3,231
edits
Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Should a guest light candles?
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
== Should a guest light candles?== | == Should a guest light candles?== | ||
# A guest at a friend’s house, who doesn’t have anyone lighting for them at home, must chip in (a prutah’s worth) with the owner of the house for the Chanuka candles so that the owner will give him a portion of the candles, either with a kinyan or as a gift, [and the owner will add some oil for the guest] and will fulfill the obligation of the guest. According to Ashkenzim, if he has his own doorway (to outside) he should light by himself, and even if he doesn’t have his own doorway it’s preferable to light by himself. <ref> S”A 677:1 says that a guest fulfills his obligation with a portion of the oil, based on Shabbat 23a, Rambam Chanuka 4:11, Tur 677. S”A 677:1 based on Rif 23a rules because of suspicion one should light in a second doorway. However Rama says that nowadays we don’t have this suspicion because we light indoors. So agrees many achronim including Sh”t Maharshal 85, see Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43. Thus a guest shouldn’t need to light for himself. However Sh”t Mahariv (Likutim 31), (quoted by Magan Avraham 677:3, Mishna Brurah 677:7) says since there’s no suspicion everyone lights indoors and even the guest. Kaf Hachaim adds that the Sh”t HaRashba 1:542 one needs a portion of the oil and the wicks. Yad Aharon 677, Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Gan HaMelech 40), Pri Megadim (A”A 677:1), Mishna Brurah 677:3 rule that any amount is sufficient against Eliyah Rabba(677:1,2) who says that one must chip in the amount of oil to burn for a half hour. Sh”t HaRashba 1:542, Magan Avraham 677:1, Pri Chadash 677:1, Eliyah Raba 677:2, Derech HaChaim 677:2, Mishna Brurah 677:3 say that the owner can give him the portion even as a gift. Agudah (Shabbat 2:32), Bach 677, Magan Avraham 677:1, say that the owner should add some oil because of the guest. Pri Megadim and Derech Hachaim rule it’s enough the owner add a little bit against the Eliyah Raba who says the owner should add the amount the guest gave and Machasit HaShekel who says the owner should add an half hour’s worth. </ref> | # A guest at a friend’s house, who doesn’t have anyone lighting for them at home, must chip in (a prutah’s worth) with the owner of the house for the Chanuka candles so that the owner will give him a portion of the candles, either with a kinyan or as a gift, [and the owner will add some oil for the guest] and will fulfill the obligation of the guest. According to Ashkenzim, if he has his own doorway (to outside) he should light by himself, and even if he doesn’t have his own doorway it’s preferable to light by himself. <ref> S”A 677:1 says that a guest fulfills his obligation with a portion of the oil, based on Shabbat 23a, Rambam Chanuka 4:11, Tur 677. S”A 677:1 based on Rif 23a rules because of suspicion one should light in a second doorway. However Rama says that nowadays we don’t have this suspicion because we light indoors. So agrees many achronim including Sh”t Maharshal 85, see Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43. Thus a guest shouldn’t need to light for himself. However Sh”t Mahariv (Likutim 31), (quoted by Magan Avraham 677:3, Mishna Brurah 677:7) says since there’s no suspicion everyone lights indoors and even the guest. Kaf Hachaim adds that the Sh”t HaRashba 1:542 one needs a portion of the oil and the wicks. Yad Aharon 677, Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Gan HaMelech 40), Pri Megadim (A”A 677:1), Mishna Brurah 677:3 rule that any amount is sufficient against Eliyah Rabba(677:1,2) who says that one must chip in the amount of oil to burn for a half hour. Sh”t HaRashba 1:542, Magan Avraham 677:1, Pri Chadash 677:1, Eliyah Raba 677:2, Derech HaChaim 677:2, Mishna Brurah 677:3 say that the owner can give him the portion even as a gift. Agudah (Shabbat 2:32), Bach 677, Magan Avraham 677:1, say that the owner should add some oil because of the guest. Pri Megadim and Derech Hachaim rule it’s enough the owner add a little bit