16,374
edits
Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replace - "Shabbat" to "Shabbat"
m (Text replace - "Shabbat" to "Shabbat") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[file:Chanuka.png|right|''A Chanukkiya lit on the eighth night'']] | [[file:Chanuka.png|right|''A Chanukkiya lit on the eighth night'']] | ||
In the time of the second Bet Hamikdash, the Greek kings made decrees against the Jews in order to make them forget Torah and Judaism. They broke into the Bet Hamikdash and defiled it until Hashem had mercy on the Jews and saved them. The salvation came through the Chashmonaim who were victorious over the Greeks and served as Cohanim Gedolim. They returned to the Bet Hamikdash and only found one pure flask of oil which was enough to light for only one day. A miracle occurred and it lasted 8 days. On the day that they found the flask, on the 25th of Kislev, the Rabbis established a holiday, 8 days of festivity and joy, called Chanuka. <ref> Shabbat 21b, Rambam Chanuka 3:1-3</ref> | In the time of the second Bet Hamikdash, the Greek kings made decrees against the Jews in order to make them forget Torah and Judaism. They broke into the Bet Hamikdash and defiled it until Hashem had mercy on the Jews and saved them. The salvation came through the Chashmonaim who were victorious over the Greeks and served as Cohanim Gedolim. They returned to the Bet Hamikdash and only found one pure flask of oil which was enough to light for only one day. A miracle occurred and it lasted 8 days. On the day that they found the flask, on the 25th of Kislev, the Rabbis established a holiday, 8 days of festivity and joy, called Chanuka. <ref> [[Shabbat]] 21b, Rambam Chanuka 3:1-3</ref> | ||
== The Brachot of Chanuka Candles== | == The Brachot of Chanuka Candles== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
## Baruch Atta Hashem Elokenu Melech HaOlam SheHechiyanu Vekiyemanu Vehiygianu Lazman Hazeh. | ## Baruch Atta Hashem Elokenu Melech HaOlam SheHechiyanu Vekiyemanu Vehiygianu Lazman Hazeh. | ||
# If one forgot to say the Brachot and remembers after he finished lighting and before a half hour passed one can say “SheAssa Nissim” (and Shehecheyanu on the first night) but not “Lehadlik Ner”. If one remembers before one finishes lighting the candles (on the 2nd day and on) one can make all the Brachot then and finish the lighting. <ref> Sh”t Rabbenu Avraham Ben HaRambam 83 pg 122, Shulchan Gavoha 676:3, and Sh”t Demeshk Eliezer Y”D 47 write that after one lights one can’t make the bracha of Lehadlik Ner against Sefer Pardes (Rabbenu Asher Ben Chaim pg 66) who says one can say it as long as the candles are burning. Sh”t Halachot Ketanot 1:3 and Yad Aharon (Hagot Tur 676) say that one can make all the Brachot as long as one didn’t finish lighting all the candles of Hidur. Sh”t Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Mehudra Tanina 13) writes that if one remembers before one finishes one can make all the Brachot but if one only remembers after he finishes lighting he can’t make Lehadlik Ner just like Brachot HaRoeh(S”A676:3). So rules Mishna Brurah 676:4, Ben Ish Chaim Vayeshev 10, and Sh”t Chatav Sofer O”C 135.Torat HaMoadim 6:9 adds that since we learn the after lighting one can still make the bracha of SheAssa Nisim from Brachot HaRoeh it only applies to the first half hour after one sees the candles as by Brachot HaRoeh. </ref> | # If one forgot to say the Brachot and remembers after he finished lighting and before a half hour passed one can say “SheAssa Nissim” (and Shehecheyanu on the first night) but not “Lehadlik Ner”. If one remembers before one finishes lighting the candles (on the 2nd day and on) one can make all the Brachot then and finish the lighting. <ref> Sh”t Rabbenu Avraham Ben HaRambam 83 pg 122, Shulchan Gavoha 676:3, and Sh”t Demeshk Eliezer Y”D 47 write that after one lights one can’t make the bracha of Lehadlik Ner against Sefer Pardes (Rabbenu Asher Ben Chaim pg 66) who says one can say it as long as the candles are burning. Sh”t Halachot Ketanot 1:3 and Yad Aharon (Hagot Tur 676) say that one can make all the Brachot as long as one didn’t finish lighting all the candles of Hidur. Sh”t Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Mehudra Tanina 13) writes that if one remembers before one finishes one can make all the Brachot but if one only remembers after he finishes lighting he can’t make Lehadlik Ner just like Brachot HaRoeh(S”A676:3). So rules Mishna Brurah 676:4, Ben Ish Chaim Vayeshev 10, and Sh”t Chatav Sofer O”C 135.Torat HaMoadim 6:9 adds that since we learn the after lighting one can still make the bracha of SheAssa Nisim from Brachot HaRoeh it only applies to the first half hour after one sees the candles as by Brachot HaRoeh. </ref> | ||
# If one forgot to say Shehechiyanu before lighting one can say it in the half hour after lighting. If one didn’t say it the first night one should say it the second night and so on. So too, if on the eighth night one forgot one can say it in the half hour after lighting. <ref> Shibolei HaLeket 186 and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 10) quote a Teshuvat Hagoanim to which Rabbenu Yishaya says that one can say Shehecheyanu any day after the first when he remembers. Piskei Rid (Shabbat 23a) explains it means one can only make the bracha at the time of the lighting. However, Bach 676 in name of the Maharash says not to say Shehecheyanu the second night. Nonetheless, Meiri (Shabbat 23a) and Riaz (23a), also write that one lights Shehecheyanu the first night one lights. So holds Sh”t Maharam (Prague Edition 57), Tur 676 in name of the Rosh and S”A 676:1. </ref> | # If one forgot to say Shehechiyanu before lighting one can say it in the half hour after lighting. If one didn’t say it the first night one should say it the second night and so on. So too, if on the eighth night one forgot one can say it in the half hour after lighting. <ref> Shibolei HaLeket 186 and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 10) quote a Teshuvat Hagoanim to which Rabbenu Yishaya says that one can say Shehecheyanu any day after the first when he remembers. Piskei Rid ([[Shabbat]] 23a) explains it means one can only make the bracha at the time of the lighting. However, Bach 676 in name of the Maharash says not to say Shehecheyanu the second night. Nonetheless, Meiri ([[Shabbat]] 23a) and Riaz (23a), also write that one lights Shehecheyanu the first night one lights. So holds Sh”t Maharam (Prague Edition 57), Tur 676 in name of the Rosh and S”A 676:1. </ref> | ||
# After the half hour of lighting one can’t say the Brachot. <ref> Levush 676, Pri Chadash 676:1, Sh”t Sadeh HaAretz O”C 38, Birkei Yosef 692:1, and Sh”t Igrot Moshe 1:190 hold that one can only make the Shehecheyanu at the time of the lighting. However, Yavetz in Mor Ukesiah 692, Sh”T Mahari Molcho 78, Sh”t Zera Emet 1:96, and Taharat Mayim (Shuirei Tahara 8:3) hold it can be said any time during Chanuka. Nonetheless, Mishna Brurah (676:2 and Shar Tzion 676:3), and Torat HaMoadim 6:12 say that because of a Safek Brachot one doesn’t make Brachot past the time of lighting. Taharat Mayim implies that by SheAssa Nissim one can say it anytime against the Mor Ukesiah who says that SheAssa Nissim can only be said over the candles. Sh”t Yechave Daat 2:77 says because of Safek Brachot one doesn’t say SheAssa Nissim not over candles. </ref> | # After the half hour of lighting one can’t say the Brachot. <ref> Levush 676, Pri Chadash 676:1, Sh”t Sadeh HaAretz O”C 38, Birkei Yosef 692:1, and Sh”t Igrot Moshe 1:190 hold that one can only make the Shehecheyanu at the time of the lighting. However, Yavetz in Mor Ukesiah 692, Sh”T Mahari Molcho 78, Sh”t Zera Emet 1:96, and