Lighting Chanukah Candles

A Halakhic Overview

by:  Rabbi Doniel Schreiber

I.  Mekor Chanukah

            The source for the holiday of Chanukah is not found in the Chumash, nor in Neviim or Ketubim; its origin, rather, is rooted in our mesorah.  The Talmud in Mesechet Shabbat 21b details the story of  Chanukah and the halakhic implications which followed in its wake.  Interestingly, Rambam, codifier of halakhot par excellence, not only relates the halakhot of Chanukah, but also retells an expanded version of the story of Chanukah.[1]  Noting Rambam's curious decision to include the Chanukah story in the Mishne Torah, the Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt"l[2], explains that according to Rambam the mizvah of lighting Chanukah candles is to praise and thank G-d by publicizing the miracle of Chanukah.  Obviously, in order to properly praise Hashem, it is necessary that we be familiar with the details of the miracle of Chanukah.  Thus, retelling the story of Chanukah is part of the halakhot of lighting Chanukah candles itself, and certainly necessitates mention in the Mishne Torah[3].  Perhaps, for this reason, when we light the chanukiah we say the tefillah of "ha'nerot hallalu", which articulates that we are praising G-d for the miracle of Chanukah.

II. Mizvat Hadlakah

            What are the parameters of the obligation to light the chanukiah?  The Talmud in Mesechet Shabbat 21b states:

ת"ר מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו, והמהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד, והמהדרין מן המהדרין:  ב"ש אומרים יום ראשון מדליק שמונה, מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך; וב"ה אומרים יום ראשון מדליק אחת, מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך".

According to the Gemara, there are three levels to the mizvah.  The primary takanah is that at least one candle should be lit in each home.  To perform the mizvah at a higher grade, mehadrin, there should be one candle lit per person in the home.  There is a Tannaitic dispute, however, as to how one can perform the mizvah in its most eminent form - mehadrin min ha'mehadrin.  According to Beit Shammai, one must light eight candles on the first night, and remove one candle each night thereafter.  According to Beit Hillel[4], one must light one candle the first night, and add one additional candle[5] every night until there are eight candles on the eighth night.[6]  Let us analyze these three levels individually.

III. Ner Ish U'Beito

1.  Chovat Ha'Gavra or Chovat Ha'Cheftza

            Generally, we find two categories of mizvot.  One type is an obligation which relates to the person, a chovat ha'gavra, and the obligation stems from, and directly devolves upon the person.  The mizvot of matzah, kiddush, tefillin, daled minim, and talmud torah are several examples of a chovat gavra.  The second type of mizvah is an obligation which relates to an object, a chovat ha'cheftza.  In this instance, the responsibility stems directly from the object, and the obligation which devolves upon the person is only a by-product of the object.  Some possible examples of this category of mizvah are nedarim, hafrashat trumot u'maaserot, and hafrashat challah.

 

         One of the most basic issues pertaining to the mizvah of lighting Chanukah candles is determining which of the above categories it belongs to.  Is it a chovat ha'gavra to publicize the miracle of Chanukah on one's doorstep, or is this obligation a chovat ha'cheftza which emanates from the structure of the house?  The implications of this question are numerous, and only some of them will be enumerated.  Firstly, if the cheftza does not exist, as in the case of a homeless person, then assuming the mizvah emanates from the cheftza, i.e. the house, then clearly a homeless person should be patur, as he has no house to generate his chiyuv.  On the other hand, if the mizvah stems from the person, a homeless individual is obligated in the mizvah.  How he can fulfill his obligation is another matter, and two possibilities exist: either he must light Chanukah candles even though he does not have a house[7], or he cannot light the Chanukah candles without a house, and remains unable to fulfill his responsibility[8].

 

            Another case which highlights these two possibilities is one who owns two homes.  If the mizvah stems from the house, then each house requires a lit chanukiah.  However, if the responsibility derives from the person, then he must light at only one house[9] to fulfill his obligation of publicizing the miracle from his doorstep.  Indeed, the Shibalei Ha'Leket[10] cites a Geonic debate with regard to this question.

