The Miracle of the Chanukah Oil: Spontaneous

Regeneration or Protracted Combustion

Rabbi Joshua Flug Rosh Kollel, Boca Raton Community Kollel
Introduction recounts that despite the overwhelming advantages the
Greeks had over the Hasmoneans in areas of combat, the
One of the central themes of Chanukah is the theme of
Hasmoneans miraculously defeated them. Why is the mira-
miracles. This is reflected in the recitation of Al HaNissim
cle of the oil not mentioned at all in this prayer?
in both Shemoneh Esrei and Birkat HaMazon. The Be-
raita, Shabbat 21b, in recounting the miracles of Chanukah Beit Yosef’s Answers
states:
Beit Yosef offers three answers to the question of why the
What is [the reason of] Hanukkah? For our Rabbis miracle is celebrated for eight days as opposed to seven: 1)
taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislew [commence] the Upon finding that the flask of oil was sufficient for one day,
days of Hanukkah, which are eight on which a lamenta- the oil was apportioned into eight units. Miraculously, each
tion for the dead and fasting are forbidden. For when the flask of oil, which should have only been sufficient to last
Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils there- one eighth of the day, lasted the entire day. This miracle oc-
in, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against curred on each of the eight days. 2) When the oil from the
and defeated them, they made search and found only one flask was poured into the lamp, the oil in the flask refilled
cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but itself. Therefore, the miracle was already apparent on the
which contained sufficient for one day’s lighting only; yet first day. 3) The entire flask of oil was poured into the lamp
a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] and the candles were lit. In the morning, the oil was still in
therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] the lamp. Therefore, the miracle was already apparent on
were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and the first day. 2
thanksgiving. 1
The first answer approaches the miracle as one of protracted
One of the more famous questions regarding Chanukah is combustion. The miracle allowed for the combustion pro-
posed by R. Yosef Karo, Beit Yosef Orach Chaim no. 670. cess to last eight times as long as it would have normally
He asks: while there was no possibility of attaining pure oil lasted. The second answer approaches the miracle as one
for the next eight days, there was nevertheless sufficient oil of spontaneous regeneration. The oil was miraculously re-
to last for one whole day. If so, that first day was not consid- generated in order to provide sufficient oil for eight days.
ered part of the miracle and the miracle was only manifest The third answer can be interpreted as a variation of one of
for seven days. Why then was Chanukah instituted as an the first two approaches. One can understand this answer
eight-day holiday rather than a seven-day holiday? as protracted combustion with one distinction; the com-
Many commentators ask another fundamental question bustion wasn’t protracted but rather it was non-existent.
about Chanukah regarding the text of Al HaNissim. Al The flame illuminated but there was no combustion. Al-
HaNissim, a prayer praising G-d for the miracles performed ternatively, one can understand that the third answer is a
during this time, does not mention the miracle of the oil. variation of the second answer. The candles were kindled at
The focus of the prayer is primarily on the miracle that oc- night, and the oil was burned and consumed. In the morn-
curred in the Hasmonean defeat of the Greeks. The prayer ing the lamps were found to be full because of spontaneous

Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 1

regeneration. The only difference between this answer and Yosef ’s question, suggests that that if oil were regenerated, it
the second answer is that in this answer the regeneration oc- would not have been regenerated yesh me’ayin, something
curred in the lamps rather than the flask. from nothing but rather yesh me’yesh, something from
something. Although there was sufficient oil for the first
Objects Borne Through Miracles
day, if the oil would have been consumed in its entirety, it
Some authorities question the spontaneous regeneration would not have been possible to regenerate the oil for the
approach.3 The Torah (Shemot 27:20) states that Menorah next day. Since the oil for the first day burned the entire
in the Beit HaMikdash must be lit with olive oil. If in fact day without being fully consumed, there was a miracle even
the oil of Chanukah was borne through a miraculous regen- on the first day. This theory suggests that the miracle of the
eration, the oil should not have the status of olive oil rather Chanukah oil was a combination of protracted combustion
it should have the status of miracle oil. Since the purported followed by spontaneous regeneration.
oil was not a derivative of olives, it would not have been suit-
able to be used as a replacement of the requisite olive oil. The Gerer Rebbe (cited in Kli Chemda, VaYakhel, vol. I, pg.
These authorities conclude that one must answer the ques- 313) explains that Taz’s opinion is that an object produced
by way of miracle cannot attain the status of that which it
tion using the protracted combustion approach.
seeks to replicate. However, this rule only applies to mira-
This argument is supported by a comment of R. Yeshaya cles of spontaneous generation. If the object already exists,
Horovitz, Shelah, Torah SheBichtav, Tzon Yosef 30a. Rashi and the miracle causes it to multiply, the entire object has
(Bereishit 37:2) comments that Yosef accused his brothers the status of that from which it was produced. Therefore,
of eating a limb of a live animal. Many commentators ask: if the miracle would have generated oil spontaneously, that
is it possible that the brothers of Yosef actually violated the oil would have been invalid for the kindling of the Menorah.
prohibition of ever min hachai by eating limbs of live ani- However, since the miracle only caused the original oil to
mals? Shelah suggests that the animal that Yosef ’s brothers multiply, the entire supply of oil was considered bona fide
ate from was one that was created through the Sefer HaYetz- olive oil.
irah, an ancient book of mysticism. The Gemara, Sanhedrin
65b, records that using the Sefer HaYetzirah, it is possible to Although the argument that an object produced by a mira-
create a human being or an animal. If in fact the animal that cle cannot attain the status of what it seeks to replicate does
Yosef ’s brothers ate was created through Sefer HaYetzirah, seem logical, its basis can be questioned from various pas-
that animal does not have the halachic status of an animal sages in the Gemara. The Gemara, Menachot 69b, quotes a
and it would have been permitted to eat limbs of that animal query of R. Zeira regarding the status of wheat kernels that
even while it is still alive. Yosef however, was unaware that fall from the clouds. The Gemara, in analyzing this ques-
his brothers created an animal, and therefore accused them tion states that the question is not with regards to using this
wheat for menachot as this wheat would certainly be accept-
of eating ever min hachai.
able for menachot. Rather, the question is regarding the use
Shelah apparently subscribes to the argument that an object of these wheat kernels for the Shtei HaLechem, a special
borne through a miracle does not attain the status of what it bread offering brought on Shavuot. There is a unique law
seeks to replicate. Since an animal created through a miracle regarding the Shtei HaLechem that the grains must come
lacks the process that a normal animal undergoes in becom- from within your midst (mimoshvoteichem). R. Zeira’s
ing an animal, the animal is considered a synthetic replica question is whether mimoshvoteichem only comes to ex-
and not an actual animal. clude wheat that was grown outside of the land of Israel or
Acceptance of this argument does not entirely rule out whether it even comes to exclude wheat that comes from
spontaneous regeneration in explaining the miracle of the the clouds above Israel.
Chanukah oil. Taz, Orach Chaim 670:1, in answering Beit One might ask: how is it possible for wheat kernels to fall

Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 2

from the clouds? This is the subject of a dispute between effect at the time of reincarnation. Ritva, ad loc., s.v. Veha,
Rashi, ad loc., s.v. sheyardu and Tosafot, ad loc., s.v. chitin. explains that the Gemara is predicated on the same assump-
Rashi claims that wheat kernels in the ocean were absorbed tion as that of the Gemara, Ketuvot 111b, that at the time of
into the clouds. Tosafot quote Rabbeinu Tam who rejects reincarnation righteous individuals will be reincarnated in
Rashi’s interpretation and suggests that the wheat kernels the clothes that they were buried in. If the laws of the Torah
fell from the sky by way of miracle. will still be in effect at the time of reincarnation, a righteous
It is apparent from Rabbeinu Tam’s interpretation that ob- individual buried in clothes containing sha’atnez will be in
jects produced by a miracle attain the status of that which violation of the prohibition against wearing sha’atnez upon
they seek to replicate. According to Rabbeinu Tam’s inter- his reincarnation. However if the laws of the Torah will no
pretation, wheat kernels that are derived by way of a miracle longer be in effect at the time of reincarnation, there is no
are suitable for menachot even though the only suitable prohibition against wearing sha’atnez upon reincarnation,
grain for menachot is wheat.4 The only question that arises and therefore it is permitted to bury a corpse in a garment
from these wheat kernels is whether they are suitable for containing sha’atnez.
Shtei HaLechem and that is because of a unique require- It is clear from Ritva’s interpretation that a garment borne
ment of mimoshvoteichem. through a miracle is subject to the laws of sha’atnez.
While it is clear from Rabbeinu Tam’s comment that wheat Sha’atnez can only be produced by combining wool and
kernels derived from a miracle have the halachic status of linen. Ordinarily, wool is derived from sheep and linen is
wheat kernels, Kli Chemda, loc. cit., questions the applica- derived from flax. According to Ritva, if a miracle occurs
tion of Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion to the question of whether and decomposed garments are reconstituted to their origi-
miracle oil can replace olive oil. Wheat kernels derived nal form, those garments are subject to rules of sha’atnez if
through a miracle are suitable for menachot despite the fact the properties of the threads are those of wool and linen.
that its derivative - the wheat - did not undergo the normal If it were true that objects borne through miracles do not
growth process of a wheat kernel. However, if the menachot attain the status of that which they seek to replicate, there
themselves would fall from the clouds, perhaps these mena- should be no concern for the violation of sha’atnez. Ritva,
chot would be invalid for sacrifice. Rabbeinu Tam’s ruling who is concerned for sha’atnez in this situation, must be of
might be limited to raw materials derived through miracles. the opinion that objects derived through miracles attain the
A complete product derived through a miracle may not status of that which they seek to replicate.
have the status of that which it attempts to replicate. If ol- R. Yosef Engel, Gilyonei HaShas Berachot 48b, offers anoth-
ives would have been spontaneously generated through a er source-based proof that objects borne through miracles
miracle, these olives would have had the halachic status of attain the status of that which they seek to replicate. The
olives according to Rabbeinu Tam. However, if olive oil was Gemara Berachot 48b states that Moshe Rabbeinu institut-
generated, it may not have the halachic status of olive oil.5 ed the first beracha of Birkat HaMazon (Grace after Meals)
The Gemara, Niddah 61b, seems to provide an additional on the man (manna). The requirement for Birkat HaMazon
source suggesting that objects derived through miracles at- only applies when one eats bread that is derived from one
tain the status of that which they seek to replicate. The Ge- the five grains. The man was not derived from one of the
mara raises the question of whether one is permitted to bury five grains, but rather was derived through a miracle. How
a corpse in a garment containing sha’atnez (wool and linen then can one recite Birchat HaMazon on the man? R. Engel
mixed together). The Gemara suggests that this question is concludes that since one aspect of the miracle of the man
contingent on whether the laws of the Torah will still be in was that it was able to transform itself into any food desired

Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 3

by the possessor of the man, if one desired that it be trans- hidden miracles which constitute the foundation of the
formed into bread, that man would have the halachic status whole Torah.” The Almighty only provides events that defy
of bread, even though it was produced through a miracle. scientific understanding (i.e. “great open miracles”) in order
Understanding Why Objects Borne Through Mir- for those who witness that event or those who hear about it
acle Are Valid to realize that all events are the result of a miracle.

The argument that objects derived through miracles do Understanding the Role of Celebrating the De-
not attain the status of the material that they seek to rep- feat of the Greeks
licate seems logical if not compelling. Nevertheless, many What role does the defeat of the Greeks have in the celebra-
sources indicate that this argument is not acceptable. One tion of Chanukah? On the one hand, it seems that Cha-
must then ask: what flaw is there in this argument. How can nukah is the celebration of the miracle that occurred with
an object derived through a miracle circumvent the normal the one flask of oil that lasted for eight days. However, it is
derivation process that Halacha requires in order for that arguable that Chanukah is not a celebration of the miracle
object to receive the intended status? of the oil. The Gemara, Shabbat 21b, states that these eight
Perhaps the answer lies in the comments of Ramban (Sh- days were established as days of Hallel. Does the miracle of
emot 13:16). Ramban teaches a fundamental principle in the oil warrant recitation of Hallel? The Gemara, Pesachim
Judaism in stating: 117a, states that Hallel is only recited on miracles that pre-
vented persecution or brought about redemption. Rashi, ad
For no one can have a part in the Torah of Moses our loc., s.v. Ve’al, cites the miracle of Chanukah as an example
teacher unless he believes that all our words and our of a miracle that prevented persecution. One sees clearly
events are miraculous in scope, there being no natural or from the comments of Rashi that the Hallel that is recited
customary way of the world in them, whether affecting on Chanukah is recited on the miracle of the war that de-
the public or the individual.6 feated the Greeks.
According to Ramban, there is no difference between a mir- Why then, is Hallel recited all eight days of Chanukah and
acle and an event that occurs in the natural order. Every- not just the on the first day, the anniversary of the defeat?
thing that occurs in nature must be considered miraculous. Maharal, Chidushei Aggadot to Shabbat 21b, explains that
Based on this principle, one can understand why an object while the primary miracle of Chanukah was the defeat of
borne through a miracle attains the status of that which it the Greeks, this miracle was not recognized universally as a
seeks to replicate. Although this object lacked the natural miracle. The miracle of the oil signaled that the defeat of the
process of development, in reality, there is no difference Greeks was a miracle of the same magnitude.
between miracles and the natural order. An object borne Perhaps this is the reason why Hallel is recited for eight days.
through a natural process has no advantage over that which While celebration of the miracle of the war should have only
is borne through a miracle. Naturally processed olive oil is
been a one-day celebration, the rabbis of the time were giv-
considered no less a miracle than the spontaneously regen- en a message through the miracle of the oil that it is worthy
erating olive oil. Therefore there is no reason to invalidate
to celebrate the miracle of the war for eight days. In the song
“miracle oil” from the kindling of the Menorah. Maoz Tzur we recite “bnei binah yemei shmonah kav’u shir
If there is no difference between miracles and the natural u’rinanim,” sons of knowledge instituted eight days of song
process, why are miracles performed? Ramban explains: and praise. Who are these bnei binah? R. Yehuda Assad,
“Through the great open miracles, one comes to admit the Teshuvot Yehuda Ya’aleh, Orach Chaim no. 200, suggests

Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 4

that the bnei binah were those who were able to look back
and see that it is worthy to celebrate this miracle for eight
days.7 Once these bnei binah saw that the miracle of the
oil lasted for eight days, they realized that it is worthy to cel-
ebrate the miracle of the war for eight days.
If the main celebration on Chanukah is the celebration
of the victory of war, what then is the role of lighting the
candles? The answer lies in the aforementioned Ramban.
Ramban states:
And because the Holy One, blessed be He, will not make
signs and wonders in every generation for the eyes of some
wicked man or heretic, He therefore commanded us that
we should always make a memorial or sign of that which
we have seen with our eyes, and that we should transmit
the matter our children, and their children to their chil-
dren, to the generations to come.8
The purpose of lighting the candles on Chanukah is to pub-
licize and remember the miracles that happened. However,
remembrance of the miracle is not a goal unto itself. The
ultimate goal of the miracle itself is to bring awareness that
the defeat of the Greeks was just as much a miracle, and that
every event that we encounter is a miracle.
This is why there is no mention of the miracle of the oil in
Al HaNissim. The prayer of Al HaNissim is juxtaposed-
both in the Modim prayer and in the Birkat HaMazon- with
prayers mentioning the miracles that we experience every
moment of our lives. These blessings serve to give thanks
for the hidden miracles of everyday life. There is no place
in these blessings for the mention of miracles that transcend
the natural order.
On Chanukah, one of our goals should be to try to internal-
ize the concept of hidden miracles. We should try to appre-
ciate The Almighty’s providence in this world on a constant
basis. By recognizing the daily miracles, the objective of the
miracle of the oil will be fulfilled.
Notes:
1 Translation taken from I. Epstein (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud (London,
1938).
2 There are many other answers to this question. See R. Yerachmiel Zeltzer,
Ner L’Me’ah Al Inyanei Chanukah, who collects one hundred answers to this
question.
3 Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, cited in R. Tzvi P. Frank, Mikra’ei Kodesh Cha-
nukah, no. 3 and R. Meir D. Plotzki, Kli Chemda, VaYakhel pg. 157.
4 There are two menachot offerings that use barley instead of wheat: the
Minchat Sotah and the Minchat HaOmer. See Mishna, Sotah 14a. The
discussion in the Gemara clearly refers to the menachot that require wheat.
5 An explanation for this distinction seems to be based on a comment that
Kli Chemdah quotes from the Gerer Rebbe. The Gerer Rebbe suggests that
while the spontaneously generated wheat kernels attain the halachic status of
wheat according to Rabbeinu Tam, a miracle can never produce the mimosh-
voteichem effect required for Shtei HaLechem. Therefore, the requirement for
olive oil in kindling the Menorah, which is similar to the requirement of mi-
moshvoteichem, would not allow for olive oil produced by means of a miracle.
It would seem that the comparison of the requirement of olive oil to the re-
quirement of mimoshvoteichem lies in the fact that both of these requirements
mandate a specific condition in producing the end result. Mimoshvoteichem
requires that one use wheat grown in Israel to produce the Shtei HaLechem.
Similarly, the requirement for olive requires that oil be extracted from olives.
If the extraction process is lacking, the oil will not be considered olive oil.
R. Yosef Engel, Gilyonei HaShas Berachot 48b, also suggests that while a
miracle can attain the status of what it seeks to replicate, a miracle cannot
replicate the requisite halachic processes in a given item.
6 Translation taken from R. Charles Chavel (trans.), Ramban: Commen-
tary on the Torah (New York, 1974), ad loc.
7 R. Assad’s interpretation is presented in response to a different question.
Nevertheless, the inference can be equally applied to the question at hand.
8 Loc. cit.
Chanuka 5768 | www.yutorah.org | Page 5