Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m (Text replace - "Hagot " to "Hagahot ") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
==Getting benefit from the light of the candles== | ==Getting benefit from the light of the candles== | ||
# It’s forbidden to get benefit from the light of the candles for the first half hour, even on minimal tasks like checking the value of a coin. <Ref> [[Shabbat]] 22a brought by S”A 673:1 writes that it’s a disgrace to mitzvah to benefit from the candles. Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Began HaMelech 42) writes that the prohibition applies equally to the new candle of mitzvah and extra candles of Hidur. | # It’s forbidden to get benefit from the light of the candles for the first half hour, even on minimal tasks like checking the value of a coin. <Ref> [[Shabbat]] 22a brought by S”A 673:1 writes that it’s a disgrace to mitzvah to benefit from the candles. Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Began HaMelech 42) writes that the prohibition applies equally to the new candle of mitzvah and extra candles of Hidur. Bear Hetiev 673:2, Sh”t Ketav Sofer O”C 133, and Simchat Yehuda (Masechet Soferim 20:6) agree. </ref> | ||
# However a minimal task that’s for a mitzvah is permitted, but learning by the light of the candles isn’t considered a minimal task. <Ref> Biur Halacha 673:1, quoted by Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673). </ref> | # However a minimal task that’s for a mitzvah is permitted, but learning by the light of the candles isn’t considered a minimal task. <Ref> Biur Halacha 673:1, quoted by Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673). </ref> | ||
# Therefore it’s the Minhag to light a Shamash so that if one does use the light of the candles it’ll be permitted because of the Shamash. <Ref> Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673) </ref> | # Therefore it’s the Minhag to light a Shamash so that if one does use the light of the candles it’ll be permitted because of the Shamash. <Ref> Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673) </ref> | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
# A deaf and mute, insane, or child not bar/bat-mitzvah isn’t obligated to light and so can’t fulfill the obligation of someone who is obligated. However a deaf who can speak is obligated and can fulfill the obligation of others. <ref> [[Shabbat]] 23a says a deaf, insane person, and child isn’t obligated. So holds Rambam (Chanuka 4:9), Tur and S”A 675:3. The Mishna Trumot 1:2 defines deaf in Talmud as deaf and mute, but someone just deaf is obligated like anyone else. So quotes Pri Megadim M”Z 670:5, Mishna Brurah 675:12, and Torat HaMoadim 2:19. There’s a dispute whether a child who is at the age of Chinuch can fulfill the obligation of an adult. Bet Yosef 675e quotes the Ran ([[Shabbat]] 23a) in name of the Itur (Chanuka pg 116a) that a child can fulfill the obligation of an adult. So writes the Shibolei HaLeket 185, Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 12). However Meiri writes that he disagrees with the Rabbis of Provincia who say a child at age of chinuch can fulfill the obligation of an adult. [Seemingly, this is the opinion of Tosfot (Megilah 19b concerning megilah) that a double derabanan (child only obligated on a chinuch level and it’s only a derabanan mitzvah) can’t fulfill the mitzvah of one obligated on level of rabanan (adult for a mitzvah derabanan). The Tur 689 writes that so is the opinion of the Bahag and Rosh. However Bet Yosef 53 in name of Sh”t HaRashba 1:239, and Raavad disagree with Tosfot.] S”A 675:3 says a child isn’t obligated to light but some permit “a child at age of chinuch to fulfill the obligation of others” Yet, it’s a dispute in the Achronim whether S”A meant it as “Setam and then Yesh Omerim” (anonymous and then a disagreeing opinion) in which case we hold like the anonymous opinion or that it’s not a dispute but the “some say” was just explaining the first line. Magan Avraham 689:4 (as understood by Pri Megadim A”A 689:4), Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 3:41 say that S”A meant the “some say” is just explanatory. However, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 689 understands S”A that we hold like the anonymous opinion. So holds Sh”t Kol Gadol 100, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 58b, Sh”t Olat Shmuel 105e, Pri Chadash 675:3, Ben Ish Chai Veyeshev 19, Mishna Brurah 