Taharat Mayim (Shuirei Tahara 8:3) hold it can be said any time during Chanuka. Nonetheless, Mishna Brurah (676:2 and Shar Tzion 676:3), and Torat HaMoadim 6:12 say that because of a Safek Brachot one doesn’t make Brachot past the time of lighting. Taharat Mayim implies that by SheAssa Nissim one can say it anytime against the Mor Ukesiah who says that SheAssa Nissim can only be said over the candles. Sh”t Yechave Daat 2:77 says because of Safek Brachot one doesn’t say SheAssa Nissim not over candles. </ref> | ||
# If someone had his wife or anyone else light for him the first night he fulfill his obligation of saying Shehecheyanu and shouldn’t say it the next night. <ref> Bach 676 says that his wife’s lighting with Brachot doesn’t exempt him from Shehecheyanu. So says Eliyah Raba 676:5. Torat HaMoadim 6:13 explain that this is the Bach according to his opinion that one who has someone lighting for him at home makes Brachot HaRoah; however since we hold (S”A 676:3) that if one has someone lighting for home doesn’t make Brachot HaRoah here too, one fulfills Shehecheyanu with his wife’s lighting. So rules Sharei Knesset Hagedolah 676:2, Magan Avraham 676:2, Pri Megadim A”A 676:2, Mishna Brurah 676:7, and Kaf HaChaim 676:26. Sh”t Yabea Omer O”C 4:50 (4-5), 6:42(3-4) holds that even by Shehecheyanu we apply Safek Brachot LeHakel. </ref> | # If someone had his wife or anyone else light for him the first night he fulfill his obligation of saying Shehecheyanu and shouldn’t say it the next night. <ref> Bach 676 says that his wife’s lighting with Brachot doesn’t exempt him from Shehecheyanu. So says Eliyah Raba 676:5. Torat HaMoadim 6:13 explain that this is the Bach according to his opinion that one who has someone lighting for him at home makes Brachot HaRoah; however since we hold (S”A 676:3) that if one has someone lighting for home doesn’t make Brachot HaRoah here too, one fulfills Shehecheyanu with his wife’s lighting. So rules Sharei Knesset Hagedolah 676:2, Magan Avraham 676:2, Pri Megadim A”A 676:2, Mishna Brurah 676:7, and Kaf HaChaim 676:26. Sh”t Yabea Omer O”C 4:50 (4-5), 6:42(3-4) holds that even by Shehecheyanu we apply Safek Brachot LeHakel. </ref> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
[[Image:Levush's lighting.png| thumb|Levush's order of lighting|250px]] | [[Image:Levush's lighting.png| thumb|Levush's order of lighting|250px]] | ||
[[Image:Gra's lighting.png| thumb| Gra's order of lighting |250px]] | [[Image:Gra's lighting.png| thumb| Gra's order of lighting |250px]] | ||
* Shulchan Aruch 676:5 writes that on the first night one should light the rightmost candle and on the second night one should add a candle to the left of the first one and light the new one first and then the old one so that one lights from left to right (the way English is written). The Bet Yosef 676:5 bases this approach on the Sh”t Mahari Kolon 183 and Mordechai (Shabbat 2:268). This is also the opinion of the Arizal (Shaar Kavanot pg 108c), Nagid VeMitzvah (26:72), Maharil (quoted by the Magan Avraham 676:5). | * Shulchan Aruch 676:5 writes that on the first night one should light the rightmost candle and on the second night one should add a candle to the left of the first one and light the new one first and then the old one so that one lights from left to right (the way English is written). The Bet Yosef 676:5 bases this approach on the Sh”t Mahari Kolon 183 and Mordechai ([[Shabbat]] 2:268). This is also the opinion of the Arizal (Shaar Kavanot pg 108c), Nagid VeMitzvah (26:72), Maharil (quoted by the Magan Avraham 676:5). | ||
* [The Trumat Hadeshen 106 agrees that if one is lighting opposite the Mezuzah then one should light from left to right with the new candle is always the leftmost candle which is within a Tefach of the door. However, if there’s no mezuzah and one is lighting on the right side of the door as one enters then one should light right to left so that the new candle is always the rightmost candle and is within a Tefach of the door. The Sh”t Maharshal 85 agrees with the Trumat HaDeshen. However, the Bet Yosef 676:5 quotes the Trumat HaDeshen and argues that there shouldn’t be any difference whether one is lighting on the left or right of the door one should always light the new candle first and light from left to right.] | * [The Trumat Hadeshen 106 agrees that if one is lighting opposite the Mezuzah then one should light from left to right with the new candle is always the leftmost candle which is within a Tefach of the door. However, if there’s no mezuzah and one is lighting on the right side of the door as one enters then one should light right to left so that the new candle is always the rightmost candle and is within a Tefach of the door. The Sh”t Maharshal 85 agrees with the Trumat HaDeshen. However, the Bet Yosef 676:5 quotes the Trumat HaDeshen and argues that there shouldn’t be any difference whether one is lighting on the left or right of the door one should always light the new candle first and light from left to right.] | ||
* However, the Levush 676:5 and Taz 676:6 argue that on the first night the candle is placed in the leftmost position (closest to the door) and on the second night the candles are put in the leftmost spots and are lit from right to left. This is also the opinion of the Sh”t Panim Meirot 1:98 and Sh”t Semach Tzedek O”C 67. | * However, the Levush 676:5 and Taz 676:6 argue that on the first night the candle is placed in the leftmost position (closest to the door) and on the second night the candles are put in the leftmost spots and are lit from right to left. This is also the opinion of the Sh”t Panim Meirot 1:98 and Sh”t Semach Tzedek O”C 67. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
# The mitzvah of lighting Chanuka candles is a very special and dear mitzvah. Even a poor person should rent or sell his clothing or hire himself out in order to get enough money to purchase at least one candle for every night. The Gabbai Tzedaka (local charity distributor) needs to make sure that the poor have enough money to purchase at least one candle every night. <ref>The above halacha is a quote from the Rambam Chanuka 4:12 and S”A 671:1. This is based on the the Mishna (Pesachim 99b) which states that a poor person may take from the charity fund in order to purchase the 4 cups of wine on Pesach. The Gemara explains that the poor can take from charity for this because it has the very significant purpose of Pirsumeh Nisa, publicizing the miracle of our leaving Egypt. The Maggid Mishna (Chanuka 4:12) comments that this is the source of the Rambam's ruling that even a poor should should rent or sell his clothing in order to be able to light Chanuka candles because concept of publisizing the miracle applies even more to Chanuka than by the 4 cups of Pesach. The Lechem Mishna (Chanuka 4:12) argues the law of publicizing the miracle by Chanuka is equal to the 4 cups of wine. The Sh”t Kanaf Ranana O”C 84 defends the Miggid Mishna saying that the Chanuka candles are the only way in which we publicize the miracle of Chanuka, whereas regarding Pesach there are other actions we do to publicize the miracle besides the 4 cups of wine. </ref> | # The mitzvah of lighting Chanuka candles is a very special and dear mitzvah. Even a poor person should rent or sell his clothing or hire himself out in order to get enough money to purchase at least one candle for every night. The Gabbai Tzedaka (local charity distributor) needs to make sure that the poor have enough money to purchase at least one candle every night. <ref>The above halacha is a quote from the Rambam Chanuka 4:12 and S”A 671:1. This is based on the the Mishna (Pesachim 99b) which states that a poor person may take from