Chanukah
[א] (Halacha 154)
It is told of chassidim and men of action, when they sat in prison and in labor camps, how with self-sacrifice they preserved the leftovers of food, and in potatoes they lit the butter/oil for the mitzvah of the Chanukah candle.
Question: Also in times of ease, thank G-d, may one light oil in this way? And likewise, may one light candles by sticking them directly onto a chair or table, or must one ideally have a menorah?
Answer: The Rema wrote1: 'However, olive oil is the choicest mitzvah .. and it is customary in these countries to light with wax candles, because their light is clear like oil.'
But the Maharal of Prague2 argued that one does not fulfill [the mitzvah] with wax candles, and one needs a vessel in which one lights with oil, and these are his words: 'It is not called a "ner" (candle/lamp) at all! Only this is called a "ner" - that one puts the oil in a vessel and places the wick there, this is what is called a "ner"... This is the reason: because the miracle was done in a ner, and this is not a ner, it is only a bonfire, since many wicks surround it, this is not a ner at all. And likewise this matter, when one wraps wax around the wick, it is not a ner, it is only a torch .. and without a vessel it has no name "ner," but is everywhere called a "torch" or "bonfire" or "lantern".'
And so too wrote the sefer Chesed L'Avraham3, and these are his words: 'In what vessel is it fitting for a Chanukah candle? Know that fifteen types of vessels are fit for the candle for lighting, and each earlier one among them is the more choice, because of "This is my G-d and I will glorify Him": a) a vessel of gold; b) a vessel of silver; c) polished copper resembling gold; d) red copper; e) of iron; f) of tin; g) lead; h) a vessel of glass; i) a vessel of stone; j) a vessel of bone; k) an earthenware vessel glazed with lead; l) an unglazed earthenware vessel, and it must be new; m) pomegranate shells; n) coconut shells; o) acorn shells - and these shells one must make into a vessel like the pan of a scale, or such that it is fit to measure pepper and the like in them. But onion and egg shells and the like are not fit for lighting. And all fifteen vessels mentioned that cannot stand on their own without support are not fit for a Chanukah candle.'
We see from his words that there is a law that there be a vessel for a Chanukah candle. And so too wrote in the responsa Avnei Nezer4, (except that he himself concludes 'that this law, whether the vessel is part of the ner, is disputed, camp against camp'), and in several other poskim5.
'And if so, according to this view, those who stick wax or tallow candles and do not place them in a vessel have not fulfilled their obligation. And likewise those who make candles from potatoes, which are not considered a vessel .. and the same law applies to potatoes, which are also a fruit and do not last a long time.'
However, most of the poskim6 hold that there is no law of a vessel for Chanukah candles, and based on this the responsa Az Nidberu wrote, and the practical difference is that when one hollows out potatoes it is perfectly fine.
And in the Torah of our Rebbes, our leaders: the Rebbe wrote7: 'It may be said that the part of the candle that has not yet melted - is in place of the vessel. Or that the vessel is not indispensable, even ideally.'
That is to say, what we find in the Rema, that one may light with a wax candle and he did not mention that a vessel is needed for the candles - this is either because [we hold] as a matter of halacha like the view that no vessel is needed, or one may say that the candle itself, the part that has not yet been consumed, serves as a vessel for the light of the wick.
[And in a note there the Rebbe explains that one should interpret8 the words of the Chesed L'Avraham, who required a vessel, that its reason is because of disgrace to the mitzvah9].
If so, we have seen that there is a dispute among the poskim whether by law there must be a vessel for lighting the candles, and the primary [ruling] as a matter of halacha is that this is not indispensable, and in any case with candles stuck to the table it is permitted.
However, the poskim wrote that according to all opinions there is value in a beautiful Chanukah menorah, and as the Seder HaYom wrote10: 'And regarding the candles with which they light, let each one make them according to his ability, and whoever beautifies them more, this is praiseworthy, and whoever can afford to make them of silver should make them [so].' And so too the Rebbe mentioned this matter, to beautify [it] so that the Chanukah menorah be beautiful, on Shabbos parashas Miketz, Zos Chanukah 575011.
Notes:
1 OC siman 673:1 ↩
2 Ner Mitzvah part 2 - matters of Chanukah ↩
3 By Rabbi Avraham Azulai, Maayan 2, Ein HaKore, Nahar 58; brought also in Shaarei Teshuvah ↩
4 OC siman 500. But see the responsa Az Nidberu (vol. 13 siman 49), which explains that the Chesed L'Avraham did not require a law of a vessel, but rather an entity that holds the measure of oil, and therefore he was stringent only when it is not fit to receive [contents] ↩
5 Responsa Siach Yitzchak siman 342; Mor V'Ohalos, Ohel Menorah Tehorah os 5; sefer Mitzvas Ner Ish U'Beiso p. 162 ↩
6 See responsa Shevet HaLevi vol. 8 siman 157; Az Nidberu vol. 13 siman 49, and they also cited the Chacham Tzvi siman 45 ↩
7 Likkutei Sichos vol. 5 p. 445 - brought in Shulchan Menachem vol. 3 p. 271 ↩
8 And so understood the Minchas Pittim in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch ↩
9 But to note that recently the manuscript on which the aforementioned words of the Chesed L'Avraham are based was published, and they are matters that Eliyahu the Prophet transmitted to Rabbeinu Yitzchak Sagi Nahor, son of the Raavad, who was among the first of the mekubalim, (printed in the Memorial Volume for R' Y. Hutner p. 435 onward), and in his words we see that he held that indeed a vessel is specifically required. See there ↩
10 Seder Chanukah V'HaKerios ↩
11 Toras Menachem 5750 vol. 2 p. 86 note 69 ↩
[ב] (Halacha 155)
Question: Do the candles in the menorah need to be at a uniform height?
Answer: It is brought in one of the Rishonim - the responsa Mahar"i of Bruna1: 'And when one lights with wax candles, it is correct to fix each one higher than its fellow, following the principle "we ascend in holiness and do not descend".' And several of the Acharonim brought it2.
However, we find that several of the poskim3 wrote that one must be careful about the height, that the candles be at an equal height.
And to note also from the responsa Rav Pealim4, who wrote that there is a choicest form of the mitzvah, that the candles be like the candles of the Beis HaMikdash, and these are his words: 'But know, notwithstanding all this, regarding the halacha, even in the first depiction that I wrote, this is not the choicest form of the mitzvah, for the choicest form of the mitzvah is that all the candles be in one row exactly, like the menorah that was in the Beis HaMikdash, where all the candles are in one row.'
And in practice this is how it was accepted in the dispersions of the Jewish people, to be careful that the height of the candles be equal.
Question: Is there value in the branches of the menorah being diagonal?
Answer: The widespread minhag among the Jewish people was with menorahs that have a back5, and so too was the menorah of the Rebbe Rayatz and of the Rebbe.
However, the Rebbe writes in Likkutei Sichos6, regarding depictions of the menorah, that since their purpose is to remind us of the menorah of the Beis HaMikdash, it is therefore fitting to depict the branches of the menorah diagonally, and in note 44: 'And based on this there is room to say that also the Chanukah menorahs (for the days of Chanukah) it would be worthwhile to make their branches diagonal, and in any case one must say that there is no concern of the prohibition of "a menorah in the form of the [Temple] menorah" (Avodah Zarah 43, side a; Rambam Hilchos Beis HaBechirah ch. 7 halacha 10; Shulchan Aruch YD end of siman 141), for one changes the number of the branches (see Avodah Zarah and Rambam and Shulchan Aruch there), and why change the actual form of the menorah, whose branches were straight and not like a half-circle,' end of his holy words.
And these words are in agreement with the words of the Ben Ish Chai in the aforementioned responsa Rav Pealim.
If so, in practice there is value in beautifying the menorah such that its branches be diagonal.
Notes:
1 siman 39 ↩
2 Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef os 1; Eliyah Rabbah siman 673 os 2; Ikarei HaDat siman 35 os 1 ↩
3 Shulchan Shlomo siman 671:4; Chayei Adam klal 154:10; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch siman 139:9; Kaf HaChaim siman 671 s.k. 28 ↩
4 vol. 4 OC siman 30 ↩
5 See the sicha of the night of 29 Kislev 5730 - Toras Menachem vol. 58 p. 428 ↩
6 vol. 21 p. 169 ↩
[ג] (Halacha 156)
Minhogim of the shamash candle
The Mechaber wrote1: 'And it is customary to light an additional candle, so that if one uses its light it will be by the additional [candle], which is the one lit last, and he places it a bit distant from the other mitzvah candles.' And the Rema wrote: 'And in these countries it is not customary to add [a candle], rather one places next to them the shamash with which he lights the candles, and this is preferable, and one should make it longer than the other candles, so that if he comes to use [light] he will use that candle.'
And it is explained in the Magen Avraham2 that despite the lighting of the shamash (which is so that if one benefits from the light of the candles it will not be from the light of the Chanukah candles alone), even so it is forbidden to use the light of the shamash and the candles, because 'the observer says he lit them all for his own needs, for sometimes a person lights several candles.'
[And see the words of the Rebbe3: And similarly one may say regarding the mitzvah of Chanukah candles. And even though 'we have no permission to use them except to view them alone,' meaning that their purpose is not to illuminate the house - on the contrary, it is forbidden to use their light - rather the house must be illuminated by another light or by an electric bulb, or by an ordinary lamp].
'The virtue of the shamash, its place and its holiness'
The sefer Kav HaYashar wrote4: 'And behold, the number of the Chanukah candles is thirty-six, and eight shamashim. And "the minhag of Israel is Torah," that the minhag is to place the shamash that lights above the Chanukah candles. And a hint to the matter: "שְׂרָפִים עוֹמְדִים מִמַּעַל לוֹ" ("Seraphim stood above Him"). (I found written in the sefer of the Maharil).
And if so, according to this there is also great holiness in the candles of the shamashim, which are somewhat larger than the Chanukah candle, for the shamash candle is like the Kohen, who would light candles in the Beis HaMikdash, and like the seraphim above, who light the holy luminaries, that they may illuminate the countenance of the throne of His blessed glory.
And based on this it is written in the sefer HaMinhagim5: 'The shamash - its place is higher than the other candles.'
'Using its light for weekday matters and the like'
And further on the Kav HaYashar wrote there: 'And from here you shall see the great blemish, which I have seen, in our many sins, that most of the people are accustomed to take the shamash candle from the candles and do with its light weekday matters6, and all the more so are they destined to give a reckoning for the criminal sin that they play by the light of the shamash with cards, which are called "kartin," or with dice, which are called "verfil," and they do not know that the shamashim are of greater holiness than the Chanukah candle, as the great gaon the Maharil, of blessed memory, wrote, the hint: "שְׂרָפִים עוֹמְדִים מִמַּעַל לוֹ" ("Seraphim stood above Him"). That is to say, that the shamashim stand above the thirty-six Chanukah candles. Therefore, one who is contemptuous of this mitzvah - his punishment will certainly be very severe.'
And everyone who is meticulous in this mitzvah and does not move the shamash from its place, will merit to see the candles that are destined to be lit in our holy Temple, speedily in our days, amen.
[An addition afterward - And in the Ben Ish Chai, parashas Vayeshev there, os 14, he wrote: 'It is forbidden to use its light, whether a holy use or a weekday use, but by the additional candle it is permitted, and some are stringent also regarding the additional candle'].
'Distinguishing the shamash from the other candles'
However, it is fitting that the shamash be different from the other candles, as the Ben Ish Chai wrote7: 'And it is good that this additional candle called "shamash" be made different from the Chanukah candles, so that it be recognizable that it is not among the Chanukah candles, and so I am accustomed.'
And so it is written in the sefer HaMinhagim8: 'One lights with olive oil, and the shamash - a wax candle.' And in note 3: 'Plainly, the reason may be said based on what is written in the Shulchan Aruch, beginning of siman 673, that a wax candle is second to olive oil (and see the Darkei Moshe there). And with olive oil itself one does not make the "shamash," because it is not convenient to move oil and a wick, unlike a candle. Also - to make an additional distinction between the shamash and the Chanukah candles. And see also Kehillas Yaakov, entry "wax".'
'A shamash at a daytime lighting'
The Rebbe was asked9: Why does one need a shamash at the lighting of the Chanukah candle during the day (in shul), since one does not benefit from their light during the day? And he answered to this: 'that there are further reasons for the matter of the "shamash" - such as: not to stumble in lighting one candle from another (by means of a splinter), similar to the Kohen who lights the candles (based on which the puzzle is explained, that the shamash's place is above the candles, and our Sages, of blessed memory, [gave] the sign, "Seraphim stood above Him") and more.
Notes:
1 siman 673:1 ↩
2 s.k. 4 ↩
3 25 Kislev 5751 - Toras Menachem 5751 vol. 2 p. 39 (unedited) ↩
4 chapter 96 ↩
5 p. 70 ↩
6 It seems we did not find a source for the very prohibition of using the shamash itself by its light. And the words of the Biur Halacha in his understanding of the Pri Megadim require examination ↩
7 Year 1, Vayeshev (Hilchos Chanukah) os 13 ↩
8 p. 69 ↩
9 Likkutei Sichos vol. 10 p. 315 ↩
[ד] (Halacha 157)
Question: Are women obligated in the mitzvah of Chanukah candles?
Answer: It is stated in the Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1: 'A woman certainly lights, for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in the Chanukah candle, for they too were part of that miracle'2. And so ruled the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch3: 'A woman lights the Chanukah candle, for she too is obligated in it.'
And the poskim wrote4 that her obligation is equal to men's, and therefore a woman can also fulfill the obligation on behalf of men, and consequently she can fulfill the obligation on behalf of all the members of her household.
Question: Is it the minhag that women should not light on their own?
Answer: The poskim discussed, according to the view of the Rambam5 that the mehadrin min hamehadrin is that they light candles corresponding to all the members of the household, men and women, and the Rema wrote6 that such is the minhag. If so, why do we not find that women also light candles?
And we find several explanations in the poskim:
1) Since7 a man's wife is like his own body, therefore the husband's lighting is considered as though she lit. [But this answer settles the matter only regarding married women and not regarding unmarried daughters, who also do not light on their own, and some attempted to settle8 that since the mother does not light, it is not respectable for the daughter to light while the mother does not, but the Rebbe writes9 that this is very forced].
2) Since10 the main harshness of the decree was in practice upon the men, and they suffered more than the women, therefore the women are secondary to the men and fulfill their obligation through them.
3) Since11 the ordinance of lighting Chanukah candles is at the entrance of one's house on the outside, 'then there would be no woman who would be among the mehadrin, for it is not her honor to go out in the public domain in the evening hours and light among the men .. in any case, if there is a male here who lights, it is not [an act] of piety for her to be stringent upon herself in this and bring herself to suspicion; and now, even though everyone lights inside, in any case the original minhag has not moved from its place.'
4) Since12 there are women in a halachic state that does not allow them to recite a bracha, therefore they were not accustomed [to light].
5) The Rebbe13 gave an additional rationale: 'It may be said that the reason is that in the lighting of Chanukah candles there are many details of how to light them, from right to left or from left to right, and so many opinions in this; therefore they instituted that they should fulfill the obligation of this mitzvah through one of the men.
6) An inner reason according to Kabbalah was written in the Eshel Avraham of Butchatch14: 'And it must be [understood] in matters of aggadah, in the aspect of what is written in the holy Zohar, that in a place where there is a male, the name of the female does not ascend. And in the aspect of the term "mehadrin," there is a connection to the aspect of "the splendor of the face" - old age, and this applies well only to males.'
And in practice it is written in the sefer HaMinhagim15: 'The daughters do not light on their own. A woman - her husband fulfills [the obligation] for her.' And likewise in the sicha of the 6th of Tishrei 573516 it was stated: 'The minhag of the house of the Rebbe was that they were exacting that women do not light Chanukah candles.'
Question: When a woman lives alone and has no father or husband who lights in the house, what should she do?
The Rebbe writes17: it is known what my revered father-in-law the Rebbe related, that his father, the Rebbe (Maharashab) of blessed memory, when he would leave his home before Chanukah, would command his wife the Rebbetzin Shterna Sarah of blessed memory to light the menorah herself (even though she would hear the brochos from one of the men).
And in the note there it is brought that in practice we do not conduct ourselves in this way, that she should hear the brochos from another and then light on her own; rather one endeavors that a man do everything and not a woman18.
And if so, in practice it appears that ideally there is a preference that a man come to recite the bracha and light on her behalf. [And so instructed Rav Sh. Z. Gorelik and Rav Ashkenazi, the rav of Kfar Chabad].
But obviously, if there is no man, the woman is obligated to recite the bracha and light herself!
Question: Should one let young girls light Chanukah candles for the sake of chinuch?
Answer: The Rebbe, on Shabbos parashas Vayeshev 574819, issued a directive that they should light Chanukah candles in the children's rooms. And on the 24th of Kislev, during the yechidus20, the Rebbe said: 'In connection with what was said at the preceding farbrengen, that although, from the standpoint of publicizing the miracle, one lights a single menorah in each house, nevertheless, since we are in the year of Hakhel, and likewise there is an increase of undesirable matters .. the best and most fitting thing is that they add light in the world by this, that in addition to the menorah lit as usual, they also light a menorah in the children's room of the boys and girls. And through this they will add to the chinuch and feelings of the children themselves, and of their parents, and of all those who happen to come to their home.
And regarding this several questions were asked, among them: a) Does every child need to light? b) Must one light in every room, or, because of the expense of the matter, should they light only in one room? c) Do the girls also need to light? And the explanation of this in a general way: since the entire purpose of the matter is to add to the chinuch of the children etc., one must examine and check in each place, on the merits of the matter, the practical result - in what manner they will add to the chinuch .. the lighting of the menorah in the children's room has a purpose, which is an increase in publicizing the miracle and an influence on the chinuch of the children, and if so, one must check in what manner the purpose will be carried out better.'
However, a year afterward21, the Tzivos Hashem organization asked the Rebbe whether the practice that girls too should light continues, and the Rebbe answered: 'A question for a rav.' And in the years afterward the Rebbe mentioned plainly that girls do not light22.
If so, our minhag is that girls do not light Chanukah candles; however, regarding young girls, insofar as the lighting will assist from a chinuch standpoint, there is room to let them light.
Notes:
1 23, a ↩
2 And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 30 p. 311 onward ↩
3 OC siman 675:3 ↩
4 Taz and Magen Avraham there s.k. 4 ↩
5 Hilchos Chanukah ch. 4 halacha 1; Shiltei Giborim, chapter Bameh Madlikin, Hilchos Chanukah os 6 - brought in Machatzis HaShekel siman 677 s.k. 8 ↩
6 siman 671:2 ↩
7 Responsa Shaar Efraim siman 42; Eliyah Rabbah siman 671 s.k. 3 ↩
8 Mishmeres Shalom siman 48 s.k. 2 ↩
9 Sefer HaMinhagim p. 69 note 2 ↩
10 Olas Shmuel (by Rav Shmuel Leib Kaidar) siman 105 ↩
11 Chasam Sofer on Maseches Shabbos 21, b; responsa Hisorerus Teshuvah vol. 1 siman 35 ↩
12 Mishmeres Shalom there, and the Rebbe agreed with him in Sefer HaMinhagim there ↩
13 Likkutei Sichos vol. 30 p. 312 note 10 ↩
14 siman 675:3 ↩
15 p. 69 ↩
16 Toras Menachem vol. 78 p. 53 ↩
17 Likkutei Sichos vol. 30 there ↩
18 And to note also from the sicha of the night of 23 Kislev 5749 (Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 23). And see the Bach siman 676, brought also in the Magen Avraham siman 676 s.k. 4 ↩
19 Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 64 ↩
20 Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 91 ↩
21 Otzar HaMelech vol. 3 p. 130 ↩
22 Shabbos parashas Vayeshev 5750, Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 51; Shabbos parashas Vayetze 5751, Toras Menachem vol. 1 p. 355 ↩
[ה] (Halacha 158)
Laws of the wicks (1)
Question: Is there value in changing the wicks every night or not?
Answer: On this question our Rishonim disagreed; some favor changing [them] every day, and some preferred to use the old [one], as follows:
a. The Orchos Chaim wrote1 and the Kolbo2: 'And they were accustomed to renew the wicks every night and to recite a bracha on the addition, and the reason is that every night the miracle is renewed. And another reason: in remembrance of the Mikdash, where they would renew them every night in the menorah of the light.' And so too wrote other Rishonim3.
And so too wrote the Rema in the Darkei Moshe4. And so too were many tzaddikim of Poland accustomed, as written in the Mishmeres Shalom5, that so were his holy forefathers accustomed. And so too were the author of the Darkei Teshuvah and his son the author of the Minchas Elazar accustomed.
b. But in Maseches Sofrim6 it is written: 'And we are not concerned about his wick, to change it, until it is consumed.' And so ruled the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch7: 'We are not concerned about the wicks, to change them, until it is consumed,' and in several of the Acharonim8.
And regarding the reason for the matter, the Levush wrote9: 'And the wicks - we are not concerned to change them until [the candle] is consumed, for there is no disgrace to the mitzvah in them; on the contrary, they are easier to light when they have already been lit.' And in the Likkutei Chaver ben Chaim it is written10: 'And so was our master [the Chasam Sofer] of blessed and righteous memory accustomed, not to change [them]. And it appears the reason is .. but for a Chanukah candle, which is because of publicizing the miracle, it is preferable not to change [it], so that it burn more beautifully'11.
c. Now, regarding our minhag: it is written in the sefer HaMinhagim12: 'They were accustomed that the wicks be new each day. And some say that there is no concern for this, and on the contrary, the old ones are easier to light. And as of now I was unable to ascertain the minhag of our Rebbe in this.'
However, on Shabbos parashas Vayeshev 571613 the Rebbe said: 'Some are accustomed to take new wicks each day for the lighting of Chanukah candles, just as in the candles of the Mikdash there were new wicks each day. But my revered father-in-law the Rebbe did not conduct himself so, but rather would use the old wick.
And it may be said in the reason for the matter: when one changes from weekday to holy - one needs a new wick, since a thing that was used for the weekday is not fit for the holy. But from holy to holy there is no necessity for a new wick, and on the contrary, there is a virtue specifically in the old wicks, that since they are already articles of holiness, they are more fit to fulfill a further mitzvah with them. And similarly in our matter: in the candles of the Mikdash they lit each day with a new wick, since each day a loftier drawing-down [of Divine influence] takes place, relative to which yesterday's drawing-down is considered like weekday, and in the change from weekday to holy a new wick is needed. This is not so with Chanukah candles - since these candles are bound up with the time of exile, when the drawings-down from above are in concealment in any case, it turns out that there is no change here from weekday to holy, and therefore there is no necessity for a new wick, and on the contrary.'
d. And regarding the conduct of the Rebbe himself, it is brought14 that in practice the Rebbe lit with new wicks, but there was no directive in this; rather, the attendant did so on his own.
In summary: in the sefer HaMinhagim it was written as the primary [practice] to change to new [wicks], except that at the time of writing it was not known what the conduct of the Rebbe Rayatz was, but it appears that afterward it became known to the Rebbe that the Rebbe Rayatz was accustomed to use old [ones], and by the Rebbe they would change to new ones each day, but not necessarily at the Rebbe's request. And in practice the matter is undecided. And both practices have a source and a basis, and each one should conduct himself according to his minhag.
e. However, one should know that whoever uses old [wicks], as was the conduct of the Rebbe Rayatz - that the Rebbe in the sefer HaMinhagim cited the sefer Mishmeres Shalom there, who wrote: 'those who are accustomed to take old wicks, it appears to me that one should be careful to take the (first) wick of yesterday for the additional candle that one lights first' - and this is by the law of 'we ascend in holiness and do not descend,' as he explains there in the Biur and in the later edition15.
Notes:
1 Hilchos Chanukah os 5 ↩
2 vol. 2 siman 44 ↩
3 Tanya Rabbasi, matter of lighting the Chanukah candle, siman 35; Ohel Moed vol. 2 nasiv 2; Meiri on Maseches Shabbos 21, a (as a manner of beautification); Leket Yosher p. 152 os 18 ↩
4 siman 673 os 6; Eliyah Rabbah os 16; Shulchan Gavoah os 14 ↩
5 siman 48:3 ↩
6 ch. 20 halacha 4. Brought in Shibolei HaLeket, matter of Chanukah, siman 185, and so too wrote the Avudraham, Seder Hadlakas Ner Chanukah ↩
7 siman 673:4 ↩
8 And so ruled the Pri Chadash. And in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch s.k. 139:4. And in the Siddur Yaavetz ↩
9 siman 673:4. Brought in Mishnah Berurah s.k. 31 ↩
10 Brought in Yalkut Mefarshim in the Shulchan Aruch ↩
11 And the Acharonim have already noted (Nitei Gavriel ch. 17 os 4; Piskei Teshuvos os 12) that in our times, when the material from which the wicks are made is properly processed, the reason the Levush wrote - that the wicks are easier to light - does not apply ↩
12 p. 71 - it is a note of the Rebbe from the year 5711 ↩
13 Toras Menachem vol. 15 p. 303 ↩
14 Hiskashrus issue 596 p. 17 note 83. And as the attendant Ganzburg related in Bakodesh Penima p. 24: 'The truth is that the Rebbe did not deal with the wicks at all, but they prepared [them] for him, and there was no [set] conduct in this matter' ↩
15 s.k. 3. And although in the responsa B'Tzel HaChochmah vol. 4 siman 128 he advocates in favor of the masses who are not careful about this, and see also what is written in Luach Yomi (Rav Bruin) p. 33 - nevertheless, since this matter was written and printed plainly by the Rebbe, one should be careful about it ↩
[ו] (Halacha 159)
The festive meals
The Shiltei HaGiborim wrote1: 'I, Yom Tov the writer, received another sign in parashas Vayehi Miketz: "וְטָבֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן" ("and slaughter an animal and prepare it"), and the ches of "miTevach" and the tof and the chaf and the nun are the letters of Chanukah. And it is a support for the meals that one makes on Chanukah, and the letters of "טָבֹחַ טֶבַח" ("slaughter an animal") have the gematria of 44, like the [number of] candles.'
Question: On the festival of Chanukah, is there a mitzvah to make festive meals in honor of the festival?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos2 says: 'What is Chanukah? .. that when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the oils in the Sanctuary, and when the kingdom of the House of the Chashmonaim prevailed and defeated them, they searched and found only one flask of oil that lay with the seal of the Kohen Gadol, and there was in it only [enough] to light for one day; a miracle was done with it and they lit from it for eight days. The next year they established them and made them festive days with Hallel and thanksgiving.'
And on this the Rishonim disagreed, as follows: Rashi wrote: 'And made them festive days with Hallel and thanksgiving - not that they are forbidden in work, for they were established only to recite Hallel and to say "Al HaNissim" in thanksgiving.' And based on this the Tur wrote3: 'The Ha"R M. of Rothenburg of blessed memory would say that the abundance of the meal that they increase on them are meals of the [merely] permitted, for they established [these days] only for Hallel and for thanksgiving, and not for feasting and rejoicing.'