 

 

            Finally, these two different approaches affect our understanding of the unusual requirement to light ner chanukah specifically on our front doorstep.  Why was the front window, for example, not chosen as the makom of ner chanukah?  If ner chanukah is a chovat ha'cheftza, i.e. a chovat ha'bayit, then it is possible to suggest that chazal specifically chose to place the ner chanukah at a spot which characterizes the bayit. Since the front doorstep is a high profile location, it is conceivable that it best personifies the bayit, and it is perhaps for this reason that chazal chose it for the site of the mizvah.  If ner chanukah, however, is a chovat ha'gavra, a different explanation for the locale of the mizvah is required. One of the gezerot of the Greeks was that all Jewish households must leave their front doors open to prevent any surreptitious avodat Hashem[11]. Thus, it is possible chazal determined that precisely the front doorstep, the site of the Greek legislation to prevent avodat Hashem, be the location of the pirsum ha'nes.

 

 

            The question as to which category of obligation the mizvah of lighting Chanukah candles belongs is complicated due to seemingly conflicting realities.  On the one hand, the fact that a guest, an achsnai, is obligated in ner chanukah[12] despite the fact that he is not in his own house, suggests that ner chanukah is a chovat ha'gavra.  Conversely, the halakha of "ner ish u'beito"[13], that when the ba'al ha'bayit lights, the rest of the household is patur from mizvat ner chanukah, implies that ner chanukah is a chovat ha'cheftza; the mizvah does not require that each person light, but rather that the house have a ner chanukah[14].

 

 

            Presumably, due to this inner tension in ner chanukah, the Bach[15] assumes a middle position, absorbing both extreme perceptions into his definition of the mizvah.  In his view, ner chanukah is both a chovat ha'cheftza, i.e. chovat ha'bayit, in which one's house must be made into a public spectacle, publicizing the miracle of Chanukah, and a chovat ha'gavra to make the miracle known to yourself.  Thus, the Bach rules that a traveler must be m'varech "she'asah nissim" (and "she'hechiyanu" the first night of Chanukah) on seeing someone else's ner chanukah, despite the fact that his family lit for him at home.  The reason is that his own family's lighting can only release him from his obligation to turn his house into a public spectacle of the miracle, but it cannot help him fulfill his personal obligation to make the miracle known to himself.

 

 

2.  Hanachah Oseh Mizvah or Hadlakah Oseh  Mizvah

 

            Another major issue at the basic level of ner ish u'beito is whether the definition of the mizvah is to place the ner (hanachah oseh mizvah), or to light the ner (hadlakah oseh mizvah).  The Talmud in Mesechet Shabbat 22b discusses both of these options[16], and concludes[17] that hadlakah oseh mizvah, and indeed this is how the Shulchan Arukh[18] rules.

 

 

            The issue of whether hanachah oseh mizvah or hadlakah oseh mizvah has various implications.  Some examples cited in the Gemara are:

           

1.  Is it permissible to light from one ner chanukah to another ner chanukah?  If hanachah oseh mizvah, then lighting from one ner to the other would be prohibited, as lighting is not a mizvah, and lighting from one ner chanukah to even another ner chanukah is a misuse of the ner chanukah - a bizuy mizvah.  On the other hand, if hadlakah oseh mizvah, then lighting from one ner chanukah to another is permitted, and there is no belittlement of the ner chanukah, since the very lighting is the mizvah.

           

2.  Is the formulation of the bracha "le'hadlik" or "le'haniach"?  The Gemara proves that the ruling is hadlakah oseh mizvah, since the nusach ha'bracha is "le'hadlik". 

           

3.  Does a ner lit by a cheiresh, shoteh, v'katan shelo he'giah l'chinuch fulfill the mizvah of ner chanukah for the household?  If hadlakah oseh mizvah, then this act does not fulfill the obligation of the household, since the actions of these individuals are not considered ma'aseh mizvot[19].  If, however, hanachah oseh mizvah, then another family member can fulfill the mizvah with it by taking the lit ner and placing it on the doorstep.

 

 

            Rishonim also cite various nafka minot.  The Rosh[20], for instance, explains that the issue of when one must put at least a half an hour's worth of oil into the ner is dependent on this question.  If hadlakah oseh mizvah, then oil must be added before the hadlakah, since otherwise the hadlakah is insignificant, as it will not last the proper amount of time.  If the ruling is, however, hanachah oseh mizvah, then one must add the oil only before the hanachah.

IV.  Mehadrin, U'Mehadrin Min Ha'Mehadrin

            The source for the general concept of hidur, i.e. beautification or glorification of mizvot is from the Talmud, Mesechet Shabbat 133a.  The Gemara cites the pasuk[21] "Zeh keli v'anvehu", and establishes that mizvot should appear beautiful to a person, she'yehei adam mit'naeh b'mizvot.  Thus, says the Gemara, everyone's sukkah, lulav, shofar, tzitzit, and sefer torah should be beautiful and appealing.  This is what we refer to as hidur mizvah.