the charity fund in order to purchase the 4 cups of wine on Pesach. The Gemara explains that the poor can take from charity for this because it has the very significant purpose of Pirsumeh Nisa, publicizing the miracle of our leaving Egypt. The Maggid Mishna (Chanuka 4:12) comments that this is the source of the Rambam's ruling that even a poor should should rent or sell his clothing in order to be able to light Chanuka candles because concept of publisizing the miracle applies even more to Chanuka than by the 4 cups of Pesach. The Lechem Mishna (Chanuka 4:12) argues the law of publicizing the miracle by Chanuka is equal to the 4 cups of wine. The Sh”t Kanaf Ranana O”C 84 defends the Miggid Mishna saying that the Chanuka candles are the only way in which we publicize the miracle of Chanuka, whereas regarding Pesach there are other actions we do to publicize the miracle besides the 4 cups of wine. </ref> | ||
# The minimum requirement of Chanuka candles is that each household should have one candle lit every night. The next best method (Mehadrin) to fulfill this mitzvah is by lighting one candle for every person in the house every night. The best (Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin) way to fulfill this mitzvah is: according to Sephardim, for one person per house to light one candle on the first night and to add another candle each night and according to Ashkenazim, for every person to light for themselves one candle on the first night and to add another candle each night. <ref> | # The minimum requirement of Chanuka candles is that each household should have one candle lit every night. The next best method (Mehadrin) to fulfill this mitzvah is by lighting one candle for every person in the house every night. The best (Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin) way to fulfill this mitzvah is: according to Sephardim, for one person per house to light one candle on the first night and to add another candle each night and according to Ashkenazim, for every person to light for themselves one candle on the first night and to add another candle each night. <ref> | ||
* The Britta on Gemara Shabbat 21b states that the minimum requirement of Chanuka candles is that each household should have one candle lit every night. The next best method (Mehadrin) to fulfill this mitzvah is by lighting one candle for every person in the house every night. The best (Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin) way to fulfill this mitzvah is to increase the number of candles light each night, one on the first night, two on the second, and so on. However, regarding the last method there is a dispute to it's precise explanation. | * The Britta on Gemara [[Shabbat]] 21b states that the minimum requirement of Chanuka candles is that each household should have one candle lit every night. The next best method (Mehadrin) to fulfill this mitzvah is by lighting one candle for every person in the house every night. The best (Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin) way to fulfill this mitzvah is to increase the number of candles light each night, one on the first night, two on the second, and so on. However, regarding the last method there is a dispute to it's precise explanation. | ||
* The Rambam (Chanuka 4:1-2) rules that each night one should add one candle per person per night, meaning that for a family of 10, the first night there would 10 candles and 20 the second night. [He adds that the Minhag of Spain is to only light add one candle per household increasing according to the number of the night.] This is also the opinion of the Rabbenu Yehonatan in name of Ran (Shabbat 21b), Piskei Riaz (Shabbat 2, Chanuka 5), and Rif explained by Buir HaGra 671:4. | * The Rambam (Chanuka 4:1-2) rules that each night one should add one candle per person per night, meaning that for a family of 10, the first night there would 10 candles and 20 the second night. [He adds that the Minhag of Spain is to only light add one candle per household increasing according to the number of the night.] This is also the opinion of the Rabbenu Yehonatan in name of Ran ([[Shabbat]] 21b), Piskei Riaz ([[Shabbat]] 2, Chanuka 5), and Rif explained by Buir HaGra 671:4. | ||
* However, Tosfot (Shabbat 21b D”H VeHaMehadrin) in name of the Ri writes that one should only have one increasing per household so that it’s recognizable what night of the Chanuka it is. So writes Mordechai (Shabbat 270) in name of the Ri, Meiri (Shabbat 21b) that such is the Minhag, Ran (ibid.) in name of Raah, Tur(671). Ritva (Shabbat 21b) brings both explanations of the Gemara. S”A 671:2 holds like Tosfot and Rama ibid. holds like Rambam. | * However, Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 21b D”H VeHaMehadrin) in name of the Ri writes that one should only have one increasing per household so that it’s recognizable what night of the Chanuka it is. So writes Mordechai ([[Shabbat]] 270) in name of the Ri, Meiri ([[Shabbat]] 21b) that such is the Minhag, Ran (ibid.) in name of Raah, Tur(671). Ritva ([[Shabbat]] 21b) brings both explanations of the Gemara. S”A 671:2 holds like Tosfot and Rama ibid. holds like Rambam. | ||
* Interesting point: The Taz 671:1 writes that here is a case where Ashkenazim follow Rambam and Sephardim follow Tosfot. Chemed Moshe 671:4 argues that the Rambam concludes so is the Minhag not like the ruling, meaning it’s an old practice even before his time. The Torat HaMoadim (Chanuka pg 18) brings the Rama in Darkei Moshe 671:1 who says the Ashkenazi practice goes even according to Tosfot since the candles are indoors and separate. Tzeddai Chem (Chanuka 9:4) argues that the Ashkenazic practice for each member of the household to light isn’t like the Rambam who says that one person lights for everyone according to the number of people. For this reason many challenge the Rama who quotes his ruling in name of the Rambam including Maamar Mordechai 671:4, Bet Halevi on Torah (Chanuka pg 69). Yet, the Sh”t Maharil 145, Sh”t Trumat Hadeshen 101, and Sh”t Mahari Mebrona 50 hold like the explanation held by the Rama and could be sources for his opinion. Also, the Alfasi Zuta (Shabbat 2 beginning) says that the Rama is following the idea of the Rambam to light according to the number of household members but in order to satisfy Tosfot’s issue of being recognizable, every person lights instead of one person lighting.</ref> | * Interesting point: The Taz 671:1 writes that here is a case where Ashkenazim follow Rambam and Sephardim follow Tosfot. Chemed Moshe 671:4 argues that the Rambam concludes so is the Minhag not like the ruling, meaning it’s an old practice even before his time. The Torat HaMoadim (Chanuka pg 18) brings the Rama in Darkei Moshe 671:1 who says the Ashkenazi practice goes even according to Tosfot since the candles are indoors and separate. Tzeddai Chem (Chanuka 9:4) argues that the Ashkenazic practice for each member of the household to light isn’t like the Rambam who says that one person lights for everyone according to the number of people. For this reason many challenge the Rama who quotes his ruling in name of the Rambam including Maamar Mordechai 671:4, Bet Halevi on Torah (Chanuka pg 69). Yet, the Sh”t Maharil 145, Sh”t Trumat Hadeshen 101, and Sh”t Mahari Mebrona 50 hold like the explanation held by the Rama and could be sources for his opinion. Also, the Alfasi Zuta ([[Shabbat]] 2 beginning) says that the Rama is following the idea of the Rambam to light according to the number of household members but in order to satisfy Tosfot’s issue of being recognizable, every person lights instead of one person lighting.</ref> | ||
