“When the Greeks entered the [Temple] sanctuary they ritually contaminated all of the oil in the sanctuary, and when the House of the Chashmona’im became stronger and defeated them, they searched and only found one jar of oil that was left with the seal of the Kohain Gadol, and there was only enough [oil] in it to light for one day; a miracle occurred with it and they lit from it for eight days.” Almost as well known as the miracle described in the Talmud (Shabbos 21b) is the question asked by the Bais Yosef (Orach Chayim 670): Since there was enough oil for one day, the miracle only occurred for seven days, not eight; why do we celebrate Chanukah for eight days if the miracle only lasted seven days?

Ultimately the answer is likely based on the Jews celebrating an eight-day holiday after liberating the Temple even before they knew how long the “miracle of the oil” would last (see http://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/chanukah-5770/); the miracle allowed the oil to burn for eight days, matching the length of their celebration, indicating divine approval of their “new” holiday. Nevertheless, more than a hundred other answers have been suggested throughout the centuries. However, even as a kid I never really understood the question. After all, the oil burned for eight days, which indicated that on each day only one eighth of the normal amount of oil was consumed. Therefore, the same miracle occurred on day one as on day eight! Why invent possible scenarios whereby all of the oil was left after the first day just to be able to ask the question of why we celebrate for eight days? I know this is one of the answers given (although this is not the first answer of the Bais Yosef, who suggests that they only put one eighth of the normal amount into each cup of the menorah on each day), but I never thought of it as an “answer.” Rather, it is the reason why there is no question in the first place. If there was enough oil for one day and it burned for eight days, the starting point should be that on each day only one eighth of the oil was consumed, meaning that there was a miracle on all eight days! Why is there even a question?

There are several reasons why this “simple” scenario may be problematic. First of all, the wording of the Talmud is that “they lit from it for eight days,” not that it burned for eight days, indicating that something additional was done each of the eight days, not that it just lasted for eight days. [This is likely why the Bais Yosef suggested that only some of the oil was put into the menorah each day rather than that all of it was put in right away. The Bais Yosef’s second answer is that the jar remained full even after the menorah was filled up, making the “it” that the menorah was lit from for eight days the jar. Even though this explains how there was a miracle on the first day too, there would now be no miracle necessary on the eighth day, as the menorah was already full from the miracle that occurred on the seventh day. His third answer, that the cups of the menorah were still full in the morning, shares this issue as well.] Another issue that needs to be addressed is that the menorah must have enough oil to last through the night, which is a measurement of a half a “lug” (see Rambam, Hilchos T’midin u’Musafin 3:11). After the first night, only seven eighths (seven sixteenths of a “lug”) would have been left, with another eighth of the oil (a sixteenth of a “lug”) less after each subsequent night. Even though they had no more uncontaminated oil to fill the menorah up with, since ritually contaminated oil can be used if need be (see Rambam, ibid, 3:10), how could they have let the menorah burn without enough oil to last the night? [This issues applies to the Bais Yosef’s first answer as well.] Additionally, according to some (see Meiri on Shabbos 22b), any flame still burning when it was time to light the candles again must be extinguished, with the old wick, any remaining oil, and the ashes cleaned out. If so, the oil could not have been just left to burn continuously for eight days.