675:13, and Torat HaMoadim 2:19. </ref> | # A deaf and mute, insane, or child not bar/bat-mitzvah isn’t obligated to light and so can’t fulfill the obligation of someone who is obligated. However a deaf who can speak is obligated and can fulfill the obligation of others. <ref> [[Shabbat]] 23a says a deaf, insane person, and child isn’t obligated. So holds Rambam (Chanuka 4:9), Tur and S”A 675:3. The Mishna Trumot 1:2 defines deaf in Talmud as deaf and mute, but someone just deaf is obligated like anyone else. So quotes Pri Megadim M”Z 670:5, Mishna Brurah 675:12, and Torat HaMoadim 2:19. There’s a dispute whether a child who is at the age of Chinuch can fulfill the obligation of an adult. Bet Yosef 675e quotes the Ran ([[Shabbat]] 23a) in name of the Itur (Chanuka pg 116a) that a child can fulfill the obligation of an adult. So writes the Shibolei HaLeket 185, Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 12). However Meiri writes that he disagrees with the Rabbis of Provincia who say a child at age of chinuch can fulfill the obligation of an adult. [Seemingly, this is the opinion of Tosfot (Megilah 19b concerning megilah) that a double derabanan (child only obligated on a chinuch level and it’s only a derabanan mitzvah) can’t fulfill the mitzvah of one obligated on level of rabanan (adult for a mitzvah derabanan). The Tur 689 writes that so is the opinion of the Bahag and Rosh. However Bet Yosef 53 in name of Sh”t HaRashba 1:239, and Raavad disagree with Tosfot.] S”A 675:3 says a child isn’t obligated to light but some permit “a child at age of chinuch to fulfill the obligation of others” Yet, it’s a dispute in the Achronim whether S”A meant it as “Setam and then Yesh Omerim” (anonymous and then a disagreeing opinion) in which case we hold like the anonymous opinion or that it’s not a dispute but the “some say” was just explaining the first line. Magan Avraham 689:4 (as understood by Pri Megadim A”A 689:4), Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 3:41 say that S”A meant the “some say” is just explanatory. However, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 689 understands S”A that we hold like the anonymous opinion. So holds Sh”t Kol Gadol 100, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 58b, Sh”t Olat Shmuel 105e, Pri Chadash 675:3, Ben Ish Chai Veyeshev 19, Mishna Brurah 675:13, and Torat HaMoadim 2:19. </ref> | ||
# A blind person is obligated in lighting. If he’s married, his wife should light for him, if he lives alone he should light. <ref> Sh”t Maharshal 76, Magan Avraham 675:4, Eliyah Raba 675:7 write that a blind is obligated and preferably should fulfill it through joining with other house members or his wife, otherwise they can light own their own. </ref> | # A blind person is obligated in lighting. If he’s married, his wife should light for him, if he lives alone he should light. <ref> Sh”t Maharshal 76, Magan Avraham 675:4, Eliyah Raba 675:7 write that a blind is obligated and preferably should fulfill it through joining with other house members or his wife, otherwise they can light own their own. </ref> | ||
# A child, even if he is the age of chinuch but not bar/bat mitzvah, may not fulfill the obligation of others. However, the one making the bracha can light the first candle and then let the child light the other candles. However a child who isn’t at the age of chinuch, shouldn’t light any of the candles except for the Shamash. <ref> Levush 671, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 671, and Ben Ish Chai Vayeshev 18 hold the making the bracha should light all the candles. However Sh”t Maharshal 85, Magan Avraham 671:11, Mishna Brurah 671:49, Ruach Chaim 671:3, and Torat HaMoadim 2:20 (he writes that his father Rav Ovadyah Yosef would hold his hands while lighting in order to satisfy all opinions). </ref> | # A child, even if he is the age of chinuch but not bar/bat mitzvah, may not fulfill the obligation of others. However, the one making the bracha can light the first candle and then let the child light the other candles. However a child who isn’t at the age of chinuch, shouldn’t light any of the candles except for the Shamash. <ref> Levush 671, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 671, and Ben Ish Chai Vayeshev 18 hold the making the bracha should light all the candles. However, Sh”t Maharshal 85, Magan Avraham 671:11, Mishna Brurah 671:49, Ruach Chaim 671:3, and Torat HaMoadim 2:20 (he writes that his father Rav