against the Eliyah Raba who says the owner should add the amount the guest gave and Machasit HaShekel who says the owner should add an half hour’s worth. </ref> | ||
# A household member who is a guest in a friend’s house but have someone lighting for them at home, according to Sephardim may light but without a bracha, even if they have in mind not to fulfill their mitzvah with their house’s lighting. According to Ashkenazim, one should light by oneself and have what to rely on if they want make such as bracha. <ref> There’s a dispute whether one can have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. Sh”t Trumat HaDeshen 101, Sh”t Sh”t Maharil 145, Agur 1036, Rama 677 hold one can have intent not to be exempt and since there’s a doubt whether his house will light with him in mind he can make a bracha for himself. So agree the Levush (677:1), Olat Shabbat 677:1, Taz 677:1, Magan Avraham 677:9, Eliyah Rabba 677:4, Sh”t Tevuot Shemesh O”C 7. However Bet Yosef 677 says one can’t rely on the Trumat HaDeshen to make an unnecessary Bracha. So hold Sh”t Maharshal 85, Pri Chadash 677:1, Mateh Moshe 983, Sh”t Zera Emet 1:97, Chaye Adam 154:33, Mishna Brurah 677:16 say that it’s better one doesn’t make a bracha. That applies for Ashkenazim. However for Sephardim who always rely on the house’s lighting can’t have in mind not to fulfill your obligation. Knesset Hagedolah understands Bet Yosef as it’s not forbidden as Bracha Levatala but just an issue of Bracha Sh’eina Tzaricha; however the Birkei Yosef 677, Maamer Mordechai 677:5 argue that shouldn’t make such a bracha; so hold Sh”t Sadeh Eretz O”C 42, Sh”t Chesed LeAvraham Alkelai O”C 24, Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 2:37, Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43 (who says that he personally asked Rav Ezra Attiah this question), and Torat HaMoadim 2:6. </ref> | # A household member who is a guest in a friend’s house but have someone lighting for them at home, according to Sephardim may light but without a bracha, even if they have in mind not to fulfill their mitzvah with their house’s lighting. According to Ashkenazim, one should light by oneself and have what to rely on if they want make such as bracha. <ref> There’s a dispute whether one can have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. Sh”t Trumat HaDeshen 101, Sh”t Sh”t Maharil 145, Agur 1036, Rama 677 hold one can have intent not to be exempt and since there’s a doubt whether his house will light with him in mind he can make a bracha for himself. So agree the Levush (677:1), Olat Shabbat 677:1, Taz 677:1, Magan Avraham 677:9, Eliyah Rabba 677:4, Sh”t Tevuot Shemesh O”C 7. However Bet Yosef 677 says one can’t rely on the Trumat HaDeshen to make an unnecessary Bracha. So hold Sh”t Maharshal 85, Pri Chadash 677:1, Mateh Moshe 983, Sh”t Zera Emet 1:97, Chaye Adam 154:33, Mishna Brurah 677:16 say that it’s better one doesn’t make a bracha. That applies for Ashkenazim. However for Sephardim who always rely on the house’s lighting can’t have in mind not to fulfill your obligation. Knesset Hagedolah understands Bet Yosef as it’s not forbidden as Bracha Levatala but just an issue of Bracha Sh’eina Tzaricha; however the Birkei Yosef 677, Maamer Mordechai 677:5 argue that shouldn’t make such a bracha; so hold Sh”t Sadeh Eretz O”C 42, Sh”t Chesed LeAvraham Alkelai O”C 24, Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 2:37, Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43 (who says that he personally asked Rav Ezra Attiah this question), and Torat HaMoadim 2:6. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik quoted by Rav Herschel Schachter in B'ikvei Hatzon chapter 20 footnote 2 says that a guest can never light with a beracha because lighting was instituted as an obligation on one's home. </ref> | ||
# A Sephardic household member who is exempt with the house’s lighting even if he is in Israel and his household is in America where they will only light many hours later. If one wants to light one can light at Tzet in Israel with a bracha. <ref> Yalkut Yosef (Moadim pg 231), Torat HaMoadim 2:7, and Sh”t Mishna Halachot 6:119 explain that according to many that hold the obligation is only on the household, he fulfill his obligation, but the Bach who holds there’s an obligation on each individual, may also hold that one should light in his timezone, but concludes that he fulfill his obligation with his household even according to the Bach. However Sh”t Minchat Yitzchak 7:46 says because of the doubt one should have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. However because of the dispute between posikim about whether that will enable one to make a bracha (see previous footnote), one shouldn’t have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. Chazon Ovadyah pg 150 and Pri HaAretz 1:9 pg 6d say if one wants, one can light with a bracha at Tzet in Israel because his family didn’t light for him in America yet. </ref> | # A Sephardic household member who is exempt with the house’s lighting even if he is in Israel and his household is in America where they will only light many hours later. If one wants to light one can light at Tzet in Israel with a bracha. <ref> Yalkut Yosef (Moadim pg 231), Torat HaMoadim 2:7, and Sh”t Mishna Halachot 6:119 explain that according to many that hold the obligation is only on the household, he fulfill his obligation, but the Bach who holds there’s an obligation on each individual, may also hold that one should light in his timezone, but concludes that he fulfill his obligation with his household even according to the Bach. However Sh”t Minchat Yitzchak 7:46 says because of the doubt one should have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. However because of the dispute between posikim about whether that will enable one to make a bracha (see previous footnote), one shouldn’t have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. Chazon Ovadyah pg 150 and Pri HaAretz 1:9 pg 6d say if one wants, one can light with a bracha at Tzet in Israel because his family didn’t light for him in America yet. </ref> | ||
# A guest can intend not to join with the owner’s lighting and light for himself with a bracha. However if he is totally dependant on the house owner such as where one doesn’t pay for expenses or he only pays for some expenses but not for every need, according to Sephardim, he may not have intention to not to fulfill his obligation with the owner’s lighting, but he is allowed to light by himself without a bracha, but according to Ashkenazim he may intend not to be part of the owner’s lighting and light by himself with a bracha. <ref> Rabbenu Chananel (Shabbat 23b), Tur 677, Meiri (Shabbat 23a), Itur (2 Chanuka pg 116c), Ran (Pesachim 6b) imply that one is allowed to intend not to be part of the owner’s lighting and light by oneself. However Darkei Moshe 677:2 quotes the Mahari (Yalkutim 31), Sh”t Maharil (145e), Mishna Brurah 677:3 who say it’s preferable for a guest to light for himself. However for Sephardim since some hold that he is included in the household members who are exempt with the owner’s lighting, one shouldn’t light independently because of Safek Brachot. So holds Torat Moadim 2:12. </ref> | # A guest can intend not to join with the owner’s lighting and light for himself with a bracha. However if he is totally dependant on the house owner such as where one doesn’t pay for expenses or he only pays for some expenses but not for every need, according to Sephardim, he may not have intention to not to fulfill his obligation with the owner’s lighting, but he is allowed to light by himself without a bracha, but according to Ashkenazim he may intend not to be part of the owner’s lighting and light by himself with a bracha. <ref> Rabbenu Chananel (Shabbat 23b), Tur 677, Meiri (Shabbat 23a), Itur (2 Chanuka pg 116c), Ran (Pesachim 6b) imply that one is allowed to intend not to be part of the owner’s lighting and light by oneself. However Darkei Moshe 677:2 quotes the Mahari (Yalkutim 31), Sh”t Maharil (145e), Mishna Brurah 677:3 who say it’s preferable for a guest to light for himself. However for Sephardim since some hold that he is included in the household members who are exempt with the owner’s lighting, one shouldn’t light independently because of Safek Brachot. So holds Torat Moadim 2:12. </ref> | ||
