Havdala

Based on a shiur by Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon

Translated by David Silverberg

 

 

     Does the obligation of havdala originate from the Torah, or was it instituted by Chazal?  Some Rishonim indicate that havdala constitutes a rabbinic obligation, whereas others imply that it originates from the Torah.  If, indeed, havdala is required according to Torah law, the question arises as to the Biblical source of this obligation.  The Rambam writes in Hilkhot Shabbat (29:1):

 

 

This passage implies that the havdala obligation stems from the mitzva of "zakhor" ("Remember the Shabbat day… " – Shemot 20:8).  The Maggid Mishneh notes that other Rishonim derive the havdala obligation from the verse in Parashat Shemini, "To distinguish between the sacred and the mundane" (Vayikra 10:10).

 

This issue regarding the Biblical source of the mitzva may yield several important ramifications.  For example, the Minchat Chinukh (mitzva 31) raises the question of why we make no mention of the Exodus in havdala as we do in kiddush.  If the obligation originates from the verse in Parashat Shemini, the answer is easily resolved: since the requirement of havdala stems from a different source from kiddush, we should not expect its laws to parallel those of kiddush.  If, however, we view "zakhor" – the source of the obligation of kiddush – as the source of havdala, as well, then these two should indeed follow the same format.  The Minchat Chinukh leaves this question unresolved.  Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi, O.C. 157) suggests that we perhaps fulfill the obligation to mention the Exodus through the recitation of arvit on Motza'ei Shabbat before havdala.  Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Shemirat Shabbat Ke-hilkhata, chapter 58, note 18) claimed that even if we view havdala as part of the mitzva of zakhor, this would not necessarily require mentioning the Exodus in havdala.  It suffices to mention the Exodus while reciting kiddush, and there is no need to mention it again in havdala.

 

 

     According to all views, one fulfills the obligation of havdala through the recitation of "Ata chonantanu" in arvit on Motza'ei Shabbat.  However, there is an additional requirement to recite havdala over a cup of wine.

 

     The Gemara comments in Masekhet Berakhot that in theory, someone who mistakenly omitted "Ata chonantanu" during arvit on Motza'ei Shabbat should repeat shemoneh esrei.  In practice, however, since he will recite havdala after arvit over a cup of wine, he need not repeat shemoneh esrei.  In some cases, however, one must repeat shemoneh esrei if he forgot to add "Ata chonantanu."  If this individual does not have wine, and he does not anticipate having access to wine, he must repeat shemoneh esrei with "Ata chonantanu" before he is allowed to eat on Motza'ei Shabbat.  The Arukh Ha-shulchan adds that even if such a person anticipates having wine the following day, but not on Motza'ei Shabbat, he must repeat shemoneh esrei if he wishes to eat that night.  The Mishna Berura writes that in situations such as these, if the person caught his mistake before the berakha of "shomei'a tefila," he may insert "Ata chonantanu" in that berakha.  Although we generally insert in "shomei'a tefila" only prayers and requests, in this instance, one should recite "Ata chonantanu" in this berakha so as to avoid having to repeat the entire shemoneh esrei.

 

     The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (33b) mentions another case when one must repeat shemoneh esrei if he forgot "Ata chonantanu": if the person ate before reciting havdala.  Since he made this mistake, of eating before havdala, he must repeat shemoneh esrei and add "Ata chonantanu."  The Rashba adds that even if this person performed melakha (activity forbidden on Shabbat) before havdala, in this instance, too, he must repeat shemoneh esrei.  The Mishna Berura, however, rules that only if the person ate he must repeat shemoneh esrei.  This ruling stems from the fact that some Rishonim, such as the Rambam, do not require repeating shemoneh esrei even if the individual ate before havdala, and many Rishonim, unlike the Rashba, subscribe to this halakha but limit it to one who eats before havdala.  Therefore, the Mishna Berura writes, we should not extend this halakha beyond the instance of one who eats before havdala.  The Mishna Berura also points out that this entire discussion relates only to a person who before havdala realizes that he mistakenly omitted "Ata chonantanu."  If, however, the individual realizes his mistake only after havdala, then even if he ate before havdala he does not repeat shemoneh esrei.

 

     (As for performing melakha before havdala, a person may do so if he first recites, "Barukh ha-mavdil bein kodesh le-chol.")