# If one missed lighting one day it can’t be made up and the next night one should light the number everyone else is lighting. <ref> S”A 672:2. Siddur Rashi 316 pg 151 quotes Rabbenu Yitzchak Bar Yehuda who says that there’s no make up for a missed day, otherwise those who see will think you’re violating the words of the Rabbis. So writes the Tur 672. There’s a dispute whether this means that since it can’t be made up one doesn’t light the next night or one lights like the rest of the world. The Sh”t Maaseh Geonim (55 pg 43) quoting Rabbenu Yitzchak Bar Yehuda that the next night one lights like everyone else. (Thus, Rabbenu Yitzchak means not to light the amount of the night he missed with the amount of that night because that would look like he’s going against the Rabbis); So hold Mordechai 2:268 explained by Sh”t Maharil 28, Agudah (Shabbat 31), Roke’ach 226 pg 128, Shibolei Leket 186, and Pardes Hagadol 199. However, Sefer Minhagim in name of Meharar MeMerizberg writes that the next night one should light the number of candles you missed last night. [He understood Rabbenu Yitzchak quoted by the Tur that one can’t add 8 candles on the 9th night.] Darkei Moshe 672:3 holds like the Agudah and Rokeach against the Maharam.</ref> | # If one missed lighting one day it can’t be made up and the next night one should light the number everyone else is lighting. <ref> S”A 672:2. Siddur Rashi 316 pg 151 quotes Rabbenu Yitzchak Bar Yehuda who says that there’s no make up for a missed day, otherwise those who see will think you’re violating the words of the Rabbis. So writes the Tur 672. There’s a dispute whether this means that since it can’t be made up one doesn’t light the next night or one lights like the rest of the world. The Sh”t Maaseh Geonim (55 pg 43) quoting Rabbenu Yitzchak Bar Yehuda that the next night one lights like everyone else. (Thus, Rabbenu Yitzchak means not to light the amount of the night he missed with the amount of that night because that would look like he’s going against the Rabbis); So hold Mordechai 2:268 explained by Sh”t Maharil 28, Agudah ([[Shabbat]] 31), Roke’ach 226 pg 128, Shibolei Leket 186, and Pardes Hagadol 199. However, Sefer Minhagim in name of Meharar MeMerizberg writes that the next night one should light the number of candles you missed last night. [He understood Rabbenu Yitzchak quoted by the Tur that one can’t add 8 candles on the 9th night.] Darkei Moshe 672:3 holds like the Agudah and Rokeach against the Maharam.</ref> | ||
# If one lit two candles on the first night, he fulfills his obligation and doesn’t have to relight the right number of candles. <ref> Sh”t HaElef Lecha Shlomo O”C 380 says adding to the number doesn’t ruin the mitzvah as the Rama 263 says by Shabbat candles. However, Sh”t Ohel Moshe 69 and Sh”t Mishna Sachir O”C 199 argue since he lit the wrong number someone seeing this will think he didn’t lit it for Chanuka candles just for light. Yet, the Pri Chadash 675 says one who extinguishes the candles fulfills the mitzvah since the candles are in a Chanukiya that’s only used for Chanuka it’s recognizable that he lit for Chanuka. Also, Eliya Raba 671:7 says the first night doesn’t need to illustrate the number of the nights. Sh”t Lehorot Natan 2:51, Sh”t Shraga HaMeir 4:73, 5:75(1), Sh”t Shevet Hakehati 1:202 hold like Sh”t HaElef Lecha Shlomo. Chazon Ovadiah (Mitzvah Hadlaka 6, pg 29) agrees and adds that one who repeats and makes a bracha is making a bracha levatala.</ref> | # If one lit two candles on the first night, he fulfills his obligation and doesn’t have to relight the right number of candles. <ref> Sh”t HaElef Lecha Shlomo O”C 380 says adding to the number doesn’t ruin the mitzvah as the Rama 263 says by [[Shabbat]] candles. However, Sh”t Ohel Moshe 69 and Sh”t Mishna Sachir O”C 199 argue since he lit the wrong number someone seeing this will think he didn’t lit it for Chanuka candles just for light. Yet, the Pri Chadash 675 says one who extinguishes the candles fulfills the mitzvah since the candles are in a Chanukiya that’s only used for Chanuka it’s recognizable that he lit for Chanuka. Also, Eliya Raba 671:7 says the first night doesn’t need to illustrate the number of the nights. Sh”t Lehorot Natan 2:51, Sh”t Shraga HaMeir 4:73, 5:75(1), Sh”t Shevet Hakehati 1:202 hold like Sh”t HaElef Lecha Shlomo. Chazon Ovadiah (Mitzvah Hadlaka 6, pg 29) agrees and adds that one who repeats and makes a bracha is making a bracha levatala.</ref> | ||
==How long should the candles last?== | ==How long should the candles last?== | ||
# The candles only need fuel to burn for a half hour. <ref> Shabbat 21b says the time of Tichle Regel is when the Tarmodeans (merchants) leave, which the Rif says is about a half hour. Rambam (Chanuka 4:5) and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 15) writes it’s a half hour or (a little) more. The accepted opinion is a half hour. So writes Rosh (2:3, Rabben Yerucham 9:1, Meiri, S”A 672:2, Mishna Brurah 672:1 (who is strict to satisfy all opinions to light by Shekiah and have it last a half hour past Tzet), and Torat HaMoadim 4:5. Some say in name of the Griz that since the Gemara sets the ending time for candles as when people leave the marketplace, nowadays when many people stay at the marketplace late into the night one should have to light longer than a half hour. However, Chazon Ovadiah pg 66, Sh”t Mishna Halachot 4 pg 79, and Sh”t Or Letzion 44 argue that the measure set by Chazal (a half hour) hasn’t changed because of the practice of our time. However, Avodot VeHanagot LeBet Brisk says that the Griz himself challenged that idea when he heard it from another Rabbi in Brisk, yet he lit candles that lasted for very long only as a hiddur mitzvah. Also Yomin DeChanuka and Leket Yoshar say there’s a hiddur mitzvah to light for longer than a half hour. </ref> If one doesn’t have enough for the each Hidur candle, the Hidur candles don’t need to burn for a half hour. <ref> Magan Avraham 671:1 </ref> | # The candles only need fuel to burn for a half hour. <ref> [[Shabbat]] 21b says the time of Tichle Regel is when the Tarmodeans (merchants) leave, which the Rif says is about a half hour. Rambam (Chanuka 4:5) and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 15) writes it’s a half hour or (a little) more. The accepted opinion is a half hour. So writes Rosh (2:3, Rabben Yerucham 9:1, Meiri, S”A 672:2, Mishna Brurah 672:1 (who is strict to satisfy all opinions to light by Shekiah and have it last a half hour past Tzet), and Torat HaMoadim 4:5. Some say in name of the Griz that since the Gemara sets the ending time for candles as when people leave the marketplace, nowadays when many people stay at the marketplace late into the night one should have to light longer than a half hour. However, Chazon Ovadiah pg 66, Sh”t Mishna Halachot 4 pg 79, and Sh”t Or Letzion 44 argue that the measure set by Chazal (a half hour) hasn’t changed because of the practice of our time. However, Avodot VeHanagot LeBet Brisk says that the Griz himself challenged that idea when he heard it from another Rabbi in Brisk, yet he lit candles that lasted for very long only as a hiddur mitzvah. Also Yomin DeChanuka and Leket Yoshar say there’s a hiddur mitzvah to light for longer than a half hour. </ref> If one doesn’t have enough for the each Hidur candle, the Hidur candles don’t need to burn for a half hour. <ref> Magan Avraham 671:1 </ref> | ||
# A person who is in doubt if his candles will last a half hour can nonetheless light with a bracha. <ref> Smag in name of the Ri, Hagot Maimon (Chanuka 4:2), Ravyah (843 pg 579) in name of Rabbenu Tam hold that no minimum measure is needed (the gemara’s two explanation of ‘Tichleh Regel Min HaShuk’ argue and we hold the first explanation). Similarly, Hilchot