16,374
edits
Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
* However, Sh”t Maharshal 85 argues on the Maharil saying that one fulfills one’s obligation with one’s wife’s lighting at home even if one has intent not to fulfill one’s obligation. The Taz 677:9 who doesn’t understand the Maharshal and defends the Maharil explaining why it’s not considered an unnecessary Bracha. The Chida in Birkei Yosef 677:2 explains the approach of the Bet Yosef saying that by other Brachot where there is a personal obligation one may have intent not to fulfill one’s obligation, however, by Chanuka the obligation is for the house to have lit candles and so one’s intent not to fulfill one’s obligation is useless. [See Pri Chadash 677:1, Mateh Moshe (Siman 983), Sh”t Zera Emet 1:97, Kaf HaChaim 677:25, Chaye Adam 154:33, Maamer Mordechai 677:5, Sh”t Sadeh Eretz O”C 42, Sh”t Chesed LeAvraham Alkelai O”C 24, and Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 2:37 who agree with this approach of the Chida.] Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43 quoting Rav Ezra Attiah, and Torat HaMoadim 2:6 rule like the Bet Yosef that one should not have in mind not to fulfill one’s obligation. Yalkut Yosef 677:8 rules that a married man fulfills his obligation with the lighting of his wife and if he wants to be strict to light where he is staying he should light without a Bracha. | * However, Sh”t Maharshal 85 argues on the Maharil saying that one fulfills one’s obligation with one’s wife’s lighting at home even if one has intent not to fulfill one’s obligation. The Taz 677:9 who doesn’t understand the Maharshal and defends the Maharil explaining why it’s not considered an unnecessary Bracha. The Chida in Birkei Yosef 677:2 explains the approach of the Bet Yosef saying that by other Brachot where there is a personal obligation one may have intent not to fulfill one’s obligation, however, by Chanuka the obligation is for the house to have lit candles and so one’s intent not to fulfill one’s obligation is useless. [See Pri Chadash 677:1, Mateh Moshe (Siman 983), Sh”t Zera Emet 1:97, Kaf HaChaim 677:25, Chaye Adam 154:33, Maamer Mordechai 677:5, Sh”t Sadeh Eretz O”C 42, Sh”t Chesed LeAvraham Alkelai O”C 24, and Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 2:37 who agree with this approach of the Chida.] Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43 quoting Rav Ezra Attiah, and Torat HaMoadim 2:6 rule like the Bet Yosef that one should not have in mind not to fulfill one’s obligation. Yalkut Yosef 677:8 rules that a married man fulfills his obligation with the lighting of his wife and if he wants to be strict to light where he is staying he should light without a Bracha. | ||
* Mishna Brurah 677:15-6 writes that many achronim agree with the Maharil and there is what to rely on but because of those who argue it’s preferable that either one hear the Bracha from someone else and then light or make sure to light before one’s wife. </ref> | * Mishna Brurah 677:15-6 writes that many achronim agree with the Maharil and there is what to rely on but because of those who argue it’s preferable that either one hear the Bracha from someone else and then light or make sure to light before one’s wife. </ref> | ||
# Someone in a city that’s totally not Jewish even if | # Someone in a city that’s totally not Jewish, some say that even if his family is lighting for him at home he should light with a bracha, while others disagree. <ref> S”A 677:3 writes “some say to light with a bracha when in a city that totally not Jewish” based on Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 13,18) and Mordechai 267. So writes Sh”t She’erit Yosef 73e. Pri Chadash 677:3 argue that one shouldn’t rely on this to make a bracha since it’s not an obligation [just like the Bet Yosef 677:1 argued against the Trumat Hadeshen 101 who says that a guest who was married was allowed to light on his own for Hiddur Mitzvah because, says the Bet Yosef, one shouldn’t rely on this to make an unnecessary bracha.] Buir HaGra 677:3 argues similarly. So rules the Mishna Brurah 677:14. On the other hand, Chazon Ovadyah pg 158-60 says that the Bet Yosef 677:3 only quotes the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai without anyone who argues and then rules that way in S”A implying that no one disagrees. The difference between the a guest and this traveler is as the Mamer Mordechai 677:4 explains that the guest can’t light if there’s already a Pirsume Nisa and he’s fulfilled his obligation with his wife’s lighting, but a traveler has an obligation of Pirsume Nisa (just like in lighting in Shul) even if his wife is lighting because no one around is lighting. So holds the Shulchan Gavoha 677:5 (and that so was the Minhag of Selanica), Chasidei David Chasan pg 61b, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 48b, Sh”t Besamim Rosh 343, Chazon Ovadyah, and Moed Kol Chai 27:49. Why did S”A begin the halacha with words “some say”? Mamer Mordechai says it’s because S”A was unsure about this. Yet, Chazon Ovadyah responds that the S”A was intending to the opinion of the Meiri (who argues on the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai). </ref> | ||
===Other laws of a guest=== | ===Other laws of a guest=== | ||
# A guest who is relying on the home owner and the home owner asks him to light, he can light for everyone with a bracha. <ref> Torat HaMoadim 2:13 quoting his father, Rav Ovadiah, based on the fact that one can appoint a Shaliach to light for him and all the more so if the Shaliah is a household member. So holds Rav Elyashiv (Kuntres Halichot VeHanhagot, quoted in Halichot Yosef pg 244), Sefer Chanuka of Rav Kenievsky 13:14b. </ref> | # A guest who is relying on the home owner and the home owner asks him to light, he can light for everyone with a bracha. <ref> Torat HaMoadim 2:13 quoting his father, Rav Ovadiah, based on the fact that one can appoint a Shaliach to light for him and all the more so if the Shaliah is a household member. So holds Rav Elyashiv (Kuntres Halichot VeHanhagot, quoted in Halichot Yosef pg 244), Sefer Chanuka of Rav Kenievsky 13:14b. </ref> | ||