 

 

     The Geonim write – and this is mentioned as well in the Tur – that one may not recite havdala over bread.  Although one may recite kiddush over bread, this is due to the fact that the bread constitutes part of the meal, and a strong connection exists between kiddush and the meal.  Havdala, by contrast, has no connection with bread or a meal.  The Shulchan Arukh (296:2) cites different views as to whether one may recite havdala over bread when Motza'ei Shabbat coincides with Yom Tov, and thus havdala is, indeed, recited in the context of a meal (together with the kiddush for Yom Tov).  The Rama follows the lenient position.

 

     May one recite havdala over other beverages?  The Shulchan Arukh rules that one may recite havdala over "chamar medina," which at this point we will loosely translate as a beverage commonly drunk in the given society.  The Bei'ur Halakha comments that this position is agreed upon by all authorities.  However, the poskim note that someone who prefers drinking wine should use wine for havdala.

 

     Which beverages fall under the category of "chamar medina"?  The Rashbam writes in his commentary to Masekhet Pesachim that water does not qualify as "chamar medina."  Accordingly, the Shulchan Arukh writes that one may recite havdala over "other beverages other than water," suggesting that all beverages may be used for havdala with the exception of water.  However, the Chida writes in Birkei Yosef (as cited by the Mishna Berura, 296:10) that one may not recite havdala over milk, and other Acharonim require specifically an intoxicating beverage.  This is the position of Rav Ovadya Yosef (in Yechaveh Da'at and Yabia Omer).  However, the Arukh Ha-shulchan (272:14) reports that certain gedolim recited havdala over sweetened tea or milk under extenuating circumstances.  The Tzitz Eliezer adds that one who does not have wine or beer in his home, or who cannot drink intoxicating beverages for health reasons, may employ this leniency.  Rav Moshe Feinstein defines "chamar medina" differently, as a beverage one would give to guests even if they are not thirsty.

 

 

     Chazal determined that anyone included in the prohibitions of Shabbat is likewise included in the obligations of Shabbat.  Accordingly, all mitzvot of Shabbat apply equally to both men and women; since women are included in the prohibitions of Shabbat (as they are included in all Torah prohibitions), they are bound by the obligations of Shabbat, as well.

 

     With regard to havdala, however, the Shulchan Arukh (296:8) cites two opinions as to whether the obligation applies to women.  The Bach explains that this debate hinges on the question of whether or not havdala constitutes a Torah obligation.  If, indeed, the obligation of havdala has Biblical roots, then it should apply to both men and women, just like kiddush.  However, if one views havdala as a rabbinic obligation, then it should be treated like other time-bound obligations, from which women are exempt.

 

     One may question this explanation of the Bach, from either angle.  Firstly, even if one accepts the Biblical origins of havdala, it need not originate specifically from the mitzva of "zakhor," which applies to both men and women.  If it stems from a different source, then it might very well apply only to men.  Conversely, assuming that havdala is rabbinic in origin does not necessarily mean that it does not include women; the Rishonim debate the question of whether or not women are exempt from time-bound rabbinic obligations.

 

     Another explanation as to why havdala would include women appears in the Ritva's commentary to Masekhet Pesachim (54b), where he writes that Chazal instituted havdala as a parallel obligation to kiddush.  Therefore, the laws of kiddush, including its application to women, take effect regarding havdala, as well.  This approach is cited by the Mishna Berura (296:34).

 

     In light of all this discussion, the Rama rules that women should not recite havdala, and should instead listen to its recitation from a man.  At first glance, this ruling is very difficult to understand.  Elsewhere, the Rama himself follows the opinion that a woman who performs a mitzva from which she is exempt recites the berakha over that mitzva.  Why, then, does he advise women not to recite havdala?  Even according to the view exempting women from this obligation, it should be permitted for them to recite this berakha!  In light of this question, the Bach argues with the Rama and permits women to personally recite havdala.

