16,374
edits
Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
* 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, 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 | # 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. The Pri Chadash 677:3 argues that one shouldn’t rely on this to make a bracha since it’s not an obligation. [This is similar to the Bet Yosef 677:1 who 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. Mishna Brurah 677:14 agrees. 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 even if his wife is lighting because no one around is lighting. The Shulchan Gavoha 677:5, Chasidei David Chasan pg 61b, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 48b, Sh”t Besamim Rosh 343, Chazon Ovadyah, and Moed Kol Chai 27:49 agree. 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 concerned for those rishonim who disagreed with the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai and are quoted by the Meiri. </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> | ||
# A guest of a motel or hotel which is just for guests and not a home owner, needs to light for himself (unless there is someone lighting for him at home). <ref> Torat HaMoadim 2:14 says a hotel guest doesn’t have the laws of a guest at his friend’s house because he’s not living with the owner of the house and he’s renting his own room. So holds the Chovat Hadar 39. Implied from Piskei Riaz ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Piskei Rid ([[Shabbat]] 23a), and Shebolei HaLeket 185 that there’s an obligation on a renter even if it’s a just a room in a house. </ref> | # A guest of a motel or hotel which is just for guests and not a home owner, needs to light for himself (unless there is someone lighting for him at home). <ref> Torat HaMoadim 2:14 says a hotel guest doesn’t have the laws of a guest at his friend’s house because he’s not living with the owner of the house and he’s renting his own room. So holds the Chovat Hadar 39. Implied from Piskei Riaz ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Piskei Rid ([[Shabbat]] 23a), and Shebolei HaLeket 185 that there’s an obligation on a renter even if it’s a just a room in a house. </ref> | ||
# Two people who live in a one apartment if they eat together and pay for the food together, they should light one set of candles (in which they both have a potion) and switch off with who should do the Bracha. If they pay for their own food separately even if they are family members they should light separately. <ref> Sefer Pardes Gadol 199e, Sh”t Maaseh Geonim 44, and Shiboeli HaLeket 185 bring a dispute between Rabbenu David who hold that two people living in one house should light separately and Rabbotenu who said that they can light together. Torat Hamoadim 2:17 explains that this dispute concerns two people who have separate funds for food because otherwise it’s untenable why Rabbenu David requires separate lighting, however if they didn’t separate the cost of food everyone agrees that they can light together. Magid Mishna (Chanuka 4:4), Pri Chadash 677:1, Sh”t Shaarei Yehoshua O”C 7:4 agree with Rabbenu David. However, Sefer HaTrumah 229, Eliyahu Zuta 671:6 in name of Tosfot, Levush 677:3, Pri Megamdim A”A 678:3, and Ben Ish Chai Vayeshev 17 agree with Rabbotenu. Mishna Brurah in Biur Halacha (677:1 D”H Imo) quotes this dispute and doesn’t rule on it. Torat HaMoadim 2:17 advises that since everyone agrees that one can light separately and it’s dispute whether one can light together one should light separately to satisfy all opinions. </ref> | # Two people who live in a one apartment if they eat together and pay for the food together, they should light one set of candles (in which they both have a potion) and switch off with who should do the Bracha. If they pay for their own food separately even if they are family members they should light separately. <ref> Sefer Pardes Gadol 199e, Sh”t Maaseh Geonim 44, and Shiboeli HaLeket 185 bring a dispute between Rabbenu David who hold that two people living in one house should light separately and Rabbotenu who said that they can light together. Torat Hamoadim 2:17 explains that this dispute concerns two people who have separate funds for food because otherwise it’s untenable why Rabbenu David requires separate lighting, however if they didn’t separate the cost of food everyone agrees that they can light together. Magid Mishna (Chanuka 4:4), Pri Chadash 677:1, Sh”t Shaarei Yehoshua O”C 7:4 agree with Rabbenu David. However, Sefer HaTrumah 229, Eliyahu Zuta 671:6 in name of Tosfot, Levush 677:3, Pri Megamdim A”A 678:3, and Ben Ish Chai Vayeshev 17 agree with Rabbotenu. Mishna Brurah in Biur Halacha (677:1 D”H Imo) quotes this dispute and doesn’t rule on it. Torat HaMoadim 2:17 advises that since everyone agrees that one can light separately and it’s dispute whether one can light together one should light separately to satisfy all opinions. </ref> | ||
# Someone who doesn’t have a house and isn’t a dependant of someone’s house, can’t light candles. If he eats at someone’s house, he can light without a bracha or join in the lighting of the owner (by paying for a portion of the candles). However he can make the Brachot HaRoeh for seeing the candles (She’assa Nisim and Shechianu on the first night). <ref> Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe Y”D 3:14(5) based on Rashi (23a D”H HaRoeh) and Torat HaMoadim 2:18 based on Tosfot (Sukkah 46a D”H HaRoeh) rule that someone who doesn’t have a house doesn’t light and can only make Brachot HaRoah. [It seems, Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:29 holds one should light even if he doesn’t have a house.] Bach 677 D”H “U’Mah Shekatav HaRosh” implies if not for suspicion one can light in the place he ate. However Taz 677:2 argues that one can not light in the place he ate. Thus one can only light without a Bracha (Safek Brachot Lehakel). </ref> | # Someone who doesn’t have a house and isn’t a dependant of someone’s house, can’t light candles. If he eats at someone’s house, he can light without a bracha or join in the lighting of the owner (by paying for a portion of the candles). However, he can make the Brachot HaRoeh for seeing the candles (She’assa Nisim and Shechianu on the first night). <ref> Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe Y”D 3:14(5) based on Rashi (23a D”H HaRoeh) and Torat HaMoadim 2:18 based on Tosfot (Sukkah 46a D”H HaRoeh) rule that someone who doesn’t have a house doesn’t light and can only make Brachot HaRoah. [It seems, Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:29 holds one should light even if he doesn’t have a house.] Bach 677 D”H “U’Mah Shekatav HaRosh” implies if not for suspicion one can light in the place he ate. However, Taz 677:2 argues that one can not light in the place he ate. Thus one can only light without a Bracha (Safek Brachot Lehakel). </ref> | ||
# If one is eating at someone’s house (even if it’s one’s parents) on Friday night Chanuka, and is going to sleep at home that night, should light at home after Plag Mincha. <Ref> Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 672:11) </ref> | # If one is eating at someone’s house (even if it’s one’s parents) on Friday night Chanuka, and is going to sleep at home that night, should light at home after Plag Mincha. <Ref> Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 672:11) </ref> | ||
