Small Time

Although there are no Pessukim in Tanach that discuss Chanukah, as the Nes occurred during Bayis Sheni, there are a few Medrashim that speak about the Yom Tov. One such Medrash is found in Parshas Vayechi , amidst those discussing Birchos Yaakov.

The Medrash tells us that Yaakov connected one of his sons to each of the four Malchios that would reign over Klal Yisroel, and explains the connection. For example, we are told יְהוּדָה כְּנֶגֶד מַלְכוּת בָּבֶל because זֶה נִמְשַׁל בְּאַרְיֵה וְזֶה נִמְשַׁל בְּאַרְיֵה. Since both Yehudah and Bavel are compared to a lion, the two are connected. This connection is not merely coincidental, it has consequences: בְּיַד מִי מַלְכוּת בָּבֶל נוֹפֶלֶת, בְּיַד דָּנִיֵּאל שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִשֶּׁל יְהוּדָה. Because Yehudah is related to Bavel, it was Daniel, who came from Yehudah, who defeated Bavel.

Later the Medrash tells us לֵוִי, כְּנֶגֶד מַלְכוּת יָוָן, and lists several connections between the two. Some seem incidental; for example, the first link listed is זֶה שֵׁבֶט שְׁלִישִׁי וְזוֹ מַלְכוּת שְׁלִישִׁית, Levi was the third of the Shevatim and Yavan the third Malchus. Also, זֶה אוֹתִיּוֹתָיו מְשֻּׁלָּשִׁין וְזוֹ אוֹתִיּוֹתֶיהָ מְשֻׁלָּשִׁין, each has three letters in its name. Other connections are more essential, however. For example, the Medrash says: אֵלּוּ תּוֹקְעֵי קַרְנַיִם וְאֵלּוּ תּוֹקְעֵי סוֹלְפִּירִים, both Shevet Levi and Malchus Yavan used trumpets.

The final way that the Shevet Levi and Yavan are linked, according to the Medrash, is in their relative size: אֵלּוּ מְרֻבִּים בְּאֻכְלוּסִין וְאֵלּוּ מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין. Yavan was a Malchus with a large population, while Shevet Levi was among the smallest Shevatim . Still, concludes the Medrash, בָּאוּ מְרֻבִּים וְנָפְלוּ בְּיַד מוּעָטִין, Yavan fell to Levi, בְּיַד בְּנֵי חַשְׁמוֹנָאי שֶׁהֵם מִשֶּׁל לֵוִי.

In one sense, the message of this Medrash is unsurprising and even familiar, as it is similar to one of the ways we describe the victory of the Chashmonaim in the Teffilah of Al Hanissim : מָסַרְתָּ גִבּוֹרִים בְּיַד חַלָּשִׁים וְרַבִּים בְּיַד מְעַטִּים. The difference in size between the Chashmonaim , the מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין, and the Yevanim , the מְרֻבִּים בְּאֻכְלוּסִין, indeed seems to be an important feature of the Nes, a notion further supported by the Medrash.

At the same time, the Medrash itself is difficult to understand, for several reasons.

First, when it comes to the other Shevatim who are compared to Malchios —Yehudah, Binyomin and Yosef—the qualities listed for both the Shevet and Malchus are the same, and the Medrash seems to indicate that this leads to the eventuality of בְּיַד מִי נוֹפֶלֶת. For example, as we have seen, both Yehuda and Bavel are נִמְשַׁל בְּאַרְיֵה and therefore בְּיַד מִי מַלְכוּת בָּבֶל נוֹפֶלֶת, בְּיַד דָּנִיֵּאל שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִשֶּׁל יְהוּדָה. The qualities that pit Shevet Levi against Yavan, however, are the inverse of one another, אֵלּוּ מְרֻבִּים בְּאֻכְלוּסִין וְאֵלּוּ מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין, and yet בָּאוּ מְרֻבִּים וְנָפְלוּ בְּיַד מוּעָטִין.

How can we understand this? Why, in this case, is the fact that Shevet Levi has the opposite characteristic of Malchus Yavan render them capable of defeating this enemy?

We must understand the words וְאֵלּוּ מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין more generally as well. What does this mean? Why was Shevet Levi considered מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין, and why is this a positive attribute, one that enables them to defeat Yavan? Is this a natural occurrence, or was there a reason that Shevet Levi was so small?

The Matnos Kehuna , one of the Meforshei HaMedrash , suggests that the cause for the status of מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין is found in a Medrash in Bamidbar Rabba.

