The Laws of Chanuka - "Lighting" Neirot Chanuka
the laws of
THE FESTIVALS
THE LAWS OF
CHANUKA
*********************************************************************
In
memory of Yissachar Dov Shmuel bar Yakov Yehuda Illoway
and Leah Ruth Illoway
bat Natan Naso Jacobs
*********************************************************************
Shiur #08: The Laws
of Chanuka
Rav David
Brofsky
Introduction
Last week, we studied various aspects
of the mitzva to kindle the Chanuka lights, including womens obligation
to light, the number of candles required, and whether this mitzva should be viewed as a personal obligation,
or an obligation upon the household.
This week, we will attempt to
precisely define the term "lighting" with respect to neirot
Chanuka, questioning whether the mitzva focuses on the actual
kindling ("hadlaka"), or the placing ("hanacha"), of the lights.
In addition, we will discuss whether one must relight a Chanuka candle which has
been extinguished.
"Hadlaka Osa
Mitzva"
The Gemara (Shabbat 22b) raises the
fundamental question of whether one fulfills the mitzva of ner
Chanuka through the hadlaka, meaning, by lighting the neirot,
or through hanacha by putting them, after they are lit, in their proper
place:
"For the scholars propounded: Does the
KINDLING or the PLACING constitute the precept? Come and hear: For Raba said,
If one was standing and holding the Chaunka lamp, he has done nothing: this
proves that the PLACING constitutes the precept! [No:] There, an observer may
think that he is holding it for his own purposes [and the Sages therefore
required putting the lamp down]. Come and hear: For Raba said: if one
lights it inside and then takes it outside, he has done nothing. Now, it is well
if you say that the KINDLING constitutes the precept; [for this reason] we
require the kindling to be [done] in its proper place, [and] therefore he has
done nothing. But if you say that the PLACING constitutes the precept, why has
he done nothing? There, too, an observer may think that he lit it for his own
purposes."
The Gemara attempted to resolve this
question on the basis of the halakhot relevant to one who stands holding a candle,
and one who lit inside (the improper place to light) and then brought the
candle outside. But the Gemara
dismisses these proofs, and then attempts another:
"Come and hear: For R. Yehoshua b.
Levi said: With regard to a lantern which was burning the whole day [of
Shabbat], at the conclusion of Shabbat it is extinguished and then relit. Now,
it is well if you say that the KINDLING constitutes the precept; then it is
correct. But if you say that the PLACING constitutes the precept, is this
[merely] extinguished and [re-]lit? Surely it should [have stated], It must
be extinguished, lifted up, replaced and then relit!"
The Gemara asserts that if one must
merely extinguish and relight a preexisting flame in order to fulfill the
mitzva, rather than also lifting it and replacing it, then evidently the
obligation focuses on the hadlaka, and not the hanacha. The Gemara
concludes:
"Moreover, since we recite the
berakha, 'Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us TO
KINDLE the lamp of Chanuka,' it proves that the KINDLING constitutes the
precept."
The Gemara further notes that since
the hadlaka constitutes the essential obligation, a "cheirish, shoteh
ve-katan" (deaf-mute, mentally impaired, or minor) may not light the Chanuka
candles on behalf of an adult. Since these groups of people are exempt
from the mitzva, which is fulfilled through the act of
lighting, their lighting does not satisfy the
obligation.
Finally, the Gemara enlists this
debate to resolve the question of whether one may light one Chanuka candle from
another, or if all the candles must be lit from a separate flame ("madlikin
mi-ner la-ner"). The Rishonim offer numerous attempts to explain the
connection between "hadlaka osa mitzva" and one's ability to light from
one candle to another.
At first glance, the question of
hadlaka osa mitzva or hanacha osa mitzva hinges on the
extent to which the mitzva of ner Chanuka is defined by the
element of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle). One who is concerned
solely with publicizing the miracle might suffice with a proper
hanacha. That Halakha
demands performing an act of lighting might suggest that although pirsumei
nisa certainly serves a role in this mitzva, it does not form its essential
definition.
"Lest The Observer Say That He Lit For
His Own Needs"
The straightforward reading of the
Gemara indicates that if hadlaka osa mitzva, one who lights inside
and then brings the lamp outside does not fulfill the obligation because he did
not light the candles in the proper place. Indeed, the Rambam (4:9) explains
this halakha as such. Many Rishonim, however (see
The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 675),
following the aforementioned Rishonim, codifies the principle of
hadlaka osa mitzva and mentions the concern that at times one may
be perceived as if he is lighting for his own needs:
"
If [the lamps] were placed in their
place NOT for the intention of the mitzva of Chanuka, one should light
them, and he does not need to remove them and then place them there [again] for
the sake of the mitzva of Chanuka. Therefore, a lantern that was burning
the entire day, which was lit before Shabbat for the mitzva of Chanuka,
should be extinguished and relit for the sake of the mitzva after
Shabbat. However, one should light them in the place where they will remain, and
one who lights inside and then takes them outside has not fulfilled his
obligation, AS AN OBSERVER MIGHT SAY THAT HE LIT [INSIDE] FOR HIS OWN NEEDS.