 

     Other Acharonim, however, attempted to resolve this difficulty.  The Magen Avraham (296:11) suggests that the Rama perhaps distinguished between mitzvot involving action and those requiring merely the recitation of a berakha.  The Rama permits women to recite a berakha when they voluntarily perform a mitzva act; when, however, it comes to a mitzva that entails only the recitation of a berakha, they may not recite the berakha.  The Taz (296:7) explains that according to the Rama, women may not recite a berakha over time-bound, rabbinic obligations.  Only when a woman performs a Torah obligation does the Rama permit her to recite a berakha even if she is exempt from that mitzva.  This explanation becomes very difficult, however, in light of the fact that the Rama permits women to recite a berakha over the recitation of hallel on Rosh Chodesh and other mitzvot instituted by Chazal.

 

     In any event, the Mishna Berura writes that women should preferably hear havdala from their husbands.  He also mentions the Magen Avraham's comment that since in any event the practice developed that women do not drink wine from the havdala cup, for this reason alone it is preferable for the husband to recite havdala.  Clearly, however, if the husband had already recited havdala when his wife was not present, she should preferably recite havdala by herself, rather than having her husband repeat havdala for her.

 

     A separate issue arises concerning women's recitation of the berakha over the havdala candle.  The Bei'ur Halakha writes (296, s.v. lo yavdilu) that it stands to reason that women are exempt from this obligation.  Later (299:5), the Bei'ur Halakha cites Rabbi Akiva Eiger's ruling that if someone mistakenly recited "borei me'orei ha-eish" over a fire that is not suitable for this berakha, he must repeat the berakha over the wine, as well.  Since his berakha of "borei me'orei ha-eish" turned out to be mistaken, it constitutes a hefsek (interruption) in between the berakha over wine and the drinking of the wine, thus necessitating a new berakha.  If we combine these two rulings, it would turn out that a woman reciting havdala must omit the berakha over the candle.  This ruling is indeed mentioned in Shemirat Shabbat Ke-hilkhata (61:24), though there in a footnote Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is cited as allowing women to recite the berakha over the candle in havdala.

 

 

     Tosefot in Masekhet Berakhot (43a) indicate that one should preferably sit for havdala in order to establish "kevi'ut" – a sense of formal gathering, which might be required for the listeners to fulfill their obligation by hearing the recitation.  By contrast, the Orchot Chayim, Kolbo and other Rishonim write that one should specifically stand during havdala as a display of honor for the Shabbat as we escort it, so-to-speak.  The Shulchan Arukh (296:6) rules that one should sit for havdala, while the Rama writes that one stands.  Even according to the Rama, however, one must sit while drinking the wine, since it is inappropriate to drink while standing.

 

     The Mordekhai (Berakhot, 4:149) brings the position of the Ravya that when one begins havdala, he must hold the wine in his right hand and the besamim (spices) in the left.  After reciting the berakha of "borei peri ha-gefen," one then switches the wine and the besamim, recites the berakha over the besamim, puts them down, looks at his fingernails by the light of the candle, and then recites the berakha over the candle.  Finally, one returns the cup to his right hand for the recitation of the berakha of "ha-mavdil."  The Shulchan Arukh (296:6) codifies this procedure, and the Mishna Berura (31) clarifies that one looks at the fingernails of his right hand before reciting the berakha over the candle.  In practice, however, most people do not follow this procedure as outlined by the Mordekhai, and they place the cup on the table while reciting the berakhot over the besamim and the candle.  Some basis for this is found in the Arukh Ha-shulchan, who mentions the practice to place the cup on the table for the berakha over the besamim.  Nevertheless, Rav Lichtenstein shlit"a follows the procedure presented by the Mordekhai.

 

     The Rama records a custom to spill some wine on the ground as a sign of berakha.  The Mishna Berura (297:5), however, writes that the Acharonim discourage spilling wine on the ground, which is a disgrace to the wine.  Instead, one should pour the wine into the havdala cup until it becomes full and overflows.  The Rama also mentions the common practice of extinguishing the havdala candle specifically with the wine used for havdala, as this demonstrates our love for the mitzva.  Rav Kook pointed out, however, that one who uses wine produced from shemitta fruit should not use it to extinguish the candle, given the prohibition against wasting food endowed with kedushat shevi'it (the holy status of shemitta produce).