But the Rambam4 wrote: 'And because of this the Sages of that generation instituted that these eight days, whose beginning is from the night of the twenty-fifth of Kislev, be days of rejoicing and Hallel.'
And the Rema wrote in the name of the Ha"R A. of Prague5: 'But in the long Mordechai6 it is written, and in Megillas Taanis they said, that they established it a festive day because of the dedication of the altar, and so wrote the Or Zarua7, and so it is implied in the Midrash [Pesikta] Rabbasi, parashas Behaaloscha, and here it says that they established it because of the miracle? And it may be said that because of this they established feasting and rejoicing, but for Hallel and thanksgiving they established [it] because of the miracle. And so it is implied from the commentary of Rashi,' end of his words. 'And it is possible that for this reason they were accustomed to feasting and rejoicing. And I found in the Hagahos Minhagim8: the Chanukah meal is [merely] permitted, and therefore they were accustomed to recite psalms and to increase praises at it, so that it would be like a mitzvah meal. So responded the Mohar"M9,' end of his words.
If so, we have seen that there are those who ruled that the days of Chanukah are also days of rejoicing; however, the Rebbe explains10: 'that according to the view of the Mordechai, that which they established feasting and rejoicing is because of the dedication of the altar; this is not so according to the view of the Rambam - that which they instituted "days of rejoicing" is because the G-d of our fathers had mercy on them and saved them etc.'
As a matter of halacha the Mechaber wrote11: 'The abundance of the meals that they increase on them are meals of the [merely] permitted, for they did not establish them for feasting and rejoicing.' And the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'And some say that there is a bit of a mitzvah in the abundance of meals, because on those days there was the dedication of the altar. And it is customary to recite songs and praises at the meals that they increase, and then it is a mitzvah meal.' And it seems that the Rema's intent is to add that since the minhag is to say praises at the meals, then it is a mitzvah meal according to all the views.
In practice the Rebbe wrote12: 'And as a matter of halacha the Rema ruled: "that there is a bit of a mitzvah in an abundance of meals." And see the addendum to the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, that after he brings the dispute whether they established them only for Hallel and thanksgiving or established them also for feasting and rejoicing, he concludes: "And regarding practice, it is an ancient minhag to increase the meal on these days; so we are accustomed in these countries."
If so, despite the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch that there is no mitzvah in the meals, nevertheless we are accustomed to increase the meals, and this matter is founded on the fact that on Chanukah one conducts oneself as the mehadrin min hamehadrin, as the Rebbe writes there: 'Regarding the rejoicing on the days of Chanukah, there is a ruling of the Rambam that they are "days of rejoicing." And even though there are differences of opinion in this (as above), since in the mitzvah of (the candles of) Chanukah the minhag is simply to be of the mehadrin min hamehadrin, it is understood that so it must be regarding the rejoicing on Chanukah - to beautify it in the manner of mehadrin min hamehadrin.'
And to note that even the Rambam, who wrote that these are days of rejoicing, nevertheless did not write a defined obligation for meals13. However, the Knesses HaGedolah wrote14: 'And the minhag of these places is to make the meal on Rosh Chodesh, and it is correct, and whoever makes a meal on each day of Chanukah, this is praiseworthy.'
Notes:
1 In the glosses of the Mordechai, Shabbos ch. 2, 79 side a ↩
2 21, b ↩
3 OC siman 670 ↩
4 Hilchos Chanukah ch. 3 halacha 3 ↩
5 Darkei Moshe siman 670 os 1 ↩
6 Pesachim siman 605, Chidushei Anshei Shem os 1 ↩
7 Hilchos Chanukah siman 321 ↩
8 R' A. Tyrnau, Minhag Chanukah p. 146 os 29 ↩
9 Chidushei Anshei Shem ↩
10 Likkutei Sichos vol. 10 p. 145 ↩
11 In the Shulchan Aruch siman 670:2 ↩
12 Toras Menachem 5749 vol. 2 p. 34 ↩
13 See Toras Menachem 5752 vol. 2 p. 26 note 5. And in Likkutei Sichos vol. 15 p. 366 note 8. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 10 p. 142 note 6 and vol. 30 p. 204 and in note 10 ↩
14 Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos HaTur, OC siman 670, brought in Eliyah Rabbah s.k. 16 ↩
[ז] (Halacha 160)
Shabbos Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh
On this Shabbos, since it is both Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh, Birkas HaMazon is therefore the longest, in which we add both "Al HaNissim" and "Yaaleh V'Yavo," besides "Retzei V'Hachalitzenu."
In today's halacha we will discuss why one mentions [them], and what the law of one who forgets is.
Question: Is there a difference in the nature of the ordinance of mentioning "Retzei" and "Yaaleh V'Yavo" as opposed to the mention of "Al HaNissim"?
Answer: This matter is explained in the words of the Alter Rebbe1, that the Sages instituted that on every day that has holiness, we must mention its holiness in Birkas HaMazon, and therefore on Shabbos we say "Retzei V'Hachalitzenu." And on Yom Tov, Chol HaMoed, and Rosh Chodesh [for it has a Musaf offering] we say "Yaaleh V'Yavo." This mention contains a request for mercy, and therefore its place is in the bracha of "Boneh Yerushalayim," which is a request for mercy, and if a person erred and mentioned "Retzei" or "Yaaleh V'Yavo" earlier, in the bracha of "HaAretz," he has not fulfilled his obligation, and he will need to mention [it] again in the bracha of "Boneh Yerushalayim."
In the case where one mentions both "Retzei" and "Yaaleh V'Yavo," as on this Shabbos which is also Rosh Chodesh, we must mention "Retzei" first and afterward "Yaaleh V'Yavo," because Shabbos: a. is holier than they; b. and in addition there is a rule of "frequent and infrequent - the frequent comes first," and Shabbos is more frequent than the festivals and the Rashei Chodashim.
>In contrast, Chanukah and Purim have no Musaf offering, and therefore we do not mention them in "Yaaleh V'Yavo"; however, we do say "Al HaNissim," but not as an obligation, rather as thanksgiving, and therefore they placed the saying in the bracha of "HaAretz," which is a bracha of thanksgiving.
Question: One who forgot to say "Al HaNissim," or "Retzei," or "Yaaleh V'Yavo" - what should he do?
>Forgot to say "Al HaNissim"
The Alter Rebbe wrote2: 'On Chanukah and Purim one says in the bracha of "HaAretz" "Al HaNissim," and if he did not say it, we do not make him repeat, as will be explained in siman 683 and 695 [and so wrote the Mechaber3: "However, if he recalled within that bracha, as long as he has not mentioned the [Divine] Name, even if he recalled between "Atah" and the Name, he goes back"], and nonetheless he may say [it] within the "HaRachaman" [and in the Siddur the Alter Rebbe wrote: "when he reaches the HaRachaman." But the custom of the world is to say it before the "HaRachaman Hu Yezakeinu" for the days of Mashiach4], that he says: "HaRachaman Hu ya'aseh lanu nissim v'niflaos, just as He did for our fathers in those days, at [this] time etc." [in the days of Matisyahu], and so one should conduct oneself.'
If so, in practice: if one recalled before saying Hashem's Name he goes back and says [it]; if he recalled after he said Hashem's Name, he does not go back, and he will say [it] within the "HaRachaman," and the minhag is to say [it] before the "HaRachaman Hu Yezakeinu."
>Forgot to say "Retzei"
The Alter Rebbe wrote5: 'One who erred and did not mention [the mention] of Shabbos and recalled after he concluded the bracha of "Boneh Yerushalayim," before he began the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," says: "Baruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam shenasan Shabbasos limnuchah l'amo Yisrael b'ahavah l'os v'livris, Baruch Atah Hashem mekadesh haShabbos".'
However, the Alter Rebbe added6: 'And all this is when he recalled before he began the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv" .. but if he recalled after he began "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," even if he said only the word "Baruch" alone, he has no remedy in mentioning [it] here, which is out of place, and he must return to the beginning of Birkas HaMazon, for the three brochos of Birkas HaMazon are considered as one bracha' .. and in every case where he erred in them an error for which we make him go back, he goes back to the beginning of Birkas HaMazon.'
However, if it is regarding the third meal, the Alter Rebbe wrote7: 'The third meal on Shabbos - its law is like Rosh Chodesh, that one does not go back if he began the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv".'
The Alter Rebbe further wrote8: 'If he mentioned Rosh Chodesh but not Shabbos, when he returns to the beginning of Birkas HaMazon he must mention Rosh Chodesh too, ideally, for in every Birkas HaMazon one must mention Rosh Chodesh even though he is not [going back] because of Rosh Chodesh.
But on Shabbos Chanukah, if he mentioned Chanukah but did not mention Shabbos, and he goes back to the beginning, he need not mention Chanukah, because the mention of Chanukah is not obligatory at all in Birkas HaMazon, as will be explained in siman 682'9.
If so, in practice: if he recalled before he opened the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," he says a bracha in a special text. If he already began the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," even if he said only the word "Baruch," he goes back to the beginning of Birkas HaMazon. However, at the third meal he does not go back. In the case where he said "Yaaleh V'Yavo" and forgot "Retzei," when he goes back he again says "Yaaleh V'Yavo" too; however, on Chanukah, if he said "Al HaNissim" and forgot "Retzei" and goes back because of this, he does not go back and re-mention "Al HaNissim."
>Forgot to say "Yaaleh V'Yavo"
The Alter Rebbe wrote10: 'If he mentioned Shabbos but did not mention Rosh Chodesh, if he recalled before he began the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," on Rosh Chodesh he says: "Baruch Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam shenasan Rashei Chodashim l'amo Yisrael l'zikaron," and it is a doubt whether he concludes with "Baruch Atah Hashem mekadesh Yisrael v'Rashei Chodashim" or not, and [in a case of] a doubt regarding a bracha we are lenient, and he does not conclude; and if he did not recall until after he began the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," he does not go back to the beginning.'
If so, in practice: he said "Retzei" and did not say "Yaaleh V'Yavo" - if he recalled before he opened the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," he says a bracha in a special text, and if he already opened and said even the word "Baruch" of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," he does not go back.
>Forgot to say "Retzei" and "Yaaleh V'Yavo"
The Alter Rebbe wrote11: 'Rosh Chodesh that falls on Shabbos, and he mentioned neither Shabbos nor Rosh Chodesh, and he recalled before he began the bracha of "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," he includes Rosh Chodesh with Shabbos and says "shenasan Shabbasos limnuchah v'Rashei Chodashim l'zikaron," and concludes with "Baruch Atah Hashem mekadesh haShabbos v'Yisrael v'Rashei Chodashim".'
He further wrote12: 'And if he recalled after he began "HaTov V'HaMeitiv," even if he said only the word "Baruch" alone, he has no remedy in mentioning [it] here, which is out of place, and he must return to the beginning of Birkas HaMazon.'
If so, when he recalled after he began the bracha of "HaTov," he goes back to the beginning and says "Retzei" and "Yaaleh V'Yavo," and does not re-mention "Al HaNissim" of Chanukah again, as above.
Notes:
1 siman 188:6 ↩
2 siman 187:8 ↩
3 siman 682:1 ↩
4 Badei HaShulchan siman 47 s.k. 18. And to note from the responsa Tzemach Yehudah vol. 3 siman 202 ↩
5 siman 188:7 ↩
6 there 188:9 ↩
7 there 188:15 ↩
8 there 188:14 ↩
9 And not like the Mishnah Berurah in Shaar HaTziyun os 21, which holds like the view of the Pri Megadim 13 and the Gra os 18, that it is as if he did not recite the bracha at all. And see also the responsa Avnei Nezer OC siman 507 s.k. 4 ↩
10 there 188:10 ↩
11 there 188:13 ↩
12 there 188:9 ↩
[ח] (Halacha 161)
Separating challah from sufganiyos
Question: Does one separate challah from sufganiyos that are made from a thick batter?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Challah1 says: 'Its beginning is dough and its end is spongecakes .. is obligated.'
And the Rishonim disagreed as to the intent of the Mishnah: the view of Rabbeinu Tam2 is that the intent of the Mishnah is to teach us that thick dough is obligated in challah, even though its end is spongecakes through cooking (or frying in oil), since the obligation of separating challah takes effect at the moment of rolling [= kneading the dough], and one does not take into account what the person intends to do with it afterward.
This is not so [according to] Rabbeinu Shimshon, who in his commentary on the Mishnah there explains: 'Sometimes a person kneads dough and reconsiders and makes it into spongecakes.' That is to say, the Mishnah speaks of a case where at the outset he kneaded with the intention to bake, and consequently the obligation of challah already took effect, and only afterward did he change his mind and decide to fry, and therefore the obligation remains; but in a case where from the beginning of the kneading it was with the intention to fry, there is no obligation of challah in this. And so it is proven from the Gemara in Maseches Berachos3 regarding bread that is made for kutach, which is thick dough but which one bakes in the sun and not in an oven, and therefore it is exempt from challah.
This view of the Ra"sh is the view of most of the Rishonim4 that everything depends on the person's intention, and if it was his intention at the time of rolling the dough to fry it, this dough is exempt from challah.
In the Shulchan Aruch the Mechaber ruled5 like the view of Rabbeinu Shimshon, and these are his words: 'Dough whose batter is thick and which one rolled with the intention to cook it or to fry it or to make spongecakes or to dry it in the sun, and he did so - is exempt.' And indeed the Shach there6 wrote that since many poskim disagree with this, one should therefore be stringent to separate challah without a bracha. But the Magen Avraham7 agreed with the Shulchan Aruch that this dough is entirely exempt. And so too the Alter Rebbe8 decided that it is exempt from challah, and so he wrote: 'Since in any case we do not hold like Rabbeinu Tam also regarding challah, as the Magen Avraham wrote, and not like the Shach. And so it is proper, for those who disagree with Rabbeinu Tam are the many and the later ones.'
If so, in practice, dough that is made from the outset in order to fry sufganiyos in deep oil is exempt from challah.
Question: Is there a way to become obligated in separating challah from a dough of sufganiyos?
Answer: Our master the Tur wrote9: 'Rabbeinu Shimshon wrote: even when one makes it with the intention to cook it, if his intention is to bake a little of it, even if there is not in that little the measure of challah, all of it becomes obligated through him. And so was the practice of the Ha"R M. of Rothenburg in his house: when they would make dough in order to cook it in water or to fry it in oil, [they would] bake a little of it, and thereby all of it became obligated in challah.' And the reason for the matter, that through the little that one bakes everything becomes obligated in challah, is a decree of the Sages lest he reconsider and bake a quantity of the measure of challah, as explained in Rabbeinu Shimshon and in the Rosh there10. And so too the Mechaber ruled in practice in the Shulchan Aruch11.
However, regarding the bracha, the view of the Maharshal12 is that since this is a separation only because of the concern, one cannot recite a bracha; but the Acharonim disagreed with him13 and wrote that one should recite a bracha.
If so, in practice, one who wishes to fulfill the mitzvah of challah with a dough of sufganiyos that has in it the measure of challah, must take a bit of the dough and bake [it], and this causes the obligation of challah in all the dough, and afterward he separates with a bracha14.
Notes:
1 ch. 1 mishnah 5 ↩
2 Berachos 37, b, Tosafos s.v. 'lechem he'asuy' ↩
3 37, b ↩
4 Rambam Hilchos Bikkurim ch. 6 halacha 13; Ramban Hilchos Challah 26, b; Rashba Piskei Challah Shaar 1 p. 7. And so it is implied in the Semag, positive commandment 141. And the Tur wrote that so is the ruling of the Rosh, Hilchos Ketanos Challah siman 2; Pesachim ch. 2 siman 16 ↩
5 YD siman 329:3 ↩
6 s.k. 4 ↩
7 OC siman 168 s.k. 32 ↩
8 OC there in Kuntres Acharon s.k. 7 ↩
9 siman 329 ↩
10 Brought in the Shach s.k. 6 ↩
11 there 329:4 ↩
12 In his commentary on the Tur, brought in the Derishah ↩
13 Bach os 4; Taz s.k. 5; Shach s.k. 6 ↩
14 And see Chalas Lechem (by Rav Simcha Yoel Rubinstein) siman 8 din 8, who wrote that one should bring the baked portion near the dough and separate from both of them. And at the conclusion of his words he cites the great rav Moh' Zalman of Pinsk in his Shulchan Aruch, in Hilchos Pesach siman 456. And apparently his intent is to the Shulchan Aruch of our Rebbe in siman 457 se'if 16 ↩
[ט] (Halacha 162)
"And from the remnant of the flasks" - 'They were accustomed to make from the leftover wicks and from the leftover oil on the last day, that they burn it and do not derive benefit from it, because the miracle was in a flask of holy oil, [so] they treated it with a manner of holiness'1.
Question: What is the law of the leftovers of the oil and the wicks that remain from the lighting at the conclusion of Chanukah?
Answer: Our Sages, of blessed memory, said in the Midrash Tanchuma2: 'On the eighth day, the nasi of the children of Menasheh. Let our master teach us: a Chanukah candle in which oil remained on the first day, what is [the law] to light with it on the second? So our Rabbis taught: a Chanukah candle in which oil remained on the first day, he adds to it any amount and lights it on the second day; and if [oil] remained on the second day, he adds to it on the third day and lights it, and so on the rest of the days; but [if] it remained on the eighth day, he makes for it a bonfire on its own. Why? Since it was set aside for the mitzvah, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it.'
And the Rishonim wrote3 these words of our Sages, of blessed memory, as a matter of halacha.
And the Beis Yosef wondered how to reconcile this halacha with the law brought in siman 672:2, that in a case where one put in the menorah more oil than the measure, he may extinguish [it] after the [required] time and use its light?
And he reconciles [it] in two ways: a. In the name of the Mahar"i Abuhav: 'that one should distinguish between them - that when he put the oil in the candle and set it aside only for the measure of the lighting time, he may afterward avail himself of it if he wishes; but when he put the oil in the candle without specification, then it was set aside for the mitzvah of the Chanukah candle, and he must perform this remedy for it.'
That is to say, this depends on the person's intention: when a person fills [with] oil without specification, and it was not his intention to use what remains after the measure of the lighting, then this oil is designated for Chanukah and one may not use it for another use.
b. His own view, to distinguish based on the words of the Hagahos Maimoniyos4 and the Mordechai5, that the prohibition to use [it] is only in a case where he put in an amount of oil exactly according to the measure needed for the lighting and nonetheless it remained, and about this they said that it is forbidden to use [it] and one must burn [it]; but in a case where he put in more oil than the needed measure, it is permitted to use this after it has burned for the [required] measure, since the extra was not set aside for the mitzvah.
And as a matter of halacha the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch6 wrote only his second answer: 'What remains on the eighth day from the oil needed for the measure of the lighting - he makes for it a bonfire and burns it on its own, for it has been set aside for its mitzvah.'
However, the Magen Avraham7 brought the view of the Bach, who held that also the first answer of the Mahar"i Abuhav is [the] halacha, and these are his words: 'And the Bach ruled: when he put the oil in without specification, all the oil is set aside .. and yet it is not so compelling, and therefore it is good to stipulate at the outset that only [the amount for] the measure be forbidden.'
We thus learn that the leftovers of the oil and the candles that remained from the amount needed for the obligatory lighting time by law - we are obligated by law to burn them; however, many Acharonim8 required being stringent and burning also all the leftovers of the oil that they put in the menorah, even beyond the amount needed by law. (Unless one stipulated at the outset that no more than the measure of the lighting be forbidden).
And so in practice they were accustomed to burn all that remained of the oil, and also the wicks, as brought in the Rishonim9, and in the Acharonim10.
Question: When must one burn the wicks?
Answer: The Tur wrote11: 'And it is also forbidden to keep it for the coming year for a Chanukah candle, for we are concerned lest he come to derive benefit from it, since he keeps it for a long time, and even if he puts it in a repulsive vessel we are concerned; therefore it has no remedy.' And therefore one must burn [it] as soon as possible, in order to prevent mishap12.
Question: What is the law of a menorah that one has no need for - is it permitted to discard it?
Answer: The Alter Rebbe wrote in the Shulchan Aruch13: 'But articles of a mitzvah, such as tzitzis, a shofar, a lulav, a Chanukah candle14, do not require a stipulation at all, according to all views, for even if one made them for this [purpose] without any stipulation and their mitzvah was performed with them many times, it is permitted to use them for the weekday.
And similarly our Rebbe wrote regarding the sechach15: 'The wood of the sechach after the days of the festival have passed - even though one need not put it in genizah, and it is permitted to avail oneself of them and to use them for whatever one wishes, nevertheless it is proper to be careful not to use them for a disgraceful use, which is not honor for a mitzvah that has passed, and it goes without saying that one should not step on them, so that he not treat them in a disgraceful manner.'
And if so, from the letter of the law it is permitted even to throw the menorah into the trash, but one who is stringent and meticulous in mitzvos - it is proper that he do this in a manner that there will be no disgrace, such as to place it in a wrapping and then throw [it].
Notes:
1 Sefer HaMinhagos of Rabbeinu Asher of Lunel, p. 130 ↩
2 Parshas Naso, siman 29. And in Pesikta Rabbasi, piska 3 ↩
3 She'iltos of Rav Achai, siman 27, she'ilta 2. Rosh, Shabbos ch. 2 siman 9. Mordechai, Shabbos siman 268 ↩
4 Ch. 4 os 4 ↩
5 Shabbos ibid. siman 264 ↩
6 OC siman 677:4 ↩
7 Siman 677, s"k 10 ↩
8 See Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, os 2. Pri Chadash siman 677; Shulchan Gavoah os 9. Eliyah Rabbah siman 672, s"k 2. Mekor Chaim. Shu"t She'ilas Yaavetz vol. 1 siman 4. Yeshuos Yaakov. And Kitzur Shulchan Aruch siman 139, din 20 — who ruled stringently like the Bach and not like the Magen Avraham (and the Mishnah Berurah siman 672, s"k 7), who wrote only that it is good to stipulate a condition, implying that he was concerned only l'chatchilah ↩
9 Sefer HaMinhagos. Meiri, Shabbos. Kol Bo, p. 164. Leket Yosher ↩
10 Shulchan Gavoah siman 677 os 6. Piskei Teshuvos siman 677 os 9 ↩
11 Siman 677, cited in the Magen Avraham s"k 10, and in the Mishnah Berurah s"k 19 ↩
12 And note what is written in Nitei Gavriel, Chanukah ch. 57 din 8 note 16. And in Piskei Teshuvos siman 677, that nowadays there is less concern of mishap ↩
13 OC siman 42:6 ↩
14 And see the Pri HaAdamah on the Rambam, Hilchos Megillah v'Chanukah ch. 4 halacha 6, on the words of the Magen Avraham, that they are the source for the words of the Alter Rebbe that a Chanukah light 'means the receptacle for the oil or the wax, but the oil itself or the wax, which is itself the sanctified item' ↩
15 In siman 638:19. And see also siman 21:1 ↩
[10] (halacha 422)
Question: When is the time for lighting the Chanukah lights?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 states: 'Its mitzvah is from when the sun sets until traffic ceases from the marketplace. What — is it not that if it went out he must relight it? — No, [it means] that if he has not yet lit, he may light. Or alternatively: [it refers] to its measure [of oil]. "Until traffic ceases from the marketplace" — and until when [is that]? — Rabbah bar bar Chana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: until the feet of the Tarmoda'i cease [from the marketplace].'
From the plain sense of the Gemara in the first answer we learn that l'chatchilah one should light immediately at the beginning of the time, 'from when the sun sets,' except that if he has not yet lit he may still light.
[But the poskim disagree over the words of the Gemara and the meaning of 'from when the sun sets': some wrote2 that its meaning is after sheki'ah (sunset); some wrote3 that it is together with sheki'ah; and some wrote4 that it is before sheki'ah.]
And in practice the poskim disagree about the time of lighting. Some wrote to light after tzeis hakochavim, as the Manhig wrote5: 'From when the sun sets, like the sunset of a fast, for Shmuel said [Taanis 12a] any fast upon which the sun has not set is not called a fast — which is tzeis hakochavim..'.
And so wrote the Mordechai6: 'Its mitzvah is from when the sun sets — meaning from the end of the sun's sheki'ah, which is tzeis hakochavim, for a lamp at midday is of no avail. And so wrote the Tur7: 'Its mitzvah is from the end of the sun's sheki'ah.' And the Bach explained in his words that this is tzeis hakochavim, and concluded:'Thus one should not light before tzeis hakochavim'*.
And so ruled the Mechaber8: 'One does not light the Chanukah light before the sun sets, but rather with the end of its setting; one neither delays nor advances.' And the Magen Avraham wrote9: 'The end of its setting. That is tzeis hakochavim as written in siman 562 (Bach).'
And so did many of the Jewish communities practice according to this view10 — to light at tzeis hakochavim.
On the other hand, many poskim11 wrote that the time of lighting is after sheki'ah12, as is the plain meaning of the language 'from when the sun sets.'
And some emphasized to light immediately, as written in the Seder HaYom13: 'Also the mitzvah of lighting is from the setting of the sun and onward, and he should not wait until it grows dark, because the zealous perform mitzvos early'.
And so wrote the Pri Etz Chaim14, cited in the Shelah15: 'And know, that we light it with the setting of the sun, for then it is the measure of night, and it descends below'.
And see also the Knesses HaGedolah16: 'One should light immediately upon leaving the beis knesses, so as not to delay too much. Shiltei HaGiborim, which surrounds the Mordechai in perek Bameh Madlikin, in the name of Rabbeinu Avan. And it appears that their minhag was to light after the evening tefillah, and so was the minhag of my teacher, my father of blessed memory. But I am accustomed to light from when the sun sets, before the evening tefillah.' (Except that in Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos HaTur, he retracted and wrote: 'And in the days of my youth I was accustomed to light after the evening tefillah, and afterward I became accustomed to light before Maariv, and when I saw these words I returned to my custom to light after the evening tefillah').
And our minhag is as the Rebbe wrote17: 'And regarding his question about the time of lighting the Chanukah light, our minhag is to light between Mincha and Maariv (except that if he did not light then, he lights afterward)'. And so it is written in Sefer HaMinhogim18: 'We light between Mincha and Maariv'.
In addition, it is written in Sefer HaMinhogim19: 'One is careful that the lights burn for at least fifty minutes'. And in explanation of the matter the Rebbe wrote20: 'In response to his letter of the 3rd of [parshas] Vayeitzei, in which he raises the custom of the Rebbe (the Rebbe Rashab) of blessed memory (and surely they were accustomed thus in the Rebbe's household generation after generation) to put oil in the Chanukah light so that it burn for at least fifty minutes, and asks the reasoning behind this. Behold, I have not heard its reason explicitly. And by way of possibility one may say that since there are differing opinions about the time of lighting, whether it is before the evening tefillah of Maariv or after it, therefore one is scrupulous to fulfill both opinions — that is, to light after the tefillah of Mincha and in such a way that there be oil in the lights for the full measure after Maariv, and time does not permit expanding at length on this. And see Pri Megadim, siman 672 Eshel Avraham s"k 3, and in the Mishnah Berurah there. Seder Hachnasas Shabbos in the siddur of the Alter Rebbe'.