Similarly, one who lights and holds [the flame] in his hand has NOT fulfilled
the mitzva, AS AN OBSERVER MAY SAY THAT HE IS HOLDING [THE LAMP] FOR HIS OWN
NEEDS
"
The Mishna Berura (5) adds that
even one who lights outside should not bring the lights inside. Seemingly, this
would apply only if one brings the lights inside within the first half-hour,
during which they must burn (as we shall discuss); after this half-hour period,
however, it would appear that one may bring them inside.
At first glance, there should be no
objection to moving the lights from one location to another inside the same
house, as there should be no qualitative difference between lighting in one
corner of the house or another. However, the Mishna in Masekhet Sofrim (20:3;
Masekhet Sofrim is a compilation of laws most likely published sometime during
or after the eighth century) records that one should not move the lights from
one place to another, and it appears that this halakha applies even after the minimum
required period has passed. This
Mishna is cited by R. Meir b. R. Yekutiel HaKohen of Rothenburg (a student of
Maharam of Rothenburg, 13th century), in his comments on the Rambam
known as the Hagahot Maimoniyot (Hilkhot Megilla Ve-Chanuka 4:1). Interestingly enough, R. Yosef b. Moshe
(student and biographer of his teacher R. Yisrael b. Petachya Isserlein the
Terumat Ha-deshen), in his Leket Yosher (O.C., p. 151), records
that his teacher at first found no reason to forbid moving the Chanuka lights,
until he encountered this passage in the Hagahot Maimoniyot. Nevertheless, the Terumat Ha-deshen
ruled that [be-diavad] one whose lights were moved has still
fulfilled his obligation. The Darkhei Moshe cites this ruling, as well.
The Acharonim (see, for
example, Magen Avraham 672:2 and Eliya Rabba 672:2) write that one
should preferably not move the lights within the first half-hour after lighting.
The Sha'ar Ha-Tziyun (the Chafetz Chayims notes to his
Mishna Berura), however, comments (672:12) that one should not move the
candles anytime while they burn, even after a half-hour has
passed.
Apparently, the concern that "the
observer may say
" applies even within one area.
The Gemara also teaches that that one
who lights while holding the candle does not fulfill his obligation, as "the
observer might think that he lit for his own needs".
The Rishonim debate whether one
may light the Chanuka candle while holding it, and then quickly place it in its
proper place. The Ritva (Shabbat 22b) insists that in this case one must relight
the lamp in its proper place, whereas the Rosh (Shabbat 2:7; see also opinion
cited and rejected by Ritva, ibid.) disagrees. The Rosh implies that the fear of
mistaken impression is eliminated once the light is placed in its proper
location, and therefore it need not be rekindled.
Rashi, as noted by the Taz (3),
explains the Gemara as referring to one who holds the candle from the moment it
was lit UNTIL IT WAS EXTINGUISHED," implying that if the candle is put down at
some point before it is extinguished one fulfills his obligation. Accordingly,
the Taz rules that one who lights the candle while holding it may simply put it
in its place; this is also the view of the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (675:1). The
Mishna Berura (7), however, cites Acharonim who rule stringently
in this regard.
This debate likely hinges upon the
following question: why doesn't one who lights a candle while holding it fulfill
his obligation. On the one hand, the sole concern may be that one might
mistakenly believe that he lit for his own needs. This can be easily resolved if
he puts the candle in its proper place.
On the other hand, one might suggest that this lighting is fundamentally
invalid, since the potential to misinterpret his intentions undermines the
attempt to publicize the miracle. The lighting itself is inferior, and therefore
correcting it afterwards, especially assuming that "hadlaka ose mitzva,"
does not help.
Must one who kindled and held the
Chanuka lights, in a manner deemed uncorrectable, as discussed above, recite a
berakha upon relighting the candles?
Recall that the Gemara said regarding
one who holds the Chanuka lights that he HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING, as this gives
the impression that he lit the candles for his personal use. This formulation certainly suggests that
one has not fulfilled the mitzva at all in this case, and would thus
recite a new berakha when he rekindles the lights. Now as we saw, the Shulchan
Arukh points to this concern of a mistaken impression as the reason
underlying the halakha that one should not move the candles after they
are lit. Perhaps, then, we may
conclude that in this instance, too, one has not done anything and would
therefore have to relight the candles with a new
berakha.
The issue is subject to a debate among
the Acharonim. The Peri Chadash (671:1) rules that one should NOT
recite a new berakha in this case, arguing that the rabbis did not
institute a berakha over an act performed merely to avoid a mistaken
impression. He draws proof from the Rans ruling that one does not recite a
berakha when lighting Chanuka candles by his second doorway, which
Halakha requires to avoid suspicion. R. Akiva Eiger (Teshuvot,
Tinyana 125) disagrees, insisting that one who lights while holding the
flame has not fulfilled the mitzva because lighting in such a manner will
not properly publicize the miracle, and he should therefore light again, WITH a
berakha.