 

 

     Halakha requires one to smell spices upon Shabbat's departure.  Our Sages teach that on Shabbat a person receives a "neshama yeteira" (literally, "extra soul") which leaves him as Shabbat departs, and the Gemara comments that smelling spices helps one overcome sadness.  Since besamim is required as a response to the loss of the "neshama yeteira," this obligation applies only on Motza'ei Shabbat, and not on Motza'ei Yom Tov.  Tosefot (Masekhet Beitza 33b) note that when Motza'ei Shabbat occurs on Yom Tov, we do not recite the berakha over besamim since the Yom Tov festivities are sufficient to uplift a person's otherwise heart.

 

     Which spices are suitable for this purpose?  The spices used for besamim must have grown from the ground.  The Rishonim debate whether one must smell part of a plant, or if it suffices to smell something that had absorbed a plant's fragrance.  The Tur addresses the question of using oil into which spices had been placed to add scent, but then removed.  He cites two opinions regarding the berakha one recites over such oil – either the standard berakha over besamim, or the berakha "al shemen arev."  In light of this dispute, one should  not use this kind of oil for besamim.  However, some Acharonim write that if some substance from the actual spice remains in the utensil, then one may recite the berakha of besamim over the oil.  Today, bottles of fragrant oil are commonly sold containing some flower extract, and may therefore be used for besamim.

 

     Synthetic deodorants may not be used for this purpose because they do not originate from plants.  Deodorants produced from herbs should likewise not be used, in light of the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh (297:2), based on the Gemara (Masekhet Berakhot 51a), that one does not recite this berakha over spices used to deodorize restrooms and places containing corpses.  The Mishna Berura explains, "All these are not used for fragrance, but rather to neutralize a foul odor."  Accordingly, deodorants, too, should not be used for besamim.  Similarly, the Shulchan Arukh (217) rules that one does not recite the berakha over women's perfume, even if it is produced from herbs, as it might perhaps lead to improper thoughts.  Herbal after-shave, however, may be used.

 

     The Acharonim discussed the question of whether one may use for besamim something that is generally used as food, rather than for fragrance, such as fruits.  The Mishna Berura appears to allow using fragrant fruits, whereas the Chazon Ish (35) seems to rule stringently.  If a person wishes to use a food item for besamim, he should take a small portion of the food and designate it exclusively for smelling, rather than eating.  After using it for havdala, he should then discard it.

 

     The Shulchan Arukh (297:4) writes that whenever possible, one should use a hadas (myrtle branch) for besamim.  The reason given is that since we use the hadas for one mitzva (as one of the four species on Sukkot), we should endeavor to use it for this mitzva, as well.  According to this reason, the Shulchan Arukh refers specifically to the hadas that was used for the mitzva of arba minim (four species) on Sukkot.  The Rama notes that generally the hadas withers after Sukkot and loses its scent.  Therefore, the Rama recommends using the hadas together with fragrant spices.

 

     What berakha does one recite when smelling the besamim?  Each type of spice has a different berakha.  Over fragrant herbs one recites, "borei eesvei besamim"; over spices extracted from a tree, one recites, "borei atzei besamim"; and for other spices, the text is, "borei minei besamim."  Indeed, the Sefaradim have the practice to recite in havdala the appropriate berakha for the category of spice used.  By contrast, the Eliya Rabba, Magen Avraham and Mishna Berura observe the widespread practice among Ashknazim to always employ the generic text of "bore minei besamim" so as to avoid confusion.  Accordingly, the Mishna Berura writes that one should preferably use a spice upon which one recites "borei minei besamim" in any event.

 

     If a person lost his sense of smell, may he recite the berakha of besamim to fulfill the obligation on behalf of his household?  The Tur (end of 297) records a debate surrounding this issue.  Rabbenu Efrayim maintained that such a person may not recite the berakha, but the Tur follows the position of his father, the Rosh, permitting this person to recite the berakha, and the family members listen to the berakha and then smell the besamim.  This debate likely depends on the fundamental nature of the berakha of besamim.  Rabbenu Efrayim viewed this berakha as a birkat ha-nehenin – a berakha recited over the derivation of benefit or enjoyment, such as the berakhot recited over food.  Therefore, just as one person cannot (generally) recite a berakha over food on behalf of someone else who eats, here, too, someone who does not smell the spice cannot recite the berakha on behalf of those who do.  The Rosh presumably viewed this berakha as a kind of birkat ha-mitzva, incorporated within the framework of havdala.