Thus we have seen that the poskim disagree in understanding the words of the Gemara: 'from when the sun sets,' and that in practice21 our minhag is to light at the time of sheki'ah.
In the following halacha we will study whether the care to light on time applies also when one lights inside the house.
----------------------------------------------
https://did.li/Shonehalacha
Notes:
1 21b ↩
2 See Tosafos Menachos 20b s.v. nifsal, and see below in the words of the poskim that the time of lighting is at tzeis hakochavim — according to their view that sheki'ah continues until tzeis hakochavim. But even according to the other poskim who hold that sheki'ah does not continue until tzeis hakochavim but is rather the time at which the entire sun has set below the horizon, the meaning of 'mishetishka' is seemingly after sheki'ah. And see also Maseches Sofrim ch. 20 halacha 4: 'The mitzvah of lighting it is from the setting of the sun' ↩
3 See the words of the Rambam, Hilchos Chanukah ch. 4 halacha 5: 'One does not light the Chanukah lights before the sun sets, but rather together with its setting; one neither delays nor advances.' And see in Sefer Toras Yom v'Layla p. 127, which brings an explanation that from the time the disk of the sun begins to set until it sets completely is the duration of sheki'ah ↩
4 These words of the Rambam were explained by the Mishnah Berurah in Biur Halacha siman 672 se'if 1 s.v. v'lo makdimin: 'His intention is literally before sheki'ah [as in what they said in Shabbos 33, three things a person must say on erev Shabbos as it grows dark, etc., "Have you lit the lamp?" — thus the term "with" means some time before]. And see Sefer Yereim siman 274: 'And so it seems to me the main view, that mishetishka hachama is before the sun's sheki'ah of Ulla .. and that which was taught regarding the Chanukah light, its mitzvah is mishetishka hachama, means while there is still a bit of day, for since it has darkened somewhat it is not a lamp at midday, and at that time people begin to return to their homes and are astonished to see a lamp while it is still day, and they know it is on account of a mitzvah, and there is pirsumei nisa'. And see at length in HaZmanim BaHalacha (Benish) ch. 41 that the view of the Yereim, that three-quarters of a mil before sheki'ah is bein hashemashos, was not accepted as halacha ↩
5 Hilchos Chanukah p. 529 ↩
6 Shabbos, perek Bameh Madlikin, remez 455 ↩
7 OC siman 672 ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 672 se'if 1 ↩
9 s"k 1, and so wrote the Pri Chadash in the view of the Mechaber ↩
10 Even though the basis of this view is in the words of the poskim like Rabbeinu Tam and in the view that explains his words, that the conclusion of sheki'ah is at tzeis hakochavim (and see HaZmanim BaHalacha (Benish) ch. 42), and so held the Mechaber here and therefore wrote 'the end of sheki'ah.' Nevertheless, some wrote that even if one holds regarding sheki'ah like the Geonim who disagree with Rabbeinu Tam, in any case one should light according to the words of the Mechaber at tzeis hakochavim. And see what Rav Seraya Deblitzky wrote — cited in Sefer Mitzvah Ner Ish u'Beiso p. 334 and onward. And see also Shu"t Ohr L'Tzion vol. 4, notes to the Pri Megadim, note 1. And see HaZmanim BaHalacha (Benish) p. 159. And it still requires study. And see Nitei Gavriel Chanukah ch. 3 se'if 2, various customs regarding how many minutes after sheki'ah is the time of lighting, for those accustomed to be concerned to light at tzeis hakochavim ↩
11 Many Rishonim were gathered in the collection Beis Aharon v'Yisrael, issue 44. And see also the words of the Pri Chadash ↩
12 In addition to these views there is also: a. the view of the Rishonim who hold (like the Ramban's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam's view, see HaZmanim BaHalacha (Benish) ch. 42) that there are two sheki'os, and the time of lighting is after the second sheki'ah, which is three and a quarter mil after the first sheki'ah. b. there is, as above, the view of Rabbi Eliezer of Metz who, as above in note 4, holds that one lights before sheki'ah, (and see there also regarding the view of the Rambam) ↩
13 Seder Chanukah, and see also Rashba Shabbos 21b (except that the Rashba wrote 'from when the sun sets, immediately'. Therefore it was not cited in the body) ↩
14 Shaar HaChanukah ch. 4 ↩
15 Maseches Tamid, in Ner Mitzvah. And note also Emek HaBracha p. 244 ↩
16 Hagahos HaTur OC siman 672 os 2 ↩
17 Igros Kodesh vol. 14 p. 184 ↩
18 p. 70 ↩
19 p. 71 ↩
20 Igros Kodesh vol. 10 p. 153 ↩
21 And see Shiurei Halacha L'Maaseh (Levin) vol. 1 p. 249 ↩
[11] (halacha 423)
Question: We learned in the previous halacha that by the law of the Gemara one must light immediately at the beginning of the time; does this law apply also in a case where one lights the Chanukah lights inside the house?
Answer: Tosafos wrote1: 'And according to the Ri it appears that nowadays there is no concern about when he lights, for we have recognition only for the members of the household, since we light inside'.
And so wrote the Meiri2: 'And in any case, regarding what we said, that after this time one has not fulfilled the obligation of lighting in its time, it appears to the great ones of the generations before us that this was said only for those times when they would light outside and needed recognition for passersby, but nowadays, since we need only recognition for the members of the household, one may light whenever he wishes, and the great ones of France permitted it even until dawn rises, and so the members of the yeshiva there are accustomed to light after they arise from the beis midrash'.
However, the Rashba3 wrote: 'And they explained in Tosafos that they said "until traffic ceases from the marketplace" only in those generations when they would light outside, but now that we light inside the house, every hour and hour is its time, since there is pirsumei nisa for those standing in the house, but l'chatchilah it is a mitzvah to be early and light immediately from when the sun sets, for the zealous perform mitzvos early, and we say below4 Rav Huna was accustomed to pass by the doorway of Rav Avin the carpenter; he saw that he was regular with a lamp; he said: two great men will come forth from here'.
And the Tur5 wrote: 'And Tosafos wrote that for us there is no need to be exact about the time that Chazal gave a measure, for they gave it only for themselves, who would light outside and after this time none pass and return, but we who light inside and have recognition only for the members of the household need not be particular about the time; and it is written in the Sefer HaMitzvos that nevertheless it is proper to light while the members of the household are still awake, and it appears that even for us one must be exact about the measure, for even though we light inside, since we light at the doorway of the house and it is open there is recognition for passersby'.
And the Bach wrote there: 'And it appears that even for us, etc. This is specifically for the time of Rabbeinu [the Tur], when they would light at the doorway adjacent to the courtyard except that they would light inside, but nowadays when we light in the winter room one need not be exact at all about the measure, but only that he light while the members of the household are still awake, as written at the end of the previous siman, and so wrote the Maharshal (in his commentary on the Tur), and it is obvious'.
But the Rema in Darkei Moshe6 (regarding another matter) wrote: 'It appears that in the days of Rabbeinu the author of the Tur this was the custom, to light at the doorway of the house, and therefore he wrote that there is recognition; and so wrote in Toldos Adam v'Chavah nesiv 9 part 1 (61b), and this is his language: And now they are accustomed to light inside, at the doorway adjacent to the public domain, and some are accustomed to light inside at the doorway adjacent to the courtyard because gentiles and thieves are common, and also because they are not accustomed to affix a mezuzah at the doorway open to the public domain because of gentiles who would take it, and there is a mezuzah at the doorway open to the courtyard, so that there will be a mezuzah on the right and a Chanukah light on the left, end quote; and for this there is recognition for passersby even though they light inside, but nowadays when we light in the winter room, that is, literally inside, and it is known that there is no recognition for passersby at all there, even if the house has many doorways one need light only at one, and so is the minhag; and it appears that for this reason one is also not careful to light within a tefach adjacent to the doorway, for what difference is there to me whether it is adjacent to the doorway or far from it, since there is recognition only for the people who are in the room where they light, and they know that it is kindled there for the sake of Chanukah, so it appears to me'.
And the Rema further wrote7: 'I have already written above that nowadays there is no concern, and so they were accustomed not to be exact about the setting of the sun, and so it is written in the Minhagim8; however they wrote that it is good to light before eating and while the members of the household are still awake, end quote; nevertheless the Maharil wrote that he was accustomed to light immediately after the setting of the sun9'.
And so wrote the Rema in the Shulchan Aruch as halacha10: 'Some say that nowadays, when we light inside, one need not be careful to light before traffic ceases from the marketplace (Darkei Moshe and Tur in the name of Tosafos), but nevertheless it is good to be careful even nowadays'.
And seemingly the intention of the Rema in the conclusion of his words is to say that even when one lights literally inside it is good to light at the fixed time11.
And regarding the reason for the matter, Yosef Ometz wrote12: 'And one should light at the beginning of the night even for us, who light inside, for anything established by a count requires another count to permit it. And several enactments we find that our Sages of blessed memory instituted, and now even though that reason has departed, the enactments have not moved from their place, such as Baruch Hashem l'olam amen v'amen, Magen Avos, the haftarah, Shema Yisrael and Attah Hu, Shema Yisrael in the Kedushah of Musaf, the prohibition of gentiles' cheese, for their words are like well-fixed nails, alluding to matters known to them. And also in the Shulchan Aruch it is written that it is good to be stringent nowadays'. And in a similar vein wrote the Aruch HaShulchan13.
And we have already seen in the previous halacha what the Rebbe wrote, that our minhag is to light after Mincha. And this is despite the fact that our minhag is to light inside the house.
Thus we have seen that there are among the poskim those who wrote that even when one lights inside the house, l'chatchilah it is proper to light at the time fixed for lighting, and such is our minhag.
It is important to note that when one delays the lighting, one enters into an additional question of the prohibition of eating before the mitzvah of lighting, and it will be explained in a separate halacha, God willing.
----------------------------------------------
https://did.li/Shonehalacha
Notes:
1 Maseches Shabbos 21b ↩
2 Shabbos ibid. ↩
3 Shabbos 21b ↩
4 23b ↩
5 OC siman 672 ↩
6 OC siman 671 s"k 9 ↩
7 siman 672 s"k 4 ↩
8 R' Isaac Tirna, Minhag Chanukah p. 144 ↩
9 This is the language of Minhagei Maharil, Hilchos Chanukah: 'The minhag of Mahar"i Segal was that he lit his lights immediately upon leaving the beis knesses, for he said the mitzvah of the Chanukah light is from when the sun sets. And moreover, since the members of my household dwell in one house, if I delay they will no longer be with me, and now they come to me to hear the bracha and to see my lighting. For the aforementioned Rav dwelt in a house alone with the young men, at the house of his wife the Rebbetzin, and her children were with her in her house. And he did not derive benefit from his wife's property during her lifetime, not a perutah, nor did he dine with her. Only the community leaders of the land would supply him with property to provide for the students of his yeshiva. And the Rav's sustenance for himself was mostly the reward for matchmaking, for he would write and send letters in his own hand throughout the land to pair maidens and young men, for the whole land would heed him, and there was fulfilled in him the boast of Iyov: לִי שָׁמְעוּ וְיִחֵלּוּ וְיִדְּמוּ לְמוֹ עֲצָתִי, אַחֲרֵי דְבָרִי לֹא יִשְׁנוּ וְעָלֵימוֹ תִּטֹּף מִלָּתִי (To me men listened and waited, and kept silence for my counsel; after my words they spoke not again, and my speech dropped upon them) ↩
10 siman 672 se'if 2 in the hagah ↩
11 However, without his words in Darkei Moshe, his words in the hagah could be explained only as being careful to light before traffic ceases, and not as being particular to light immediately after the sun sets. But see Maamar Mordechai s"k 3 on the words of the Rema, who wrote: 'And what is noted here in the Shulchan Aruch as his own view is a scribal error, and it should be written thus regarding what the Rema concluded, that nevertheless it is good to be careful even nowadays, and this is clear.' And seemingly his intention is to say that the words of the Rema to be careful apply also to the custom of lighting literally inside, which is not from the Tur, but rather as he learned from the conduct of the Maharil ↩
12 vol. 1, Dinei Chanukah siman 1073 ↩
13 OC siman 672 se'if 4 ↩
[12] (halacha 424)
Question: What is the quantity of oil that must be in the menorah for the lighting?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 states: 'And they raised a contradiction: Its mitzvah is from when the sun sets until traffic ceases from the marketplace. What — is it not that if it went out he must relight it? — No, [it means] that if he has not yet lit, he may light. Or alternatively: [it refers] to its measure [that there be in it oil in this measure. Rashi]. "Until traffic ceases from the marketplace" — and until when [is that]? — Rabbah bar bar Chana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: until the feet of the Tarmoda'i cease [from the marketplace].'
Thus, according to the first answer, the measure stated 'from when the sun sets until [traffic] ceases' is regarding the time when it is proper to light, (and it does not state what is the measure required for the lighting). But according to the second answer this measure is regarding how much oil one must put in the menorah (and it does not state what is the proper time for lighting).
Some of the Rishonim2 understood that the answers do not disagree, and ruled both readings as halacha — that is, that this measure is both regarding the time of lighting and regarding the quantity of oil.
And some of the Rishonim3 held that the two readings disagree, except that out of doubt4 one should be stringent like both.
However, there are Rishonim who wrote that since this is a dispute in a rabbinic matter, one follows the lenient view in everything, as the Raavyah wrote5: 'And in the name of Rabbeinu Tam I saw that in both of these we follow the lenient view, in the measure and in "he did not light," for in a matter of Rabbinic origin one follows the lenient view.' And based on this he wrote6: 'And it appears to me that we, who make small lights that have no measure, rely on the first answer, that in a matter of Rabbinic origin one follows the lenient view'.
And as halacha the Mechaber wrote7: 'If he forgot or deliberately did not light with the setting of the sun, he lights and continues until traffic ceases from the marketplace, which is about half an hour, for then the people pass and return and there is pirsumei nisa; therefore he must put in it oil in this measure, and if he put in more he may extinguish it after this time has passed, and likewise he may use its light after this time. And however, this applies l'chatchilah, but if this time passed and he did not light, he lights and continues all night; and if the whole night passed and he did not light, he has no makeup'.
And the Magen Avraham wrote8: 'In the Beis Yosef it is written that it is a doubt in law, and if so it implies that one should not recite a bracha, but since the Shulchan Aruch left it unqualified it implies his view that one recites a bracha'.
And the Pri Megadim explained in the Eshel Avraham there: 'It is a double doubt, perhaps the halacha is like the latter answer and perhaps only for the mitzvah. And elsewhere [the introduction to Hilchos Brachos os 4] we wrote whether one recites a bracha in a double doubt. And see Lechem Mishneh in Hilchos Brachos ch. 4 halacha 6, "he recited a bracha on the parperes," see there. And it appears that one who does not have oil in the measure of half an hour should light without a bracha, for the first and second answers are a doubt, see siman 671 in the Magen Avraham [s"k] 1.
Thus, according to the view of the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch one should rule like both views, and therefore one must put oil in the measure explained in the Gemara, which is 'from when the sun sets until [traffic] ceases'.
Question: What is the measure of 'until the feet of the Tarmoda'i cease'?
Answer: The Ritva wrote9: 'Until the feet of the Tarmoda'i cease. Meaning wood-sellers called Tarmoda'i, who would tarry there in the street of the city, and in every place this matter is according to what it is, and the plain custom is that its measure is as long as the shops of the oil-sellers10 and the like are open'. That is, according to his view there is no defined time in this, but rather in every place it depends on the time the oil shops close and the like.
But most of the Rishonim did not differentiate and wrote a fixed measure, as the Rif wrote11: 'Until the feet of the Tarmoda'i cease. Meaning wood known among them, called tarmoda, and the people who bring them are called Tarmoda'i, and they tarry until after the setting of the sun, about half an hour, until they reach their homes.' And in a similar vein wrote the Rambam12: 'And how long is this time? About half an hour or more'.
And the Tur wrote13: 'Its mitzvah is from the end of the sun's setting until half an hour into the night, for then the people pass and return and see in their houses and there is pirsumei nisa; therefore he must put in it oil in this measure'.
And so wrote the Mechaber14: 'If he forgot or deliberately did not light with the setting of the sun, he lights and continues until traffic ceases from the marketplace, which is about half an hour, for then the people pass and return and there is pirsumei nisa; therefore he must put in it oil in this measure'.
Thus we have learned that one must put oil in the measure of half an hour, (and we have already seen15 what the Rebbe wrote to explain our minhag, that it is proper that there be a measure of oil for 50 minutes).
In tomorrow's halacha we will study whether this measure applies also to those who light after the time, and whether it applies also to those who light inside.
Notes:
1 Shabbos 21b ↩
2 Behag Hilchos Chanukah, Rif Shabbos 9a, Meiri Shabbos ibid. And others ↩
3 Tosafos Shabbos ibid. And see Bach OC siman 672: 'And further it appears to me, since there are two readings and most poskim explain that they disagree' ↩
4 And see also Beis Yosef siman 672 ↩
5 Hilchos Chanukah siman 843 ↩
6 Teshuvos siman 972 ↩
7 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 672 se'if 2 ↩
8 s"k 6 ↩
9 Shabbos 21b ↩
10 Note what the Maharal wrote in the kuntres Ner Mitzvah: 'And one may explain the reason that one must light for this measure, because the light must be at the beginning of the night, for the darkness is what causes one to light the lamp. And if not, why did it specify the feet of the Tarmoda'i, who are wood-sellers — and if it were because they are the last, it should have said "until traffic ceases from the marketplace," and automatically the feet of the Tarmoda'i are that they are the last. Rather, it is because they sell wood to make a bonfire for light, and as long as they are in the marketplace it is the time when people buy wood for light and it is still the time for lighting fire; and when the feet of the Tarmoda'i have ceased there is no longer time to light' ↩
11 Shabbos ibid. ↩
12 Hilchos Chanukah ch. 4 halacha 5. Regarding the intent of his words 'or more,' see Sefer Mitzvas Ner Ish u'Beiso p. 132, and in HaZmanim BaHalacha vol. 2 p. 562 ↩
13 OC siman 672 ↩
14 Shulchan Aruch ibid. ↩
15 halacha number 422 ↩
[13] (halacha 425)
Question: What is the law regarding one who is accustomed (not according to our minhag) to light lights at the doorway of his house from outside (and the pirsumei nisa is for passersby) and is compelled to light after the beginning of the time — must he still put oil in the quantity of half an hour, or is a quantity according to the time remaining until the end of the time of the feet of the Tarmoda'i ceasing sufficient?
Answer: The Magen Avraham wrote1: 'It implies that if he lit some time after the setting of the sun he need not put in so much oil, only until traffic ceases from the marketplace; and in the Agudah it is written in the Maimoni that it implies it should burn more than a mil, end quote'.
And so wrote the Pri Chadash2: 'And however, it stands to reason that if he delayed lighting such that only a quarter of an hour or less remained until traffic ceases from the marketplace, he need put in oil only in this measure3'. But the Pri Chadash added that this is specifically for those who light outside. (And see below the continuation of his words regarding those who light inside).
Thus the poskim wrote that when one lights outside after the beginning of the time, a measure of half an hour is not fixed for the quantity of oil, but rather one needs oil only until the end of the time of the feet ceasing.
Question: What is the law when one lights inside — inside the house, according to our custom?
Answer: The Or Zarua wrote4: 'And nowadays, when we are not particular about the measure of the light, perhaps we rely on the first answer that we gave, that if he has not lit he may light, and we do not require a measure, since we light inside the house at the doorway of the house from within and the light is not visible to those walking in the marketplace and streets, they are not accustomed to be so stringent'.
And so wrote in Minhagei Maharash of Neustadt5: 'And in Simanei Ashiri it is written: that nowadays the Chanukah lights need no measure, for specifically in their days, when they would make recognition for the members of the public domain, was there the measure of "until traffic ceases from the marketplace." And for this reason Maharar Shalom said that whoever wishes may take small lights, even though they burn only a short time, and even so it is proper to take a bit of measure for the light'.
But on the other hand many poskim held that even when one lights inside there must be a measure, as Rabbeinu Peretz wrote6: 'And as for the measure, the Sar Rabbi Shimshon ruled it applies even now, and he would require making long wicks'.
And the Darkei Moshe explained7: 'And it appears that even Rabbeinu Shimshon said to make long wicks only according to their measure, and to exclude the view of this one whom I found, but he did not say that nowadays one should make wicks longer than the measure'.
And so wrote in practice the Magen Avraham8: 'This measure. And even nowadays one must put in it this measure, and not like those who are lenient in this [Darkei Moshe, Maharshal in a responsum]'.
And see also the words of the Pri Chadash above: and this is according to the law of the Talmud, that the recognition is for passersby, but nowadays we always require the known measure'.
And so wrote the Pri Megadim9: 'And see Pri Chadash, nowadays the recognition is for the members of the household inside; one always needs a measure of half an hour, and so is the custom'. And in s"k 3 he wrote: 'And even one who lights after the feet [cease] from the marketplace should also put in the measure of half an hour'.
In Shu"t Aprakses De'Anya10 the reason is explained: 'And regarding what his honor wrote, what relevance does half an hour have nowadays, when we light inside — one may say that since in any case some duration is needed for this mitzvah, as Rabbeinu Tam wrote that this is why we recite the bracha "to light," therefore they fixed the time of half an hour as in the days of the Talmud. And it also stands to reason that when there is duration to the lighting, the pirsumei nisa has more effect regarding recognition of the miracles of Hashem, and indeed nowadays too there is pirsumei nisa for the members of the household, for which reason one must light specifically when they are awake'.
Thus as halacha the poskim wrote that when one lights inside he always needs a lighting measure of half an hour.
Notes:
1 siman 672 s"k 2 ↩
2 OC siman 672 ↩
3 Seemingly, according to their words, by the law of the Talmud, when the lighting is for passersby, when one lights after the measure of ceasing, there is no need for a measure of half an hour. And see Shu"t Avnei Nezer, Chelek OC siman 497 os 8. But see in Sefer Mitzvas Ner Ish u'Beiso p. 134. And it still requires study ↩
4 Hilchos Chanukah siman 322 ↩
5 siman 540 ↩
6 Hagahos Semak mitzvah 280 ↩
7 siman 672 s"k 1 ↩
8 siman 672 s"k 3 ↩
9 Eshel Avraham ibid. s"k 2 ↩
10 vol. 2 OC siman 105 ↩
[14] (halacha 426)
Question: Is it permitted to place a small menorah on the floor even when the lights will be very low, or must one raise the menorah somewhat off the ground?
Answer: The Mordechai wrote1: 'And the Maharam of blessed memory .. would place it above three tefachim'. And the Tur cited it2: 'And Rabbeinu Meir of Rothenburg of blessed memory was exacting to place it above three tefachim and below ten'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote there: 'And his reasoning is because anything below three [tefachim] is considered as pressed against the ground'. And the Levush explained3: 'But he places it above three, for anything below three is considered as pressed against the ground and people do not pay attention to it and there is no pirsumei nisa'.
And the Bach on the Tur there explained: 'And it comes to teach us that even though he placed it on the wall in the tefach adjacent to the doorway, since below three is considered as pressed against the ground, as if he placed it on the ground and it is not recognizable that the householder placed it there, as Rashi explained (22a s.v. mitzvah) in a case where he distanced it from the doorway such that it is not recognizable that the householder placed it there, and here too it is similar to that'.
Additional reasons were written in Shu"t Lehoros Nosson4: 'One may also say based on the Yerushalmi Pesachim5 that within three tefachim of the ground people tread on it .. and similarly in Shabbos6, and that which is three high the public do not tread on. And if so, we are concerned lest a person tread on it and extinguish it. And consequently one should not light there even at the outset, similar to what the Magen Avraham7 wrote, that if he placed it in a windy place and it went out he is obligated in it, for it is as if he did not put in it oil in the measure, see there. One may also say it is because of degradation of the mitzvah, similar to that of Shabbos8 that one should not cover it with his foot'.
And so ruled the Mechaber in practice9: 'He places it above three tefachim'.
And behold, some understood that this law is indispensable, for in Sefer HaKolbo10 it is written: 'If he lit it below ten it is valid, provided that it be three tefachim high from the ground.' And from his language it implies that this is indispensable, and so ruled in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch11: 'We hold that the lighting accomplishes the mitzvah, meaning the lighting is the mitzvah, and at the time of lighting the lights must be in their proper place and in the proper measure, to exclude a case where he lit them below three tefachim or above twenty amos, and afterward, while they are burning, he placed them in their [proper] place — they are invalid .. and he is obligated to light them again but does not recite a bracha'.
But on the other hand most of the poskim wrote that this is a law l'chatchilah and not indispensable, as the Pri Chadash wrote12: 'And it stands to reason that the same applies if he placed it below three tefachim [= he has fulfilled his obligation]'.
And the Pri Megadim there13 explained the source of the Pri Chadash: 'Even though from what the Mechaber wrote, "if he placed it above ten tefachim he has fulfilled," and did not write so regarding below three tefachim, nevertheless from what R"M of Rothenburg wrote, that he was exacting to place it above three tefachim and below ten tefachim, it is evident that it applies specifically to the exacting. See Eliyah Rabbah [s"k 11]'.
And so ruled the Acharonim14 in practice.
Question: A menorah standing on a step or a wall and the like, and the person stands beside it on the floor — from where does one measure the three tefachim?
Answer: The Aruch HaShulchan wrote15: 'And when he lights at the doorway and there is a threshold [= the doorstep], it appears to me that we reckon from the threshold, and not from the ground. And l'chatchilah he should place it within ten tefachim adjacent to the threshold and above three tefachim from the threshold16'.
From his words it appears that the three tefachim are reckoned from the place upon which the menorah rests and not from the place where the person stands. And so wrote the Nitei Gavriel17.
But some explained18 in the words of the Aruch HaShulchan that he is speaking of a threshold that in their era was wide and the person himself stood upon it, so that it is truly like the ground; but in a case where the threshold is narrow such that the person himself stands on the ground, three tefachim from the ground is sufficient.
Thus in practice one must ensure that the flame19 of the light is above three tefachim [= 24 cm], and in a case where a person already lit below three tefachim he has fulfilled his obligation, but he should raise the light above three tefachim [and of course he should not recite a bracha again!]
Notes:
1 Shabbos perek Bameh Madlikin remez 268 ↩
2 OC siman 671 ↩
3 OC siman 671 se'if 6 (and in Shu"t Lehoros Nosson vol. 4 siman 63 he wrote this reason on his own, and it escaped him that the Levush preceded him) ↩
4 Shabbos 22a s.v. mitzvah ↩
5 vol. 4 siman 63 ↩
6 ch. 1 halacha 1 ↩
7 7,1 ↩
8 siman 673 s"k 12 ↩
9 22a ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 671 se'if 6 ↩
11 siman 44 ↩
12 siman 139 se'if 13 ↩
13 OC siman 671 se'if 6 ↩
14 Eshel Avraham s"k 6 ↩
15 Mishnah Berurah s"k 26. Kaf HaChaim siman 671 os 50 ↩
16 OC siman 671 se'if 22 ↩
17 Unless one is speaking of someone who lights at the window, in which case there is recognition in every place, as explained in his words there ↩
18 Chanukah ch. 16 din 3 ↩
19 Piskei Teshuvos siman 671 note 40. However it requires study, what he cited to Shu"t Shevet HaKehosi vol. 2 siman 230, and this is not the place to expand ↩
20 In the plain sense the matter is stated regarding the flame of the light, and it is not a law regarding the place where the menorah stands. But see Piskei Teshuvos .. that some were stringent also regarding the menorah ↩
[15] (halacha 427)
Question: Up to what height is it permitted to place the menorah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 states: 'Rav Kahana said, Rav Nasan bar Manyumi expounded in the name of Rabbi Tanchum: a Chanukah light that one placed above twenty amos is invalid, like a sukkah and like an alleyway'.