and Minhagei Maharash in name of Rimzei HaRosh (quoted by Darkei Moshe 672:1), Piskei Tosfot (Shabbat 89), Leket Yoshar pg 151, Shiltei Giborim(Shabbat 9a:5), Taharat Mayim Shuirei Tahara 8:9, Sh”t Chochavei Yitzchak 1:5(3), Sh”t Bear Tzvi 31 that nowadays when we don’t light for Parsumei Nisa of the public, we don’t need a minimum measure. Thus we have a Safek Safeka(double doubt) perhaps no minimum measure is needed and perhaps even if the measure is nessecary, the candle will last the minimum measure. Chazon Ovadiah (Chanuka pg 67) says if one wants to make a bracha, he can make a bracha with this Safek Sefaka. For more about Safek Safaka BeBrachot see Sh”t Yachave Daat 5:21 (the footnote), Otzrot Yosef 4:3, and Sh”t Chazon Ovadiah 48 pg 866. </ref> | # A person who is in doubt if his candles will last a half hour can nonetheless light with a bracha. <ref> Smag in name of the Ri, Hagot Maimon (Chanuka 4:2), Ravyah (843 pg 579) in name of Rabbenu Tam hold that no minimum measure is needed (the gemara’s two explanation of ‘Tichleh Regel Min HaShuk’ argue and we hold the first explanation). Similarly, Hilchot and Minhagei Maharash in name of Rimzei HaRosh (quoted by Darkei Moshe 672:1), Piskei Tosfot ([[Shabbat]] 89), Leket Yoshar pg 151, Shiltei Giborim([[Shabbat]] 9a:5), Taharat Mayim Shuirei Tahara 8:9, Sh”t Chochavei Yitzchak 1:5(3), Sh”t Bear Tzvi 31 that nowadays when we don’t light for Parsumei Nisa of the public, we don’t need a minimum measure. Thus we have a Safek Safeka(double doubt) perhaps no minimum measure is needed and perhaps even if the measure is nessecary, the candle will last the minimum measure. Chazon Ovadiah (Chanuka pg 67) says if one wants to make a bracha, he can make a bracha with this Safek Sefaka. For more about Safek Safaka BeBrachot see Sh”t Yachave Daat 5:21 (the footnote), Otzrot Yosef 4:3, and Sh”t Chazon Ovadiah 48 pg 866. </ref> | ||
==Getting benefit from the light of the candles== | ==Getting benefit from the light of the candles== | ||
# It’s forbidden to get benefit from the light of the candles for the first half hour, even on minimal tasks like checking the value of a coin. <Ref> Shabbat 22a brought by S”A 673:1 writes that it’s a disgrace to mitzvah to benefit from the candles. Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Began HaMelech 42) writes that the prohibition applies equally to the new candle of mitzvah and extra candles of Hidur. So rules Bear Hetiev 673:2, Sh”T Ketav Sofer O”C 133, and Simchat Yehuda (Masechet Soferim 20:6). </ref> | # It’s forbidden to get benefit from the light of the candles for the first half hour, even on minimal tasks like checking the value of a coin. <Ref> [[Shabbat]] 22a brought by S”A 673:1 writes that it’s a disgrace to mitzvah to benefit from the candles. Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Began HaMelech 42) writes that the prohibition applies equally to the new candle of mitzvah and extra candles of Hidur. So rules Bear Hetiev 673:2, Sh”T Ketav Sofer O”C 133, and Simchat Yehuda (Masechet Soferim 20:6). </ref> | ||
# However a minimal task that’s for a mitzvah is permitted, but learning by the light of the candles isn’t considered a minimal task. <Ref> Biur Halacha 673:1, quoted by Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673). </ref> | # However a minimal task that’s for a mitzvah is permitted, but learning by the light of the candles isn’t considered a minimal task. <Ref> Biur Halacha 673:1, quoted by Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673). </ref> | ||
# Therefore it’s the Minhag to light a Shamash so that if one does use the light of the candles it’ll be permitted because of the Shamash. <Ref> Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673) </ref> | # Therefore it’s the Minhag to light a Shamash so that if one does use the light of the candles it’ll be permitted because of the Shamash. <Ref> Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673) </ref> | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
== Who’s Obligated?== | == 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> S”A 565:5 says that women are obligated in Chanuka candles based on Shabbat 23a, Rambam (Chanuka 4:9), and Tur 565. Piskei Maharam Riketani (154) holds women can fulfill a man’s obligation on his behalf. So holds Rabbenu Yerucham 9:1, Rokeach Chanuka 226:3, Ritva and Meiri (Shabbat 23a, Megilah 4a), Maharil (Chanuka 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 Yechava 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 Yechava 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 Chanuka women can fulfill the man’s obligation according to everyone. Also Torat Moadim Chanuka 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 Chanuka 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 Chanuka. </ref> | # 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> S”A 565:5 says that women are obligated in Chanuka candles based on [[Shabbat]] 23a, Rambam (Chanuka 4:9), and Tur 565. Piskei Maharam Riketani (154) holds women can fulfill a man’s obligation on his behalf. So holds Rabbenu Yerucham 9:1, Rokeach Chanuka 226:3, Ritva and Meiri ([[Shabbat]] 23a, Megilah 4a), Maharil (Chanuka 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 Yechava 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 Yechava 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 Chanuka women can fulfill the man’s obligation according to everyone. Also Torat Moadim Chanuka 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 Chanuka 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 Chanuka. </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. 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 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> | # 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> | ||
# A child, even if he is the age of chinuch but not bar/bat mitzvah, may not fulfill the obligation of others. However, the one making the bracha can light the first candle and then let the child light the other candles. However a child who isn’t at the age of chinuch, shouldn’t light any of the candles except for the Shamash. <ref> Levush 671, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 671, and Ben Ish Chai Vayeshev 18 hold the making the bracha should light all the candles. However Sh”t Maharshal 85, Magan Avraham 671:11, Mishna Brurah 671:49, Ruach Chaim 671:3, and Torat HaMoadim 2:20 (he writes that his father Rav Ovadyah Yosef would hold his hands while lighting in order to satisfy all opinions). </ref> | # A child, even if he is the age of chinuch but not bar/bat mitzvah, may not fulfill the obligation of others. However, the one making the bracha can light the first candle and then let the child light the other candles. However a child who isn’t at the age of chinuch, shouldn’t light any of the candles except for the Shamash. <ref> Levush 671, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 671, and Ben Ish Chai Vayeshev 18 hold the making the bracha should light all the candles. However Sh”t Maharshal 85, Magan Avraham 671:11, Mishna Brurah 671:49, Ruach Chaim 671:3, and Torat HaMoadim 2:20 (he writes that his father Rav Ovadyah Yosef would hold his hands while lighting in order to satisfy all opinions). </ref> | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
# Household members who are “dependant on the household” fulfill their obligation with the lighting of the household. <ref> S"A 671:2 writes that the Sephardic minhag is that one person lights for the entire house. Mishna Brurah 671:8 writes that the household members who fulfill their obligation with the household lighting includes older children and servants if they "dependent on the table of the household regularly" (סומך על שלוחנו). Torat HaMoadim 2:4 uses the same expression. Hopefully, this term will be clarified as we continue. </ref> | # Household members who are “dependant on the household” fulfill their obligation with the lighting of the household. <ref> S"A 671:2 writes that the Sephardic minhag is that one person lights for the entire house. Mishna Brurah 671:8 writes that the household members who fulfill their obligation with the household lighting includes older children and servants if they "dependent on the table of the household regularly" (סומך על שלוחנו). Torat HaMoadim 2:4 uses the same expression. Hopefully, this term will be clarified as we continue. </ref> | ||
===Woman=== | ===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.</ref> | # 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.</ref> | ||