 

     In any event, the Shulchan Arukh (297:5) follows the lenient position of the Rosh and Tur.  The Radbaz (responsa, vol. 5, 2,321) claims that this berakha is certainly a birkat ha-nehenin, and therefore one who cannot smell may not recite this berakha.  Several Acharonim, including the Taz, Magen Avraham and Eliya Rabba, accepted this view, and this is the ruling of the Mishna Berura and Rav Ovadya Yosef (in Yabia Omer).  The Magen Avraham comments that a person who can smell and recites the berakha as part of havdala must smell the spice, even if he had already fulfilled his obligation earlier and repeats havdala on behalf of his family.

 

     Very often, a person recites havdala on behalf of a very large assembly of people, such that not everyone present can smell the besamim.  In such a situation, the listeners should either take the besamim immediately after havdala without any interim hefsek (interruption), or have in mind not to fulfill their obligation of besamim by listening, and later take besamim, recite the berakha and smell.

 

     The Gemara in Berakhot comments that one need not exert himself to obtain a flame for the berakha over fire on Motza'ei Shabbat, as one must to acquire wine for havdala.  In light of this Gemara, the Rashba writes that one likewise need not exert himself to obtain spices for besamim.  The Shulchan Arukh (297:1) codifies this ruling and adds that in the absence of besamim, one may still recite the rest of havdala.  If he has access to besamim later, he should preferably recite the berakha and smell at that point.

 

 

     What kind of candle must one use for havdala?  The Gemara in Pesachim (103b) comments that there is a special mitzva ("mitzva min ha-muvchar") to use an "avuka" – a torch – for havdala, perhaps because it provides abundant light.  Another reason might be that a torch consists of many wicks and thus contains different forms of fire, thus accommodating the text of the berakha recited over fire – "borei me'orei ha-eish" ("who creates the lights of fire" – in the plural form).  The Aguda writes that a wick that produces a strong flame certainly qualifies as a "torch" with respect to this halakha.  He undoubtedly accepted the first of the reasons mentioned, that one should use a torch because of its abundant light.  On the other hand, the Maggid Mishneh (Hilkhot Shabbat 29:21) and other Rishonim require several wicks in order to satisfy this halakha.  The Bei'ur Halakha records this debate and appears to require at least two wicks.

 

     The Rama writes (298:2), "a candle with two wicks is considered a torch."  How do we determine when two distinct wicks comprise a single candle and may thus be used for havdala?  The Mishna Berura writes that the Rama here refers to an oil lamp with two wicks; a wax candle with multiple wicks, must have some space between the wicks.  Nowadays, havdala candles are essentially several different candles attached together, and these are certainly acceptable.

 

     We should emphasize that, as the Gemara clearly indicates, all this applies on the highest level, of "mitzva min ha-muvchar."  A person who does not have access to such a candle may recite the berakha even on a regular candle.

 

     The Arizal made a point of using a candle designated exclusively as a havdala candle, that was not used for any other purpose.  Clearly, however, this condition is not indispensable for the fulfillment of the obligation.

 

     The question often arises as to whether one may use two matches held together as a havdala candle.  The Shulchan Arukh (298:3) writes that one may use burning coals, which appears to be identical to lit matches.  It would therefore appear that one may, indeed, use two matches for the berakha over fire.

 

     May one recite the berakha over electric lights?  Fluorescent lights certainly may not be used, for they do not involve fire at all.  The question arises only with regard to standard, incandescent bulbs, which one might consider fire.  There are several different aspects to this question.  The poskim who addressed this issue dealt primarily with the fact that the "fire" is covered by glass.  Does this disqualify the bulb for use as a flame for havdala?  The Gemara comments in Masekhet Berakhot (53b), "If one had a candle concealed… in a 'panas'… he does not recite the berakha."  Rashi explains "panas" to mean a glass lamp, and this Gemara would thus suggest that one does not recite a berakha over a candle covered by glass.  The Rashba, however, challenges Rashi's interpretation based on a different Gemara in Berakhot, which forbids reciting shema in a place where erva (areas of a body that ought to be covered) of another person is visible, even if only through a glass barrier.  This halakha indicates that viewing an object through glass is considered equivalent to seeing it directly, and hence a glass covering over a flame should not disqualify it for the berakha over fire.  The Rashba therefore understands "panas" to mean a flame behind a dark screen, rather than behind clear glass.