The final Passuk in Parshas Bamidar says: וְלֹא־יָבֹאוּ לִרְאוֹת כְּבַלַּע אֶת־הַקֹּדֶשׁ וָמֵתוּ, warning that the Leviim might perish as the result of seeing the Mishkan . The Medrash, there tells us that this indeed occurred: בְּאֵיזֶה עִנְיַן מֵתִין בְּנֵי קְהָת...כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִין לִטְעוֹן אֶת הָאָרוֹן הָיוּ מְפָרְקִין אֶת הַפָּרֹכֶת מִפָּנָיו וְהָיוּ זָנִים עֵינֵיהֶם מִן הָאָרוֹן. The Bnei Kehas , explains the Medrash, were not careful enough when they came to take the Aron for the travels in the Midbar , and they met their demise.

This, explains the Matnos Kehuna , is why Shevet Levi is described as מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין: their ranks were thinned because they were not properly Mechabed the Mishkan .

While the Medrash clearly says that members of Shevet Levi were זָנִים עֵינֵיהֶם מִן הָאָרוֹן and perished as a result, it is hard to understand that this would be the reason for the quality of מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין that the Medrash speaks about. If Shevet Levi had a smaller population because of Aveiros , why would that render them capable of defeating Malchus Yavan? The Medrash implies that the status of מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין is what gave Shevet Levi its Koach against Yavan— its hard to imagine that this was a result of זָנִים עֵינֵיהֶם מִן הָאָרוֹן.

Perhaps, however, we can explain the reality of מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין based on something else that happened in the Midbar .

Among the ways that Moshe Rabbeinu speaks about Shevet Levi in Parshas Zos HaBracha , we find the words כִּי שָׁמְרוּ אִמְרָתֶךָ וּבְרִיתְךָ יִנְצֹרוּ. Rashi, there, explains that Moshe is speaking about an anomaly regarding Shevet Levi: אוֹתָם שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא מָלוּ אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם, וְהֵם הָיוּ מוּלִין וּמָלִין אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם. Whereas most of Klal Yisroel did not give a Bris to their sons who were born in the Midbar , the members of Shevet Levi did.

Although it may seem troubling that most of Klal Yisroel did not keep the Mitzvah of Milah in the Midbar , the Gemara in Yevamos explains why this is the case: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נְשִׁיב לְהוּ רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית. The רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית, is essential to ensure that the baby heals properly from its Bris Milah, and it was not present at all during the forty years in the Midbar . This was the reason that, as a rule, there was no Milah in the Midbar : it would have been dangerous for the babies due to the absence of the רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית.

It seems from the words of Rashi in Zos HaBracha , which are based on a Sifri , that Shevet Levi was not concerned about this issue—they gave their babies Bris Milah even though there was no רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית, even though there was a danger. Perhaps this is the reason that they were, as the Medrash tells us, מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין. We do not find anyplace that the Leviim were Zoche to their own רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית in the Midbar , and their Milah therefore posed a risk to the children. Although this might not affect all those who received a Bris in the Midbar , it stands to reason that some did indeed not survive, leading to an eventuality of מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין.

If this is the case, the message of the Medrash comes into sharper focus: Shevet Levi was מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין because of their commitment to the Mitzvah of Mila in the Midbar , and this gave them the Koach to stand against Malchus Yavan.

On one hand, there seems to be an overt connection between Yavan and the Mitzvah of Milah, as is recorded in Megillas Aniochus that the three Gezeiros that the Yevanim made on Klal Yisroel were against Bris Milah, Rosh Chodesh, and Shabbos. If Shevet Levi was considered מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין because of their insistence on the Mitzvah of Milah in the Midbar , we could understand that this helped them stand against Yavan who was opposed to Milah.

The Medrash, however, does not seem to focus on the Mitzvah of Milah, but on the result of the commitment that Shevet Levi showed to this Mitzvah, which resulted in their being מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין. How can we explain this? Why did the commitment that Shevet Levi showed to the Mitzvah of Mila, which resulted in a reality of מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין, give them specific standing against Malchus Yavan?

If we think about it, in remaining dedicated to the Mitzvah of Mila, despite the danger due to the absence of the רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית, Shevet

Levi exhibited unusual levels of Mesiras Nefesh. they were willing to risk the lives of their children, and the continuity of their Shevet , in order to perform this Mitzvah.

As such, a better understanding of the power and importance of Mesiras Nefesh may allow us to better understand the Medrash and its message.

The Gemara in Shabbos makes a statement that seems related to this discussion: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁמָּסְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַצְמָן עֲלֵיהֶם לְמִיתָה בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד כְּגוֹן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמִילָה עֲדַיִין הִיא מוּחְזֶקֶת בְּיָדָם. The Gemara is telling us that Mitzvos

that were carried out under trying circumstances are maintained throughout the ages, and uses two specific examples: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמִילָה. It seems, then, that Milah was always something that was done even under the threat of death, with great Mesiras Nefesh. Why was this the case? What is it about Milah specifically that calls for Mesiras Nefesh, such that the Gemara considers it a מִצְוָה שֶׁמָּסְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַצְמָן עֲלֵיהֶם לְמִיתָה?