Ovadyah Yosef would hold his hands while lighting in order to satisfy all opinions). </ref> | ||
# A mourner in the first 7 days can light and make Brachot [however he shouldn’t light in shul on the first night because of the Shechianu, even in the 30 days of mourning or 12 months for a parent.] <ref> Sh”t Maharam Mintz 43, Sefer Mnhagim of Rav Yitzchak Tirna (Yom Kippur 155), Taz 671:8 write that a mourner shouldn’t light in shul the first night because of Shehecheyanu. The Nodea Benyehuda Tanina O”C 141 writes that at home one can light even the first night with shechiyanu. So holds Machzik Bracha 671:10, Birkei Yosef Y”D 205:14m,Bet HaRoeh pg 59, Chatom Sofer on S”A 671, Chaye Adam 154:17, Sh”t Binyan Olan O”C 35, Sh”t Olat Shmuel 106, Sh”t Machane Chaim Y”D 2:61, Sh”t Rav Poalim O”C 4:36, Siddur Bet Ovad pf 160b:2, Kemach Solet 137d, Shulchan Lechem HaPanim 676e, Mishna Brurah 671:44, and Kaf HaChaim 671:73. </ref> | # A mourner in the first 7 days can light and make Brachot [however he shouldn’t light in shul on the first night because of the Shechianu, even in the 30 days of mourning or 12 months for a parent.] <ref> Sh”t Maharam Mintz 43, Sefer Mnhagim of Rav Yitzchak Tirna (Yom Kippur 155), Taz 671:8 write that a mourner shouldn’t light in shul the first night because of Shehecheyanu. The Nodea Benyehuda Tanina O”C 141 writes that at home one can light even the first night with shechiyanu. So holds Machzik Bracha 671:10, Birkei Yosef Y”D 205:14m,Bet HaRoeh pg 59, Chatom Sofer on S”A 671, Chaye Adam 154:17, Sh”t Binyan Olan O”C 35, Sh”t Olat Shmuel 106, Sh”t Machane Chaim Y”D 2:61, Sh”t Rav Poalim O”C 4:36, Siddur Bet Ovad pf 160b:2, Kemach Solet 137d, Shulchan Lechem HaPanim 676e, Mishna Brurah 671:44, and Kaf HaChaim 671:73. </ref> | ||
# A mourner on the first day is exempt as he is exempt from all mitzvoth and so he should have a household member who isn’t a mourner light with a bracha, if that’s not possible, he should have another person light without a bracha. <ref> Eliyah Raba 670:19 writes one should have someone else light and answer amen. However, Erech HaShulchan 670:3 writes one should light without a bracha. Kaf Hachaim 670:20 explains that this is only a dispute if the first-day mourner is alone, otherwise his wife or a household member can fulfill for him his obligation. Pri Megadim M”Z 670:5 agrees with Eliyah Raba but argues that one can’t answer amen as in S”A Y”D 341 where we follow the anonymous opinion that a first-day mourner doesn’t answer amen. Torat HaMoadim 2:24 agrees with Erech HaShulchan. </ref> | # A mourner on the first day is exempt as he is exempt from all mitzvoth and so he should have a household member who isn’t a mourner light with a bracha, if that’s not possible, he should have another person light without a bracha. <ref> Eliyah Raba 670:19 writes one should have someone else light and answer amen. However, Erech HaShulchan 670:3 writes one should light without a bracha. Kaf Hachaim 670:20 explains that this is only a dispute if the first-day mourner is alone, otherwise his wife or a household member can fulfill for him his obligation. Pri Megadim M”Z 670:5 agrees with Eliyah Raba but argues that one can’t answer amen as in S”A Y”D 341 where we follow the anonymous opinion that a first-day mourner doesn’t answer amen. Torat HaMoadim 2:24 agrees with Erech HaShulchan. </ref> | ||
# A convert can make all the Brachot and say “She’assa Nissim Le’avotenu” but if he wants can change it to say “She’assa Nissim LeYisrael”. <ref> Sh”t Rambam (Pasya edition 158, Kisei Nirdamim Mehuderet Fredman 42, Mehuderet Belav 293) writes that a convert can say all of the Brachot like every Jew because he converted he becomes a descendant of Avraham and part of the Jewish people for all their history, however if he wants to change the brachot that relate to the Jewish history such as Yetsiat Mitzrayim, and Chanuka. | # A convert can make all the Brachot and say “She’assa Nissim Le’avotenu” but if he wants can change it to say “She’assa Nissim LeYisrael”. <ref> Sh”t Rambam (Pasya edition 158, Kisei Nirdamim Mehuderet Fredman 42, Mehuderet Belav 293) writes that a convert can say all of the Brachot like every Jew because he converted he becomes a descendant of Avraham and part of the Jewish people for all their history, however if he wants to change the brachot that relate to the Jewish history such as Yetsiat Mitzrayim, and Chanuka. The Sh”t Rashba 7:54, Hagahot Mordechai Megilah 1:786, and Sh”t Ridvaz 5:520 agree. Torat HaMoadim 2:25 finds support for this opinion in the ruling of Shulchan Aruch (See S”A 53:19 and S"A 199:9). </ref> | ||
==Who fulfills his/her obligation with the household’s lighting?== | ==Who fulfills his/her obligation with the household’s lighting?== | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