===Single children=== | ===Single children=== | ||
# According to Sephardim, members of the household that are dependant 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> S”A and Tur 677:1, based on Shabbat 23a, and Rambam (Chanuka 4:11) rule that a dependant is exempt with his household’s lighting. However, Rambam, Tur, and S”A add that if he has his own household, he should light so people don’t suspect him of not observing Chanuka. However Sh”t Rashba 1:541, Orchot Chaim Chanuka 13, Smak 280, Sefer Trumah 228, Hagot Maimon Chanuka 4:30, Ritva (Shabbat 23a), Mordechai (Shabbat 2:226), Ohel Moed (Chanuka) 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. So write Magan Avraham 677:1, Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43, and Chazon Ovadyah (Chanuka pg 144-151). Meiri Shabbat 23a and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 14) say an older and married child should light for themselves. </ref> | # According to Sephardim, members of the household that are dependant 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> S”A and Tur 677:1, based on [[Shabbat]] 23a, and Rambam (Chanuka 4:11) rule that a dependant is exempt with his household’s lighting. However, Rambam, Tur, and S”A add that if he has his own household, he should light so people don’t suspect him of not observing Chanuka. However Sh”t Rashba 1:541, Orchot Chaim Chanuka 13, Smak 280, Sefer Trumah 228, Hagot Maimon Chanuka 4:30, Ritva ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Mordechai ([[Shabbat]] 2:226), Ohel Moed (Chanuka) 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. So write Magan Avraham 677:1, Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43, and Chazon Ovadyah (Chanuka pg 144-151). Meiri [[Shabbat]] 23a and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 14) say an older and married child should light for themselves. </ref> | ||
'''A wedding on Chanuka''' | '''A wedding on Chanuka''' | ||
# If the wedding takes place at night then the groom fulfills his obligation with the lighting in his father's house which took place before the wedding. <ref>Rav Elyashiv (cited by Bet Chatanim 15:4, Yemeh Chanuka pg 156) rules that if the wedding takes place during the night, then the groom fulfills his obligation with the lighting at his father’s house. Rav Vosner (cited by Imrei Shefer Chanuka pg 172) and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo 14:14, pg 275) agree. Yalkut Yosef 672:11 agrees that if the wedding takes place during the night then the groom fulfill his obligation with the lighting at his father’s house and adds that if he wants to be strict he may light again without a Bracha after the wedding at his new house.</ref> | # If the wedding takes place at night then the groom fulfills his obligation with the lighting in his father's house which took place before the wedding. <ref>Rav Elyashiv (cited by Bet Chatanim 15:4, Yemeh Chanuka pg 156) rules that if the wedding takes place during the night, then the groom fulfills his obligation with the lighting at his father’s house. Rav Vosner (cited by Imrei Shefer Chanuka pg 172) and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo 14:14, pg 275) agree. Yalkut Yosef 672:11 agrees that if the wedding takes place during the night then the groom fulfill his obligation with the lighting at his father’s house and adds that if he wants to be strict he may light again without a Bracha after the wedding at his new house.</ref> | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
* (4) Piskei Teshuvot 677:5 (pg 499) rules that if it’s difficult to leave the wedding the groom may light at the wedding hall because they’re renting the place. ([http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=2248 Rabbi Mansour] applies this Piskei Teshuvot even if the wedding takes place during the night but the parents didn’t have a chance to light beforehand. Additionally, Rabbi Mansour seems to say that Yalkut Yosef also agrees with this leniency but was unable to find any proof to this from the words of the Yalkut Yosef.) </ref> | * (4) Piskei Teshuvot 677:5 (pg 499) rules that if it’s difficult to leave the wedding the groom may light at the wedding hall because they’re renting the place. ([http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=2248 Rabbi Mansour] applies this Piskei Teshuvot even if the wedding takes place during the night but the parents didn’t have a chance to light beforehand. Additionally, Rabbi Mansour seems to say that Yalkut Yosef also agrees with this leniency but was unable to find any proof to this from the words of the Yalkut Yosef.) </ref> | ||
===Traveler=== | ===Traveler=== | ||
# A married man traveling should have his wife light for him at home and not make the Bracha of Sh’asa Nisim nor Sh’chianu even when he returns home. <ref> S”A 676:3. There’s a dispute in the Rishonim whether one makes a bracha for seeing Chanuka candles if he is fulfilling his obligation with that which they light for him at home. Rashba (Shabbat 23a), Sefer HaHashlamah (Shabbat 23a) in name of Rabbi Asher MeLunil, Smag(Chanuka 250d), Ran(10b D”H Amar Rav Chiya), Tur 676:3, Magid Mishna (Chanuka 3:4) in name of Itur (2 pg 117c), Rosh (Shabbat 8) imply that one doesn’t make a bracha if one is fulfilling his obligation through his household. However Rambam (Chanuka 3:4), Magid Mishna in name of some Geonim, Ravyah 3:843, Riaz (Shabbat 23a), Meiri, Sefer HaMeorot (Shabbat 23a), Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 9) hold that one can make a Bracha even if one is fulfilling his obligation with his house’s lighting. S”A rules 676:3 that one doesn’t make Bracha HaRoeh if is fulfilling his obligation at home. Against the S”A the following rule that one should make the Brachot HaRoeh: Sh”t Maharshal 85, Bach 676:3 (in name of Rif, Rambam, Smak, Rosh, and Aguda), Eliyah Raba Pri Chadash, Biur HaGra, Chaye Adam 154:33. However Shirei Knesset HaGedola 677:3, Taz 676:4, Magan Avraham 676:1, Shulchan Gavoha 676:5, Birkei Yosef 676:3, Mishna Brurah 676:6, and Torat HaMoadim 2:15 rule that one doesn’t make a bracha because of Safek Bracha. </ref> | # A married man traveling should have his wife light for him at home and not make the Bracha of Sh’asa Nisim nor Sh’chianu even when he returns home. <ref> S”A 676:3. There’s a dispute in the Rishonim whether one makes a bracha for seeing Chanuka candles if he is fulfilling his obligation with that which they light for him at home. Rashba ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Sefer HaHashlamah ([[Shabbat]] 23a) in name of Rabbi Asher MeLunil, Smag(Chanuka 250d), Ran(10b D”H Amar Rav Chiya), Tur 676:3, Magid Mishna (Chanuka 3:4) in name of Itur (2 pg 117c), Rosh ([[Shabbat]] 8) imply that one doesn’t make a bracha if one is fulfilling his obligation through his household. However Rambam (Chanuka 3:4), Magid Mishna in name of some Geonim, Ravyah 3:843, Riaz ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Meiri, Sefer HaMeorot ([[Shabbat]] 23a), Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 9) hold that one can make a Bracha even if one is fulfilling his obligation with his house’s lighting. S”A rules 676:3 that one doesn’t make Bracha HaRoeh if is fulfilling his obligation at home. Against the S”A the following rule that one should make the Brachot HaRoeh: Sh”t Maharshal 85, Bach 676:3 (in name of Rif, Rambam, Smak, Rosh, and Aguda), Eliyah Raba Pri Chadash, Biur HaGra, Chaye Adam 154:33. However Shirei Knesset HaGedola 677:3, Taz 676:4, Magan Avraham 676:1, Shulchan Gavoha 676:5, Birkei Yosef 676:3, Mishna Brurah 676:6, and Torat HaMoadim 2:15 rule that one doesn’t make a bracha because of Safek Bracha. </ref> | ||
===A Yeshiva Student=== | ===A Yeshiva Student=== | ||
