In the substantive conclusion of his presentation of Chanukah (the remaining two halachot discuss the priority of this mitzvah vis-a-vis other mitzvot - kiddush and ner Shabbat ), Rambam (Hilchot Chanukah 4:12) underscores its singular character. He atypically reflects upon the particularly endearing quality of hadlakat nerot - "mitzvah chavivah he ad meod", he identifies again (see earlier- 3:3!) the primary themes this mitzvah embodies - pirsum ha-nes, shevach Hashem, hodaah - and he emphatically counsels that one must be exceedingly careful and scrupulous about its implementation - "vetzarich adam lehizaher bo". Given his typically terse, economical, and efficient style, this formulation already commands attention. However, remarkably, Rambam concludes this already densely packed halachah with an apparently original and innovative ruling that even significant economic hardship must be endured - an impoverished individual should sell his clothing - in order to participate in this mitzvah. Rambam's unsourced confident assertion triggered intense speculation about the basis for his conclusion. Indeed, a whole literature was spawned dedicated to solving the riddle, to identify Rambam's source.
Magid Mishneh posits that the theme of pirsum ha-nes alone justifies this exacting standard. He notes that the poor who are sustained by tzedakah are required to acquire the four kosot on the seder night (Pesachim 99b) based on this principle (Pesachim 112a), and that Rambam derived his Chanukah pesak from this precedent. However, it should be noted (see also sefer Likutim in Frankel Rambam, ad loc) that while Rambam (Hilchot Chametz 7:7) justifies financing the four kosot from tzedakah funds (see also Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 7:6), he requires far greater personal sacrifices - personal debt, selling critical assets etc. - for neirot Chanukah! [The Gera, Orach Chaim 671:2, was sensitive to this discrepancy and equates Rambam's Chanukah standards with the four kosot standards articulated by Rashbam (Pesachim 99b), notwithstanding their omission in Hilchot Chametz. Undoubtedly, this difficulty impelled him to propose an alternative or perhaps additional source. Regarding the relative standards of these two mitzvot, see also Beer Heiteiv and Olat Yehudah ad loc.]. It is unlikely that the derivation can exceed the demands of the precedent. Rambam's position remains an enigma.
The Gaon of Vilna (671:2) suggests that Rambam may have understood (based on Pesachim 112a) that a modicum of oneg-seudat Shabbat requires excessive sacrifices of an ani. Since, the Talmud establishes (Shabbat 23b) and the Rambam (Chanukah 4:13) codifies that Chanukah takes financial priority over kiddush ha-yom, the combination of sources implicitly justifies equal or greater hardship to accomplish the mitzvah of neirot. This fascinating suggestion, however, is far from compelling. It would have required that Rambam flip the order of the two halachot (4:12,13) in his organized Chanukah presentation. Moreover, a close examination of Rambam's position (Hilchot Shabbat 30:7,9) does not support the conclusion that even minimal seudat Shabbat standards triggers this level of obligation. [It seems clear from his presentation, that his comprehension of the Pesachim 112a text vis a vis a minimum oneg Shabbat differs from that of the Gera.] Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat ch. 29) is completely silent about the need for such an intensive effort to acquire wine for kiddush ha-yom. [See Hilchot Shabbat 5:1 in connection with ner Shabbat. Only in this context does the Rambam emphasize personal sacrifice of the poor, and even here it falls short of his neirot Chanukah requirements! Either way, based on Hilchot Chanukah 4:14, the actual last halachah in Hilchot Chanukah, ner Shabbat could not constitute a decisive source for neirot Chanukah! The only comparable formulation is Hilchot Shekalim 1:1, addressing an economic mitzvah obligation.]
Other mefarshim (see, for example, Sefer Likutim on Hilchot Chanukah 4:12, Einayim la-mishpat, on Megillah 27b citing Tziyunei Maharan) posit a more direct link to the relative status of kiddush. They invoke the passage in Megillah (27b) that records approvingly that R. Zakai's mother sold her personal clothing to finance kiddush on shabbat. They, too, contend that since neirot Chanukah is more pressing than kiddush ha-yom, as previously noted, neirot Chanukah demands no less. In addition to the aforementioned reservations, we note that the story is not formulated as a halachic norm, but as an example of exemplary conduct that accounts for the longevity of admirable ovdei Hashem. While, as noted by some mefarshim, Rif (Alfasi, Megillah 9a) cites this account, he doesn't codify it. Rambam omits it completely.
