"These Candles are Holy"

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

Are These Candles Indeed Holy?

          After lighting the Chanuka candles (or possibly after lighting one, while the rest are being lit - see Shulchan Arukh OH 676 and Mishna Berura note 8) (1), it is customary to say "Haneirot halalu" ("these candles").  The text declares, "These candles are holy, and we are not permitted to use them, but only to look at them."

          Is this actually the case?  The gemara (Shabbat 22a) relates directly to this issue:

"Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Assi, "It is forbidden to count coins by the light of the Chanuka candles.  When I cited this to Shmuel, he asked me, 'Is there holiness in these candles?...[Rather, the reason for the prohibition is] so that he should not despise the commandments.'"

          While the gemara does conclude that we are not permitted to use the Chanuka candles for a purpose other than for the mitzva, for example, for counting coins, it explicitly states that is NOT because of their holiness!  In this shiur, we will attempt to explore the meaning of the expression, "These candles are holy", and discuss how it manifests itself in five matters relating to the mitzva of candle lighting.

1. The Lighting

          In the beginning of parshat Beha'alotkha, the Ramban quotes the Midrash Tanchuma:  "Why, in the Torah, does the section in the Torah about the menora (candelabra) directly follow the sacrifices brought by the heads of the tribes at the dedication of the Tabernacle?"  He elaborates (based on other sources) on this midrash, explaining that Aharon the High Priest was upset that all the heads of the tribes, except himself, merited participation in the dedication of the altar.  God consoled Aharon by telling him that though they merited dedicating the altar, he will merit lighting the candles and tending to the menora daily.  Furthermore, while the dedication of the altar remains in effect only as long as the Temple stands, the lighting of the candles of the menora lasts forever.

          In response to the obvious question - didn't the lighting of the candles of the menora end when the Temple was destroyed, just as the sacrifices ceased to be brought? - the Ramban explains that the candles referred to are the Chanuka candles, [which we light as the result of the actions of Aaron's descendants, the Chashmonaite priests.]

          It is evident from this Ramban that the entire institution of Chanuka candles is a continuation of the candle lighting in the Temple.  In other words, the Sages decreed that every Jew should light a Temple-like candle in his home.  This opens up the possibility that the holiness of the menora in the Temple lives on through the Chanuka candles.

2.  The Berakha

          The connection between the Temple menora and Chanuka candles arises again in the Raavad's approach to the blessing over the Chanuka lights.  Attempting to establish rules for the different formulations of the blessings on commandments, the Raavad (Hilkhot Berakhot 11:15) suggests that while blessings for rabbinic commandments should be "al mitzvat..." (concerning the commandment of...), the blessing over the Chanuka candles should remain an exception, and we should still say "lehadlik ner..." ("to light the candles..."), because this was the blessing said over the candle lighting in the Temple.  The Sages modeled this mitzva of rabbinic origin on a mitzva of Biblical origin.  Once again, the Chanuka candles are viewed as a continuation of the candles lit in the Temple.

3. Placing vs. Lighting

          A precise definition of the mitzva itself might be influenced by this issue.  The gemara, sifting through a long list of proof texts, raises the question of whether the basic obligation of Chanuka candles involves "lighting" the candles, or "placing" them in their proper place.  It is logical to say that the mitzva is fulfilled through the "placing" of the candles, for, by that means, the miracle is publicized.  Why, then, might the "lighting" of the candles be considered the essential mitzva? 

          Rashi (Shabbat 22b) explains, "We light as we did in the Temple" (2).  Here, too, we see that the Chanuka candles are modeled after the Temple's candles.

4. Use

          The sugya with which we opened (Shabbat 21a) deals with the uses which can be made of the Chanuka candles.  While the gemara concludes that it is not permissible to use the candles for such activities as "counting coins," the Rishonim still argue about whether the candles can be used for purposes related to a mitzva.  While Shmuel concludes the sugya with

"Is there holiness in these candles?...[Rather, the reason for the prohibition is] so that he should not despise the commandments," other Amoraim apparently understood the prohibition differently.  Two reasons to not use the candles are found in the Rishonim (3):

A.  It must be made clear that the candles are candles of mitzva (see Rashi 21b).  This is a normal caution to be taken with all objects used for a mitzva.

B.  "Since the mitzva was instituted because of a miracle that happened through the menora in the Temple, they made the Chanuka candles to be like the menora which could not be used at all" (see the Ran on the Rif 9a).  A more precise explanation appears in the Ba'al Hamaor:  "He who maintains that it is forbidden to use the light of the Chanuka candles ... because he believes that since they are in remembrance of the candles and the oil of the Temple ..."  The Meiri, who relates the ban on use of the candles to the Temple's menora, explores the possibility that use of the oil of the Chanuka lights is prohibited even after the time of the mitzva; there may be an "issur hana'a" (prohibition of benefit) and "kedusha gemura" (a status of real holiness) (4).

          From this sugya one could say that not only was the mitzva instituted as an expansion of the candles of the Temple, but also that the prohibition of using the light of the candles is because "These candles are holy."  Rabbi Sperber (see note 1) even suggests that the reciting of "Haneirot Halalu" was instituted to demonstrate this relationship.

5. Synagogue

          Although lighting in the synagogue is not mandated by law because the obligation only applies to a private home, there is an ancient custom to do so (5).  Though some had reservations about reciting a berakha on this lighting, it became the accepted practice to light in the synagogue with a berakha.  "This custom arose because the miracle happened in the Temple (mikdash beit olamim), and we do likewise in the synagogue - the miniature Temple (Mikdash me'at) - in the Diaspora" (Sefer Ha-manhig, p. 105).

          The question of where to place the Synagogue's menora, therefore, is also connected to a dispute between Tannaim regarding how the candles were lit in the Temple.  Even the custom of lighting in the synagogue in the morning is based, according to Rabbi Shlomo of Vilna (in his Binyan Shlomo, section 53), on the Rambam's opinion that the candles were lit every morning in the Temple.

Summary

          The mitzva of lighting Chanuka candles can be seen as a continuation of the mitzva of lighting the menora in the Temple in Jerusalem.  This manifests itself in the text of the berakha, the nature of the mitzva, the prohibition of using the candles for a purpose other than the mitzva, and the custom of lighting in the synagogue. 

          The halakha tells every Jew to take the candles of the Temple (Mikdash) and light them in his private house.  Not only is the synagogue a "miniature Temple" (a Mikdash me'at), but the goal of this mitzva is to transform every home into a Mikdash me'at.  In truth, these candles are holy - "haneirot halalu kodesh hem."

Notes

(1)  For the source of this custom and for a clarification of the text, see Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael Mekorot Ve-toldot  vol. 1, pp. 162-164.  This has been updated in Vol. 5.

(2)  See the Minchat Chinukh, Mitzva 98, re the Rambam's approach to the concept "Lighting is the essential mitzva" with regard to the menora in the Temple.

(3)  See the Ba'al Ha-maor and the Ramban (9a in the Rif) where differences between the two reasons are discussed.  See also Shulchan Arukh and commentaries OC 673:1.

(4)  See Minhagei Yisrael ibid., p. 165, where he cites the discussion among the poskim about this point.

(5)  Rav Zevin, in his Hamo'adim Ba-halakha, p. 170.  All the sources regarding this question are found there.

(Adapted from Daf Kesher 5752 #314, vol. 3, pp. 460-461)

 

Copyright (c) 1996 Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.