* (4) Piskei Teshuvot 677:5 (pg 499) rules that if it’s difficult to leave the wedding the groom may light at the wedding hall because they’re renting the place. ([http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=2248 Rabbi Mansour] applies this Piskei Teshuvot even if the wedding takes place during the night but the parents didn’t have a chance to light beforehand. Additionally, Rabbi Mansour seems to say that Yalkut Yosef also agrees with this leniency but was unable to find any proof to this from the words of the Yalkut Yosef.) </ref> | * (4) Piskei Teshuvot 677:5 (pg 499) rules that if it’s difficult to leave the wedding the groom may light at the wedding hall because they’re renting the place. ([http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=2248 Rabbi Mansour] applies this Piskei Teshuvot even if the wedding takes place during the night but the parents didn’t have a chance to light beforehand. Additionally, Rabbi Mansour seems to say that Yalkut Yosef also agrees with this leniency but was unable to find any proof to this from the words of the Yalkut Yosef.) </ref> | ||
===Traveler=== | ===Traveler=== | ||
# A married man traveling should have his wife light for him at home and not make the Bracha of Sh’asa Nisim nor Sh’chianu even when he returns home. <ref> S”A 676:3. There’s a dispute in the Rishonim whether one makes a bracha for seeing Chanuka candles if he is fulfilling his obligation with | # A married man traveling should have his wife light for him at home and not make the Bracha of Sh’asa Nisim nor Sh’chianu even when he returns home. <ref> S”A 676:3. There’s a dispute in the Rishonim whether one makes a bracha for seeing Chanuka candles if someone is lighting for him at home and he is thereby fulfilling his obligation with the lighting. The Rashba ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Sefer HaHashlamah ([[Shabbat]] 23a) in name of Rabbi Asher MeLunil, Smag (Chanuka 250d), Ran (10b D”H Amar Rav Chiya), Tur 676:3, Magid Mishna (Chanuka 3:4) in name of Itur (2 pg 117c), and Rosh ([[Shabbat]] 8) hold that one doesn’t make a bracha if someone is lighting for him at home and he is thereby fulfilling his obligation. However, the Rambam (Chanuka 3:4), Magid Mishna in name of some Geonim, Ravyah 3:843, Riaz ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Meiri, Sefer HaMeorot ([[Shabbat]] 23a), and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 9) hold that one can make a Bracha even if someone is lighting for him at home. S”A rules 676:3 that one doesn’t make Bracha HaRoeh if is fulfilling his obligation at home. Pri Chadash 676:3, however, argues that the halacha should follow those Rishonim who say that one should make the Brachot HaRoeh if one is personally not going to light that night even if someone is lighting for him at home. Sh”t Maharshal 85, Bach 676:3 (in name of Rif, Rambam, Smak, Rosh, and Aguda), Eliyah Raba, Biur HaGra, and Chaye Adam 154:33 agree. However, Shirei Knesset HaGedola 677:3, Taz 676:4, Magan Avraham 676:1, Shulchan Gavoha 676:5, Birkei Yosef 676:3, Mishna Brurah 676:6, and Torat HaMoadim 2:15 rule that one doesn’t make a bracha because of Safek Bracha. </ref> | ||
===A Yeshiva Student=== | ===A Yeshiva Student=== | ||
# There is a dispute whether a Yeshiva student who eats and sleeps at the Yeshiva but is financially supported by his parents is considered dependent on the table of the household or not. Most Sephardic authorities rule that he is considered dependant and fulfills his obligation with the lighting of his household, however, many Ashkenazic authorities rule that he is considered independent and doesn’t fulfill his obligation. <Ref> | # There is a dispute whether a Yeshiva student who eats and sleeps at the Yeshiva but is financially supported by his parents is considered dependent on the table of the household or not. Most Sephardic authorities rule that he is considered dependant and fulfills his obligation with the lighting of his household, however, many Ashkenazic authorities rule that he is considered independent and doesn’t fulfill his obligation. <Ref> | ||