 

 

            The question at hand, though, is whether the laws of mehadrin, and mehadrin min ha'mehadrin are really an outgrowth of the general principles of hidur mizvah, or a new category specific to ner chanukah, independent of hidur mizvah.  The Rambam[22] rules that one is obligated to "mehader et ha'mizvah", implying that mehadrin and mehadrin min ha'mehadrin are based on the general laws of hidur mizvah.  Rabbeinu Chananel[23] rules similarly:  "The interpretation of 'Mehadrin': Beautifying (mehadrei) mizvot, as stated in Bava Kama 9b, to beautify (l'hadurei) a mizvah until a third of (the expenditure of) the (principal) mizvah".  Yet, Rashi[24] apparently rules that mehadrin is unique to ner chanukah.  He explains that mehadrin means to "mehader acharei mizvot", to run after additional mizvot, which is similar to the Aramaic "hadran alach" or "le'hadurei batryhu".  Thus, there is a fundamental dispute whether mehadrin insists on glorifying ner chanukah just as one ought to glorify other mizvot, or if mehadrin connotes an entirely different concept unique to ner chanukah -  the pursuit of additional mizvot.

 

 

            What is at the crux of this dispute?  One possible approach is that this debate hinges upon the nature of the miracle we are commemorating.  Are we lighting nerot chanukah to publicize the miracle of the pach shemen, or our military victory over the Greeks?  If the reason for ner chanukah is to commemorate our victory, then perhaps, since our motive in waging war was to enable our observance of mizvot, chazal determined that part of the very mizvah of commemorating the victory should be the pursuit of additional mizvot, i.e. the din of mehadrin.  However, if we light nerot Chanukah to broadcast the miracle of the pach shemen, then there is no compelling reason to assume the mizvah of ner chanukah is different from any other mizvah, and one ought to beautify ner chanukah as one must any other mizvah.

 

            Yet, we cannot rule out the possibility of a middle position.  Perhaps mehadrin and mehadrin min ha'mehadrin are similar to hidur mizvah in that glorification of the mizvah is demanded, but not as an outgrowth of "zeh keli v'anvehu"; rather, chazal legislated a mizvah of glorification unique to Chanukah.  Indeed, this is the interpretation of Rav Velvel, R' Yitzchak Zev ha'Levi Soloveitchik zt"l[25].  He is convinced of his position due to two facts:  Firstly, there is no such concept of mehadrin min ha'mehadrin in all of halakha besides Chanukah; secondly, according to the Gemara[26], the general law of hidur mizvah is limited to an expenditure of no more that a third of the outlay for the principal mizvah, and yet the mehadrin and mehadrin min ha'mehadrin of Chanukah ignore this limitation[27].

 

 

            Why would chazal legislate a special mizvah of hidur for ner chanukah?  R' Yosef Dov ha'Levi Soloveitchik zt"l explains in his sefer Beis Ha'Levi al ha'Torah[28] that chazal instituted more hidurim in ner chanukah than exist in other mizvot because the miracle of the pach shemen was prompted by our desire to glorify the mizvah of lighting menorah in the Beit Ha'Mikdash.  We could have lit the menorah with wicks an eighth of their normal width to assure that the menorah remain lit for the eight days necessary to acquire more shemen zayit zach.  Nonetheless, in our zeal to light the menorah of the Mikdash in a superior manner, we employed wicks of normal length.  Thus, because the very miracle transpired as a result of hidur mizvah, chazal instituted an additional level of hidur - mehadrin min ha'mehadrin.  This reasoning, too, would justify a special category of hidur mizvah, as Rav Velvel understands, for ner chanukah.

 

 

            A further rationale for ner chanukah's special category of hidur can be found in Rav Yoel Sirkus' glosses on the Tur[29].  He explains that chazal instituted hidur in ner chanukah to counterbalance B'nei Yisrael's previous negligence in avodat ha'Mikdash in the time of the Greeks.  This explanation would also justify the legislation of a special category of hidur for ner chanukah.