And Rashi explained: 'Invalid — for above twenty amos the eye does not have dominion over it, and there is no pirsumei nisa'.
And so wrote the Tur2: 'But if he placed it above twenty amos, even after the fact he has not fulfilled, for the eye does not have dominion over it and there is no pirsumei nisa'.
And so ruled the Mechaber3: 'But if he places it above twenty amos he has not fulfilled'.
This law is not unique specifically regarding Chanukah lights, but is identical also to the laws of sukkah and the recognition of the beam in an alleyway.
And as the Mechaber wrote regarding sukkah4: 'A sukkah that is higher than twenty amos is invalid'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe regarding an alleyway5: 'An alleyway whose airspace is more than exactly twenty amos in height is not permitted by a beam, for the beam is for recognition, and above twenty amos there is no recognition in it, because the eye does not have dominion there, but it is permitted by a side-post'.
Except that regarding an alleyway we find the recognition of an amaltera, as the Gemara in Maseches Eruvin states6: 'How then did Rabbi Ila'a say in the name of Rav .. and if it has an amaltera — even higher than twenty amos he need not diminish'.
And the meaning of amaltera Rabbeinu Yehonasan of Lunel wrote7: 'And the meaning of amaltera is a long, wide cedar beam inserted in the wall and decorated with decorations, and because of the importance of the beam itself, being of important wood, and because it is decorated, all people gaze upon it as they pass there, and there is recognition even above twenty amos'.
And so the Alter Rebbe ruled there as halacha: 'And if he wishes to render it valid with a beam, he must make on it decoration and ornamentation, whereby all gaze upon it'.
And the Acharonim discussed8 why we do not say that the Chanukah lights themselves have the law of an amaltera, for they illuminate and the light itself causes people to gaze upon them, and if so, why does the Gemara say that when he placed it above twenty amos it is invalid. And see what the Rebbe wrote9, that there is an argument to say that they are much more than an amaltera: '..and seemingly: …b) lights, from when the sun sets, one gazes upon them more than upon the decoration and ornamentation on a beam (Shulchan Aruch OC siman 363 se'if 26). And note from Bechoros (54b) that sixteen mil the eye of the shepherd has dominion (and in the commentary of Rabbeinu Gershom — to guard them)'.
And we find among the Acharonim several approaches to explain this difficulty. Some wrote10 that the light of the lamp does not illuminate so much below that it be considered recognition, in the vein of the words of the Taz11 regarding another leniency: 'For the essence of the mitzvah of the Chanukah light is at tzeis hakochavim, as the Mordechai wrote, and anything higher than twenty amos, the eye does not travel there along the walls, for the walls themselves too are not visible at night, and the light of the lamp from above does not have dominion there, as above, correct'.
And some wrote12 that it is not fitting for the lights themselves to be like an amaltera, because that is an additional use of the Chanukah light: 'And if so one may say that so too regarding every Chanukah light above twenty amos, since one would need to use it also as an amaltera — that is, to draw the eye, for otherwise it is invalid above twenty — if so it is considered that he lights it also for his own need, and then he can no longer fulfill with it the obligation of the Chanukah light. And even though his need is also for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvah, nevertheless it is already regarded thereby as another need besides lighting for the sake of the mitzvah, like "for his need and for its need." Therefore we say that ordinarily a Chanukah light above twenty is invalid.
And the Acharonim further discussed13 whether one may make flashing lights or something else that would draw the attention of passersby, such that the electric light would be like an amaltera that would cause people to gaze upon the menorah.
And in practice many poskim wrote that it does not avail and gave various reasons, as follows:
Some wrote14 that just as the Sfas Emes explained15 regarding sukkah, that one may say that there an amaltera does not avail: 'However, in my humble opinion one may reason from the language of Rashi of blessed memory, "make a sukkah whose dwelling is recognizable to you," that the recognition must be in the body of the sechach and the place of its placement, and one may say that by means of an amaltera it does not apply to be called "so that they may know," and it requires study.' So too there is a need for the menorah itself to be the recognition: and they wrote 'it stands to reason that the light would be invalid, for in a Chanukah light the recognition must come from the light itself alone. An amaltera that draws the eye's gaze cannot render the burning light valid. The burning light itself must draw the gaze of the viewer to it, and then the light is valid as an object of a mitzvah light that itself publicizes the miracle of Chanukah'.
And some wrote16 that it is not because of a law specific to the Chanukah light, but rather that this is not similar to an alleyway, where the amaltera is a decoration on the beam itself, and not something in addition to the beam. And an amaltera in another object does not avail to make the menorah considered a visible thing.
And some understood17 the invalidation from this very law: 'For the lamp itself, one may say, is considered at night like an amaltera in an alleyway, and even so the Sages invalidated it, and therefore even a literal amaltera, it appears, does not avail'.
Thus in practice one may not place the menorah above twenty amos under any circumstances.
----------------------------------------------
https://did.li/Shonehalacha
Notes:
1 22a ↩
2 OC siman 671 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 671 se'if 6 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 633 se'if 1 ↩
5 OC siman 363 se'if 28 ↩
6 3a ↩
7 Eruvin ibid. 3a ↩
8 See in the Acharonim below ↩
9 Likkutei Sichos vol. 5 p. 456 ↩
10 See also Shevet Darom 5775 p. 425 ↩
11 OC siman 671 s"k 5 ↩
12 Notes of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv on the Gemara in Eruvin ↩
13 See in the Acharonim below. And see the collection Beis Aharon v'Yisrael issue 134 that some permitted it ↩
14 Reshimos Shiurim of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Sukkah 2a. Minchas Asher, She'eilos in matters of Chanukah ↩
15 Sukkah 2a ↩
16 Minchas Asher ibid. ↩
17 Halichos Shlomo Moadim ch. 14 din 7 ↩
[16] (halacha 428)
Above twenty amos [2]
1) We learned in the previous halacha that a Chanukah light above twenty amos is invalid; the Rishonim disagreed whether this law applies also in a case where one lights inside the house, as follows:
The Raavyah wrote1 in the name of his father Rabbeinu Yoel: 'And I received from Rabbeinu Abba, my teacher, that these matters were in their days when they would place it outside, but for us who place it inside, even above twenty amos it is valid, as they say regarding sukkah [that if] the walls reach the sechach, even above twenty amos it is valid, [for indeed] the eye has dominion over it, but in my eyes it appears that there is room to distinguish, for the discerning'.
And in the Tur2 he objected to Rabbeinu Yoel: 'And it appears to me that the case is not comparable to seeing, for there [regarding sukkah] we require that his eye have dominion over the roof, and since the walls reach the roof, by means of them his eye has dominion over the roof; but here, where one needs his eye to have dominion over the lights, since it is above twenty, over which the eye does not have dominion, what difference does it make regarding the roof, which is still above it — on account of it the eye does not have any more dominion'.
But the Beis Yosef cited what Mahari Abuhav wrote to reconcile it: 'I found written in the name of Mahar"r Yitzchak Abuhav of blessed memory: it appears to me that the reasoning of Rabbeinu Yoel is that when there is airspace here, the airspace harms the eyes and a person cannot look upward as much as he wishes, and for this he brought a proof from sukkah, that if the walls reach the sechach even above twenty it is valid and the eye has dominion over it; and by this it appears that there is no basis for the objection of the Mechaber, end quote'.
Except that the Bach there cited Tosafos3 and the Ran4 who wrote: 'And since the walls reach the sechach the eye does indeed have dominion over it — and it is not similar to a Chanukah light and an alleyway beam, which is not considered recognition above twenty even though the beam is atop the walls, for there a beam is a tefach, the eye does not have dominion over it as with a sukkah, whose [airspace] is very wide'. And the Bach wrote: 'For according to this reasoning the words of Rabbeinu [= the Tur] are settled and the words of Rabbeinu Yoel HaLevi are rejected .. and what the Beis Yosef wrote in the name of R"Y Abuhav .. it appears to my humble opinion that this reasoning of his did not escape the awareness of Rabbeinu, and even so he objected to it, for whence does Rabbeinu Yoel HaLevi know that this reasoning is halacha, since he has no clear proof for it from that of sukkah, for one can push it off and say that there it is different, since we require that his eye have dominion over the roof, etc., that one may say the airspace neither raises nor lowers but the main reason is that by means of the walls his eye has dominion over the roof, etc., and this is what he was precise in his language, saying that the case is not comparable to a proof, etc.; also from the words of Tosafos and the Ran it is explained that the words of Rabbeinu Yoel HaLevi are rejected and the words of Rabbeinu are primary, and so we hold'.
The Taz also5 objected to Mahari Abuhav: 'Although I am not worthy to decide, nevertheless the words of Mahari"a are puzzling to me, for if it is as his words, that the essence of the invalidation in a height above twenty is because there is airspace there and it harms the eyes, why did the Gemara require Rabbah to find a permit specifically in walls that reach the sechach — behold we find a permit otherwise, namely that if there is a bit of wall adjacent to the sechach in that measure which is above twenty, and the wall below is a small wall, and since there is no airspace in that measure it will not harm him afterward, the airspace below twenty; for otherwise even sechach below twenty would be invalid — and according to the reasoning of the Tur it is settled, that a person's sight does not travel upward unless there are walls from below to above, and then the sight travels from the walls to the sechach, therefore the walls must reach the sechach from below to above without interruption so that by means of them the eye's sight travels upward, and whenever there is an interruption the sight drawn from above is cut off, as appears to my humble opinion; from the strength of this, the words of Rabbeinu the Tur are primary, that it does not avail for a light that is above twenty even in a house that has walls. And further it appears to my humble opinion that it does not stand to reason here to render valid a light by means of the walls, for the essence of the mitzvah of the Chanukah light is at tzeis hakochavim as the Mordechai wrote, and anything higher than twenty amos, the eye does not travel there along the walls, for the walls themselves too are not visible at night, and the light of the lamp from above does not have dominion there, as above, correct'.
And based on this — that from the words of Tosafos and the Ran it is proven not like Rabbeinu Yoel, and the Tur objected to him, and so ruled the Bach — the Pri Chadash wrote6: and therefore the Mechaber of blessed memory left his words unqualified, and understand it well.
That is, even though the Beis Yosef wrote to explain Rabbeinu Yoel, nevertheless in practice in the Shulchan Aruch he did not mention such a reasoning to distinguish in this law between one who lights outside or in the house, but rather left his words unqualified, that in any case above twenty amos is invalid. And so is the halacha in practice7.
2) Question: One who lit above twenty — what must he do?
Answer: Tosafos wrote8: 'A Chanukah light that one placed above twenty amos is invalid, like a sukkah and like an alleyway. And if you ask, it should have said "let him diminish," as it says regarding an alleyway, that it says there an alleyway is Rabbinic, teach the remedy .. or alternatively, it did not wish to lengthen; let him extinguish it and diminish it and then relight it, for to diminish it and leave it as it is burning is impossible, as is proven below.' Thus it emerges from the words of Tosafos that a person who lit above twenty amos may not [merely] lower it, but rather must extinguish and then lower and relight.
And based on this the Rema wrote in the Shulchan Aruch there in the hagah: 'Even if he took it thus lit and placed it below twenty, he has not fulfilled, for the lighting accomplishes the mitzvah'.
And the Pri Chadash wrote on his words: and what he wrote, that the lighting accomplishes the mitzvah — it is not so, for even according to the one who says the placing accomplishes the mitzvah, he must extinguish it and go back and relight it, for the observer says he is lighting it for his own need, as we say [Shabbos 22b] regarding one who lit inside and placed it outside, and so wrote Tosafos of blessed memory at the beginning of Sukkah and the beginning of Eruvin. However it certainly stands to reason that even if he recited a bracha he must go back and recite the bracha. And so ruled the Mishnah Berurah in practice9.
And the Kaf HaChaim wrote10: 'And it appears that this is specifically if he finished the lighting and diverted his attention and afterward it became known to him that he lit invalidly, that he must extinguish it and lower it and go back and relight it with a bracha; but if it immediately became known to him before he diverted his attention, he should not go back to recite the bracha'.
Except that in a case where one is speaking of one who lit above twenty amos inside the house, since according to Rabbeinu Yoel he has fulfilled his obligation, the Pri Megadim wrote11: 'And see the Pri Chadash, that one who lit above twenty amos must go back and recite the bracha. And it requires study, for in the Tur there are those who say that in a house it is permitted after the fact, see Taz s"k 5, and all the more so [with a light] designated for that. And it requires study whether he should recite the bracha again'.
But the Kaf HaChaim there wrote: 'But according to what I wrote it is well settled, for it is different here, since he must extinguish it and go back and relight it and he has also already diverted his attention, it is a new act, and understand it12'.
Thus in practice one who lit above twenty amos must extinguish, lower, and relight, and the poskim wrote that he lights with a bracha [when he had diverted his attention].
Notes:
1 Hilchos Chanukah siman 843, and see also Chiddushei HaRitva Shabbos 21b ↩
2 OC siman 671 ↩
3 Sukkah 2b ↩
4 1a s.v. u'l'Rabbah ↩
5 ibid. s"k 5 ↩
6 OC siman 671 se'if 6 ↩
7 As the Eliyah Rabbah also wrote, s"k 12. And so ruled the Mishnah Berurah s"k 28 ↩
8 Shabbos 22a ↩
9 ibid. s"k 29 ↩
10 siman 671 s"k 53 ↩
11 ibid. in the Eshel Avraham s"k 7 ↩
12 However the Pri Megadim follows his own view in siman 673 Eshel Avraham s"k 13 ↩
[17] (halacha 429)
Above twenty amos [3]
We have learned that one may not light the Chanukah lights above twenty amos; in this halacha we will discuss several details relating to the completion of this law (even though in part it is not according to our minhag).
1) Question: From where does one measure the twenty amos?
Answer: The Machatzis HaShekel wrote1: 'And the twenty amos are certainly measured from the ground of the public domain and not from the ground of the house, for the reason that above twenty he has not fulfilled is that the eye does not have dominion over it, and we require that the eye of the members of the public domain have dominion over it. However, for us, whose main recognition is for the members of the household, it is sufficient if it is below twenty from the ground of the house. And nevertheless, even for us, in a case where the window is higher than twenty from the ground of the public domain, it is preferable to place it adjacent [to the doorway] and in the tefach adjacent to the mezuzah, since above twenty there is no recognition for the members of the public domain, and for the members of the household their recognition is preferable adjacent to the doorway'.
And in Mekor Chaim (Bloch) there he wrote: 'At the window adjacent to the public domain. Below twenty amos from the ground of the public domain, so it appears to my humble opinion, is the view of our Sages in the Talmud'.
2) Question: Is the emphasis on the location of the menorah or on the flame?
Answer: We find Acharonim who were in doubt about this law, as written in the Taharas HaShulchan2: 'It requires study, regarding long lights whose upper edge reaches above twenty amos and whose lower edge is below twenty, whether he has fulfilled; and even if there is within the twenty amos a lighting measure, nevertheless the lighting was above twenty amos, and the lighting accomplishes the mitzvah as written in the hagah here'. And Rav Shlomo Kluger3 also discussed this at length.
But the Pri Megadim4 wrote plainly: 'And know, that "above twenty amos" applies even to long wax candles; whenever the place of the flame is above twenty amos it is invalid. And all the more so according to what the Taz wrote, that at night the walls and the candles are recognizable only in the place where they burn..'. And as the Minchas Yitzchak explained5: 'And just as there we follow the reasoning that "the eye has dominion over it" depends on the flame and not on the candle itself'.
And so ruled the Mishnah Berurah6, and the Kaf HaChaim7.
And see also Halichos Shlomo8: 'All the height measures stated regarding the Chanukah light were stated regarding the flame, and not regarding the menorah'.
3) Question: For those who are accustomed (not according to the Chabad minhag) to light at the window of their home and they live in a building higher than twenty amos, should they light at the window? And is there an advantage in a case where there is a building opposite that is also tall, and the lights are recognizable to the residents of the building opposite?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos9 states: 'The Rabbis taught: a Chanukah light — it is a mitzvah to place it at the doorway of one's house from outside. If one dwelt in an upper story — he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain'.
And so ruled the Mechaber10: 'And if one dwelt in an upper story that has no doorway open to the public domain, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain'.
And the Pri Chadash wrote there: 'It is a clear matter, that if the window is above twenty amos, he places it at the doorway of his house'. And so it is explicit in the Mekor Chaim and the Machatzis HaShekel cited above. And so ruled in practice the Mishnah Berurah11, the Kaf HaChaim12.
On the other hand the Pri Megadim13 wrote: 'See the Pri Chadash, that if it is twenty amos high it is of no advantage at all. However, for us who light inside, one may place it at the window, and nevertheless there is a bit of recognition for the members of the public domain, and it is preferable thus'.
And note that in recent years we have been privileged that the Chiddushei HaRitva on Maseches Shabbos has been printed from manuscript, and there14 it is explicit that in such a case it avails even above twenty amos, and this is his language: 'And if one dwelt in an upper story he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. Meaning, he speaks unqualifiedly, even though it is high for the members of the public domain, above twenty amos, for we measure by his [situation], since it is not possible otherwise, and as we say'.
And based on this it is written in Halichos Shlomo15: 'And when he does not light at the doorway of the building, he lights at the window of his apartment, even if it is above twenty amos high'.
And in the note16 they remarked: but as for the fact that there are other houses opposite his house whose residents see his lights, it was not clear to Rabbeinu to render the lighting valid on that account, for after all it does not have the definition of a public domain'. And so wrote others of the poskim17.
On the other hand some used the neighbors in the adjacent buildings as a rationale to light at the window, as written in Shu"t Shevet HaLevi18: 'And in any case, from the essence of the enactment Chazal enacted that one should light adjacent to the public domain, where there is pirsuma nisa also outside, and Rashi and Tosafos and the poskim disagree about the place of placement, whether the doorway of the house or the doorway of the courtyard, and for one dwelling in an upper story, at the window; and since the truth is that there are neighbors from several sides who can look at the Chanukah light, for whom it is within twenty amos, in addition to what the Pri Megadim wrote that even above twenty there is a bit of recognition, besides the complete recognition for the members of the household inside, I see no reason to change the long-standing custom to light in such a case at the window; and regarding the measure of distance of the neighbors opposite we have received nothing, but the main point is that one can still look with normal sight, for specifically from below to above is the measure twenty amos, for a person does not throw his head backward to look upward, as the Meiri wrote at the beginning of Sukkah'.
Except that, as above, this discussion (the third) is for those who are accustomed to light at the doorway of the house; however in practice the Chabad minhag is that in any case one lights inside, and with the help of Hashem it will be explained in a separate halacha
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 671 se'if 6 ↩
2 Printed in Yalkut Mefarshim at the end of the Shulchan Aruch ↩
3 in Chochmas Shlomo on the Shulchan Aruch there se'if 6 ↩
4 OC siman 671 Mishbetzos Zahav s"k 5 ↩
5 Shu"t vol. 6 siman 65. And see also Shu"t Beis Avi vol. 3 siman 75 ↩
6 Shaar HaTziyon os 33 ↩
7 s"k 52 ↩
8 Moadim ch. 14 os 6 ↩
9 21b ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 671 se'if 5 ↩
11 siman 671 Shaar HaTziyon os 42 ↩
12 os 39 ↩
13 Mishbetzos Zahav s"k 5 ↩
14 Shabbos 21b ↩
15 ch. 14 os 5 ↩
16 Orchos HaHalacha 22 ↩
17 And see Teshuvos v'Hanhagos vol. 5 siman 226 ↩
18 vol. 4 siman 65 ↩
[18] (halacha 715)
Question: Where must one light the Chanukah lights? (1)
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 states: 'The Rabbis taught: a Chanukah light — it is a mitzvah to place it at the doorway of one's house from outside. If one dwelt in an upper story — he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger — he places it on his table and that is sufficient'2.
And in Megillas Taanis it is written: 'It is a mitzvah to place it at the doorway of one's house from outside, and if one dwelt in an upper story he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And if he fears the gentiles3 he places it at the doorway of his house from within, and in a time of danger he places it on his table and that is sufficient'.
This Gemara was cited in the Rif4, and so wrote the Rambam5: 'A Chanukah light — it is a mitzvah to place it at the doorway of one's house from outside, in the tefach adjacent to the doorway on the left of one entering the house, so that the mezuzah will be on the right and the Chanukah light on the left, and if one dwelt in an upper story he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain .. in a time of danger a person places the Chanukah light inside his house from within, and even if he placed it on his table that is sufficient'.
However, the Rishonim disagree as to whether the "time of danger" mentioned here refers to actual danger — from a time of shmad — or also to the decree of the Persians, who forbade kindling lights during the period of their festival except in their house of worship, and if someone kindled elsewhere they would extinguish his lights; in that case too they permitted kindling inside the house, and the same applies to distress and the like. For Rashi wrote: 'The danger — for the Persians had a law on the day of their festival that one may not kindle a light except in their house of idolatry, as we say in Gittin (17a)'.
And so wrote the Ritva there: 'And in a time of danger he places it on his table. He explained: this does not refer specifically to mortal danger, for if so it is obvious that one is not to be killed over a positive commandment .. rather even danger of distress or enmity, as in France; and therefore Rashi explained here that it is because of the Persians, who would not allow a light to be kindled in any house on a known day of their festival, as we say there: [the fire-priest] came [and took] the lamp, and therefore my teacher, the Rav, of blessed memory, would say that when a wind blows such that it cannot be kindled outside, one kindles it inside his house'6.
But Tosafos7 wrote: 'Alternatively, the Ri says that the "time of danger" mentioned above does not refer to the danger of chaveirim, but rather the danger of a decree that was enacted not to kindle the Chanukah light'.
And so wrote the Meiri8: 'And in a time of danger — meaning shmad, when they do not allow Israel to occupy themselves with mitzvos'. And so wrote the Ran9: 'And in a time of danger, when they decreed against the mitzvos, he places it on his table'.
And the Bach10 wrote: 'And in a time of danger .. and its meaning is that they decreed a shmad not to fulfill the mitzvos, and not like Rashi's explanation that the Persians had a day of their festival etc., for it is obvious that since the Persians' decree was not against Israel alone but also against the other nations, it was not a decree of shmad, as the Nimukei Yosef wrote in the chapter of Ben Sorer U'Moreh (Sanhedrin 17b, s.v. karka); and if so, it would be difficult why Chazal required him to place it on his table and thereby enter into possible danger11 — for even from the table they would take it and be strict, as stated in the first chapter of Gittin .. But when we explain that it speaks of a decree of shmad, it is well understood, for even [changing] a shoelace is forbidden to alter in a time of shmad (see Sanhedrin 74b); therefore they would not uproot the mitzvah of kindling entirely, but the change of placing it on the table does not uproot the mitzvah, since this is not a change in the body of the mitzvah, only a change of place, and in such a case it is permitted even in a time of shmad, as is proven at the beginning of Kesubos (3b) regarding the enactment of marriage on the fourth day, that even in a time of shmad they change the enactment from this day to another day, since they do not make a change in the body of the enactment; and so too regarding the mitzvah of kindling the Chanukah light. The Ran too explained as our teacher wrote and not like Rashi's explanation, and so is the essence'.
And in halacha the Mechaber12 wrote: 'The Chanukah light — he places it at the entrance nearest to the public domain, outside. If the house opens to the public domain, he places it at its entrance; and if there is a courtyard before the house, he places it at the entrance of the courtyard; and if he was living in an upper story that has no entrance opening to the public domain, he places it in the window nearest to the public domain; and in a time of danger, when he is not permitted to fulfill the mitzvah, he places it on his table and that suffices'.
And the Taz13 wrote: 'And in a time of danger, when he is not permitted to fulfill the mitzvah. This is the explanation of Tosafos in the chapter Kirah14, but Rashi explained in Bameh Madlikin that the danger was that it was a day of the Persians' festival on which they permitted no light except in their idolatry — for according to this it would be difficult, what benefit is there in placing it on the table; and Tosafos were compelled in Bameh Madlikin to say that they did not search so much in the houses; but according to this explanation it is well, for when he places it on the table there was no awareness of the matter that it was done for the mitzvah'.
Thus in practice we have seen that there are four places for kindling: a) the entrance of his house from outside; b) the window nearest to the public domain; c) the entrance of his house from inside; d) on his table. And we have also seen that the Rishonim and Acharonim disagree as to what defines the danger that permits kindling inside the house.
However, despite this, we find among our Rishonim an ancient minhag to kindle inside the house even in times when there was no longer any danger, as we shall see tomorrow, b'ezras Hashem.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shabbos 21b ↩
2 And the Sfas Emes, Shabbos 21b, wrote: 'And it is explained that even bedieved he does not fulfill [his obligation] if he kindled it inside, even though in a time of danger one kindles inside; nevertheless, when there is no danger he does not fulfill even bedieved'. And see also Moadim U'Zmanim HaChodosh vol. 4 §393 ↩
3 Some had the version: 'לצים' ↩
4 Ibid. 9b ↩
5 Hilchos Chanukah ch. 4, halachos 7–8 ↩
6 And see also Rabbeinu Yerucham, who will be cited in the next halacha ↩
7 Shabbos 45a, s.v. mikamei chaverei b'Shabta ↩
8 Shabbos 21b ↩
9 Shabbos 9b in the Rif pagination ↩
10 OC §671 ↩
11 However the Pri Chodosh, OC §671:5, challenged him: 'But because of the danger of chaveirim there was no danger in it, and they would place it at the entrance of their house from outside. And this is unlike the words of the Bach, who holds that because of the danger of the chaveirim they would not place it even on their table; and this is not correct' ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch OC §671:5 ↩
13 s.k. 3 ↩
14 And so the Pri Chodosh wrote in explaining the Mechaber's view ↩
[19] (halacha 716)
Question: Where must one kindle the Chanukah lights? (2)
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that by the law of the Gemara one must kindle the Chanukah light at the entrance of the house from outside, except in a time of danger, when one kindles inside the house; yet despite this we have found an ancient minhag from the time of the Rishonim, to kindle inside the house even in times when there was no longer any danger, as appears from what the Baal HaIttur1 wrote: 'And in a time of danger he places it on his table and that suffices, and after they became accustomed on account of the danger, they [continued to] follow the custom2. And one who can place it outside places it outside, and if not, at his entrance'3.
And the Rashba4 wrote: 'You further asked regarding what they said, that a courtyard with two entrances requires kindling at both because of suspicion. Now that we kindle not outside but inside, is there [still] concern of suspicion regarding those entering and leaving? Answer: Indeed, now that they have become accustomed not to kindle outside but in the houses, even if it has two entrances he is not obligated to kindle at them, for everyone knows that they do not kindle outside but inside'5.