While the Rambam's position may have been informed by one or a combination of these or other even more oblique sources and precedents, none are sufficiently compelling to definitively prove this innovative stance. His confident posture indicates that his conclusion is deeply rooted in his comprehensive understanding of the laws, history, and especially the spiritual significance of Chanukah. The Rambam begins Hilchot Chanukah (3:1-2) with an extensive, expansive catalogue of the challenges to Jewish physical and spiritual survival. He draws upon non-halachic sources and mesorah to portray the gravity of the threat of spiritual extinction. The triple (and likely their interrelation and integration into mitzvat hadalakat nerot itself) foundational themes that he twice identifies (3:3, 4:12) establish that Chanukah does not merely celebrate a joyous miracle-military or mitzvah-specific, but that it encapsulates broader core principles of Torah life, including the special reciprocal bond between Hashem and Am Yisrael, and the indispensable need for mitzvot and talmud Torah as foundations for spiritual growth and a meaningful existence, and as Divine-guided outlets for personal spirituality.
The incomparable phenomenon of the mehadrins - three levels in the performance of this single rabbinic mitzvah - conveys an enthusiastic, passionate, maximalist posture not merely about nerot Chanukah, but about the very concept of mitzvot, jeopardized by the crisis and redeemed in the miracle of pach ha-shemen. It is not surprising that Rambam is compelled to revisit the themes of the mitzvah as he concludes Hilchot Chanukah, as he contemplates based upon examining the full scope of its laws and history its wider significance as "chavivah ad meod". Precisely in this context, he adds, certainly based upon related if inexact precedents but at least equally rooted in his own profound halachic conviction about the precise nature of this mitzvah and celebration, that it defies the normal canons of personal sacrifice, that it is priceless and indispensable. The source may remain elusive, but the conviction is unequivocal. [Had the Rambam formulated this conclusion as "yireh li", it would have reinforced this analysis. At the same time, he rarely uses this phrase even when his conclusions lack an unequivocal explicit source and evidently reflect his broader global understanding and analysis.]
Previously (Neirot Chanukah: A Cherished Expression of Ahavat and Kidush Hashem), we have speculated that Rambam's ruling may reflect his understanding that this mitzvah constitutes a kiyum in ahavat Hashem which is governed by the principle of "u-bekol meodecha". In addition, we may note that by employing the term "le-hizaher bah", typically associated with a lav (that generally are not subject to economic exemptions), Rambam underscores that nerot Chanukah is more than a prominent mitzvah; it is an opportunity that reflects our fidelity to these core principles and that perhaps also tests our commitment to the very broad notion of mitzvot. Chazal (Pirkei de-R. Eliezer ch. 28) declare: "ba'ah yavan ve-hechesichah et Yisrael mi-kol mitzvot she-betorah". The perfect redress of that calamity, the revival of "ner mitzvah ve-Torah ohr" was ambitiously embodied by the miraculous enabling of mitzvat nerot Chanukah. Rambam (3:1) begins his analysis of Chanukah by characterizing the spiritual climate as "bitlu datam, ve-lo hinichu otam la'asok ba-Torah u-ba-mitzvot". Hence, economic distress, typically a justification to abstain from mitzvah performance, does not qualify as a mitigating or extenuating factor in this singular mitzvah chavivah. [The exact parameters of economic exemption in esin is a complex topic that requires independent treatment. There is significant debate about the principle of "al yevazvez yoter mei-chomesh, as well as the precise relationship between esin and lavin. I hope to address this elsewhere. The precedent that nerot Chanukah defy the typical norms of economic commitment for mitzvot may also be evident with respect to mehadrin. While the gemara Bava Kamma seems to establish a ceiling of shelish (1/3) for hidur mitzvah, this is clearly inapplicable to nerot Chanukah. See Griz, Hilchot Chanukah, and other achronim who discuss this issue. It is intriguing to consider whether the Rambam may have also factored this into his thinking. The relationship between 1/3 (beyond basic value) for hidur, 1/5 (of worth) for mitzvot, what justifies tzedakah support, what demands begging, or selling of assets needs further clarification regarding nerot Chanukah as well as generally. It is beyond the scope of this essay.]
Rambam's compelling ruling, was uniformly embraced by later poskim, despite the obscurity of his source. Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch invokes this pesak (671:1) to initiate his discussion and set the tone for hadlakat neirot Chanukah. Rambam's important conclusion (in both of its meanings) became the Shulchan Aruch's introduction, establishing the priceless and indispensable status of nerot Chanukah.