There are other peculiarities regarding how the miracle is described. Rambam (Hilchos Chanukah 3:2), rather than saying that “they lit the menorah from it for eight days,” says “they lit the ‘neiros ha’Ma’aracha’ from it for eight days.” Why did the Rambam use the term “neiros ha’Ma’aracha” rather than the more common “menorah”? (G’vuras Yitzchok, Chanukah #26 and #27, discusses this issue at length.) Also, Sh’iltos (Vayishlach 26; page 173 in Netziv’s edition) first says that there was enough oil for one day, then later (page 178) says there wasn’t even enough for one day. Although the latter reference is used to explain how it was a miracle even on the first day (since it lasted longer than it should have), why did Rav Achai Ga’on describe how much oil there was in the jug two different ways? Additionally, when telling us that there was enough to light for one day, he says that there was a “lug” of oil, which is only enough for two of the seven lamps in the menorah! Since each lamp needed a half a “lug,” three and a half “lugin” were needed to light the menorah, not just one. (Although the term “lug” might be a borrowed term, referring to the jug the oil was found in, not the amount of oil in the jug, since the term “lug” likely came to mean “jar” because of how much liquid it held, it would be very misleading for Rav Achai to use the term “lug” instead of another term for “jar” if he wasn’t referring to how much oil was in it.)

Tzofnas Paneyach (a commentary on the Rambam, but since some have requested that I somehow connect Chanukah with the Parasha, I will point out that it is also the name Paro gave Yosef, see B’reishis 41:45), within his attempt to explain why the Rambam uses the term “neiros ha’Ma’aracha,” suggests that it was only the “ner ma’aravi,” the “western lamp,” that was lit by the Chasmona’im, not the other six. However, since the word “neiros” is plural, I find it difficult to accept that Rambam (or anyone else) would suggest that only one of the seven lamps of the menorah was lit. (Rambam himself says that when the menorah is inaugurated all seven lamps must be lit, see Hilchos T’midin u’Musafin 3:11.) Nevertheless, as G’vuras Yitzchok (#27) points out, since the Rambam was of the opinion that the menorah was lit twice everyday (once in the morning and once in the evening), and a half a “lug” was needed for each lamp for each lighting, if we are discussing just one lamp, one “lug” would be enough for one day, while for the whole menorah one “lug” wouldn’t be enough for even one day. I would therefore suggest (and you can decide for yourself whether this qualifies more as Chanukah Torah or Purim Torah) that the ritually pure oil they found was used only for the “ner ma’aravi,” which was the only lamp that could not be lit (or relit) from the other lamps, but had to be lit from the fire of the outer altar (see Hilchos T’midin u’Musafin 3:13). As previously mentioned, if ritually pure oil was not available, ritually impure oil could be used, and it was — for the other six lamps. Because of the difficulty involved in keeping the uncontaminated oil ritually pure, rather than pouring it into the “ner ma’aravi” twice, they poured the whole “lug” into it once, lighting it from the fire of the outer altar (after the altar was re-inaugurated). If this is true, all of our issues have been resolved.

The Sh’iltos calls it a “lug” because that’s how much oil there was, which was enough for one day for one lamp, but not enough for even one day for the whole menorah. Rambam refers to them as “neiros ha’Ma’aracha” in order to distinguish them from the “ner ma’aravi.” The “miracle oil” was in the “ner ma’aravi,” and burned for eight days even though there was only enough for one. The “neiros ha’Ma’aracha” were lit from the “ner ma’aravi” (which is how they were normally lit), and since the “ner ma’aravi” had the oil from the jar that was found, it could accurately be said that “they (the “neiros ha’Ma’aracha) were lit from it (the oil that was found, which was in the “ner ma’aravi”) for eight days.” (Even those of the opinion that the lamps must be extinguished for the next lighting agree that this does not apply to the “ner ma’aravi.”) Since only half a “lug” was needed per lighting, when they saw that there was still seven eighths of a “lug” left in the “ner ma’aravi” after the first day, there was no need to add any more oil to it. The same is true when they saw three quarters of a “lug” left after two days, five eighths after three days, and a half a “lug” after four days. Once four days had passed and they saw that only one eighth of a “lug” was being consumed each day, there was a “chazakah” (precedent that could be relied upon) that this oil only needed one eighth of a “lug” per day, so they didn’t need to add any (ritually impure) oil to it on the fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth days either. And since this same miracle of only one eighth of a “lug” being consumed per day occurred on all eight days, there is no reason to question why Chanukah is eight days long instead of seven.