Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions

== Who’s Obligated?==

# Women are obligated in Chanuka candles since they too were part of the miracle of Chanuka. Thus, a man who is away traveling he should have his wife light at home for him to fulfill his obligation. Even if he will come that night later than [[Tzet HaKochavim]] (the night to light Chanuka candles), he should still have his wife light. Ashkenazim who have the Minhag that everyone in the household lights and they are able to light where they are should light without a bracha. <ref> The Gemara Shabbat (23a) says that woman are obligated in lighting chanuka candles because they too were part of the miracle of chanuka. Rambam (Chanuka 4:9), Tur 665, and S”A 665:5 codify this as halacha. Kitzur S"A 139:16 concurs.  

# 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>

* Rav Sheshet (Gemara Shabbat 23a) stated that a guest is obligated to light Chanuka candles. Rabbi Zeiri commented that his wife lit Chanuka candles for him at home, he fulfilled his mitzvah. This is codified by Rambam (Chanuka 4:11), Tur and S"A 677:1 that someone who has someone else lighting for him at home doesn't have to light Chanuka candles.  

* While the Rambam, Tur, and S”A state that if one has his own room that leads to the outside one would have to light so people don’t suspect him of not observing Chanuka, many Rishonim including the Sh”t Rashba 1:541, Orchot Chaim Chanuka 13, Smak 280, Sefer Trumah 228, Hagahot Maimon Chanuka 4:30, Ritva ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Mordechai ([[Shabbat]] 2:226), Ohel Moed (Chanuka), and Shibolei HaLeket 185 say that there’s no suspicion of not lighting by a extra doorway nowadays when we light indoors.  

* Similarly, Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai Moadim p. 104-5) writes that a man fulfills his primary obligation with his wife’s lighting at home even if he is a guest somewhere else. Similarly, a student can fulfill his primary obligation with his parent’s lighting at home. However, according to the minhag of the Rama, Ashkenazim still may light with a bracha even if someone is lighting for them at home.  

* However, Rav Hershel Schachter (B’ikvei HaTzon p. 123-4) writes that a man does not fulfill his obligation with the lighting of his wife in another city unless he actually goes home later that night. Similarly, he stated in a shiur ([http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/784742/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Where_to_light_Neiros_Chanukah_in_the_dorm-_A_full_discussion|YUTorah.org, “Where to light Neiros Chanukah in the dorm,” min 24)] that a yeshiva student does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s lighting in another city unless he is at home that night.</ref>

* Torat HaMoadim (2:4 pg 45) explains that since the Yeshiva students return home during break and are still connected to their parent’s home they are considered dependant on their parent’s house. Torat HaMoadim (2:4 pg 48) continues that even if they don’t fulfill their obligation with the lighting at home they fulfill their obligation with the lighting of the Yeshiva. He explains that certainly the administration of the Yeshiva gives a portion of the oil and wicks to the students. He adds that the lighting of the Yeshiva isn’t similar to the lighting in a Shul where some say that one can’t fulfill one’s obligation because the students are in the Beit Midrash all the time and so it’s considered their house.

* However, Shevut Yitzchak (vol 5, pg 113-4) quotes Rav Elyashiv as saying that a Sephardic Yeshiva student doesn’t fulfill one’s obligation with the lighting of one’s parents. The Shevut Yitzchak explains that a married man fulfills his obligation with his wife’s lighting at home because that’s his primary house, however, a Yeshiva student doesn’t live at home and so his parents can’t fulfill his obligation. Peninei Chanuka (pg 81-2) quotes Rav Elyashiva as saying that this is true even if the parents pay for tuition at the Yeshiva. Sh”t Az Nidbaru 3:53, Shulchan Yosef (vol 2, pg 139-140), Yemeh Chanuka (pg 155) quoting Rav Nissim Karlitz agree. See Teshuvot VeHanhagot 3:215(17) who seems to agree. Listen to shiur by [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/751512/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Chanukah Rav Hershel Schachter] (min 14-16) who seems to hold that a person in the Israeli army does not fulfill his obligation with the lighting in his home.  

# A Sephardic Yeshiva whose parents live outside Israel in a different time zone some say that he may light with a Bracha at Yeshiva, while others say that he can fulfill his obligation with the lighting of his parents. <Ref>

* Chacham Ben Tzion Abba Shaul (Kovetz Zichron Yehuda, Sefer Zikaron, vol 1, pg 106-7) rules that a Yeshiva student whose parents live outside Israel in a different time zone can light with a Bracha at the Yeshiva. Chazon Ovadyah pg 150 and Pri HaAretz 1:9 pg 6d agree. See Sh”t Minchat Yitzchak 7:46 who agrees.  

* Sh”t Trumat HaDeshen 101 writes that a married man who is away from home during Chanuka and his wife is lighting at home and his wife is lighting at home, he is still allowed to light with a Bracha to fulfill the mitzvah of Mehardin (performing the mitzvah in the best possible way). Rama 677:3 rules like the Trumat HaDeshen and writes that such is the minhag. See Agur 1036. However, the Bet Yosef 677:3 writes that not to rely on the Trumat HaDeshen because it is an unnecessary Bracha (Bracha Sheina Tzaricha).  

* The Sh”t Maharil 145 agrees that one may light at the place one is staying even if one’s wife is lighting at home but adds that this is only where one has in mind not to fulfill one’s obligation with one’s wife’s lighting. This is also the ruling of the Levush 677:1, and Magan Avraham 677:9. See also Olat [[Shabbat]] 677:1, and Rav Shalom Mashash in Sh”t Tevuot Shemesh O”C 7 who agree with this approach.  

* 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. 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>