Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions

== Who’s Obligated?==

* Piskei Maharam Riketani (154) holds women can fulfill a man’s obligation on his behalf. This is also the opinion of Rabbenu Yerucham 9:1, Rokeach [[Chanukah]] 226:3, Ritva and Meiri ([[Shabbat]] 23a, Megilah 4a), Maharil ([[Chanukah]] pg 407). Levush (675), Bach (675), Taz(675:4), Magan Avraham 675:4, Olot [[Shabbat]] 675:1, Pri [[Chadash]] 675:4, Eliyah Raba 675:6, Sh”t Shar Efraim 42, Shulchan Gavoha 675:6, Mor Ukesia 675:6, Machzik Bracha 675:4, Mishna Brurah 675:9. Sh”t Yechave Daat 3:51 writes that since some rishonim and achronim hold one can only light at [[Tzet HaKochavim]] one should let his wife light at the right time and fulfill his obligation according to all opinions. The Yechave Daat holds like the Chaye Adam 154:33. Kaf Hachiam 676:25. Chaye Adam adds that Ashkenazim can light without a bracha. Interesting point: S”A 689:2 says a women can read the [[megillah]] to fulfill for a man his obligation of [[megillah]], and some hold otherwise. [Bahag (quoted by Tosfot Megilah 4a, Erchin 3a) and Morchedai 4a in name of Ravyah (Megilah 569,843) hold women can’t fulfill the obligation of a man, but Rashi Erchin 3a, Or Zaruh 2:324, Rambam(Megilah 1), Rif (quoted by Sefer Eshkol 2:30) hold a women can fulfill  obligation of a man]. However Smag (brought by Magan Avraham 589:5), Itur (Megilah 113d), Eshkol 2 pg 30 differentiate between Megilah which is like Torah reading but by [[Chanukah]] women can fulfill the man’s obligation according to everyone. Also Torat Moadim [[Chanukah]] pg 40 says the Behag only held a women can fulfill megilah for a man since a women’s obligation is derebanan and a man’s is from divrei kabalah (Ketuvim). Similarly, Sh”t Maharash Halevi O”C 24 says [[Chanukah]] isn’t an obligation on each person but on the household and so a women can fulfill it for a man. Thus even those who say by Megilah a woman can’t fulfill a man’s obligation agree by [[Chanukah]]. </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. This is also the opinion of Rambam ([[Chanukah]] 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 ([[Chanukah]] pg 116a) that a child can fulfill the obligation of an adult. So writes the Shibolei HaLeket 185, Orchot Chaim ([[Chanukah]] 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. This is also the opinion of 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 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]]. This is also the opinion of 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>

==Who fulfills his/her obligation with the household’s lighting?==

===Woman===

# A married woman should rely on her husband’s lighting. Unmarried girls who in still live at in their father’s home can rely on their father’s lighting even according to the Ashkenazic custom. If they want to light, Ashkenazim can light with a Bracha. <ref> A married women is exempt by her husband because “Ishto Kegufo Dami”(a husband and wife are like one person). So writes the Maharshal 88, Knesset Hagedolah 671, Mateh Moshe 982, Eliya Raba 671:3, Machasit Hashekel 675:4. Mishna Brurah 675:9 quotes this in name of Sh”t Olot Shmeul 105 and says if women want they can light with a Bracha like any mitzvah for which one’s exempt according to the Ashkenazi Minhag. Mishmeret Shalom 48 says since a married woman doesn’t light and relies on her husband, her daughters also don’t light as derech eretz. Similarly, Chiddushei Chatom Sofer ([[Shabbat]] 21b D”H Vehamehadrin) writes since the practice used to be to light outside it wasn’t Derech Eretz for women to light if her husband is already lighting and since then the Minhag hasn’t changed. Ashel Avraham Mebustatesh 675:3 says according to kabbalah women don’t light (unless they have to). However it seems as the minhag is that Ashkenzic unmarried girls also light. Rav Moshe Feinstein is quoted in sefer Moadei Yeshurun 1:4 says if a woman wants to light and recite the beracha, she should light before her husband does. </ref>  

===Single children===

# According to Sephardim, members of the household that are dependent on their parents fulfill their obligation with the one lighting of the household even if they aren’t home such as children in yeshiva or in the army that don’t sleep at home don’t light where they sleep. However, Ashkenazi Minhag is for single children to light themselves even at home and certainly when not sleeping at home. <ref>

* 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 [[Chanukah]], many Rishonim including the Sh”t Rashba 1:541, Orchot Chaim [[Chanukah]] 13, Smak 280, Sefer Trumah 228, Hagahot Maimon [[Chanukah]] 4:30, Ritva ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Mordechai ([[Shabbat]] 2:226), Ohel Moed ([[Chanukah]]), and Shibolei HaLeket 185 say that there’s no suspicion of not lighting by a extra doorway nowadays when we light indoors.  

* Sefer HaTrumah (229 Introduction) says clearly students that learn outside their home don’t light if they have someone lighting for them at home. Magan Avraham (Introduction to 677) quotes the Maharshal who says that a yeshiva student who is dependent on the owner of the house is considered like a family member and doesn't have to light. Rav Ovadyah Yosef (Sh”t Yechave Daat 6:43, Chazon Ovadyah [[Chanukah]] pg 144-151) writes clearly that a family member who is dependent on his parents fulfills his obligation with the lighting of his parents at home. Meiri [[Shabbat]] 23a and Orchot Chaim ([[Chanukah]] 14) say an older and married child should light for themselves.