 

 

            What emerges from the above discussion is a spectrum of definitions concerning mehadrin and mehadrin min ha'mehadrin.  On the one extreme, ner chanukah's "mehadrin" is, in reality, another term for zeh keli v'anvehu, i.e. the general concept of hidur mizvah.  On the opposite pole, mehadrin has nothing to do with the concept of glorifying mizvot, but rather, denotes ner chanukah's unique urge to pursue additional mizvot.  Finally, the middle position accepts both mehadrin's uniqueness to ner chanukah and its standard role of glorification. According to this definition, chazal instituted a unique dimension of hidur in ner chanukah, one unrelated to the general concept of zeh keli v'anvehu.

 

 

            These three approaches to the understanding of ner chanukah's law of mehadrin can be used to explain various debates in the laws of Chanukah.  For example, Rambam[30] and Shulchan Arukh[31] rule that mehadrin requires the head of the household to light all the nerot, whereas the custom of Sefard[32] and the ruling of the Rema[33] is that mehadrin requires each member of the household to light nerot chanukah.  Rav Velvel explains that while all agree mehadrin means hidur mizvah, they argue whether one can recite a bracha on hidur mizvah only when one also performs the principal mizvah, or even when one does not also perform the principal mizvah.  Rambam and Shulchan Arukh, who rule that mehadrin requires the head of the household to light all the nerot, are of the opinion that one can only recite a bracha on hidur mizvah when one also performs the principal mizvah.  In their view, only the head of the household lights all the nerot since his lighting includes the principal mizvah of one candle per household.  If, however, the rest of the household lit also, they could not recite a bracha on their act of lighting, in as much as they are not also performing the principal mizvah, but only the hidur mizvah.  On the other hand, Sefard and Rema are of the opinion that one recites the bracha on hidur mizvah even when one does not also perform the principal mizvah.  Thus, they rule that mehadrin requires each member of the household to light nerot chanukah even though they are not also performing the principal mizvah.  Rav Velvel's approach utilizes mehadrin's glorification motif in clarifying a fundamental dispute.

 

 

            In this vein, one might consider that the debate between Shulchan Arukh and Rema, as explained by Rav Velvel, hinges upon the issue of what type of hidur is ner chanukah.  If it is the universal hidur of "zeh keli v'anvehu", then just as in general  hidur  mizvah  does not  necessitate  an  independent bracha, one should similarly not make an exception for ner chanukah.  On the other hand, if mehadrin is a unique category of hidur indigenous to ner chanukah, then one can conceive reciting a distinct bracha on this hidur, even though the universal category of hidur would provide no similar justification.  Indeed, this is the explanation of the Sefat Emet[34].  This proposal employs the two possible definitions of mehadrin's glorification motif - zeh keli v'anvehu and glorification of ner chanukah - to justify the contrary rulings of Shulchan Arukh and Rema.

 

 

            The Rav zt"l[35] suggests a different approach to the above dispute.  According to the Rav, Shulchan Arukh and Rema agree that one cannot recite a bracha on hidur mizvah alone.  The debate hinges, rather, on whether mehadrin demands, as Rambam understands, that we beautify the mizvah of ner chanukah, or whether we must aspire to fulfill additional mizvot on Chanukah, in accordance with Rashi's position.  Shulchan Arukh, who rules that mehadrin requires the head of the household to light all the nerot, assumes that the definition of mehadrin is to beautify ner chanukah, in accordance with Rambam.  Since one cannot recite a bracha on hidur mizvah alone, it is impossible for anyone else besides the ba'al ha'bayit to light the mehadrin with a bracha.  If anyone else were to attempt to glorify the principal mizvah by lighting the mehadrin, they would only be performing hidur mizvah and would be unable to recite a bracha.

 

            Rema, on the other hand, who rules that mehadrin requires each member of the household to light nerot Chanukah, defines mehadrin as the pursuit of more mizvot.  To accomplish Rema's mehadrin, explains the Rav, the household must intend, during the ba'al ha'bayit's hadlakah, to not fulfill their primary obligation of ner chanukah.  This course of action will create a situation where the rest of the household must pursue more mizvot as they are still obligated to fulfill their primary obligation of ner chanukah[36].  Each of them can fulfill this obligation, in the framework of mehadrin, by lighting their own ner chanukah with a bracha.  This approach invokes disparate descriptions of mehadrin - glorification as opposed to pursuit of mizvot[37] - to define the nature of Shulchan Arukh and Rema's dispute.  The definition of mehadrin, then, has a central role in ner chanukah - a role upon which a variety of hilkhot chanukah hinge.

 

 

 

            May the merit of our learning hilkhot chanukah re-establish the lighting of the menorah in the Beit Ha'Mikdash, quickly in our times!