# There is a dispute whether a Yeshiva student who eats and sleeps at the Yeshiva but is financially supported by his parents is considered dependent on the table of the household or not. Most Sephardic authorities rule that he is considered dependant and fulfills his obligation with the lighting of his household, however, many Ashkenazic authorities rule that he is considered independent and doesn’t fulfill his obligation. <Ref> | # There is a dispute whether a Yeshiva student who eats and sleeps at the Yeshiva but is financially supported by his parents is considered dependent on the table of the household or not. Most Sephardic authorities rule that he is considered dependant and fulfills his obligation with the lighting of his household, however, many Ashkenazic authorities rule that he is considered independent and doesn’t fulfill his obligation. <Ref> | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===According to Ashkenazim=== | ===According to Ashkenazim=== | ||
# Someone who is a guest at another person’s house on Chanuka, according to Ashkenazim, should light one’s own Chanukia (see footnote for background). <ref> | # Someone who is a guest at another person’s house on Chanuka, according to Ashkenazim, should light one’s own Chanukia (see footnote for background). <ref> | ||
* Rav Sheshet in Gemara Shabbat 23a states that a guest is obligated in lighting chanuka candles. Rabbi Zeira said that when he was a guest before he was married he would give the host a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to join with the host’s lighting and after he was married he would fulfill his obligation with his wife’s lighting. Shulchan Aruch 677:1 rules that a guest must contribute a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to the host’s lighting. | * Rav Sheshet in Gemara [[Shabbat]] 23a states that a guest is obligated in lighting chanuka candles. Rabbi Zeira said that when he was a guest before he was married he would give the host a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to join with the host’s lighting and after he was married he would fulfill his obligation with his wife’s lighting. Shulchan Aruch 677:1 rules that a guest must contribute a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to the host’s lighting. | ||
* The Rif (Shabbat 10a), (Chanuka 4:11), and Rosh (Shabbat 2:8) add that if the guest is staying in his own house with a separate doorway he must light by himself and can’t join with the host’s lighting because people seeing his doorway without Chanuka candles will suspect that he didn’t light. The S”A 677:1 rules that a guest must contribute a pruta to the host’s lighting and if he sleeps in separate house and eats with the host he should light by the doorway of the separate house. The Rama 677:1 comments that since nowadays we light inside one should light where one eats (meaning, if he eats with the host, he doesn’t have to light by the separate house where he is sleeping). | * The Rif ([[Shabbat]] 10a), (Chanuka 4:11), and Rosh ([[Shabbat]] 2:8) add that if the guest is staying in his own house with a separate doorway he must light by himself and can’t join with the host’s lighting because people seeing his doorway without Chanuka candles will suspect that he didn’t light. The S”A 677:1 rules that a guest must contribute a pruta to the host’s lighting and if he sleeps in separate house and eats with the host he should light by the doorway of the separate house. The Rama 677:1 comments that since nowadays we light inside one should light where one eats (meaning, if he eats with the host, he doesn’t have to light by the separate house where he is sleeping). | ||
* The idea of suspicion is based on a later statement of Rav Huna in Shabbat 23a who says that if one has a house with doorways on two sides of the house one must light in both of them so that people don’t suspect that he didn’t light Chanuka candles. Rama 671:8 writes that since nowadays we light inside there’s no concern of suspicion and one does not have to light by both doorways. The Rama is accepted by many achronim including Mishna Brurah 671:54 and Yalkut Yosef 671:24. | * The idea of suspicion is based on a later statement of Rav Huna in [[Shabbat]] 23a who says that if one has a house with doorways on two sides of the house one must light in both of them so that people don’t suspect that he didn’t light Chanuka candles. Rama 671:8 writes that since nowadays we light inside there’s no concern of suspicion and one does not have to light by both doorways. The Rama is accepted by many achronim including Mishna Brurah 671:54 and Yalkut Yosef 671:24. | ||
* The Magan Avraham 677:3 (as explained by the Biur Halacha D”H LeAsmo) says that we only strict for the opinion of the Mahariv when the guest eats and sleeps in a separate house. | * The Magan Avraham 677:3 (as explained by the Biur Halacha D”H LeAsmo) says that we only strict for the opinion of the Mahariv when the guest eats and sleeps in a separate house. | ||
* The Darkei Moshe 677:1 quotes a dispute between the Sefer HaMinhagim (Rabbi Yitzchak Tirna, Chanuka, pg 143) who says that even nowadays a guest may fulfill his obligation by giving a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to the host, while the Sh”t Mahariv 31 argues that since the minhag is that everyone in the house lights their own candles, if the guest doesn’t light on his own there will be a suspicion that he didn’t light. Sh”t Maharil 145 agrees with the Mahariv. | * The Darkei Moshe 677:1 quotes a dispute between the Sefer HaMinhagim (Rabbi Yitzchak Tirna, Chanuka, pg 143) who says that even nowadays a guest may fulfill his obligation by giving a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to the host, while the Sh”t Mahariv 31 argues that since the minhag is that everyone in the house lights their own candles, if the guest doesn’t light on his own there will be a suspicion that he didn’t light. Sh”t Maharil 145 agrees with the Mahariv. | ||
