16,374
edits
Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→A Guest on Chanuka
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
* Mishna Brurah 677:15-6 writes that many achronim agree with the Maharil and there is what to rely on but because of those who argue it’s preferable that either one hear the Bracha from someone else and then light or make sure to light before one’s wife. </ref> | * Mishna Brurah 677:15-6 writes that many achronim agree with the Maharil and there is what to rely on but because of those who argue it’s preferable that either one hear the Bracha from someone else and then light or make sure to light before one’s wife. </ref> | ||
# Someone in a city that’s totally not Jewish even if he has family lighting for him at home he should light with a bracha. <ref> S”A 677:3 writes “some say to light with a bracha when in a city that totally not Jewish” based on Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 13,18) and Mordechai 267. So writes Sh”t She’erit Yosef 73e. Pri Chadash 677:3 argue that one shouldn’t rely on this to make a bracha since it’s not an obligation [just like the Bet Yosef 677:1 argued against the Trumat Hadeshen 101 who says that a guest who was married was allowed to light on his own for Hiddur Mitzvah because, says the Bet Yosef, one shouldn’t rely on this to make an unnecessary bracha.] Buir HaGra 677:3 argues similarly. So rules the Mishna Brurah 677:14. On the other hand, Chazon Ovadyah pg 158-60 says that the Bet Yosef 677:3 only quotes the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai without anyone who argues and then rules that way in S”A implying that no one disagrees. The difference between the a guest and this traveler is as the Mamer Mordechai 677:4 explains that the guest can’t light if there’s already a Pirsume Nisa and he’s fulfilled his obligation with his wife’s lighting, but a traveler has an obligation of Pirsume Nisa (just like in lighting in Shul) even if his wife is lighting because no one around is lighting. So holds the Shulchan Gavoha 677:5 (and that so was the Minhag of Selanica), Chasidei David Chasan pg 61b, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 48b, Sh”t Besamim Rosh 343, Chazon Ovadyah, and Moed Kol Chai 27:49. Why did S”A begin the halacha with words “some say”? Mamer Mordechai says it’s because S”A was unsure about this. Yet, Chazon Ovadyah responds that the S”A was intending to the opinion of the Meiri (who argues on the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai). </ref> | # Someone in a city that’s totally not Jewish even if he has family lighting for him at home he should light with a bracha. <ref> S”A 677:3 writes “some say to light with a bracha when in a city that totally not Jewish” based on Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 13,18) and Mordechai 267. So writes Sh”t She’erit Yosef 73e. Pri Chadash 677:3 argue that one shouldn’t rely on this to make a bracha since it’s not an obligation [just like the Bet Yosef 677:1 argued against the Trumat Hadeshen 101 who says that a guest who was married was allowed to light on his own for Hiddur Mitzvah because, says the Bet Yosef, one shouldn’t rely on this to make an unnecessary bracha.] Buir HaGra 677:3 argues similarly. So rules the Mishna Brurah 677:14. On the other hand, Chazon Ovadyah pg 158-60 says that the Bet Yosef 677:3 only quotes the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai without anyone who argues and then rules that way in S”A implying that no one disagrees. The difference between the a guest and this traveler is as the Mamer Mordechai 677:4 explains that the guest can’t light if there’s already a Pirsume Nisa and he’s fulfilled his obligation with his wife’s lighting, but a traveler has an obligation of Pirsume Nisa (just like in lighting in Shul) even if his wife is lighting because no one around is lighting. So holds the Shulchan Gavoha 677:5 (and that so was the Minhag of Selanica), Chasidei David Chasan pg 61b, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 48b, Sh”t Besamim Rosh 343, Chazon Ovadyah, and Moed Kol Chai 27:49. Why did S”A begin the halacha with words “some say”? Mamer Mordechai says it’s because S”A was unsure about this. Yet, Chazon Ovadyah responds that the S”A was intending to the opinion of the Meiri (who argues on the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai). </ref> | ||
==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 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> | |||
# Someone who doesn’t have a house and isn’t a dependant of someone’s house, can’t light candles. If he eats at someone’s house, he can light without a bracha or join in the lighting of the owner (by paying for a portion of the candles). However he can make the Brachot HaRoeh for seeing the candles (She’assa Nisim and Shechianu on the first night). <ref> Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe Y”D 3:14(5) based on Rashi (23a D”H HaRoeh) and Torat HaMoadim 2:18 based on Tosfot (Sukkah 46a D”H HaRoeh) rule that someone who doesn’t have a house doesn’t light and can only make Brachot HaRoah. [It seems, Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:29 holds one should light even if he doesn’t have a house.] Bach 677 D”H “U’Mah Shekatav HaRosh” implies if not for suspicion one can light in the place he ate. However Taz 677:2 argues that one can not light in the place he ate. Thus one can only light without a Bracha (Safek Brachot Lehakel). </ref> | |||
# If one is eating at someone’s house (even if it’s one’s parents) on Friday night Chanuka, and is going to sleep at home that night, should light at home after Plag HaMincha. <Ref> Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 672:11) </ref> | |||
== Brachot HaRoah (Seeing)== | == Brachot HaRoah (Seeing)== | ||