 

     The Bei'ur Halakha (298) resolves the difficulty raised by the Rashba against Rashi's approach by distinguishing between these two halakhot - the requirement of a havdala candle, and the prohibition against reciting shema in the presence of erva.  Generally speaking, the Rashba is correct: we consider an object "present" even if it lies behind a clear glass barrier.  But on Motza'ei Shabbat, Halakha requires us to recite a berakha over a fire resembling the first fire kindled by Adam Ha-rishon, which was completely exposed.  Therefore, a fire covered by even a transparent covering may not be used.  We might suggest a different distinction.  Perhaps a glass barrier does, indeed, render an object out of one's presence.  When it comes to shema, however, the determining factor is not the formal presence of erva, but rather the actual visibility of erva.  Therefore, even if technically we can consider the erva out of one's presence, its visibility renders the location unsuitable for shema.

 

     The Shulchan Arukh (298:1) rules stringently, and the Magen Avraham and other Acharonim discuss this issue at length.  The Rama's silence in this regard would suggest that he concurs with the Mechaber's ruling, and therefore one should not recite havdala over a fire covered by glass – including a light bulb.

 

     Other authorities disqualified electric lights for other reasons.  Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi, 5:114), for example, argued that filament is not considered fire.

 

     On the other extreme, some poskim permitted and even recommended using electric lights for havdala.  It is told that Rav Chayim of Brisk would specifically make a point of reciting the berakha over an electric light to demonstrate his opposition to those who did not consider electric light fire and thus permitted using it on Shabbat.

 

It would therefore appear that one should preferably use a candle, but if he does not have access to a candle he may recite the berakha over an incandescent bulb.  Rav Ovadya Yosef, however, ruled that one should not recite the berakha over electric lights under any circumstances.

 

What kind of berakha is this berakha of "borei me'orei ha-eish"?  Some Rishonim indicate that they viewed it as a birkat ha-nehenin – a berakha we recite over the benefit derived from fire.  This is mentioned explicitly by the Sefer Ha-mikhtam in Masekhet Pesachim (104a).  Other Rishonim, however, view this berakha differently.  Tosefot write (Pesachim 53b) that this berakha cannot be classified as a birkat ha-nehenin, because Chazal instituted birkot ha-nehenin only over direct, physical enjoyment, rather than practical benefit, such as that derived from fire.  The Rosh (Berakhot 8:3) adds that if the berakha over fire were a birkat ha-nehenin, we would be required to recite this berakha each and every time we kindle a flame.  According to these Rishonim, this berakha appears to be a berakha of "shevach ve-hoda'a" – praise and thanksgiving to the Almighty for creating fire, rather than a berakha over the benefit we derive from fire.

 

This question will affect the practical issue of when precisely one must derive benefit from the fire – before reciting the berakha, or after?  If we classify the berakha as a birkat ha-nehenin, then we must recite it before deriving benefit from the candle, just as we recite berakhot over food before partaking of the food.  Conversely, if this berakha is seen as a berakha of praise, then we must recite it only after we behold the phenomenon for which we give praise.  The Mishna Berura writes (296:31) that one first makes use of the flame and then recites the berakha, whereas the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh (96:3) records the practice to first recite the berakha and then look at one's fingernails by the light of the candle.  Rav Lichtenstein shlit"a makes a point of looking at his fingernails both before and after the berakha.

 

The mishna in Berakhot (51b) states, "One does not recite a berakha over the candle until he derives benefit from its light."  What degree of benefit must one derive in order to recite this berakha?  The Shulchan Arukh (298:3) records the practice of looking at one's hands and fingernails by the candlelight, in order to determine close enough proximity to consider oneself as benefiting from the candlelight.  The Rama writes that one must look at the fingernails of his right hand and bend his fingers inward, such that he sees both his fingernails and palm.  In any event, be-di'avad a person fulfills his obligation even if he does not look at his hands, so long as he stands near the fire.  If a person cannot come within close range of the fire, such as if a very large crowd has assembled for havdala, he should follow the same procedure we recommended with regard to besamim.  He can either quickly approach the flame immediately after havdala without making an interruption, or have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with respect to the candle, and later, when he has access to fire, he recites the berakha and derives benefit from the flame.