why he writes "the lamp of his home" (as in the Gemara), and does not specify and spell out (as in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch) "the Shabbos lamp" — because the reason it takes precedence is not by virtue of its being the Shabbos lamp (for delight and honor), but because it is the lamp of his home, which illuminates the house and actually brings about peace in the home.
26) Note the explanation of [the principle] that one who is occupied with a mitzvah is exempt from [another] mitzvah (Tzafnas Pa'neach, Laws of Terumos, 33, beginning of col. 3 (cited in Klalei HaTorah VehaMitzvos under that entry); and in Chassidus — Hemshech 5666, pp. 68, 522; maamar "LeMarbeh HaMisrah" 5700, ch. 3 — Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim vol. 2, 435b). This requires further investigation in the Yerushalmi, Shabbos 1:2 (at its end): "this is study and this is study."
27) This is also implied in the Levush, ibid., sec. 678, who elaborates on how the Shabbos lamp is preferable.
28) According to all the above, we can appreciate the difference between the Rambam's wording in this halachah and his wording in halachah 13 before it: "If he has before him the Sanctification of the Day and the lighting of the Chanukah lamp, he should first buy oil to light the Chanukah lamp rather than wine for the Sanctification of the Day; since both are from the words of the Scribes, it is better to give precedence to the Chanukah lamp, which contains the commemoration of the miracle" —
for the intent there is that the mitzvah of lighting the Chanukah lamp is superior to the mitzvah of the Sanctification of the Day and overrides it (as emphasized by the length of his wording — "he should first buy oil etc. rather than wine for the Sanctification of the Day"), and the superiority of the Chanukah lamp over the Sanctification of the Day lies in this: (that although they are equal in their mitzvah, since "both are from the words of the Scribes," nevertheless the Chanukah lamp) "contains the commemoration of the miracle."
Whereas in our halachah he writes briefly, "the lamp of his home takes precedence because of the peace of his home" — because the fact that "the lamp of his home takes precedence" is not on account of the obligation and mitzvah of the lamp of the home being so severe that it overrides the mitzvah of the Chanukah lamp [for "the peace of his home" is not the definition of the mitzvah of the lamp of the home, as explained in the text], but rather on account of the reality of "the peace of his home" that is present in "the lamp of his home" (the virtue of peace in general).
Therefore: a) he does not write "both are from the words of the Scribes" — because here the obligation and definition of the mitzvah of the lamp of the home is not relevant; b) he writes "takes precedence" without qualification, and not "takes precedence over the Sanctification of the Day."
Accordingly, we can also appreciate the second [difference]: in halachah 13 he uses the wording "he should first buy etc. it is better to give precedence to the Chanukah lamp etc." (i.e., that the person should give precedence to the Chanukah lamp), whereas here he uses the wording "the lamp of his home takes precedence" (not "he gives precedence to the lamp of his home"). For the precedence in halachah 13 is on account of the obligation and mitzvah (incumbent upon the person) of the Chanukah lamp; whereas here the precedence is on account of the reality of the peace of his home that exists in the lamp of the home (the object itself of the lamp of the home).
29) From this it is also understood, as a matter of course, that the law "the lamp of his home and the Sanctification of the Day — the lamp of his home takes precedence" also does not belong in the Laws of Shabbos, since it is not on account of the definition (and mitzvah of the lamp) and the Laws of Shabbos, but on account of the definition of peace in the home. And why it belongs specifically in the Laws of Chanukah — see below in the text, Section 8.
30) For seemingly its place is in the Laws of De'os and the like.
31) Seemingly, it may be said that there is a practical halachic difference (resulting from the fact that the precedence of the lamp of the home is a law in the Laws of Chanukah): if he can afford two lamps, should he use both for Shabbos lamps, or light one as a Chanukah lamp? (Especially when Friday night is not the first night of Chanukah, for then in any case he will not fulfill the "widespread custom" of adding [a lamp each night] (Rambam, ibid., ch. 4, halachah 3).) Seemingly, since the precedence of the lamp of the home is a law in the Laws of Chanukah, and is not in the category of overriding the mitzvah of the Chanukah lamp, there is room to say that he should light the second one too as a Shabbos lamp, to add (light and) peace in his home (in each and every room). According to this, it would be unlike Rashi, Shabbos, ibid., 23b, s.v. ner (and so ruled the Magen Avraham, ibid., sec. 263, subsec. 9, and beginning of sec. 678; and the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe (ibid., sec. 263, par. 4) — regarding the Shabbos lamp taking precedence over the Sanctification of the Day).
But in the simple sense, the wording (at the beginning of halachah 13 in the Rambam, ibid.) "If he has only one perutah" — meaning that he has money for only one lamp — also applies to what he writes in halachah 14 regarding "the lamp of his home and the Chanukah lamp etc." If so, when he has more than this, he must light the second as a Chanukah lamp, as in the sources cited above. So too writes the Ma'aseh Rokeach on the Rambam, ibid.
It may be said that one of the practical differences [is] that even in [OCR unclear] and the like, it should at least be seen, and within the time-span for lighting the Chanukah lamp.