Seemingly, they debate the very
question we raised above, whether "lest the observer
" is a simple problem may
even be resolved, or a fundamental problem in the very lighting of the
candles.
Practically, it would seem that one
should refrain from reciting a berakha in such a situation, based upon
the principle "safek berakhot le-hakel" (see Hitorerut Teshuva
3:466).
Rekindling an Extinguished Flame -
"Kavta Zakuk/Lo Zakuk La"
The Talmud (Shabbat 21a) addresses the
disqualification of certain oils and wicks for use as Shabbat lights, due to the
inferior quality of the flame they produce. Amidst this discussion, the Gemara cites
a debate as to whether such wicks and oils may be used for Chanuka candles. According to R. Huna, the wicks and oils
which are disqualified as Shabbat candles are similarly invalid for use as
Chanuka lights. R. Chisda and Rav, by contrast, maintained that they may be used
for Chanuka lights.
The Gemara
explains:
"What is R. Huna's reason? He holds
that if it [the Chanuka lamp] is extinguished, one must attend thereto (i.e.
rekindle it)
R. Chisda maintained:
If it is extinguished,
it does not require
attention
R. Yirmiyahu said: What is Rav's reason? He holds that if it is
extinguished, it does not require attention
"
Meaning, the debate regarding the
qualification of these wicks and oils stems from a debate as to whether one must
relight a Chanuka candle that is extinguished. If an extinguished light must be
rekindled, then Halakha
requires using only high quality wicks and oils, to lower the chances that the
flame will be extinguished. If,
however, one is not required to rekindle an extinguished flame, then we will
accept the use of inferior wicks and oils.
The Gemara concludes that extinguished
lights do not require rekindling.
The Rishonim and
Acharonim raise the question of whether one should preferably rekindle
the light, or if this is entirely unnecessary (though all agree it is
permissible). The Or Zarua (322) concludes that it is certainly
meritorious to rekindle the lights, while the Leket Yosher (see above)
records that it is customary to rekindle the lights, since in any event one may
not derive benefit from the leftover oil.
Inherently, the Leket Yosher
implies, there is no value in
relighting the candles.
The Rema (673:3) writes that one who
wishes to act stringently and rekindle the light should not recite a new
berakha. The Taz (10) cites the Maharshal as commenting that "one who
wishes to fulfill the entire mitzva" should rekindle the light, going so
far as to equate this rekindling with the standard of "mehadrin min
ha-mehadrin"! The Maharshal apparently reasoned that if one should
preferably kindle additional lights in order to "beautify" the mitzva, then
certainly one should relight an extinguished flame in order to ensure
"pirsumei nisa."
We might consider associating this
question with our previous discussion of whether or not the mitzva
focuses specifically on the act of lighting. One might suggest that since
"hadlaka osa mitzva," the mitzva is fulfilled even if the light is
subsequently extinguished (Rashba, Teshuvot 1:539). If, however, the
focus of the mitzva lies in its "placement," then it stands to reason
that one must ensure that the candles achieve the objective of "pirsumei
nisa" throughout the designated time-frame.
Indeed, the Shulchan Arukh
(673:3) writes, "The mitzva is fulfilled through the lighting; THEREFORE,
if the light is extinguished [even] before its time has passed, one need not
rekindle it." This passage certainly indicates a direct correlation between the
two issues.
The Taz (8), commenting on this
ruling, remarks:
"I dont understand how these two laws
are connected
Why didn't the Gemara bring as proof [that 'hadlaka osa
mitzva'] that we rule that if the light is extinguished it need not be
rekindled!? "
He therefore concludes that the
Shulchan Arukh should not be read literally; rather, the Shulchan
Arukh meant that since one fulfills the mitzva immediately upon
lighting, it is unnecessary to rekindle the flame if it is extinguished.
According to the Taz, we must
understand the two sugyot as addressing different questions. First, the
Gemara questioned whether the hadlaka constitutes a mere preparation for
the ma'aseh mitzva (mitzva act) of hanacha, at which point
the lights are potentially poised to publicize the miracle, or whether the
potential to publicize the miracle must also be incorporated into the lighting
(hadlaka) itself.
Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, however,
question whether performing the ma'aseh mitzva suffices, or whether the
aspect of "pirsumei nisa" must also be fully realized, by ensuring that
the candles remain lit throughout the designated time-frame.
While in practice we rule that
"kavta- lo zakuk la," the Gemara does teach that the potential to
successfully publicize the miracle contributes to the definition of the
hadlaka, and therefore the lights must be lit at a certain time, and must
also be able to remain lit for a specific amount of time. Next week, we will
study this issue in greater depth, and discuss the question of where the
neirot Chanuka should be lit.