And so the Or Zarua6 testified that such was the minhag, though he wondered at it: 'And nowadays, when there is no danger, I do not know for what reason we do not kindle in the courtyards'.
And there are among the Rishonim who wrote that some were accustomed to kindle inside for various reasons even though there is no danger, as Rabbeinu Yerucham7 wrote: 'And now they are accustomed to kindle it inside, at the entrance nearest to the public domain, and some are accustomed to kindle it inside at the entrance nearest to the courtyard, because gentiles and thieves are common, and further because they are not accustomed to affix a mezuzah to the open entrance'8.
And in Ohel Moed9 he wrote: 'The Chanukah light is a mitzvah at the entrance of his house from outside, and in a time of danger he places it on his table and that suffices .. and now they are accustomed to place it at the entrance and inside, even though it is not a time of danger'.
And so they were accustomed in Eretz Yisrael, as it says in Seder HaYom10: 'And even though we kindle inside the house'.
And so the Shelah11 wrote in his work that was composed in Eretz Yisrael: 'In the house one kindles the lights beside the entrance, inside, within a tefach of the entrance, to the right of one's entry. And if there is a mezuzah at his entrance, he places it to the left of his entry, so that he passes between two mitzvos'.
And so they were accustomed in the lands of Ashkenaz, as the Rema12 wrote: 'However nowadays, when we all kindle inside13 and there is no recognition for the people of the public domain at all, there is not so much concern if one does not kindle within a tefach of the entrance; nevertheless the minhag is to kindle within a tefach of the entrance as in their days'.
And such is our minhag, as the Rebbe Rayatz14 wrote concerning the Rebbe Rashab: 'And afterward my revered father [the Rebbe] sat about half an hour on a chair facing the Chanukah light, which he had kindled on the mezuzah of the entrance between the large room and the dining room'.
The Rebbe15 too mentioned this minhag: 'And to note the custom of our Rebbeim, who would kindle the Chanukah light at the entrance of one of the rooms and not at the window, and see Sukkah 32b, "since it issued from the mouth of Rav Kahana etc."'. And so he wrote16: 'And there are yet several matters of this kind that even the meticulous (vasikin) do not practice, even though seemingly the law is explicit in the Shulchan Aruch without dissent, and indeed even more so than the law of sleeping in the sukkah; for example, the matter of kindling the Chanukah lights at the entrance of one's house from outside, which is explicit in the Talmud and the Mechaber, as the Nimukei OC §671 raised as a difficulty'.
Thus we have seen that for many generations, at least from the time of the Rishonim, everyone was accustomed to kindle inside, and such is our minhag (except that some wondered at this, and in the next halacha we shall see several ways in which they explained the accepted minhag).
Notes:
1 Hilchos Chanukah 114:4 ↩
2 The Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak vol. 6 §66 wrote: 'In the sefer Pesach HaDvir, in his notes to the Ittur there (s.k. 4), he wrote as follows: and it means that even though there is no danger, nevertheless they were accustomed to place it on the table; and the Ittur wished thereby to resolve the Or Zarua's wonderment concerning our minhag, that we do not kindle in the courtyards even though there is no danger — namely, that after they became accustomed thus, they remained with their minhag, end of his words' ↩
3 It is explained in his words, as we saw in the previous halacha based on Megillas Taanis, that in a case where one does not place it outside, one should place it at the entrance ↩
4 Shu"t vol. 1 §540–541 ↩
5 From the subject under discussion — that seemingly it would have been fitting to kindle outside because of suspicion — it appears that there was no danger in their time and nevertheless they were accustomed to kindle inside. And see also, regarding the events of those days, that there was no danger then, in the Beis Aharon V'Yisrael journal, issue 164, p. 65 onward ↩
6 Hilchos Chanukah §323 ↩
7 Toldos Adam V'Chava, Nesiv 9, part 1, 61b ↩
8 And see also the words of Megillas Taanis and the Ritva cited in the previous halacha. And there are among the Rishonim who mentioned the minhag to kindle inside and did not mention that there is danger, and wrote that it is because of the exile and the like; see Orchos Chaim, Hilchos Chanukah §3; Shu"t HaRivash §111 ↩
9 Shaar Moed Katan, Derech 1, Nesiv 5 ↩
10 Seder Chanukah V'HaKri'os ↩
11 Maseches Tamid, chapter Ner Mitzvah (2) ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch OC §671:7 in the Hagah ↩
13 However the Nimukei OC in §671, os 5, wrote: 'And perhaps there was still, in Cracow in the time of the Rema, of blessed memory, mortal danger from the wild Christian gentiles, that they should not strike the Jews in their zeal over their religion when they see the Jews observing [their] religion in public..' ↩
14 Igros Kodesh vol. 4 p. 181 ↩
15 Likkutei Sichos vol. 5 p. 456 ↩
16 Igros Kodesh vol. 11 p. 414 ↩
[20] (halacha 717)
Question: Where must one kindle the Chanukah lights? (3)
In the previous halacha we saw that the minhag that spread in Klal Yisrael from the time of the Rishonim was to kindle the Chanukah lights inside the house, even in situations where there is no danger, and that such is our minhag.
And we saw that the Or Zarua wondered at this, and the Acharonim discussed it at length, as the Nimukei OC1 wrote: 'But behold, the Mechaber too wrote explicitly regarding this in halacha: "And in a time of danger, when he is not permitted to fulfill the mitzvah" — implying that only because of danger does one place it inside. And behold, with Hashem's help, in this there is no danger in our times, and why should we not fulfill the mitzvah as it is properly enacted ..'.
And we have found among the poskim several reasons to justify the minhag2:
a) The Aruch HaShulchan3 wrote: 'And even though there is no danger among us, nevertheless it is almost among the impossibilities, because in all our lands the days of Chanukah are days of storm — rain, snow, and strong winds — and it is impossible to place them outside unless one encloses them in glass, and the Rabbis did not trouble him to such an extent4; and further, in this there would not be so much recognition of the mitzvah; and also, not in all places would they allow doing so; therefore we all kindle in the house ..'.
And in the Nimukei OC there he wrote: 'And behold, wind is common .. if so, what will the oil avail, since it is almost certain that it will not burn for the time of its mitzvah, since the wind will extinguish it .. And if you say that one indeed must kindle outside in a glass vessel (in order to be protected from extinguishing), one may say, based on the Halachos Ketanos of the Maharit Chagiz, of blessed memory, [regarding] whether if one sees an elder or a talmid chacham through glass [it counts]; and so too regarding the Chanukah light, one may be in doubt accordingly, since it was enacted only "to see them" — whether seeing through glass is [valid] seeing, or perhaps since they see the light through the glass it is pirsumei nisa; and this requires study'.
b) And in Ner Yisrael by the holy Maggid of Kozhnitz5 he wrote: 'And this is the drawing of the "foot" to the marketplace of the lower worlds; and "foot" refers to Yom Tov, for at this time, when His miracles are publicized, it is Yom Tov in all the worlds, and they go out from the "foot" and yearn and long for the Almighty on High; and this is "until the foot ceases from the marketplace," and therefore in earlier days they needed to kindle at the entrance of the courtyard to publicize His miracles, but now that we are in the lower worlds, then there is no need for the entrance of the courtyard, for from our houses we can illuminate, since everything is like a marketplace'.
c) And in Bnei Yissaschar6 he wrote: 'See in the poskim [OC §671:7] that now we kindle inside .. Behold, now, in the footsteps of Mashiach, chutzpah increases [Sotah 49b], and the wicked among us are seated, they are the ones who prevail over the wisdom of the Torah and its students; and behold, we kindle inside to nullify their strength and their wisdom, understand'7.
d) And in Shu"t Imrei Noam8 he wrote: 'But I found a source for this too in Maseches Megillas Taanis there, as follows: it is a mitzvah to place it at the entrance of his house from outside, and if he was living in an upper story he places it in the window nearest to the public domain, and if he fears the scoffers he places it at the entrance of his house from inside, and in a time of danger he places it on his table and that suffices .. And behold now, in the present time, it is not, Heaven forbid, a time of danger — only it is called that the scoffers have increased; therefore we kindle inside, beside the entrance, as explained in Megillas Taanis there, for if it is not a time of danger one need not place it on his table but is only obligated to place it beside the entrance, and only because of the scoffers he does not place it outside but inside'.
e) The Mishneh Sachir9 wrote: 'For certainly, that which Chazal enacted to kindle lights outside for pirsumei nisa — certainly Chazal intended only to publicize the miracle among ourselves; what have we to do with publicizing the miracle among the nations .. But now that we are few in number in every city and village .. certainly they did not enact at all to kindle in a manner in which there would be no recognition and publicity for the Jewish people, only for the other nations; therefore they withdrew their hand from this and began to kindle inside, so that there would be recognition for those dwelling in the courtyard or for the members of the household. And nevertheless the Mechaber brought the law of the Talmud, and the practical difference is in a city that is entirely or mostly Jewish, as in Eretz Yisrael .. But for our brethren in the exile who dwell among the nations, where most of the city's residents are gentiles, in truth the enactment was never to kindle outside in the public domain; therefore the Rema rightly wrote that we kindle inside .. And one may further say, as the reason of the matter that we do not kindle outside: see in the Midrash Eichah Rabbah (1:45), Trachinus — may the name of the wicked rot — had a child born to him on the Ninth of Av and Israel mourned, and it died on Chanukah and they kindled lights, and he perpetrated, because of our many sins, a great slaughter .. Therefore who knows what jealousy might yet be aroused when they see that we kindle lights outside, and they would use it for an evil cause, Heaven forbid; therefore they said to kindle inside and it suffices with recognition for the household, and understand this well'.
f) Shevet HaLevi10: 'And as for our matter, it appears that there are two [types of] pirsumei nisa: pirsumei nisa for oneself and for one's household — of "a light for a person and his household" — which is fulfilled in any case; and the law of a second pirsumei nisa for the public, which is fulfilled by placing it at the entrance of the house and at the entrance of the courtyard; and since there were times when they could not fulfill this aspect of the mitzvah, they were enacted to kindle in the synagogues to publicize the miracle also among the public, as the Rivash wrote as above; and this enactment stands. There is thus no longer cause to make an uproar over the fact that they do not place it at the entrance of the house, since the publicizing of the miracle among the public is in any case fulfilled in its greater part through the kindling in the synagogues etc.'.
And in practice we have already seen that our minhag is to kindle inside, also in the Holy Land, as the Minchas Yitzchak11 wrote: 'However, we have not seen the tzaddikim of the generation abroad practice thus; and also in Eretz Yisrael those who are accustomed to kindle outside are only a minority relative to those accustomed to kindle inside, and especially the Chassidim who follow the path of the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov, of blessed memory, and the disciples of their disciples, are accustomed to kindle inside'.
--------------
Notes:
1 §671, os 5 ↩
2 An interesting reason is brought in the name of the Rogatchover, as the Shu"t Lehoros Nosson vol. 4 §63 wrote: 'And I found in the sefer Tzofnas Paneach on the Rambam (ch. 1 of Megillah, halacha 3) that he innovated that in kindling the Chanukah light there are two mitzvos: one, the essential mitzvah of kindling, and further, the publicizing of the miracle; and all this was before Megillas Taanis was nullified, but after Megillas Taanis was nullified and only Chanukah and Purim remained .. one may say that only the essential mitzvah of kindling remained, but the mitzvah of pirsuma nisa was nullified, and therefore they were not accustomed to publicize, and also the bracha of one who sees [the lights] they were not accustomed [to recite] .. And accordingly there is a great foundation for that which they are not accustomed to kindle outside even in a place where it is possible, since the mitzvah of pirsumei nisa was nullified. However, in truth it is proven in the Talmud that even after Megillas Taanis was nullified there is a mitzvah of pirsumei nisa; for behold in Shabbos (23b) Rava said, [regarding] the Chanukah light and Kiddush of the day, the Chanukah light takes precedence because of pirsumei nisa — thus even in Rava's time there is [the matter of] pirsumei nisa, and so we rule in the Shulchan Aruch (§678) ..' ↩
3 OC §671:24 ↩
4 And see Divrei Menachem (Kasher) vol. 4 §36 ↩
5 p. 75 ↩
6 Maamarei Chodesh Kislev, Maamar 2, Ohr Torah, os 46. And see there Maamar 3, os 39, where he wrote: 'See in the sefer Ollelos Efraim [vol. 2 p. 44, maamar 295] who also wrote there regarding the allusion of the Chanukah light to the light of Torah, and wrote: Behold, Chazal said in Berachos (63a): if you saw a generation to whom the Torah is dear — scatter, as it says "יש מפזר" ("There is one who scatters") etc. (Mishlei 11:24); and if you saw a generation etc. — gather, as it says "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך" ("It is a time to act for Hashem, they have voided Your Torah"). Therefore the earlier generations, to whom the Torah was dear in their eyes, would place the Chanukah light — which alludes to the light of Torah — outside, in the manner of "יפוצו מעינותיך חוצה" ("Your wellsprings shall spread outward") (Mishlei 5:16); but these generations, in which Torah and its students have diminished etc., and the sages of the generation have no strength to turn a man from his evil way, and on the contrary, if one does not flatter him etc. he has no standing before those who rise against him, and they set up false witnesses against him etc. and disgrace him in the eyes of the masses until all his upright words are heeded by no one etc. — the wise in that time withdraw their hands from illuminating with their Torah at the head of all the streets, [and each] places his mitzvah-light in his house, and it suffices him to turn back the iniquity of the members of his household alone, end of the Rav''s words there', and see there what he wrote to explain accordingly ↩
7 In the Nimukei OC there he wrote: 'And I heard in the name of my grandfather, the holy Gaon Rav Tzvi Elimelech, of blessed memory (author of Bnei Yissaschar), that he had a silver lantern (laterne) with glass on its four sides, and within it a silver menorah to kindle the Chanukah light, and he said that it would serve him for the coming of the righteous redeemer, when they will kindle outside .. and there is concern that the Chanukah light might be extinguished by the wind blowing outside; therefore he made this lantern vessel, thus far his holy words .. And in any case, even the author of Bnei Yissaschar (renowned for his precision in mitzvos, and especially in the mitzvah of the Chanukah light, in the greatness of his avodah and Torah) did not kindle in it outside, even though then, by means of this vessel, it could be protected from being extinguished by the wind, as above' ↩
8 vol. 2 §29 ↩
9 Shu"t Choshen OC §297. And see also Shu"t Lehoros Nosson vol. 4 §63 ↩
10 Shu"t vol. 7 §84 ↩
11 Shu"t vol. 6 §66 ↩
[21] (halacha 718)
Question: When is the time for kindling the lights on Erev Shabbos — before Mincha or after it — in the synagogue, or for one who prays at home?
Answer: Regarding the synagogue, the Sefer HaMeoros by Rabbeinu Meir HaMe'ili1 wrote: 'And on Erev Shabbos one kindles before he begins the tefillah of Mincha'.
And so the Orchos Chaim2 wrote: 'And the minhag is to kindle it between the tefillah of Mincha and the tefillah of Maariv, and on Erev Shabbos they kindle before the tefillah of Mincha and before the congregation prays'. And so it is written in the Kolbo3, and the Abudraham in Seder Chanukah.
And so it is in Minhagei Maharil4: 'The chazzan kindles the Chanukah light in the synagogue (while) still in the day, before he says "V'Hu Rachum" of Maariv. And on Erev Shabbos the town beadle would kindle before the people came to the synagogue, perhaps the chazzan had accepted Shabbos in his house'.
And so the Maharshal5 wrote in practice: 'And the sage or chazzan who kindles in the synagogue on Erev Shabbos has the beadle precede and kindle before Mincha'.
But the Rema in Darkei Moshe6 brought the aforementioned Rishonim and wrote: 'And we do not practice thus; rather even on Erev Shabbos we kindle between Mincha and Maariv'.
And in the Hagah in the Shulchan Aruch7 he wrote: 'And they are accustomed to kindle in the synagogue between Mincha and Maariv; and some are accustomed to kindle on Erev Shabbos before Mincha, and if they wish to hasten to pray, after the chazzan has recited the bracha and kindled one of them, the beadle may kindle the remaining ones, and the chazzan prays'.
But the Acharonim wrote that the essential [ruling] is like the words of the Rema in Darkei Moshe, that we kindle between Mincha and Maariv; therefore his disciple the Levush omitted the "some say" that the Rema brought in the Shulchan Aruch, as the Eliyah Rabbah8 wrote: 'Some are accustomed to kindle before Mincha, and the Levush omitted [it], because he wrote in Darkei Moshe that our minhag is to kindle between Mincha and Maariv'.
And as to the reason of the matter, the Chida9 wrote: 'One should be careful to pray Mincha on Erev Shabbos of Chanukah and afterward kindle the Chanukah light, for the tefillah of Mincha corresponds to the afternoon Tamid offering, and the Chanukah light is a commemoration of the miracle done with the lights of the Menorah, which were kindled after the afternoon Tamid offering. Maharash Abuhav, author of the Dvar Shmuel, in a manuscript responsum'10.
However, the Magen Avraham11 wrote that if they pray late, close to sunset, they should kindle the Chanukah lights before Mincha: 'And it appears to me that if it is close to nightfall and before a minyan comes to the synagogue the day will be sanctified, he recites the bracha and kindles immediately, for in any case there is pirsuma nisa when they come to the synagogue afterward; and it is similar to one who kindles in the street at a time when no one is there and afterward people come; and so it is in the Maharil, that they kindled before their coming to the synagogue'.
And so the Eliyah Rabbah there wrote: And nevertheless it appears [this applies] specifically while the day is still long; but when one sees that if he prays Mincha the time will pass and there will be somewhat of a prohibition to kindle, he should kindle before Mincha, whether in the synagogue or in the house. And the same applies to one who is able to pray with a minyan in the synagogue — he should kindle in his house before Mincha and afterward go to the synagogue. And this is specifically after plag ha-Mincha'.
And the Pri Megadim12 wrote that even one who prays alone in his house should pray Mincha and afterward kindle: 'It implies that in his house on Erev Shabbos he should pray Mincha first and afterward kindle the lights, for the reason that from plag it is [considered] night [if it is impossible otherwise] .. whereas if he prays Mincha afterward it is like two things that contradict one another. And the synagogue is different, for there it is only pirsumei nisa for the public, and this requires a bit of study. And it appears that if it is possible for him in his house, he should pray Mincha first, and in the synagogue too one does so l'chatchilah'.
But the Kitzur Shelah13, brought in the Kaf HaChaim14, wrote that one should not forgo communal tefillah for this: 'And one must warn those who dwell in the villages on Erev Shabbos of Chanukah, that each one prays Mincha in his house and afterward they kindle the Chanukah light, and thereby they nullify the Tamid and do not pray Mincha with the community — but they err, since they kindle while the day is still long; even though the time for kindling the Chanukah light has not yet arrived, since it is impossible otherwise, what does it matter if he kindles before he has prayed Mincha? And behold, even regarding the Shabbos light we wrote above that if one explicitly stipulates that Shabbos shall not take effect for him until the congregation says "Barchu," he may kindle even before the tefillah of Mincha, and all the more so here; and so wrote the Levush'.
And in practice, the Chabad minhag is as it says in the Sefer HaMinhagim15: 'On Erev Shabbos the order is: Mincha, Chanukah light, Shabbos light'. And in the note it is explained: 'Mincha and afterward the Chanukah light, just as the Tamid precedes the kindling of the Menorah (Shaarei Teshuvah and Pri Megadim §679). And further, so that there will not be two things that contradict one another etc.'.
However, in the years when the Rebbe returned from the "Ohel" on Erev Shabbos close to sunset, he would kindle the Chanukah lights first, and the Shabbos light, and only afterward pray Mincha with the community, as the Magen Avraham and the Eliyah Rabbah wrote.
Thus, on Erev Shabbos the order is the tefillah of Mincha and afterward the kindling of the Chanukah lights; however one should not forgo communal tefillah for this, and likewise in a case where the time is late and Shabbos is about to enter, one should kindle the lights before the tefillah of Mincha.
Notes:
1 on Maseches Shabbos, p. 73 ↩
2 Hilchos Chanukah os 17 ↩
3 §44 ↩
4 Hilchos Chanukah [4] ↩
5 Shu"t §85 ↩
6 OC §671 os 5 ↩
7 §671:7 ↩
8 §679 s.k. 1 ↩
9 Birkei Yosef §679 s.k. 2 ↩
10 And see the lengthy discussion of the subject of the tefillah of Mincha and kindling the lights on Erev Shabbos in Shu"t Yabia Omer vol. 5 OC §44 ↩
11 §671 s.k. 10 ↩
12 Eshel Avraham §671 s.k. 10 ↩
13 Hilchos Chanukah ↩
14 §671 s.k. 79 ↩
15 p. 71. And so it is in HaYom Yom, 25 Kislev ↩
[22] (halacha 719)
It is written in the Luach HaYom Yom, 28 Kislev: 'My revered father [the Rebbe Rashab] would give Chanukah gelt on the night of the fourth or fifth light'.
Question: What is the source for giving Chanukah gelt? (1)
Answer: The source of the minhag of Chanukah gelt is not clear; nevertheless the Acharonim bring several supports for the minhag, as follows:
a) Some wrote a support for this from what the Magen Avraham1 wrote, brought in Divrei Nechemiah2: 'The poor youths are accustomed to go around on Chanukah at the entrances,' and in the sefer Chanukas HaBayis3 he wrote a reason for this'.
And as the holy Rav Levi Yitzchak Schneerson wrote in his letter to his son, the Rebbe4: 'The days of Chanukah are approaching, and the long-standing minhag is that Chanukah gelt is given (and it may be that there is a source for this (apart from what was stated, the Magen Avraham at the beginning of Hilchos Chanukah, and there it is with regard to poor youths5)'.
And some wrote6 that for this reason they were accustomed to give to everyone, so as not to embarrass the poor.
b) Rav Chaim Palagi7 wrote: 'It is written in the sefer Maaseh HaTzedakah, folio 129b, os 46, as follows: And behold, this is the way in which light dwells regarding the order of the aforementioned tikkun of the mitzvah-light of Chanukah: for one first separates one hundred perutos of silver, in the secret of that which the verse said "כַּף אַחַת עֲשָׂרָה זָהָב" ("one spoon of ten gold") etc., and distributes them to talmidei chachamim, the thighs of truth .. and afterward he separates a further forty-four perutos corresponding to the square of the Name Ehyeh, alluded to in the letter alef; and behold, 100 and 44 amounts to "kedem" [with] Ehyeh in its filled form, in the square, the gematria of "kadmas"; and therefore Binah is called "kedem," which indicates Binah, for from its side come the miracles and the redemptions .. And these perutos too shall be distributed to some talmidei chachamim, who are the thighs of the Rabbis; and he may distribute them on whatever day he wishes, all at once, but the 44 perutos that remain he distributes one by one, day by day, according to his measures in the order of the levels: for on the first day he gives a perutah in honor of the tribe of Yehudah and merits [it] for all his brothers with him, for one may act for a person's benefit in his absence; and on the second day in honor of the tribe and the Nasi that rules over that day, and so on in this manner, until on the eighth day he completes them .. and from here you see that they were accustomed to distribute the coins to infants and to little ones on the days of Chanukah and Purim, which are in the secret of Netzach and Hod, end of his words'.
c) A further support for the minhag was written by the Gaon, the Rogatchover8: 'And so they set up etc. See Yerushalmi ch. 3 of Demai, halacha 1, and further on in Hilchos Shemittah, end of ch. 8, that also regarding the "kupah" it states there that they would receive bread; and one must say that in the Sabbatical year they enacted thus, so that they could receive also from those suspect regarding Shemittah, and this was practiced until Chanukah, as explained in the words of our teacher [the Rambam] in Hilchos Shemittah ch. 4 halacha 6; and from then onward they would receive coins, and this is a support for our minhag of receiving Chanukah gelt'.
And the intent of his words: it is explained in the Rambam9 that every city must appoint gabbaim who collect money from the public every Erev Shabbos for the poor, and this is called the kupah; and likewise they collect food or money each day, and this is called the tamchui; except that the Rambam wrote (from the Yerushalmi) that in Shemittah one may take for the kupah not only coins but also bread, and the reason is explained there, that it is in order to avoid the concerns of the Sabbatical year from those suspect regarding Shemittah — therefore they collected bread from them; and it is explained in the Rambam that the concerns end at the Chanukah following the Sabbatical year, and accordingly the Rogatchover wrote that it emerges that from Chanukah they returned to collecting only money for the poor, and if so this is a support for the minhag of Chanukah gelt.
d) A further support was written by Rav Levi Yitzchak there: 'From what Chazal said10 that it is forbidden to count coins opposite the Chanukah light — they [specifically] took the case of coins, implying that on Chanukah one gives coins, and it teaches us that it is forbidden to count them opposite the Chanukah light, for "the Torah of Your mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver"'.
e) A further support he wrote there11: 'Chanukah too is of the matter of chinuch (education), like "chanoch la-naar" (train the youth), and it is like educating a youth when he begins to learn; for on Chanukah there is a renewal of the Torah anew after the decree of the Greeks who sought to make them forget "Torasecha" (Your Torah)12, and when one educates him, then one tosses coins to him'13.
f) A further support he wrote there: 'Also from the fact that the Chanukah light is on the left, and "in her left hand are riches and honor," for "honor" alludes also to silver, as it says in the Midrash Rabbah, parashas Vayeitzei, in explaining "וּמֵאֲשֶׁר לְאָבִינוּ עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל הַכָּבֹד הַזֶּה" ("and from that which belonged to our father he amassed all this honor"); and "riches" may be explained as gold, [the aspect of] gevuros, and "honor" as silver, [the aspect of] chassodim'.
g) A further support he wrote there: 'Also in parashas Mikeitz, which is read on Chanukah, there is much discussion there of the matter of giving money — the silver for the provisions, and the doubled silver, and that Yosef returned it to them in their sacks; this would be like the giving of Chanukah gelt; also the gift given to them from his presence, and especially Binyamin's gift, this too would be like the giving of Chanukah gelt'.
The Rebbe, in the sicha of Yud-Tes Kislev 573414, said: 'And even though one labors to find a source for this, this was the minhag of our Rebbeim, who gave Chanukah gelt to their sons and daughters .. and when one sees that a Nasi of Israel practices thus, and does it (not in private, but) in a manner that it be seen, and even directs that it be printed, knowing that presumably many will be found who will also do so, and may blessing come upon them — there is no need for a better source, and no need for a greater teaching and instruction than this: that the minhag of Israel is Torah, to give Chanukah gelt to children'.