* Mishna Brurah 677:3 rules that in order to satisfy the opinion of the Mahariv it’s better for a guest to light by himself than to contribute a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to the host. So rules the Nitai Gavriel (Chanuka 12:6). However, the Kaf HaChaim 677:11 comments that the suspicion introduced by the Mahariv doesn’t apply to Sephardim who don’t have the minhag that everyone in the house lights. </ref>. Some say that one may not light at a person’s house unless one stays there for all 8 days of Chanuka and if one stays there for less one should give the host a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to fulfill one’s obligation). However, some say that as long as one stays there one ‘day’ one may light there. <ref> Biur Halacha 677:1 D”H BeMakom quotes the Pri Chadash who says a guest and his whole family who stay at someone else’s home for all 8 days of Chanuka should light at the place they are staying. Rav Elyashiv (Shevut Yitzchak Chanuka pg 110) holds that one needs to be there 8 days in order to have some connection to that house in order to light there. Rav Herschel Schachter (B'ikvei Hatzon chapter 20 footnote 2) rules that a guest can’t light with a beracha at the house he is staying at unless one is staying there for all 8 days of Chanuka or if one stayed there for 30 days before Chanuka and if leaving in middle of Chanuka, or if one came in middle of Chanuka and is staying 30 days. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo 14:18, 19) rules that if a guest stays at a person’s house for one day, he may light at that house. For example, if a person sleeps and eats at a house for Shabbat he can light there Friday afternoon. Rav Wosner (Piksei Shemuot pg 136, Kovetz MeBet Levi (Kislev 5757)), and Rav Shternbuch (Sh”t Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:391) agree. </ref> | * Mishna Brurah 677:3 rules that in order to satisfy the opinion of the Mahariv it’s better for a guest to light by himself than to contribute a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to the host. So rules the Nitai Gavriel (Chanuka 12:6). However, the Kaf HaChaim 677:11 comments that the suspicion introduced by the Mahariv doesn’t apply to Sephardim who don’t have the minhag that everyone in the house lights. </ref>. Some say that one may not light at a person’s house unless one stays there for all 8 days of Chanuka and if one stays there for less one should give the host a [[Measurements#Prutah|prutah]] to fulfill one’s obligation). However, some say that as long as one stays there one ‘day’ one may light there. <ref> Biur Halacha 677:1 D”H BeMakom quotes the Pri Chadash who says a guest and his whole family who stay at someone else’s home for all 8 days of Chanuka should light at the place they are staying. Rav Elyashiv (Shevut Yitzchak Chanuka pg 110) holds that one needs to be there 8 days in order to have some connection to that house in order to light there. Rav Herschel Schachter (B'ikvei Hatzon chapter 20 footnote 2) rules that a guest can’t light with a beracha at the house he is staying at unless one is staying there for all 8 days of Chanuka or if one stayed there for 30 days before Chanuka and if leaving in middle of Chanuka, or if one came in middle of Chanuka and is staying 30 days. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Halichot Shlomo 14:18, 19) rules that if a guest stays at a person’s house for one day, he may light at that house. For example, if a person sleeps and eats at a house for [[Shabbat]] he can light there Friday afternoon. Rav Wosner (Piksei Shemuot pg 136, Kovetz MeBet Levi (Kislev 5757)), and Rav Shternbuch (Sh”t Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:391) agree. </ref> | ||
===According to Sephardim=== | ===According to Sephardim=== | ||
# According to Sephardim, if one has someone lighting for him (such as his wife or parents) one is exempt from lighting. Therefore, a Sephardic yeshiva student fulfills his obligation with his parent’s lighting. <Ref> For the background see [[#cite_note-23]]. Rav Ovadyah Yosef in Sh”t Yachave Daat 6:43, Chazon Ovadyah (Chanuka pg 144) rules a Sephardic yeshiva student fulfills his obligation with his parent’s lighting. </ref> | # According to Sephardim, if one has someone lighting for him (such as his wife or parents) one is exempt from lighting. Therefore, a Sephardic yeshiva student fulfills his obligation with his parent’s lighting. <Ref> For the background see [[#cite_note-23]]. Rav Ovadyah Yosef in Sh”t Yachave Daat 6:43, Chazon Ovadyah (Chanuka pg 144) rules a Sephardic yeshiva student fulfills his obligation with his parent’s lighting. </ref> | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
# A married man who is away from home during Chanuka and his wife is lighting at home, according to Ashkenazim, there is what to rely on light with a Bracha as long as one has in mind not to fulfill one’s obligation with one’s wife’s lighting. However, it’s preferable to either hear the Bracha from someone else and then light or make sure to light before one’s wife. According to Sephardim, one is exempt with one’s wife’s lighting and if one wants to be strict and light one may only light without a Bracha, even if they have in mind not to fulfill their mitzvah with one’s wife’s lighting. <ref> | # A married man who is away from home during Chanuka and his wife is lighting at home, according to Ashkenazim, there is what to rely on light with a Bracha as long as one has in mind not to fulfill one’s obligation with one’s wife’s lighting. However, it’s preferable to either hear the Bracha from someone else and then light or make sure to light before one’s wife. According to Sephardim, one is exempt with one’s wife’s lighting and if one wants to be strict and light one may only light without a Bracha, even if they have in mind not to fulfill their mitzvah with one’s wife’s lighting. <ref> | ||
* 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). | * 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. | * 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. | ||
* 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> | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
===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> | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
== Brachot HaRoah (Seeing)== | == Brachot HaRoah (Seeing)== | ||
# Someone traveling all night in a car, train, plane, or boat and has no one lighting for him at home should preferably light there without a Bracha and make Brachot HaRoeh. <ref> Rashi 23a D”H HaRoah says one only makes Brachot Haroah when on a boat. So quotes in name of Rashi, Machsor Vitri pg 201, Itur (Chanuka 2 pg 117c), Smag (Chanuka), Smak (280), Ravyah 3:843, Or Zaruah 2:325, Tosfot Rid(Shabbat 23a), and Rosh (Shabbat 2:8). So rules Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe Y”D 3:14(5). However Sh”t Maharsham 5:144 writes only in an unroofed boat one can’t light but in a train one should light. So rules Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Mikra’eh Kodesh (Chanuka 18e), Rav Ovadyah Yosef (Kol Sinai Kislev 5725), Aruch HaShulchan 677:5, Sh”t Mishna Halachot 7:86, and Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:29 (he says one should light even if he’s in an unroofed boat); Torat Hamoadim 2:18 says since there’s a safek for Rashi’s opinion one shouldn’t make the Bracha but can make Brachot HaRoeh. </ref> | # Someone traveling all night in a car, train, plane, or boat and has no one lighting for him at home should preferably light there without a Bracha and make Brachot HaRoeh. <ref> Rashi 23a D”H HaRoah says one only makes Brachot Haroah when on a boat. So quotes in name of Rashi, Machsor Vitri pg 201, Itur (Chanuka 2 pg 117c), Smag (Chanuka), Smak (280), Ravyah 3:843, Or Zaruah 2:325, Tosfot Rid([[Shabbat]] 23a), and Rosh ([[Shabbat]] 2:8). So rules Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe Y”D 3:14(5). However Sh”t Maharsham 5:144 writes only in an unroofed boat one can’t light but in a train one should light. So rules Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Mikra’eh Kodesh (Chanuka 18e), Rav Ovadyah Yosef (Kol Sinai Kislev 5725), Aruch HaShulchan 677:5, Sh”t Mishna Halachot 7:86, and Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:29 (he says one should light even if he’s in an unroofed boat); Torat Hamoadim 2:18 says since there’s a safek for Rashi’s opinion one shouldn’t make the Bracha but can make Brachot HaRoeh. </ref> | ||
==Related Pages== | ==Related Pages== | ||