Perhaps we can answer this question based on an idea found in Tiferes Shlomo of the Radomsker Rebbe.

The Passuk in Mishlei refers to the Torah with the words כִּי־חַיִּים הֵם לְמֹצְאֵיהֶם, revealing an aspect of the Torah that we refer to each day in Davening: it is a תּוֹרַת חַיִּים. What does this mean? In which way are the Torah and Chaim connected?

The Tiferes Shlomo explains this based on the Gemara in Shabbos, which tells us כׇּל דִּיבּוּר וְדִיבּוּר שֶׁיָּצָא מִפִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָצְתָה נִשְׁמָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. Each time Bnei Yisroel heard one of the Dibros from HKBH directly, their Neshamos left their bodies, to the extent that there was a need for Techias HaMesim between the first and second Dibros .

This experience, says the Radomsker , was not incidental—it was essential. For Torah and Mitzvos to be everlasting, for them to truly take root in a person, there must be Mesiras Nefesh. This is clear from the Gemara in Brachos, which teaches אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁמֵּמִית עַצְמוֹ עָלֶיהָ. Therefore, if Kabalas HaTorah was to have its intended effect of creating an Am Hatorah connected to the Toras Hashem evermore, Mesiras Nefesh was an absolute necessity.

Explains the Tiferes Shlomo: this is why the Torah is called תּוֹרַת חַיִּים, and why the Passuk says כִּי־חַיִּים הֵם לְמֹצְאֵיהֶם. If a person is willing to be Moser Nefesh for Torah and Mitzvos , then it is they that give him life. if a person’s physical existence is second only to Torah, because he is willing to be Moser Nefesh for Torah and Mitzvos , that it is truly the Torah that sustains him—indeed, a תּוֹרַת חַיִּים.

Based on this idea, we can understand the connection between Milah and Mesiras Nefesh, as indicated by the Gemara in Shabbos.

Mesiras Nefesh was an integral part of Kabbalas HaTorah, as the Tiferes Shlomo explains, to ensure that the Torah took root at its very outset. This is true of a baby’s life as well: if we wish for the Torah and Mitzvos to be the center of his life, there must be an element of מֵּמִית עַצְמוֹ עָלֶיהָ from the very beginning. If a person is willing to risk his life so that his child can enter into the Bris of Avrohom Avinu , we can be sure that the child will be affected by the

Mesiras Nefesh, and be Zoche to an existence of כִּי־חַיִּים הֵם לְמֹצְאֵיהֶם.

Shevet Levi understood this very well, as we see from their actions in the Midbar . Although there was no רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית, and a risk therefore presented itself, they exhibited Mesidas Nefesh, giving their sons Bris Milah nonetheless. This, in turn, led this Shevet to be מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין, but they bore this title proudly, as it indicated their understanding that Mesiras Nefesh is a vital building block to achieve an existence of כִּי־חַיִּים הֵם לְמֹצְאֵיהֶם.

They were not the only ones who understood this, however.

As we know, the Yevanim had one true goal: לְהַשְׁכִּיחָם תּוֹרָתֶךָ וּלְהַעֲבִירָם מֵחֻקֵּי רְצוֹנֶךָ. They were not interested in the physical destruction of Klal Yisroel, but in the eradication of Torah and Mitzvos . They therefore began with a Gezeirah against Milah, adding a threat to this essential Mitzvah. The Yevanim hoped that this would pave their way to success: if Klal Yisroel did not stand up to the Gezeirah , if they were unwilling to be Moser Nefesh for Milah, their children would be less likely to develop lives of כִּי־חַיִּים הֵם לְמֹצְאֵיהֶם. The absence of Mesiras Nefesh at the beginning of their lives would affect their relationship with Torah and Mitzvos for years to come, allowing the Yevanim success in their endeavors לְהַשְׁכִּיחָם תּוֹרָתֶךָ וּלְהַעֲבִירָם מֵחֻקֵּי רְצוֹנֶךָ.

Enter the Chashmonim , with their heritage of מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין.

As the Medrash explains, it was members of Shevet Levi, who understood the Koach and importance of Mesiras Nefesh—as evidenced by their actions in the Midbar —that were able to stand up to the Yevanim . Precisely because they were מוּעָטִין בְּאֻכְלוּסִין, their ranks thinned by the Mesiras Nefesh they exhibited for the Mitzvah of Milah, בָּאוּ מְרֻבִּים וְנָפְלוּ בְּיַד מוּעָטִין.

We can bear this message in mind each time we say the words רַבִּים בְּיַד מְעַטִּים. The story of Chanukah teaches us the value and importance of Mesiras Nefesh, which is the key to to ensuring a reality of עֲדַיִין הִיא מוּחְזֶקֶת בְּיָדָם.