--------------
Notes:
1 §670, introduction. And see Toras Menachem vol. 42 p. 74 and note 56 ↩
2 Supplement to §670:9 ↩
3 As follows: 'And I have already mentioned that the word שמ"ן (shemen) in Atbash equals the count of בי"ט, [which] equals the count of the Name אהי"ה (Ehyeh); understand a wondrous secret, that חנוכה (Chanukah) in Atbash equals the count of סו"ד צדק"ה (the secret of tzedakah), for the essence of tzedakah must be given in secret, like the blessing of oil, which was hidden from the eye; and on Chanukah one is obligated to give, in particular to youths who study Torah, for the secret of the good oil (שמ"ן הטו"ב) influences them; therefore טי"ב נערים (the goodness of youths), who go around at the entrances on Chanukah with songs — the words טי"ב נערי"ם total the count of שמ"ן (shemen), for the miracle was done in a small flask, alluding to the small vessels which are the youths, who go around to publicize the miracle, for they are full of pure olive oil' ↩
4 Likkutei Levi Yitzchak, Igros Kodesh, p. 358 ↩
5 And to note that the Mishnah Berurah copied the words of the Magen Avraham but omitted the word 'youths' ↩
6 See Ohr Yisrael ch. 1 note 38 ↩
7 Moed L'Chol Chai §27 os 77 ↩
8 Tzofnas Paneach, Hilchos Matnos Aniyim ch. 9 halacha 2 ↩
9 Hilchos Matnos Aniyim there, halachos 1 and 2 ↩
10 Shabbos 22a ↩
11 And see also the sicha of Shabbos parashas Vayeishev 5748 (Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 65) ↩
12 As explained in Torah Ohr 29, and in many places ↩
13 As explained in the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos, Sanhedrin, beginning of ch. Chelek. And to note also from Shaarei Orah 15b: 'For behold, by way of example, the education of youths in school is thus: that the father leads his son to school when he wishes to educate him so that he go thereafter on his own, [and] gives him gifts according to his level, such as nuts *and coins* ..' ↩
[23] (halacha 720)
The minhogim of giving Chanukah gelt? (2)
In the previous halacha we saw the reasons for giving Chanukah gelt, and in the sicha of the sixth light of Chanukah 57471 the Rebbe said: 'It is a well-known "minhag of Israel" to give "Chanukah gelt" to children — a minhag that was seen (also) among our Rebbeim; and consequently, apart from the force of "the minhag of Israel is Torah," this is also a minhag that contains "mehadrin" and "mehadrin min ha-mehadrin"'.
Question: When is the time for giving?
Answer: It is brought in HaYom Yom, 28 Kislev: 'My revered father [the Rebbe Rashab] would give Chanukah gelt on the night of the fourth or fifth light'.
But on Shabbos parashas Vayeishev, 21 Kislev 57482 the Rebbe said: 'And in light of the above regarding extra effort in the matter of chinuch — it is worthwhile and correct to arouse [people] to give Chanukah gelt to children (not only once, but) on all the days of Chanukah (and on Erev Shabbos, or on Sunday, they should give also for Shabbos day), and to explain to them that the giving of the coins is so that they add more in the study of Torah etc.. And to note that in the minhag of our Rebbeim in giving Chanukah gelt there is also a limitation of giving one time — on the night of the fourth or fifth light,' and accordingly there is seemingly no room to institute the giving of Chanukah gelt every day. And as to the reason of the matter — since seemingly, given that this minhag is connected with the matter of chinuch, why were they not accustomed thus every day — one may say: so that it not become a routine matter, for then it does not arouse as much excitement and emotion as something entirely new. However, because of the intensifying darkness of the exile, including and especially regarding the deterioration of the state of chinuch, one must necessarily add and increase in light and holiness — one may say that there is room and need to add also with regard to the minhag of giving Chanukah gelt, not only once (as the essence of the minhag) but (also) every day. And in order to fulfill also the directive of our Rebbeim to give Chanukah gelt "on the night of the fourth or fifth light," including also the negation of the concern that it become routine — then the advised counsel is that on the night of the fourth or fifth light they give double, or three times as much, in a manner of novelty'.
Thus it is fitting to give Chanukah gelt on every day of Chanukah, and on the night of the fourth or fifth light to double or triple [it]
★ ★ ★
Question: To whom did the Rebbe Rashab and the Rebbe Rayatz give Chanukah gelt?
Answer: The Rebbe, in the sicha of the night of Tuesday, parashas Mikeitz, the fifth light of Chanukah, 57303, said: 'And since the Rebbe [Rashab] was accustomed to give Chanukah gelt — to his granddaughters certainly, and presumably also to his son, my father-in-law, the Rebbe — behold, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, too was accustomed thus with regard to his daughters. And in accordance with this, one should strengthen this good minhag — and the children will certainly be pleased by it... — to give the children Chanukah gelt, and together with this, to add also in the matter of chinuch — "חֲנֹךְ לַנַּעַר עַל פִּי דַרְכּוֹ גַּם כִּי יַזְקִין לֹא יָסוּר מִמֶּנָּה" ("Train the youth according to his way, so that even when he grows old he will not depart from it") — and thereby they will derive from them much Jewish and Chassidic nachas, amid joy and gladness of heart, and they will raise up "זֶרַע בֵּרַךְ ה'" ("seed blessed by Hashem"), "the hosts of Hashem," to greet Mashiach Tzidkeinu, very soon indeed.
And in another sicha4 the Rebbe said that the Rebbe Rayatz gave also to married ones: 'My father-in-law, the Rebbe, gave (and personally) "Chanukah gelt" to his daughters, may they live, also after their marriage'.
And so it is in the sicha of Yud-Tes Kislev 57345, he said: 'For this was the minhag of our Rebbeim, that they gave Chanukah gelt to their sons and daughters, and not only to the young, but also after they became adults (men or women), and even after the wedding'.
And on Shabbos parashas Vayeishev, 21 Kislev 57486 the Rebbe added that [he gave] also to his sons-in-law: 'The giving of Chanukah gelt on all the days of Chanukah: it is a minhag of Israel (it is Torah) that on the days of Chanukah one gives Chanukah gelt to children. And so our Rebbeim were accustomed — as my father-in-law, the Rebbe, related, that his father would give Chanukah gelt (on the night of the fourth or fifth light). And so my father-in-law, the Rebbe, was accustomed to give Chanukah gelt to his daughters, also after the marriage7, and also to his sons-in-law'.
Thus the minhag is to give Chanukah gelt to all members of the family — sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters — also after the age of mitzvos, and likewise to the married, and to their spouses.
Notes:
1 Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 131 ↩
2 Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 64 onward, sections 11–12. (The emphases within are not in the original, and likewise in the following passages in this halacha.) ↩
3 Toras Menachem vol. 58 p. 432 ↩
4 Likkutei Sichos vol. 20 p. 451 note 36, brought in Toras Menachem 5747 vol. 2 p. 132 note 25 ↩
5 Toras Menachem vol. 74 p. 316 ↩
6 Referenced in note 2 ↩
7 And to note from the Rebbe's words in the sicha of the sixth light of Chanukah 5747 (Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 132): 'And in continuation of this, one should add and emphasize this matter (also) with regard to adults, after bar mitzvah and bas mitzvah, and all the more so those after marriage, who have homes in the plain sense — that they must strive to make of their home (and of all the homes around them) a house of Torah, tefillah, and gemilus chassodim, a Chabad house. And they too can connect this with the minhag of "Chanukah gelt": grown children after bar mitzvah and bas mitzvah — should ask their parents, and those after marriage — the husband should ask the wife, and the wife the husband, and likewise regarding the elderly men and women, to help one another in all that pertains to making a house of Torah, tefillah, and gemilus chassodim' ↩
[24] (halacha 721)
The minhogim of giving Chanukah gelt? (3)
Distribution to students: In the year 5712 the Rebbe instituted the distribution of Chanukah gelt to students, and thus in a letter of 12 Kislev 57121 the Rebbe writes to several yeshivah deans: 'Herewith I request that his honor שי' arrange a farbrengen on the eve of the fifth [day] or the eve of the eighth [day] of the coming Chanukah with the yeshivah students who study a full seder in Chassidus (and not only Tanya alone) and distribute to each of them Chanukah gelt in my name — 500 francs. And if possible, how good it would be if it were in coin or in new bills (to note from HaTamim vol. 6 p. 96)2'.
And on the fifth night of Chanukah 5712, the Rebbe requested that the students of the central yeshivah at 770 who had maintained the seder of study in Chassidus enter his holy room, and the Rebbe delivered a sicha before them3, at the conclusion of which he announced that he would give them Chanukah gelt from the Rebbe's fund, and 'whoever takes a perutah from Iyov is blessed.' Afterward the Rebbe distributed to each of those present one silver coin. [This practice — of distributing Chanukah gelt from his holy hand to the bochurim at 770 — continued until the year 5720.]
And in a letter of 12 Teves 57124, to Rav Michoel Lipsker שי': 'And likewise regarding the giving of Chanukah gelt to the students who study Chassidus, and thank you, thank you, for arranging the matter appropriately; and may it be His will that it lead to good actions with regard to the practical [outcome], for action is the main thing (l'eila); and enclosed is a list of the things I said to the students who entered here to me on the fifth night of Chanukah, and surely you will translate them into good language for them .. In reply to the request of those students who have not yet begun the study of Chassidus, who also wish to receive and promise to begin now the study of Chassidus — this is not the point, and there is yet a vision for the appointed time; the study of Chassidus must be for its own sake and not for the sake of receiving the Chanukah gelt, and if they will begin the study of Chassidus in any case, it will surely bring far greater benefit than receiving Chanukah gelt; and "within two hundred is one hundred"; on his part he may hint to them that there will certainly be more such matters over time, and consequently it is best that they begin this study without connecting it with preconditions'.
The Rebbe said in the sicha of Yud-Tes Kislev 57345: 'And since "וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ — these are the students," behold, through saying to them a matter of Torah on the days of Chanukah .. they then become "your children," and therefore when one afterward gives them Chanukah gelt, one thereby fulfills "the minhag of Israel is Torah," to give Chanukah gelt to children, including also "another's son" whom one has taught Torah.
Regarding youths about whom there is doubt whether to include them in the list of recipients of Chanukah gelt among the students, the Rebbe wrote in a letter of 25 Shevat 57136: 'Regarding the distribution of Chanukah gelt, it seems I have already written that it is not worthwhile to be stringent in this — that is, that if there is only a doubt, [one should] give, even if for the sake of the future. And perhaps this itself will help that they draw close sooner.' And likewise in a letter of 18 Kislev 5718 to Avraham Paris7: 'In reply to his letter of 11 Kislev and the previous ones. It is obvious that this year too he should distribute Chanukah gelt as in previous years, and regarding the students about whom there is some doubt, to be lenient — that is, to give also to them'.
And in the years thereafter the Rebbe continued to arouse [people] about this, as he wrote in a letter to Rav Nissan Nemanov of Rosh Chodesh Teves 57138: 'And surely the telegram arrived regarding the distribution of Chanukah gelt as last year'.
And in a letter to Rav Shmuel Chaim Kesselman of 29 Kislev 57169: 'Surely this year too they distributed Chanukah gelt in my name, as I requested of the chassid Rav A[vraham] שי' Paris, to arrange this, and it is as in previous years, to those who already study Chassidus etc. ...'.
In the sicha of Shabbos parashas Vayeishev, Erev Chanukah 574910 the Rebbe aroused [people] that they should practice thus in every place of position and work: 'And to add that it is worthwhile that they do so also in schools, and in every place of position and work according to the conditions of the place and time — to gather all together, and to speak about matters of Chanukah, with good resolutions in this, in Torah, in avodah, and in gemilus chassodim, and to distribute "Chanukah gelt" etc.'.
Also regarding winter camps the Rebbe directed that Chanukah gelt be given11 and wrote: 'The enclosed shall be exchanged for Moroccan currency and they shall give Chanukah gelt to the campers שי' in the winter camp under their guidance (for the effect of Chanukah continues)'.
IDF soldiers: In the year 5734, the year in which "Mivtza Chanukah" began, the Rebbe likewise directed that coins of Chanukah gelt be distributed in his name12 to IDF soldiers, and there was also a directive from the Rebbe to give two13 new14 coins.
--------------
Notes:
1 Igros Kodesh vol. 5 p. 77 ↩
2 There, in the section 'Divrei Yemei HaChassidim,' the story is brought of the coins that Rav Gavriel Nosei Chein brought to the Alter Rebbe, and they were shining and gleaming ↩
3 Printed in Likkutei Sichos vol. 2 p. 486 ↩
4 Igros Kodesh vol. 5 p. 130 ↩
5 Toras Menachem vol. 74 p. 316 ↩
6 Igros Kodesh vol. 21 p. 195 ↩
7 Igros Kodesh vol. 16 p. 154 ↩
8 Igros Kodesh vol. 7 p. 102 ↩
9 Igros Kodesh vol. 12 p. 181 ↩
10 Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 35 ↩
11 In the Hiskashrus journal, issue 1271, it is related: On 7 Teves 5744 the Rebbe granted 360 francs to the temimim traveling to work in a winter camp in Morocco (M.M. Raskin, M.M. Matusof, and Shalom Shriki) ↩
12 And see in the Hiskashrus journal, issue 1271, a reply that the Rebbe wrote to the secretariat regarding the distribution of Chanukah gelt from him to IDF soldiers ('MiBeis HaMalchus' vol. 1 p. 226): 'To telephone Rabbi Ephraim Wolff שי', and he shall inform everyone that they should give the coins there, since it is impossible to send from here etc.' ↩
13 One of them for tzedakah; see the Rebbe's letter in Likkutei Sichos vol. 10 p. 290 onward ↩
14 See also the report of Rabbi Avraham Godin to Rabbi Chodakov from the year 5737 in Hiskashrus issue 959: 'Today we learned that this year too Chanukah gelt is to be distributed to IDF soldiers; for this purpose I today exchanged at "Bank Yisrael" 15,000 lira and received new coins that had not yet been in use.' A day later, on 28 Kislev (5737), he writes again: 'Today too I traveled to "Bank Yisrael" in order to change 20,000 lira into half-lira coins (new, not in use), and we hope that with Hashem's help we will reach all the IDF camps' ↩
[25] (halacha 722)
The minhogim of giving Chanukah gelt? (4)
Question: What should be done with the Chanukah gelt?
Answer: The Rebbe said in the sicha of Yud-Tes Kislev 57341: 'And in this an additional matter is included, that one explains to them, to the boy or girl, or even to adults — men and women — who are "children" in understanding and still require explanation, that part of the Chanukah gelt (or of other money) must be given to tzedakah, and not to delay [it] but to do so during the days of Chanukah'.
And in the sicha of Shabbos parashas Vayeishev, Erev Chanukah 57492: 'And to explain to the children that the money is given into their possession and becomes theirs, in order to do with it what their heart — a Jewish heart — desires. And certainly they will give of their own accord a portion to tzedakah'.
And in the sicha of 28 Kislev 57493, at a gathering for Tzivos Hashem children, the Rebbe said: 'Therefore, here is the place to emphasize that the intent in giving "Chanukah gelt" is in order to give children the opportunity to add in tzedakah — that is, the money given to each one of you indeed becomes his, but when money is added to him, and especially money he did not anticipate being given to him — this is in order that he give more tzedakah, for what does a Jewish child need money for … he is supported at his parents' table; his father, generally, earns money and his mother buys him all that is needed (in addition to the fact that they too give tzedakah, which is one of the greatest mitzvos), and he has bread to eat and clothing to wear, and all the more so a house to dwell in and to find shelter in, and likewise seforim to study from etc., and if so it is understood that the main use of money is to do with it mitzvos that can be fulfilled with money, and first and foremost the mitzvah of tzedakah .. and accordingly it is understood, in practical terms, how much each of the children who receives Chanukah gelt must remember that thereby an opportunity has been given to him to add more in tzedakah, as above'.
In a letter of 24 Teves 57354 the Rebbe explains at length why the soldiers were given two coins as Chanukah gelt: 'And surely the matter of the coins was explained to him, and my request to set aside one coin for tzedakah, and the second coin to do with as he wishes. And on this occasion I will express in writing one of the inner intentions in the matter of these coins. It is known that we, the Jewish people, are one complete stature (komah), which is the reason that our Torah, the Torah of truth, demands of every Jew "וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ" ("Love your fellow as yourself"). And according to the aforementioned introduction, that each of the Jewish people is a part and limb of one stature, it is understood that it can be "as yourself," for love of another is in essence love of oneself, as explained in greater depth in ch. 32 of the Tanya of the Alter Rebbe; and it is also known that a foundation of our Torah, the Torah of life (instruction in life), is that action is the main thing. For therefore, with all the importance of the feeling in the heart and the expression in speech, the two are good when they are connected and joined to action in practice; and even a small act, relatively, in quantity — in quality who can fathom it. For example: one who gives a perutah to a poor person — behold this perutah that he gives to tzedakah from the toil of his hands, all the strength of his animal soul is invested in it, and moreover he could have bought with it the sustenance of his animal soul; that is to say, he gives the life of his soul to Hashem (Tanya ch. 37). And this is one of the intentions in the aforementioned coins — to connect all the recipients of the coins, and from them and through them to connect also the recipients of the tzedakah coins, as above, through an act in practice, especially one connected with money; for even though it is only a few perutos, yet as stated there is in this a matter of the life of the soul. And my hope is that they will give the aforementioned tzedakah with the appropriate feeling .. and from here the allusion in "Chanukah gelt" in general, and in particular in money that goes to tzedakah: for when a Jew raises a "terumah" from his money for tzedakah, which is weighed against all the mitzvos, behold not only does he sanctify this terumah, but he also "raises up" the nine remaining portions that stayed with him and transforms them too from materiality to spirituality, and especially thereby, that he buys with them kosher, good, and beneficial things'.
Thus, in giving the Chanukah gelt it is fitting to clarify to the recipient that it is truly his, and the aim in this is to educate toward the mitzvah of tzedakah, that he give of his money (a portion of the money).
★ ★ ★
Question: What should one do who did not give during the festival of Chanukah?
Answer: The Rebbe, on Shabbos parashas Mikeitz 5750, section 115, said: 'And "one may attend to communal needs on Shabbos" — regarding the minhag of Israel to give Chanukah gelt to sons and daughters, those who did not fulfill this minhag (in its entirety) should endeavor to complete [it] in the days close to Chanukah, and whoever is earlier is praiseworthy'.
It is related6 that one of the anash, who was generally accustomed to travel to the Rebbe for Yud Shevat, entered one year with his son for a "yechidus" on the fifteenth of Shevat. The Rebbe turned to the son and asked him whether he had received "Chanukah gelt" from the Rebbe. The son replied: no. The Rebbe then granted him two one-dollar bills, and told him that it was for Chanukah gelt.
On Shabbos parashas Vayeitzei, 9 Kislev 57527 the Rebbe said that this minhag strengthens the hiskashrus: 'Including, as the minhag of our Rebbeim, to hold gatherings for the household on the days of Chanukah, and to distribute "Chanukah gelt" to the household, and especially to the children, to sons and daughters. For when each one fulfills this minhag — with appropriate publicity — and moreover with addition and expansion through adding in the giving of "Chanukah gelt" in abundance (whereby the matter of joy is increased among the children) — one becomes even more connected (through the fulfillment of this minhag) with our Rebbeim, which gives added strength to instill their Torah, their directives, and their minhogim into everyday private life'.
And on Shabbos parashas Mikeitz 57528 the Rebbe wished: 'And may it be His will that even before the addition in matters of Chanukah in actual practice, the Holy One, blessed be He, will give "Chanukah gelt" .. to "נַעַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וָאֹהֲבֵהוּ" ("Israel is a youth and I love him") with the most necessary and essential matter — to bring the true and complete redemption through Dovid Malka Meshicha (who is "בשמן קדשי משחתיו" — "with My holy oil I anointed him") in actual practice, and through him will be the dedication of the Third Beis HaMikdash (which "will be revealed and come, built and perfected, from Heaven") in actual practice'.
Notes:
1 Toras Menachem vol. 74 p. 316 ↩
2 Toras Menachem vol. 2 pp. 34–35 ↩
3 Toras Menachem ibid. p. 63 ↩
4 Likkutei Sichos vol. 10 p. 29 ↩
5 Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 88 ↩
6 Hiskashrus issue 1271 ↩
7 Toras Menachem vol. 1 p. 355 ↩
8 Toras Menachem vol. 2 p. 41. And see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 20 p. 451 ↩
[26] (halacha 723)
Question: What is our minhag in the Torah reading of Chanukah, and what do we read in the maftir on Shabbos, and on the fourth [aliyah] of Rosh Chodesh?
Answer: Regarding the Torah reading on Chanukah, it is stated in the Mishnah in Maseches Megillah1: 'On Chanukah, [we read] the Nesi'im.' And Rashi explained: 'On Chanukah, the Nesi'im — for this too was a dedication of the mizbeach'2.
But the Rishonim disagree as to what the one called up for the third aliyah reads — whether he repeats once more the reading of that same day, or reads [the portion of] the day after it, as follows:
It is written in Seder Rav Amram Gaon, Seder Chanukah: 'And they take out a Torah scroll and read in the Nesi'im .. the second day — "on the second day," and "on the third day"'.
And so it is written in Siddur Rashi3: 'On the second [day] the Kohen reads half of Nesanel, and the Levi completes it, since the day is the second [day], and he is the second Nasi; the Kohen [and] Levi read of it, and the Yisrael who comes after him reads all of Eliav, and he does not lose out, like a person who reads in the Torah'.
And so Tosafos4 wrote: 'And further, on Chanukah, when they read in the portion of the Nesi'im, the first two are accustomed to read one Nasi of the day, and the third reads that of the following day; thus the first is considered the main one'.
And so the Hagahos Maimoniyos5 wrote: 'The Kohen [reads] up to the offering, and the Levi and Yisrael the offering, and all the rest of the days the Kohen and Levi [read] the offering of that day, and the Yisrael the offering of the following day, and so on the eighth [day] the Kohen and Levi [read] the offering of that day, and the Yisrael [reads] to the end, thus far'.
But the Rambam6 wrote: 'On Chanukah, on the first day they read from Birkas Kohanim until the end of the offering of the one who offers on the first day, and on the second day they read the offering of the Nasi who offered on the second, and so on until the eighth day'.
And so the Tur7 wrote: 'On the second day the Kohen reads "on the second [day]" up to "one young bull," and the Levi up to "on the third day," and the Yisrael repeats and reads "on the second [day]", and so each day'.
And in halacha the Mechaber8 wrote in accordance with the words of the Rambam and the Tur: 'On the second day the Kohen reads "on the second [day]" up to "one young bull," and the Levi up to "on the third day," and the Yisrael repeats and reads: "on the second [day]," and in this manner each day'.
But the Rema in the Hagah wrote in accordance with the words of the Hagahos Maimoniyos and the other Rishonim: 'And some say that the Yisrael reads [the portion] of the following day, that is, "on the third day," and so each day; and so we practice'.
And his student the Levush explained: 'And likewise every single day the Kohen and the Levi read the nasi of that day, and the Yisrael reads the entire nasi of the following day, since we do not have all nine verses that we need to read for a single nasi — that is, at least three verses for each one — we therefore also read the following nasi; and not because of "sfeika d'yoma" (the doubt of the day), for "sfeika d'yoma" is not applicable here, since the offering of the nesiim did not take place at this time but rather in Nissan, and we read them only because it somewhat resembles the matter at hand, as has been stated; and if so, why should we be in doubt regarding the days. And for this reason too we do not combine the reading of two nesiim for one man, as [we do] on Chol HaMoed of Sukkos, where we combine two days for one man, for there it is done because of "sfeika d'yoma," which is not applicable here.'
The Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek9 was asked regarding Shabbos Chanukah [and the same applies to a Rosh Chodesh that falls during Chanukah], whether in the maftir one reads the offering of that day and also that of the following day, as on the weekdays of Chanukah, or only that of that day, and he answered: 'One should read only a single nasi'. For in any case, the view of the Rambam and the Tur is that one reads only a single nasi — that of that day: on the second day the second nasi, and on the third day the third nasi. Rather, we follow the practice stated in the Hagahos Maimoniyos, to read the nasi of the morrow as the third [reading]; and this is specifically when one needs to read a third [aliyah], for then it may be said10 that it is preferable to read something new that has not yet been read today than to go back and read what has already been read today, for one does not do so except in a place where it is not possible, as is [stated] in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of siman 13711. (But the reason is not because of "sfeika d'yoma," for it is not applicable to say so regarding Chanukah, as stated in the Levush, siman 684 — see there the reason.) This is not so on Shabbos, where one need not read of Chanukah except for one [aliyah], namely the maftir — [there] certainly one need read only the portion of the day alone, namely on the second day the second nasi and on the third day the third, etc. And likewise on a Rosh Chodesh that falls during Chanukah, one reads for the fourth [aliyah] only a single nasi, that of that day, namely the sixth day. And if Rosh Chodesh Teves is two days, one reads on the second day of Rosh Chodesh, which is the seventh [day] of Chanukah, the seventh nasi alone; and it is one and the same reasoning as with Shabbos. And so I found stated explicitly in the Maharil (folio 55b), who ruled thus regarding Rosh Chodesh, to read for the fourth [aliyah] on the sixth day alone12. And consequently the same applies to the maftir of Shabbos, and the reason is simple, as above'.
However, with respect to Eretz Yisrael, we have found that there were Ashkenazim who were accustomed [to follow] the view of the Mechaber13, and so too it was written in the Luach Kollel Chabad that Rav Chaim Noeh published, and accordingly Anash in the Land were accustomed thus14; but the Rebbe wrote15 in a letter that in the Land too the practice follows the ruling of the Rema, and the Tzemach Tzedek [wrote]: 'With respect to the doubts about the minhogim that you write — the minhogim of Chanukah are explained in the kuntres "Boruch She'asah Nissim," and the sources are also cited there. And I see no place here to distinguish between the Holy Land, may it be built and established, and the Diaspora'.
And accordingly Rav Boruch Noeh changed [the ruling] in the Luach Kollel Chabad.
In an additional letter the Rebbe wrote16: 'The Torah reading on the days of Chanukah — our minhag is according to what is written in the responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek, copied in the kuntres "Boruch She'asah Nissim." And so too wrote Rav B. Noeh, may he live, in the Luach Kollel Chabad, which I reviewed. And it is astonishing what caused a doubt in a well-known Chabad practice'.
Therefore our minhag, both in the Land and in the Diaspora, is that one reads for the third [aliyah] the following offering, except on Shabbos or Rosh Chodesh, when one reads only the offering of that day.
