50 —בית שמאי ובית הלל על ניסי חנוכה וצמיחה רוחנית

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Regarding what you noted at the end of your letter about the Mishnah (chapter 2, halachah 5) concerning "increasing and not decreasing"—both reasons are brought: "We ascend in holiness and do not descend," and "like the days that depart." Even though in Shabbat (21b) it is a dispute among the Amoraim, this was already referenced by the commentary Nachalas Yaakov on Mishnah—printed in the Talmud—even though he did not explain it further, stating: "The Gemara here holds both reasons as in the Talmud."

It can be said that since we cannot decide between the two reasons, and neither contradicts the other, and there is no practical difference—they are balanced, so both are mentioned. We find even greater examples in the Talmud where, even when it affects practice, they say (Berachos 59a-b and elsewhere): "Therefore let us say both." Also see Rashbam's commentary on Bava Basra (75a): "Let it be like this and like that," etc.

Since this has come up, let us discuss the reasoning behind increasing or decreasing candles—whether it depends on whether the miracle of Chanukah grew greater each day or vice versa. In the year of the miracle, they did not know how many days the oil would last. (Commentaries have already questioned the answer that they divided the oil into eight parts on day one; further difficulty arises from Zevachim 88a: sacred vessels sanctify only when full; if lacking measure, they do not sanctify—and from Menachos 88b: obviously with a full measure.) Clearly, to those who witnessed it, the miracle grew greater each day.

But our Sages said in Shabbat (ibid.) that only in the following year was Chanukah established. By then it was already revealed retroactively that on day one there was enough oil to last eight days; whereas on day two there was only enough for seven days, etc. This is Beis Shammai's reason for counting by incoming days: all eight incoming days' lighting was included by miracle in this amount of oil; thus each day, the miracle decreased. But Beis Hillel says that a potential miracle is not enough—it must be recognized by all through actual sight. Most people only acknowledge what they see.

As our Sages said in Yoma (21a): miracles outside are counted; inside ones are not. Therefore, we count outgoing days—the actualized miracle—which especially relates to publicizing the miracle: thus, each day increases.

According to this explanation, Beis Shammai is stringent while Beis Hillel is lenient. As a sharp insight: similar approaches of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel appear elsewhere—in Okatzin (3:5), regarding when fish become susceptible to impurity: Beis Shammai says from when caught (potentially dead), while Beis Hillel says only when actually dead.

To conclude with a moral lesson—in short—the second reason for their dispute relates to Sukkos offerings and ascending in holiness. The approaches of Shammai and Hillel regarding serving one's Creator are explained in Shabbat (31a): Shammai is stringent; Hillel is lenient. Thus, if one's evil inclination has defiled his sanctuary and he seeks purification—to enter under G‑d's wings—Beis Shammai holds that first comes turning from evil; removing evil from within. At first, evil is strong and requires great effort and much light; but each day evil decreases so less light is needed—like Sukkos offerings which decrease daily because less evil remains among nations.

This explains why there is no contradiction between decreasing offerings corresponding to nations (see Rashi at end of Pinchas) and our Sages' statement in Sukkah (55b) that they atone for them. But Beis Hillel says one should begin by entering under G‑d's wings even if evil remains strong within him—beginning with positive action—service in holiness itself—and as one mitzvah leads to another, he will gradually increase until he praises G‑d's great name; Amalek will be erased and G‑d's name will be great and complete (see Tosafos s.v. v'onin Berachos 3a).

We would be pleased to hear about your good activities regarding Machane Yisrael and Merkaz L'Inyanei Chinuch. Surely you will write us from time to time about these matters—thank you in advance.

Summary

This letter analyzes differing perspectives on recognizing miracles—whether potential or actualized—and connects them to methods of spiritual growth: whether one should first remove negativity or immediately begin adding holiness. Both approaches offer valuable lessons for personal development.