Lighting Chanukah Candles: Difference between revisions

# 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 a child aren’t obligated. This is also the opinion of Rambam ([[Chanukah]] 4:9), Tur and S”A 675:3. The Mishna Trumot 1:2 defines deaf in Talmud as deaf and mute, but someone just deaf is obligated like anyone else. So quotes Pri Megadim M”Z 670:5, Mishna Brurah 675:12, and Torat HaMoadim 2:19. There’s a dispute whether a child who is at the age of [[Chinuch]] can fulfill the obligation of an adult. Bet Yosef 675e quotes the Ran ([[Shabbat]] 23a) in name of the Itur ([[Chanukah]] pg 116a) that a child can fulfill the obligation of an adult. So writes the Shibolei HaLeket 185, Orchot Chaim ([[Chanukah]] 12). However Meiri writes that he disagrees with the Rabbis of Provincia who say a child at age of [[chinuch]] can fulfill the obligation of an adult. [Seemingly, this is the opinion of Tosfot (Megilah 19b concerning megilah) that a double derabanan (child only obligated on a [[chinuch]] level and it’s only a derabanan mitzvah) can’t fulfill the mitzvah of one obligated on level of rabanan (adult for a mitzvah derabanan). The Tur 689 writes that so is the opinion of the Bahag and Rosh. However Bet Yosef 53 in name of Sh”t HaRashba 1:239, and Raavad disagree with Tosfot.] S”A 675:3 says a child isn’t obligated to light but some permit “a child at age of [[chinuch]] to fulfill the obligation of others” Yet, it’s a dispute in the Achronim whether S”A meant it as “Setam and then Yesh Omerim” (anonymous and then a disagreeing opinion) in which case we hold like the anonymous opinion or that it’s not a dispute but the “some say” was just explaining the first line. Magen Avraham 689:4 (as understood by Pri Megadim A”A 689:4), Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 3:41 say that S”A meant the “some say” is just explanatory. However, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 689 understands S”A that we hold like the anonymous opinion. This is also the opinion of Sh”t Kol Gadol 100, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 58b, Sh”t Olat Shmuel 105e, Pri [[Chadash]] 675:3, Ben Ish Chai Veyeshev 19, Mishna Brurah 675:13, and Torat HaMoadim 2:19. </ref>

# A 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, Magen 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 mourner on the first day is exempt as he is exempt from all mitzvoth and so he should have a household member who isn’t a mourner light with a bracha, if that’s not possible, he should have another person light without a bracha.<ref> Eliyah Raba 670:19 writes one should have someone else light and answer [[amen]]. However, Erech HaShulchan 670:3 writes one should light without a bracha. Kaf Hachaim 670:20 explains that this is only a dispute if the first-day mourner is alone, otherwise his wife or a household member can fulfill for him his obligation. Pri Megadim M”Z 670:5 agrees with Eliyah Raba but argues that one can’t answer [[amen]] as in S”A Y”D 341 where we follow the anonymous opinion that a first-day mourner doesn’t answer [[amen]]. Torat HaMoadim 2:24 agrees with Erech HaShulchan. </ref>

# A convert can make all the [[Brachot]] and say “She’assa Nissim Le’avotenu” but if he wants can change it to say “She’assa Nissim LeYisrael”.<ref> Sh”t Rambam (Pasya edition 158, Kisei Nirdamim Mehuderet Fredman 42, Mehuderet Belav 293) writes that a convert can say all of the [[Brachot]] like every Jew because he converted he becomes a descendant of Avraham and part of the Jewish people for all their history, however if he wants to change the [[brachot]] that relate to the Jewish history such as Yetsiat Mitzrayim, and [[Chanukah]]. The Sh”t Rashba 7:54, Hagahot Mordechai Megilah 1:786, and Sh”t Ridvaz 5:520 agree. Torat HaMoadim 2:25 finds support for this opinion in the ruling of Shulchan Aruch (See S”A 53:19 and Shulchan Aruch 199:9). </ref>