--------------
Notes:
1 ל, ב ↩
2 כתב הפר"ח או"ח סי' תרפ"ד ס"א: והטעם שקורין בפרשת הנשיאים בימים הללו, הוא משום דאמרינן בפסיקתא [רבתי פ"ו] שנשלם מלאכת המשכן בכ"ה בכסליו. או כמ"ש התוספות יו"ט במסכת מגילה [פ"ג מ"ו ד"ה בנשיאים] שכשנצחו החשמונאים ליונים מצאו המזבח משוקץ וכדתנן במדות [פ"א מ"ו] וסתרו אותו ובנאוהו מחדש בערב ליום כ"ד שאז היה הנצחון כמ"ש בריש הלכות הללו [סי' תרע אות א] וחנכוהו בכ"ה בכסליו. ועוד יש סמך לזה מהאגודה שהביא הרמב"ן בפירושו לתורה בריש פרשת בהעלותך, יעויי"ש' ↩
3 סי' שיט ↩
4 סוכה נה, א ↩
5 הל' תפלה פי"ג אות ל וראה גם ספר השולחן לתלמיד הרשב"א (הלכות תפילה שער ו) 'כתב מורי ז"ל, שבמקומו היו נוהגים לקרות הישראל הפרשה האחרת, ולא שהיה חוזר וקורא אותה פרשה שקראו כהן ולוי. כי מה טעם כאן לחזרה. דבשלמא בקרבנות החג יש טעם לחזרה שלו, לצאת מספק קרבנות היום, אבל בנשיאים מה לנו אם יקרא ביום שני ביום השני וביום השלישי, וכן ביום השלישי ביום השלישי וביום הרביעי, וכן בכל שאר הימים. והלא אין זה אלא סיפור בעלמא שמספר סדר קרבנות הנשיאים. וכן היה נוהג בבית מדרשו' ↩
6 הל' תפילה פי"ג הי"ז ↩
7 או"ח סי' תרפד ↩
8 שו"ע או"ח סי' תרפד ס"א ↩
9 שו"ת או"ח סי' סח ↩
10 וכ"כ הפר"ח בביאור דברי הרמ"א ↩
11 ס"ו. וראה מש"כ בקובץ אהלי שם גליון ג ע' קא ואילך ↩
12 מנהגי מהרי"ל הל' חנוכה: 'עד יום הששי בו חל לעולם ר"ח טבת. אז מוציאין ב' ס"ת וקורין פר' החדש דהיא תדירה לג' גוברין .. לד' ביום הששי לבד' ↩
13 פסקי תשובות סי' תרפד אות א ↩
14 ראה בקובץ אהלי שם גליון ג ע' ק, אך לאחר מכן בנו הגר"ב נאה שינה שמנהגנו לקרוא כדברי הרמ"א, וכמ"ש הרבי ↩
15 אג"ק ח"י עמ' רצו ↩
16 אג"ק חט"ו עמ' כה (נדפס ג"כ בלקו"ש ח"כ ע' 643) ↩
[כז] (Halacha 977)
Question: On which side of the doorway must one place the Chanukah menorah in the doorway? (1)
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 says: 'Rabbah said: The Chanukah light — it is a mitzvah to place it in the handbreadth adjacent to the doorway. And where does one place it? Rav Acha the son of Rava said: On the right; Rav Shmuel of Difti said: On the left. And the halacha is — on the left, so that the Chanukah light should be on the left and the mezuzah on the right'.
And it is stated in Maseches Sofrim2: 'The Chanukah light — it is a mitzvah to place it in the doorway adjacent to the public domain, so that the mezuzah should be on the right and the Chanukah light on the left, to fulfill what is stated, מה יפית ומה נעמת ("How fair and how pleasant you are"), "how fair" with the mezuzah, and "how pleasant" with the Chanukah light'.
And the She'iltos3 wrote: 'And where does one place it? Rav Ada the son of Rava and Rabbi Yirmiyah of Difti disagree about this: one says on the right and one says on the left. The one who says on the right holds: so that there should be two mitzvos in one place — the Chanukah light and the mezuzah. And the one who says on the left holds: so that the mezuzah should be on the right and the Chanukah light on the left, and the master of the house, wrapped in a tzitzis-garment, between them. What is the halacha? Come and hear: the Torah already said ושמרתם מצותי ועשיתם אותם ("and you shall keep My commandments and do them"), and the Sages came and explained and investigated and made a fence for the Torah. However, one must [ask]: are women obligated in the Chanukah light or not? Do we say: since it is a positive time-bound mitzvah, women are exempt; or perhaps the miracle happened to them as well, [just] as to the men, and therefore women too are obligated in the Chanukah light? What is the halacha? Come and hear, for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: women are obligated in the Chanukah light, because they too were part of that miracle. We would say: the Chanukah light — it is a mitzvah to place it in the handbreadth adjacent to the doorway; and if one lived in an upper story, one places it in the window adjacent to the public domain. Where does one place it? Rav Acha the son of Rava and Rabbi Yirmiyah of Difti disagree about this: one says on the right and one says on the left, and the halacha is on the left, so that the mezuzah should be on the right and the Chanukah light on the left, and the master of the house wrapped in his tzitzis between them4'.
The Meiri5 added to the words of the She'iltos also tefillin: 'And they explained in the Aggadah: the master of the house comes with his tefillin and with a tzitzis-garment between them, חונה מלאך י"י סביב ליראיו ויחלצם ("The angel of Hashem encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them")'.
However, the Rishonim discussed a doorway that has no mezuzah, for the Ravyah6 wrote: 'And where there is no mezuzah affixed to the door, one places it on the right, for from the fact that it states "so that there should be, etc." — this implies that otherwise, no'. And he further wrote7: 'And it also seems to me that one who has no mezuzah on his doorway lights on the right, for this that we rule the halacha is like Shmuel — that is in order that the Chanukah light should be on the left and the mezuzah on the right; but where this is not so, one lights on the right. And for a long time I had been deliberating this matter and did not rely on my own humble understanding, until Rav Menachem told me again in the name of Rabbeinu Efraim, of blessed memory, that he heard thus from his mouth: to light on the right when one has no mezuzah. Avi HaEzri'.
And so wrote the Hagahos Maimoniyos8: 'And a doorway that has no mezuzah — one places it on the right, for the sefer only ruled [to place it] on the left because of the reason [stated] in the column [above]; but where this reason is absent, the right is preferable, out of respect for the mitzvos. So explained Rabbeinu Simcha, and so I found in [the name of] Rav Efraim, and likewise the Ravyah. This is the end [of the citation]'.
And so wrote the Hagahas Mordechai9: 'Rabbeinu Yakar explained: specifically at a time when there is a mezuzah there [does one light on the left], but where there is no mezuzah one must do [it] on the right'.
And so wrote the Manhig10 in the name of a Gaon: 'And on the left side as one enters the house, so that the mezuzah should be on the right and the light on the left, as it is written על מזוזות ביתיך ("upon the doorposts of your house"), [reckoned] by the manner of one's entering; and when a person moves, he moves his right leg first; and the Chanukah light is on the left, and one enters between two mitzvos. We learn from this that if there is no mezuzah on the right, it is fitting to place the Chanukah light on the right, and so wrote a Gaon, of blessed memory'.
However, the Kolbo11 and the Orchos Chaim12 wrote: 'And that which we said, that one places the Chanukah light on the left — some say that specifically in a doorway that has a mezuzah does one light on the left, but [where] there is no mezuzah in it, one places it on the right; and so wrote the Rap, of blessed memory. But in a synagogue, which has no mezuzah, one lights on the right; furthermore, [it is done] similar to the Mikdash, where the Menorah was on the right, in the south. But we did not distinguish between one and the other, for in all of them we light it on the left'13.
However, in practice most of the Rishonim wrote like the Ravyah, as is also explained in the Or Zarua14, and in the Ran15, and so ruled the Tur16.
And the Maharil17 wrote: 'And as for the Chanukah light — I do not know what compels you to thread an elephant through the eye of a needle; for surely, in a place where there is no mezuzah, one lights on the right, since in every matter of mitzvah the right is preferable — and even [regarding] tefillin, the binding is [done] with the right [hand], while the placement Scripture revealed [as an exception]; but in all other places the right is preferable, for it is for this reason that the lulav is [taken] in the right [hand], and a left-handed person [takes it] in his left, as stated in the Mordechai. And in a synagogue one lights on the right, according to one reason, because there is no mezuzah; and these [authorities] explain that in this entire house there is no obligation of mezuzah — I do not know what this is, what has one interpretation to do with the other; all rooms are obligated in a mezuzah. And we, the people of the Rhineland, rely [on this] because the women adorn themselves in the winter room, and in any case it is considered a house in its own right .. And in the She'iltos of Rav Achai: the mezuzah on the right and the Chanukah light on the left, and the master of the house passing between them in a tzitzis-garment, to fulfill החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק ("a threefold cord is not quickly broken") — that is, the thread of tzitzis between the two; but for us, how is this reason applicable? And all our teachers light on the right when there is no mezuzah. And explicitly [my teacher] Rav Shalom [of blessed memory] told me that they light on the left, since there is a mezuzah on the doorway of his winter room — even though there are two or three mezuzos outside the winter room [along the way] to the street, were it not for this one in the winter room he would light on the right. And this [matter] requires no [further] hesitation'.
And so wrote the Terumas HaDeshen18: 'For, since nowadays in most places and the vast majority of the world, even Torah scholars do not have mezuzos on the winter rooms in which they light. Therefore they must light on the right as one enters, in the handbreadth adjacent to the doorway, even according to us who light indoors, as stated in the Mordechai'.
> So we have seen that the mezuzah is on the right and the Chanukah light on the left, and in a case where there is no mezuzah the Rishonim disagreed; in the next halacha we will see the practical ruling.
Notes:
1 כב, א ↩
2 פ"כ ה"ג ↩
3 וישלח שאילתא כו ↩
4 בעמק השאלה אות כא העיר: 'ולכאורה קשה הא מדליקין בלילה ולאו זמן ציצית הוא, וצ"ל דס"ל כרשב"א ור"ן דמדליקין בתחילת שקיעה בעוד היום ויכול להכיר בין תכלת ללבן, או אפשר דס"ל כדעת הרא"ש דכסות יום חייב בציצית אף בלילה' ↩
5 שבת שם ↩
6 הל' חנוכה סי' תתמג ↩
7 סי' תתקעב ↩
8 חנוכה פ"ד אות ח ↩
9 שבת רמז רסו ↩
10 הל' חנוכה ↩
11 סי' מד ↩
12 הל' חנוכה אות ג ↩
13 בהעמק השאלה (שם אות כב) כתב שכן סובר ג"כ השאילתות, ועפי"ז ביאר מדוע הכניס את הפיסקא של חיוב נשים בנר חנוכה בתוך הדין של מיקום המנורה, ללמדנו שלמרות שנשים חייבות והם אינם מסובבות במצוות, ולכן הי' ראוי שידליקו החנוכיה בצד ימין, ואעפ"כ קבעו שישימו בצד שמאל מצד שלא פלוג, וא"כ הוא הדין בפתח שאין לו מזוזה מדליק תמיד בשמאל מצד לא פלוג ↩
14 הל' חנוכה סי' שכג ↩
15 ט, ב מדפי הרי"ף ↩
16 או"ח הל' חנוכה סי' תרעא ↩
17 שו"ת סי' מ ↩
18 סי' קו ↩
[כח] (Halacha 978)
Question: On which side of the doorway must one place the Chanukah menorah in the doorway? (2)
Answer: As halacha, the Mechaber1 wrote: 'It is a mitzvah to place it in the handbreadth adjacent to the doorway, on the left, so that the mezuzah should be on the right and the Chanukah light on the left; and if there is no mezuzah on the doorway, one places it on the right; and if one placed it on the door itself, he should place it from the midpoint of the entrance toward the left side'.
In the responsa Vaya'an Avraham (Palagi)2 he discussed a case in which one placed the Chanukah menorah in a doorway that was temporarily exempt from a mezuzah, such as one who rents a dwelling in the Diaspora and only in the middle of Chanukah the thirty days elapse: 'A new [thought] stirred within me to rule a novel matter, and it is regarding a renter who made a housewarming and Chanukah came within the thirty days, when he has not yet affixed a mezuzah until his thirty days are complete, and now he comes to set up the Chanukah lights and has no mezuzah on the right — for the law given is that he should place the Chanukah lights on the right and not on the left, as Rabbeinu the Tur wrote, siman 671, in the name of Avi HaEzri, that if there is no mezuzah on the doorway one places it on the right; and the Hagahos Maimoni wrote that the reason is that in every matter of mitzvah the right is preferable — and even [regarding] tefillin, the binding is with the right [hand], while the placement is different, for Scripture revealed it to us; but in all other places the right is preferable; and so [wrote] the Bach, and he wrote that so it is written in the responsum of the Maharil, siman 40, and he added to say that for the sake of publicizing the miracle the right is preferable, for whatever corner you turn to, there everyone turns, and one is reminded of the miracle immediately upon seeing the lights burning — end of his words; and see what Rav Sdeh HaAretz wrote, vol. 3, siman 33 and 40, see there. And it appears that a practical difference arises from this: that if within the days of Chanukah the time comes to affix the mezuzah, which is on the right, he should then move the Chanukah lights from the right to the left, for that is their place for the whole world; and let him not say, "my place on the right has been acquired [permanently], since from the first night [it was there]" — for it was with this in mind that he placed them, on such a condition, and a condition is effective, and may [G-d's] will go forth from Hashem — because of the matter of the beam that merited to be placed in the north — so that no lingering doubt should remain in the matter regarding the change of place. And furthermore: as against what the Chanukah light merited to be on the right, there is [the concern] on account of onlookers, who would see the mezuzah and the Chanukah light all on the right and would suspect him of not having acted according to the law; and not all who enter and exit know that its time has now come to affix a mezuzah; and so that he may be blessed with the blessing "יפול מצידך אלף ורבבה מימינך" ("A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand"), it is fitting for him to move the Chanukah lights from the right to the left, and he fulfills "lo sisgodedu" [do not form separate factions], for he makes himself equal to all Israel who dwell there, and [equal] to his neighbors greatly, for there is no difference between them, as all are alike for the good — the mezuzah on the right and the Chanukah light on the left. So it appears to my humble opinion, if my teachers and masters agree with me'.
> So we have seen in his words that in a doorway exempt from a mezuzah, one should place the mezuzah [i.e. the Chanukah light] on the right side; and in a case where, in the midst of Chanukah, one affixes a mezuzah, from then on he should place the Chanukah menorah on the left side.
In the responsa Minchas Yitzchak3 he was asked regarding a doorway through which, when one places the Chanukah menorah, one cannot pass: 'As to what you asked regarding lighting the Chanukah light, [where] you light at the door leading out to the balcony from the inside, and there is publicizing of the miracle also for those in the public domain, and it is customary to place a table before the door with the lights upon it, such that at the time of lighting one does not go out through this door — whether one should light on the right side or on the left side; and this is according to what is explained in the Mishnah Berurah4 that the halacha is that the Chanukah light — it is a mitzvah to place it on the left, so that the mezuzah should be on the right and the Chanukah light on the left, so that one should be surrounded by mitzvos; and if there is no mezuzah one places it on the right; and the Mishnah Berurah wrote two reasons for this: (a) because in every matter of mitzvah the right is preferable; (b) because all turn to the right side and there is publicizing of the miracle. And your view is that in the aforementioned manner, since one does not go out through this doorway, the reason "that one should be surrounded by mitzvos" is not applicable; therefore you were in doubt whether to light on his right side, which is the side opposite the mezuzah, whereas according to the reason that all turn to the right side and there is publicizing of the miracle, one should light on the side of the mezuzah, which is the right relative to those in the public domain — end of his words. Now this is clear, that even in such a case one must light on the left side, on the side opposite the mezuzah, and so I too light in my home at the door open to the balcony, on the left side, so that I should be surrounded by mitzvos; and this door too is not open to the public domain, only to the balcony .. and that which you brought from the words of the Mishnah Berurah is not relevant to our case, for it deals with a case where the door has no mezuzah — regarding that he wrote the two reasons in the words of the Mechaber, that one should light on the right; but where there is a mezuzah on the doorway, there is no doubt that even in the aforementioned manner one should light on the left side, so that one should be surrounded by mitzvos, and as stated'.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law regarding a doorway obligated in a mezuzah, but where a mezuzah was not placed5?
Answer: The Rebbe the Maharash wrote in the maamar beginning "Tanu Rabbanan Ner Chanukah" of 56316, he wrote: 'And the Tur wrote in the name of Avi HaEzri that if there is no mezuzah on his doorway (that is, that the doorway is exempt from a mezuzah) one places it on the right'.
And so wrote the Rebbe the Rashab in the maamar with the same opening of the year 56577; however, in the maamar with the same opening of the year 56438 he concluded that it requires examination: 'namely a doorway exempt from a mezuzah, and it requires examination'9.
The Rebbe the Rayatz in the maamar with the same opening of the year 568510 wrote: 'Because it [a doorway] is not obligated on account of several matters that must be present in a doorway for it to be obligated in a mezuzah, as is explained in its place'.
From the words of the Rebbe the Maharash and the Rayatz it is explained that the law that when there is no mezuzah one must place the Chanukah menorah on the right side speaks of a doorway that, by law, is exempt from a mezuzah; but the Rebbe the Rashab remained [with the ruling that it] requires examination.
However, from the words of the Rebbe it is explained that this law applies to every doorway that has no mezuzah, and it makes no difference what the reason is, and as the Rebbe said in the maamar with the same opening of 572411, he said: 'Therefore, if for some reason there is no mezuzah on the doorway of his house, he places the Chanukah light on the right'.
And it is explained even more in the maamar with the same opening of 574612: 'And not only that, but the law is stated in an unqualified expression, and it implies that even if the absence of a mezuzah is contrary to the Shulchan Aruch, nevertheless even then the Chanukah light is on the right. And how it shows the extent to which the Chanukah light belongs to the aspect of "right"'.
> So, in practice, in every doorway that has no mezuzah [and it makes no difference what the reason is], one places the Chanukah menorah on the right side.
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' תרעא ס"ז ↩
2 או"ח סי' מה (והביאוהו השדי חמד (ח"ו ע' 2442) מערכת חנוכה אות ח, וארחות חיים (ספינקא) סי' תרעא אות יא) ↩
3 ח"י סי' נב ↩
4 סי' תרעא ס"ק לד ↩
5 וראה בכל הבא לקמן בספר אגורה באהלך (פרקש) ח"ב סי' מז ע' 268 ואילך ↩
6 סה"מ תרלא ח"א ע' קה ↩
7 סה"מ תרמז ע' לד ↩
8 סה"מ תרמג ע' לה ↩
9 וראה באגורה שם ע' 272 ↩
10 סה"מ תרפה ע' צז ↩
11 תו"מ חל"ח ע' 314 ↩
12 תו"מ ח"ב ע' 134 ↩
[כט] (Halacha 979)
Reciting the full Hallel with a congregation (1)
The Gemara in Maseches Arachin1 says: 'For Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: there are eighteen days on which the individual completes the Hallel: the eight days of the Festival, and the eight days of Chanukah2 ..'.
And as to the reason for the matter, the Shibbolei HaLeket3 wrote [and the Beis Yosef cited it4]: 'And why do we complete the Hallel on Chanukah? (a) I found the reason in the name of Rabbeinu Shlomo, may the memory of the righteous be a blessing: since it is distinct in its lights — each and every day differs from the one before it — it is like a Festival that is distinct in its offerings. (b) And my brother Rav Binyamin, may the Merciful One guard and redeem him, explained the reason why we complete Hallel on the seven days of Chanukah: for the miracle was renewed each and every day5. When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils in the Mikdash, and when the hand of the kings of the Hasmonean house prevailed they found a small flask sealed with the seal of the Kohen Gadol which was fit to light from for one day, and a miracle was done for them and they lit from it for eight days; thus each day the miracle was renewed, and over the renewal of the miracle we complete the Hallel each day. (c) And yet another reason: for Chanukah is named for the fact that the House was inaugurated (nis'chanech) and made fit for the service, for the Greeks had defiled the Sanctuary and the courtyards and the Mikdash and all its vessels, and when the Hasmoneans prevailed they purified everything and made an inauguration (chanukah), just as Moshe did at the beginning of their inauguration to the service; and likewise Ezra did, as it is written: ובחנוכת חומת ירושלים בקשו את הלוים מכל מקומותם להביאם לירושלים לעשות חנוכה ושמחה ובתודות ובשיר מצלתים נבלים וכנורות ("And at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they sought the Levites out of all their places, to bring them to Jerusalem, to keep the dedication with gladness, both with thanksgivings and with song, cymbals, harps, and lyres"). "Thanksgivings" — this is the offering; "song" — this is Hallel; and there is no offering without Hallel. And indeed we read the nesiim each day, each and every day its nasi differing from that of its fellow; if so, for each and every nasi one must complete Hallel over its offerings, and it is not fitting to introduce the reading of one nasi without the reading of Hallel'6.
And the Mechaber7 wrote: 'All eight days of Chanukah one completes the Hallel'.
★ ★ ★
Question: Must one be careful to recite Hallel with ten [men]?
Answer: The Rambam8 wrote: 'On each and every one of these eight days one completes the Hallel and recites a bracha before it: "Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to complete the Hallel," whether an individual or a congregation .. but on Rashei Chodashim the recitation of the Hallel is a minhag and not a mitzvah, and this minhag is [observed] in a congregation; therefore they read with omissions, and one does not recite a bracha over it, for one does not recite a bracha over a minhag, and an individual should not read it at all, and if he began he should finish and read with omissions in the manner that the congregation reads. And likewise on the remaining days of Pesach one reads with omissions, like Rosh Chodesh'.
And the Raavad wrote: 'And that which he said, that an individual who began should read with omissions — he said nothing [i.e., this is incorrect]; rather, he may read as he wishes and concludes as the congregation concludes'.
> So, according to the Rambam, on Chanukah and the other days on which one recites the full Hallel, even an individual recites it; however, on Rosh Chodesh and the other days on which the Hallel is not completed, an individual does not recite it; but the Raavad disagrees and holds that even on the days on which the Hallel is not completed, the individual recites it.
However, it is written in Midrash Tehillim9: From here the Sages said: Hallel is not [recited] with fewer than three people — to whom does one say "praise"? To two; [and the one who says it is one, so there are three here]'.
And the Shibbolei HaLeket10 wrote: 'And in Shocher Tov it is written: and one recites Hallel only with three — to whom does one say "Hodu" if not to two? And so it is stated in Aggadas Tehillim, that one does not read with fewer than three, because of this reason, that one says "Hodu" only to two. And some are puzzled by this: how does it differ from Pesukei D'Zimra? And furthermore, we say: Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, there are eighteen days a year on which the individual completes the Hallel; and Rav Tzidkiyah the son of Rav Binyamin, my second brother, of blessed memory, asked Rav Avigdor Kohen Tzedek, of blessed memory: on the days on which the individual does not complete the Hallel, what is [the ruling for] an individual — may he read the Hallel and recite a bracha over it? And he answered that it is fitting for the individual to recite it, and one should not rely on the words of Shocher Tov, that we said there that one reads Hallel only with three — to whom does one say "Hodu" if not to two — [that applies only] where it is not possible; and to recite a bracha over it is also fitting and proper, even for the individual'.
And the Ravyah11 wrote [and see also in the Mordechai12]: 'However, it seems to me that the same applies to an individual literally — he reads by himself, whether on the eighteen days or on Rosh Chodesh, where it is not possible [otherwise]; however, where it is possible, ברוב עם הדרת מלך ("in a multitude of people is the King's glory"), and also because they will respond after him the beginnings of the sections, הודו לה' כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו וגו' ("Give thanks to Hashem for He is good, for His kindness endures forever," etc.). And an individual says to his fellow הודו לה' ("Give thanks to Hashem").
And the Kolbo13 wrote: 'And the Ram wrote that one recites Hallel only with three, so that the one may say "Hodu" to the two; and if there are only two, both of them say "Hodu"; and the Rap, of blessed memory, wrote: and it is good to recite it with the congregation, even before [one's own] tefillah'.
And so wrote the Tashbetz Katan14: 'And one recites Hallel only with three, so that the one may say "Hodu" to the two; but if there are only two present, each one says "Hodu" by himself. Gloss: And it is good to recite it early, together with the congregation, even before one prays Pesukei D'Zimra and the Shemoneh Esrei brochos. End of quote'.
> So we have seen that the Rishonim wrote that one must strive to recite Hallel with a congregation, and even to recite Hallel before [one's own] tefillah for the sake of a minyan. And in a case where there is no minyan, some required at least three, so that one may say "Hodu" and two may respond; and some wrote that even two suffice, one saying [it] and the other responding; and some wrote that even one [alone] recites it. In the next halacha we will see how the halacha was decided.
--------------
Notes:
1 י, א ↩
2 וראה לקו"ש חכ"ג ע' 233 הערה 37 די"ל שחיוב הלל בחנוכה הוא חלק מעצם המצוה והתקנה דחנוכה משא"כ בשאר היו"ט הוא חיוב נוסף על עצם ענין וקדושת היום ↩
3 ענין ר"ח סי' קעד ↩
4 או"ח סי' תרפג ↩
5 ראה תוס' תענית כח, ב ד"ה ויו"ט ↩
6 כתב המאמר מרדכי (סי' תרפג ס"ק א): 'הטעם בב"י בשם שבה"ל משום דכל יום חלוק משלפניו בנרותיו הו"ל כחג שחלוק בקרבנותיו וכו' ונראה שאין זה מספיק שהרי מדינא סגי בנר א' בכל לילה ואפי' למהדרין שעושים נר לכל א' וא' מבני הבית מ"מ בכל לילה מדליקין בשוה ואינו חלוק בנרותיו אלא למהדרין מן המהדרים ואין טעם לומ' שקבעו חכמים ז"ל לגמור הלל בכל יום משום מהדרין מן המהדרין וי"ל עוד כתוב שם טעם אחר דכיון שבכל יום קורין נשיא אחד שהוא חלוק מחבירו צריך לגמור ההלל על כל קרבנותיו ואין ראוי לחדש קריאה בלא קריאת ההלל וגם בזה יש לדקדק דהא בפסח בכל יום איכא קריאה חדשה ממש משא"כ בנשיאים שהרי הושוו קרבנותיהם וקריאתם כמעט שוות ואפ"ה אין גומרין בהם ההלל ואעפ"י שיש לישב כל זה מ"מ הטעם הנכון הוא מ"ש שם עוד דהיינו לפי שהנס נתחדש בכל יום י"עוש ומיהו הרד"א ז"ל לא הזכיר טעם זה כל עיקר אלא כתב משום דחלוק בנרותיו ובקרבנותיו משא"כ חג המצות ע"כ ע"ש' ↩
7 שו"ע או"ח סי' תרפג ס"א ↩
8 חנוכה פ"ג הל' ה-ז ↩
9 (שוחר טוב - בובר) מזמור קיג ↩
10 ענין ר"ח סי' קעד ↩
11 הל' תענית סי' תתעט ↩
12 שבת רמז רפו ↩
13 סי' נב ↩
14 סי' רח ↩
[ל] (Halacha 980)
Reciting the full Hallel with a congregation (2)
In the previous halacha we saw that the Rishonim wrote that one should recite Hallel [both on the days on which one recites the full Hallel, and on the days on which the Hallel is not completed] specifically with a congregation; and as to the reason for the matter, some wrote that it is on account of "b'rov am" (a multitude of people), and some wrote that it is so that they respond "Hodu."
As halacha, the Rema1 wrote regarding the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh: 'A person should be careful to read [it] with the congregation, in order to recite the bracha over it together with the congregation'.
And the Divrei Chamudos2 wrote: 'And the Kolbo wrote in the name of the Rap that it is good to recite it with the congregation, even before [one's] tefillah'. And the Magen Avraham cited it3: 'And if one comes to the synagogue close to [the time of] Hallel, he should read Hallel first with the congregation and afterward pray (Lechem Chamudos)'.