32) See Torah Or 52c; Likkutei Torah, Pekudei 6d; Shir HaShirim 11b. See also the note in Sefer HaMaamarim 5708 [?], p. 50; and in the maamar "Mai Mevarech" 5700 [?] (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim vol. 3, p. 205; Sefer HaMaamarim 5700 (Kehot 5746), p. 74).
33) The sources cited in the preceding note; maamar "Matzah Zu" 5640; maamar "Mai Mevarech" 5700 [?]; and elsewhere.
34) Note that also in the plain sense, the mitzvah (and theme) of Shabbos is from the Torah, while Chanukah is Rabbinic; and the main content of Rabbinic mitzvos is [negation], as explained in the text.
35) See Tzafnas Pa'neach, Laws of Shabbos, beginning of ch. 21 (21d); see Responsa Tzafnas Pa'neach (Dvinsk) vol. 2, sec. 23; and see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 21, p. 71 ff.
36) Rashi, Bereishis 2:2; Rashi, Megillah 9a, s.v. vayechal. See also Bereishis Rabbah 10:9.
37) Accordingly, one may add regarding "their beginning in their end" in the Rambam, at the beginning of Sefer Zemanim and its conclusion: It begins with the two matters: "Resting from labor on the seventh day is a positive commandment .. and whoever does labor on it has nullified a positive commandment and transgressed a negative commandment." And it concludes with the two matters: the lamp of his home and the Chanukah lamp — the commemoration of the miracle, affirmation; and the peace of the home, negation.
38) Note the Levush and Perishah cited above, note 21.
39) Rambam, Laws of Chanukah, ch. 4, halachah 6. See Levush, sec. 263, ibid., and sec. 678.
40) Rambam, ibid., ch. 3, halachah 3.
41) Rambam, ibid., ch. 4, halachah 12.
42) See the sources cited in note 33, that Rabbinic mitzvos contain the virtues of both positive and negative mitzvos. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 224 ff.
43) Note the matter of the Chanukah lamp in its inner dimension (that it is the drawing down of the light of Torah): the main [aspect of] the mitzvah of the Chanukah lamp is to illuminate outside, in the public domain — the level of "many," i.e., the "mountain of separation" etc. — so that there too the light of G‑d and His holiness should shine, so that there be no concealment and hiddenness etc. (Torah Or, Mikeitz 42, end of col. 3). See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, ibid.
44) See also above, p. 366.
45) Pardes, Sha'ar 19; Moreh Nevuchim, part 1, ch. 61 ff.; and elsewhere.
46) Sotah 38a; Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, ch. 6, halachah 2.
47) Sotah, ibid.; Sanhedrin 60a. See at length Pardes, ibid.; Sha'arei Orah (of R. Yosef Gikatilla), Sha'ar 5; Torah Or, end of Parshas Noach; and elsewhere.
48) For the existence of the world, of itself, is "lowest in level, such that there is none lower than it in terms of the concealment of His light, and doubly and redoubly dark, to the point that it is full of kelipos and sitra achra, which actually oppose G‑d, saying 'I am, and there is none besides me'" (Tanya, ch. 36). It is therefore understood that the making of a dwelling place in the lower realms comes about not through drawing down light, but through nullifying and breaking the kelipah, and removing the concealment and darkness of the world. See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 7, p. 22 ff.; vol. 12, p. 74.
49) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 144 ff.
50) Sha'ar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1 ff.
51) Biurei HaZohar of the Mitteler Rebbe, 43c; maamar "Mitzvasah Mishetishka HaChamah" 5678.
52) Likkutei Torah, Shelach 37d; Biurei HaZohar of the Tzemach Tzedek, p. 355.
53) See above, note 48; maamar "Mitzvasah," ibid.
54) The wording of the Midrash — Bereishis Rabbah, beginning of ch. 39.
55) Tanya 30a; Sha'arei Orah, in the introduction; ibid., maamar "Bekaf-hei BeKislev," ch. 42; maamar "Tanu Rabbanan Ner Chanukah" 5643, at its end (printed in Sefer HaMaamarim 5643–44, p. 35 ff.).
56) Sha'arei Teshuvah, part 2, maamar "Padah BeShalom."
57) Rambam, ibid., ch. 3, halachah 1 [?].
58) Ibid., end of halachah 1.
58*) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 1, p. 281 ff.; above, p. 168 ff., p. 173; Likkutei Sichos vol. 7, cited in note 49 [?].
59) Rambam, end of the Laws of Kings.
60) Rambam, ibid., end of ch. 11.
61) Yalkut Shimoni, beginning of Parshas Beha'aloscha. See also Ramban, beginning of Parshas Beha'aloscha; Zayis Ra'anan on the Yalkut Shimoni, ibid.
Key Lesson
The Rambam places "the lamp of the home takes precedence" in the Laws of Chanukah to teach that peace does not override a mitzvah but fulfills the purpose of the entire Torah — to nullify opposition to G‑dliness and reveal that the world's true existence is G‑dliness. Like the Chashmona'im's self-sacrifice that removed all opposition, we should strengthen the Shabbos candles campaign together with the Chanukah lights, so that together they become a great torch that ends the darkness of exile with the coming of Moshiach.