> So we have seen in the words of the Rema and the Magen Avraham that one must recite Hallel on Rosh Chodesh with a minyan, to the point that where one would [otherwise] lose the recitation of Hallel with a congregation, he must recite it early even before his own tefillah.
In the Biur HaGra4 he wrote that the words of the Rema are 'in order to satisfy the first opinion', and apparently his intent is that the words of the Rema, who wrote that one should be careful to recite it with the congregation — thereby changing the language of the Kolbo who wrote that it is good to recite it — are in order to satisfy the first opinion cited in the Mechaber there, that an individual should not recite the bracha [and moreover, according to the view of the Rambam, that an individual does not recite Hallel on Rosh Chodesh except with a congregation (even though one does not recite a bracha),] and therefore the Rema wrote to strive to recite it with a minyan, in order to take their view into account.
And according to this, there is no proof as to what the Rema's view would be regarding the days on which one recites the full Hallel — where the halacha has been decided, according to all, that even an individual recites it with a bracha — whether on those [days] one must recite the Hallel before his [own] tefillah; and moreover, the Nezirus Shimshon wrote on the words of the Magen Avraham there: 'And likewise one should not recite it before [one's] tefillah when one completes the Hallel, for one should not alter the order of the tefillah that the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah instituted on the basis of great secrets. So it seems to me'5.
> So, according to their view, on the days on which one recites the full Hallel — where the individual in any case recites Hallel with a bracha — one should not recite the Hallel before his [own] tefillah.
However, the Chok Yaakov6 wrote: 'on which one completes the Hallel. And see above, siman 422, in the Magen Avraham, se'if katan 6, where it is explained that if one comes to the synagogue close to [the time of] Hallel, he should read Hallel first with the congregation and afterward pray'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe7: 'And it is the choicest form of the mitzvah to recite it with the congregation immediately after the Shacharis tefillah, so that he may respond with them "Hodu" and "Ana" after the chazzan. And if one comes to the synagogue after the congregation has prayed Shacharis and they are about to read the Hallel, and he has not [yet] prayed Shacharis — there is one who says that if there is no concern that the time for Krias Shema might pass, it is good for him to read Hallel first with the congregation and afterward pray, even on those days on which the individual too completes the Hallel with a bracha according to all opinions; see siman 422'.
It is explained in their words that the importance of reciting Hallel with a congregation applies to every recitation of Hallel, as is the plain meaning of the language of the Rishonim. [And as for the precise language of the Rema, who wrote "he should be careful .. in order to recite the bracha over it with the congregation" — it may be explained simply that the Rema did not intend to exclude the days on which one recites the full Hallel, but only to add: that the aforementioned Rishonim spoke about days on which one recites the full Hallel, and therefore wrote only the expression "good," whereas the Rema spoke about Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, regarding which there is a dispute about the bracha, and therefore he wrote, moreover, that one must be careful about this, on account of the bracha.]
> So, in practice, according to the Chok Yaakov and the Alter Rebbe8, one must strive to recite Hallel with a congregation every time Hallel is recited, and even if he must recite the Hallel before his own tefillah.
★ ★ ★
Question: One who has begun Pesukei D'Zimra and the congregation has begun Hallel — how should he act?
Answer: The Magen Avraham9 wrote: 'And it is possible that when one is reciting Pesukei D'Zimra he is permitted to interrupt in the middle to read Hallel with the congregation, for it is no worse than the psalms that are added on Shabbos. However, it seems to me that then he should not recite a bracha over the Hallel, neither at the beginning nor at the end, since he recites Baruch She'amar and Yishtabach — so how could he recite [these] brochos twice? And similarly they wrote regarding the Pesach Haggadah. Therefore, one should do this specifically for the Hallel of Rosh Chodesh, since many poskim [hold] not to recite a bracha; but on the days on which one completes the Hallel he should not recite it in the middle of Pesukei D'Zimra'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote in Eishel Avraham: 'On the Hallel of Rosh Chodesh, where there are those who say not to recite a bracha over it — [therefore] he may recite it within Pesukei D'Zimra and not recite a bracha over it in such a case, since he has said Baruch She'amar, and Yishtabach afterward. This is not so with the Hallel that one completes, over which, according to all, one must recite a bracha; therefore he should not recite it within Pesukei D'Zimra, for how would he manage the bracha?'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe there: 'And nevertheless, if he is standing [in the tefillah] after Baruch She'amar at the time the congregation begins the Hallel, he should not interrupt to read with them on those days, as has been explained there'.
However, we find Mekubalim who wrote that, according to the Arizal, one should not recite Hallel before the tefillah at all, as the Kaf HaChaim10 wrote: 'And the view of the Arizal, may his memory be a blessing for the life of the World to Come, is not comfortable with these reasonings, to say things out of their order. Shalmei Tzibbur, folio 223b. Siddur Beis Yaakov, os 6'.
> So, according to the Alter Rebbe in [his] Shulchan Aruch, one must always strive to recite Hallel with a congregation, and one who arrived at the synagogue while the congregation is reciting Hallel must recite it together with them; however, in a case where he has already begun Pesukei D'Zimra: if it is on the days on which the Hallel is not completed, such as Rosh Chodesh, he should recite it together with them; and on the days on which one recites the full Hallel, he should continue with his own tefillah and recite Hallel after Shemoneh Esrei. However, there are Mekubalim who wrote that, according to the Arizal, one should not recite Hallel before the tefillah at all; in the [next] halacha we will discuss the Chabad minhag.
--------------
Notes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' תכב ס"ב ↩
2 ברכות פ"ב סי' ה אות כב ↩
3 סי' תכב ס"ק ו ↩
4 שם אות יב ↩
5 וראה ג"כ במשמרת שלום סי' ל ס"ב ובמהדו"ב, אלא שהוא כתב בגלל החשש של היפוך הצינורות לומר הלל פעמיים פעם אחת עם הציבור, ולאחמ"כ שוב פעם אחר שמו"ע בלי ברכה ↩
6 או"ח סי' תפח ס"ק ג ↩
7 שו"ע או"ח סי'' תפח ס"ג ↩
8 ובפשטות כן הוא דעת שאר האחרונים [שיובאו לקמן] שכתבו לחלק באמירת הלל בתוך פסוקי דזמרה, בין הלל של ר"ח להלל של ימים שגומרים את הלל ↩
9 שם ↩
10 או"ח סי' תכב ס"ק לח ↩
[לא] (Halacha 981)
Reciting the full Hallel with a congregation (3)
Question: What, in practice, is the Chabad minhag?
Answer: The Rebbe1 writes: 'As to what you wrote regarding the recitation of Hallel before the tefillah — I have not heard an explicit directive on this, but it is told among Chassidim that, although our Rebbeim, the Nesi'im, would prolong the Shabbos tefillah for even several hours after the congregation had finished its tefillah, on Yom Tov they would arrange things so as to finish the Shacharis tefillah together with the congregation and to recite Hallel with them'.
And in the sefer "Chassidim V'Anshei Maaseh"2 there are brought words that Rav Yehoshua Heschel Zeitlin noted down for himself, which he heard from the Rebbe at a yechidus: 'On Yom Tov it is more correct if you can pray with a minyan, only to begin before the minyan in such a way as to finish with the minyan, for among Chassidim they say that one must recite Hallel with a minyan'.
> From the Rebbe's words it is understood that our Rebbeim, the Nesi'im, refrained from entering into the question of altering the order of the tefillah for the benefit of reciting Hallel with a minyan, and therefore they hastened to pray with a minyan and thus recited the Hallel with a minyan in the order of the tefillah.
And it should be noted that in the Rebbe's language Yom Tov is mentioned and Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah are not mentioned; and we find a special emphasis3 regarding reciting Hallel with a minyan specifically on Yom Tov [and not on Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah]4 by the Rebbe in the year 5738: that, following his state of health, the Rebbe did not pray the Shacharis tefillah with the congregation even on Shabbosos, and on Shabbos Mevorchim he did not enter to recite Tehillim with the congregation, and entered only for the Torah reading (and remained for the Musaf tefillah that followed it). However, on the festival of Pesach5 and the festival of Shavuos6 he came early and entered for the recitation of the 'Hallel'.
> So we have seen that there is a special effort regarding reciting Hallel on Yom Tov with a congregation.
★ ★ ★
Question: What should one do who did not manage to pray Shacharis with a minyan, and now has before him the possibility of reciting Hallel with a minyan but not in the order of the tefillah — how should he act?
Answer: It should be prefaced that in the previous halacha the sefer Kaf HaChaim was cited, that according to the words of the Arizal one should not reverse the "channels" [tzinoros]; if so, the same applies to Hallel as well, that one should not alter the order and must recite it specifically after Shemoneh Esrei. However, it should be noted from what the Alter Rebbe wrote7: 'But on Rosh Chodesh, when the custom is not to recite Hallel in the house of a mourner (each person should recite Hallel afterward when he comes to his [own] home, for the mitzvah of Hallel [applies] the entire day, and its place is not fixed [as being] immediately after the Shemoneh Esrei, for even before the tefillah one must sometimes recite it, as stated in siman 422, and needless to say after the tefillah, whose time is the entire day, even for an individual on Rosh Chodesh; and one recites it immediately after the Shacharis tefillah only on account of "the zealous perform mitzvos early")'.
That is, it appears from the words of the Alter Rebbe that the place of Hallel after Shemoneh Esrei is not necessarily on account of the order of the tefillah, and therefore it is not indispensable, [and similar to what was cited regarding the recitation of לדוד ה' אורי ("L'David Hashem Ori") in halacha number 67].
And how should one act? On this matter there are several traditions in the name of the Rebbe, as follows:
a) Rav Y.L. Shapiro related8 that Rav Moshe Shklar, as a bochur, entered the Rebbe for a yechidus and asked the Rebbe regarding Rosh Chodesh, in a case where one comes late to the synagogue and the congregation is [in the middle of] Hallel — whether to recite it together with them, on account of the question about the bracha, or [whether] one should not deviate from the order of the tefillah, as we are always careful [to maintain]? The Rebbe answered him that one must therefore hasten on Rosh Chodesh and come to the synagogue on time. He then asked again: and what should one do in practice in a case where one does not arrive on time? The Rebbe answered him that he should recite the Hallel with the congregation. [However, Rav Y.L. concluded there: 'He himself related to me the give-and-take, but it is not clear to me regarding the conclusion, whether the Rebbe indeed told him that in practice, if one is late, he should recite Hallel with the congregation'.]
b) An additional tradition was brought in the Mafteach Inyanim to Sichos Kodesh9: 'In response to the question of whether one may recite Hallel before the tefillah, the Rebbe answered in the name of the Rebbe the Rashab, זה דומה כמו אלטע געבאקענע בולקע, אז עס קומט צו גיין נאך שמונה עשרה וואו איז דער הלל? [it is comparable to a stale, well-baked roll — when one comes, after Shemoneh Esrei, where is the Hallel?]'10.
c) In the sefer 'Dem Rebbin's Kinder'11 it is brought: a response at a yechidus to someone who asked about reciting Hallel when one is late in coming to the minyan: 'אויב סאיז א טאג וואס ממאכט אליין די ברכה, זאל ער זאגן הלל כסדר התפלה, אויב ער דארף יוצא זיין פון זיין פון דעם חזן, זאל ער דאמאלסט זאגן מיטן ציבור, און שפעטער דאווענען [= if it is a day on which one recites the bracha by oneself, he should recite Hallel in the order of the tefillah; and if it is a time when one needs to fulfill his obligation of the bracha through the chazzan, he should recite it with the congregation and pray afterward]'.
> So there are contradictory traditions as to how to act; and since this is so, one certainly must strive to be careful to pray with a congregation, and one who finds himself in such a situation should ask a rav how to act.
--------------
Notes:
1 אג"ק חי"ז ע' סז ↩
2 ע' 121 ↩
3 ראה העו"ב גליון א'קסא ע' 55 ↩
4 בדיני ומנהגי ר"ח פ"ח ע' נה הערה 13 כתב שצ"ע לגבי ר"ח. ועד"ז יל"ע מדוע לא הוזכר חנוכה. וראה בהפסק בתפלה מילואים ע' 137 הערה 1 מה שכתב לבאר בזה ↩
5 ראה יומן שבסוף שיחו"ק מהדו"ח חמ"ז ע' 405: 'למחרת הגיע מביתו בשעה 9:45 נודע שיכנס לאל למטה בעת אמירת הלל. באמצע שחרית יצא מחדרו כשהוא עטוף בטלית ושאל את אחד הבחורים היכן אוחזים למטה בתפלה, והלה ענה שבק"ש ואד"ש ענה לו 'א דאנק' וביקש שיודיעו לו כשיאחזו בהלל', לפני הלל נכנס לביהכנ"ס למטה .. למחרת נכנס לזאל למטה לאמירת הלל'. וכן שם ע' 407 ביחס לשבת אחש"פ שנכנס לאמירת הלל ↩
6 חמ"ח ע' 365 ↩
7 שו"ע או"ח סי' קלא ס"ה ↩
8 קובץ העו"ב אה"ת גליון תתקסט ע' 73 ↩
9 ע' 112 ↩
10 אמנם ראה בהפסק בתפלה שם ע' 138 וע' 140 נוסחאות שונות בשמועה זו ↩
11 ע' קי ↩
[לב] (Halacha 982)
Reciting the full Hallel with a congregation (4)
Question: A person who has no minyan for the recitation of Hallel — what should he do?
Answer: We saw in halacha 979 the words of the Rishonim that one must strive to recite Hallel at least with three [and in any case with two], and as the Mordechai1 wrote: 'But it is a mitzvah to seek out [others] so that they will respond after him the beginnings of the sections'.
And as halacha the Rema2 wrote: 'And some say that when an individual reads, he tells two [others] to say the beginnings of the sections with him, for then it is like [reciting with] many3. And they were accustomed to do so at "Hodu," but not at "Ana"'.
The Eliyah Zuta4 brought the words of the Rema and wrote: 'And the Levush omitted it. Therefore it seems that if two [others] are not available, one need not trouble himself to seek them out'.
And the Lechem Chamudos5 wrote: 'And the Mordechai wrote in the chapter "Bameh Madlikin" that when the individual reads, he tells two [others] to say the beginnings of the sections with him, for then it is like [reciting with] many, end [of citation]; and they were accustomed to do so at "Hodu," but not at "Ana." But they were accustomed to do this in every Hallel, even on the days on which one completes it — and this is certainly an erroneous custom, unless we say that they were accustomed to do so in order to be habituated to it, so that they should not come to do so even on the days on which one does not complete it; but by strict law one is obligated only when one skips [portions], namely on Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed of Pesach, except that the Maggid, at the end of Hilchos Chanukah, wrote in the name of the Ramban that on Chol HaMoed of Pesach, which is a mo'ed, even though one skips — the enactment of the Sages was so from the outset, for they are days of the mo'ed and are obligated in Hallel, and the reading is not [truly] with omissions because it is only a minhag; rather, so they enacted from the outset — and so the Ran wrote in his name in the chapter "Bnei Ha'ir," and therefore one is obligated to recite a bracha over it. And according to this, even on Chol HaMoed of Pesach one does not need two [others]; but if so, according to the Raavad, who wrote at the end of Hilchos Berachos that on Chol HaMoed one is not obligated to recite a bracha, but on Rosh Chodesh they enacted a bracha to publicize that it is Rosh Chodesh — if so, according to his words, on Rosh Chodesh one would not have needed two [others]; therefore it appears correct to me to require two [others] both on Rosh Chodesh and on Chol HaMoed of Pesach, in order to satisfy both [views], and furthermore the Rambam holds that on Rosh Chodesh and Chol HaMoed one does not recite a bracha, since one reads with omissions'.
> So, according to his words, on the days on which one recites a bracha there is no need to have two [others] read [with him].
But the Magen Avraham6 wrote: 'The Lechem Chamudos wrote that this is specifically on the days on which one does not complete [the Hallel], and because of a doubtful bracha, and that which the world is accustomed to do so even on the days on which one completes it is an error in their hands — end of quote; but it appears that he did not see [the words] in the Agur and in Shibbolei HaLeket, who wrote in the name of Midrash Shocher Tov that one says "Hodu" only to two, and the reason is: to whom would he say "Hodu"? And so wrote the Tur, siman 479; and likewise it is a widespread minhag to seek out two [others] on the night of Pesach, even though there is no doubtful bracha there, and in the Mordechai the reason is written: that it is a mitzvah to respond the beginnings of the sections; and see Yalkut Tehillim, siman 112. And the Agur wrote: and it requires examination — how does it differ from other [instances of] "Hodu" which one recites as an individual, such as in Hallel HaGadol? And it is possible that here, since it is in the manner of song, we require that they respond after him, as we find at the Song of the Sea'.
> So the Magen Avraham rejected the words of the Lechem Chamudos, from the words of the Agur and Shibbolei HaLeket, in which it is explained that in every Hallel one must have two [others] read [with him].
And the Pri Megadim wrote in Eishel Avraham there: 'And that which the Rav [the Rema] wrote, that then it is like [reciting with] many — this means to say: since in any case it is a mitzvah that he say "Hodu" to two, (1) so that they respond the beginnings of the sections, (2) and [because] to whom would he say "Hodu" — if so, one also satisfies the view of the one who says that an individual does not recite a bracha, since, as there are two with him, it is like [reciting with] many; and the same applies to the Hallel on the night of Pesach, over which one does not recite a bracha at all, and the Hallel that one completes: it is a mitzvah for the individual to say [it] to two, so that they respond "Hodu" — at least according to the reason of "to whom would he say Hodu." And according to the reason that they should respond the beginnings of the sections, it would be fitting also at "Ana," and this is what the Rav wrote: "and they were accustomed [to do so] at Hodu but not at Ana." And it may be said [that regarding] what the Rav wrote, "like many" — that is, "Hodu" [with] two is like [reciting with] many, but not to be three like a congregation; and it requires examination. And see the Eliyah Rabbah, that if there are not two [others], one need not trouble himself to seek them out'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe7: 'It is a mitzvah to seek out a group [of three] for the recitation of the Hallel, in order to say "Hodu" with three — that is, that the one says to the two who are with him הודו לה' וגו' ("Give thanks to Hashem," etc.) and they respond after him הודו לה' וגו' ("Give thanks to Hashem," etc.); and likewise at אנא ה'8 וגו' ("Ana Hashem," etc.) as has been explained in siman 422; see there the reason ..'.
> So, according to this, it would be fitting that one who does not recite Hallel with a congregation should at least recite it with three; but in practice the custom was not for an individual to join two others to himself9. And in addition it is written in the sefer HaYom Yom10: 'One repeats הודו לה' ("Give thanks to Hashem") after each of the three verses of "Yomar na," and also when one prays as an individual'.
Notes:
1 שבת רמז רפו ↩
2 שו"ע או"ח סי' תכב ס"ב בהג"ה ↩
3 כתב בביאור הגר"א אות יג: 'דשלשה מקרי רבים כמ"ש בגיטין מו, א כר"נ דקי"ל שם כותיה' ↩
4 סי' תכב ס"ק ו ↩
5 ברכות פ"ב סי' ה אות כב ↩
6 סי' תכב ס"ק ז ↩
7 שו"ע או"ח סי' תעט ס"ו ↩
8 וראה בדרכי משה שם ס"ק ג בשם המרדכי, אמנם הרמ"א עצמו כתב שנהגו כך רק בהודו ↩
9 ראה סידור רסקין ח"ג ע' א'תר. שוע"ר עם דובר שלום סי' תעט ע' רלג הערה לא. ובהערותיו על ההגש"פ עם לקוטי טעמים הערה תתקסח ↩
10 ל' תשרי, א' דר"ח חשון ↩
[לג] (Halacha 983)
Minhogim of giving Chanukah gelt (5)
Question: Is there any reason to refrain from giving money on Motzaei Shabbos?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin1 enumerates the things that involve the prohibition of nichush (divination), and among the things it brings: '"Do not begin with me" [when the collector comes to collect a tax from him, or the town's assessment, he says to him: please, do not begin with me, to be the first in a matter of loss, for it is a bad omen for him. Rashi], it is morning, it is Rosh Chodesh, it is Motzaei Shabbos'.
And so wrote the Tur2 regarding the prohibition of "lo sinachashu": 'And likewise those who say, "Do not begin to collect from him — it is morning, it is Motzaei Shabbos, it is Rosh Chodesh" — for he does not want the beginning of his business to be in giving out something from his possession'.
[We find that some wrote regarding performing work on Motzaei Shabbos, that one does not see in it a sign of blessing, as is stated in Sefer Chassidim3: 'The Sages taught: one who performs work on the eves of Shabbosos and on the eves of Yamim Tovim and on Motzaei Shabbos and on the departure of Yom Tov, on Chanukah and Purim and on Rosh Chodesh, and anywhere where there is a trace of transgression bringing about a communal fast — they never see a sign of blessing'.]
And it is explained in the Shiltei Giborim4 that there is no concern when one does not express it in speech: 'And likewise one who says to the collector, "Do not begin with me, tomorrow is Rosh Chodesh," "it is Motzaei Shabbos" — this is included in [the category of] an action, for he performs an action and refrains from doing his affairs by means of the omen; and it seems to me that if he does not express the matter with his mouth, but rather thinks it in his heart and refrains from his affairs by means of these omens, this is permitted, for it is fitting for a person to be concerned about the concern that people are concerned about, as [stated therein], and this accords with what is said at the end of Sanhedrin; and see the chapter "Chelek"'.
And as halacha the Mechaber5 wrote: 'And likewise one who says: "Do not begin to collect from me — it is morning, it is Motzaei Shabbos, it is the departure of Rosh Chodesh" .. it is forbidden'.
And the Taz6 wrote: '"If he does not state the reason," etc. According to this, it appears that also in those [cases] mentioned above there is a leniency, as long as he does not explicitly say that he is acting on account of this7; but it may be said that here it is different, since there is a change of nature before him and there is some degree of apprehension upon the person, [and therefore] he was permitted to act without a statement — which is not so in those [cases] mentioned above, in which there is no change of nature. So it seems to me'.
> So we have seen that there is room to refrain from business affairs on Motzaei Shabbos, since there is no sign of blessing in it, except that one should not say this explicitly with his mouth — that this is the reason he refrains.
The Rebbe related8, at the farbrengen of Motzaei Shabbos, Parshas Vayeilech, 6 Tishrei 57399: 'The Rebbe the Rashab was accustomed on Friday to tell his wife, the Rebbetzin, that if she needed money for an expenditure of Motzaei Shabbos or for Sunday morning, she should take it from him on Friday, since on Motzaei Shabbos he would not give [it]. And the reason he did not want to give money on Motzaei Shabbos [was] because it is written in Sefer Chassidim in several places10 that giving money on Motzaei Shabbos is not a sign of blessing. And although it is written that even if one conducts oneself thus, one should not say so out loud, since the matter of "one who says such-and-such a season is fine, etc." is connected to the "ways of the Emorites"; and in this lies the novelty, that the Rebbe the Rashab did indeed say so out loud, and likewise, when the Rebbe the Rayatz repeated this, he too said it out loud, and although there is a question about this, I did not ask the Rebbe the Rayatz, and therefore I have no answer for it, but there is certainly an explanation for it — whether because it was said on Erev Shabbos, or on account of other reasons, or because they negated the speaking about it by means of a "declaration" [mesiras moda'ah], etc..
And indeed in the glosses Milei D'Chassidusa on Sefer Chassidim (Botchatch)11 he wrote: 'It may also perhaps be said that in his time it was no longer heard in the world that the Emorites were particular about this, and if so, from then onward this prohibition does not apply .. And according to this, also regarding what the Tur wrote there in the laws of "darkei ha'Emori" — that one who says "it is Rosh Chodesh," and the commentator explained there that one who is particular in the morning, or on Motzaei Shabbos, or at the beginning of the month, if they ask money from him, this is of the "ways of the Emorites"; and there are those who practice a leniency in this and do not want to give at the beginning of the week on credit — that is, since the Emorites have already ceased to say so, and if it were to apply to this, you have only its place and its time, the place of that particular city: since there were not then found in it any of the Emorites who would say so, there is then no cause for particularity in this there .. It may also be said in defense of those who [refrain] on Motzaei Shabbos, who do not want to give on credit — that perhaps [it is] because generally on Motzaei Shabbos the purse is empty and there is nothing in it, and blessing does not rest upon the empty [thing]; for this reason their intent is not on account of the "ways of the Emorites," but rather because they are preparing themselves for blessing, so that there should be something upon which [the blessing] may rest when he pays money and does not take on credit, which is not so [regarding] the aforementioned Baraisa, whose intent is that immediately, by a demand alone, he makes for himself thereby an indication, a not-good sign, which is [the] "ways of the Emorites," since this does not apply here on account of the taking effect of the blessing, since his house was not emptied by a mere demand; and one who is careful about all this acts in the best possible manner'.
> So, in practice, 'our custom is to evade [the matter] and not to give money on Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh'12.
★ ★ ★
Question: Does one give Chanukah gelt on the Motzaei Shabbos of Chanukah?
Answer: At a general yechidus on Erev Chanukah 574813 the Rebbe said: 'And it is understood and simple that one should give Chanukah gelt also in connection with Shabbos, just as one lights the Chanukah lights on Erev Shabbos; and likewise one should give on Motzaei Shabbos at the time of the lighting, for the light of Sunday. And since there are those who are careful, on account of what is written in several places — not to give money on Motzaei Shabbos — in the case at hand, where the matter concerns a matter of mitzvah (which affects the education of the children, as above), and especially since it is possible to speak about the giving on Motzaei Shabbos, and to give in practice on Sunday morning after dawn (amud hashachar) or after sunrise (netz hachamah) on Sunday morning'.
And on the night of 23 Kislev 574914 the Rebbe said: 'And also in this matter — giving Chanukah gelt — one should strive to do it as early as possible; however, in this year's calendar arrangement, in which the first night of Chanukah is on Motzaei Shabbos, it is worthwhile to refrain from giving Chanukah money on Motzaei Shabbos, so as not to enter into doubts regarding the handling (tiltul) of the money before Havdalah, etc.; and it is better that they give Chanukah money on the second night, and when they promise and inform the children that they will receive Chanukah money tomorrow, and in addition to what they receive every year, they will certainly have no grievance over the fact that the giving of the Chanukah money is deferred from the first light to the second light'.
> So, in practice, on account of several reasons, on a Motzaei Shabbos that falls during Chanukah we do not give the Chanukah gelt on Motzaei Shabbos itself, but rather give it the next morning, or at the next [night's] lighting, giving double.
Notes:
1 סו, א ↩
2 יו"ד סי' קעט ↩
3 סי' קכא ↩
4 ע"ז ט, א ↩
5 שו"ע יו"ד סי' קעט ס"ג ↩
6 ס"ק ב ↩
7 הפתחי תשובה ס"ק ג הביא את השלטי גיבורים, אמנם כתב שנראה מתוס' ב"מ כז, ב, שלא סוברים כך עיי"ש ↩
8 ראה רשימות היומן ע' רמב. ש"פ וישב כא כסלו התשח"י (תו"מ חכ"א ע' 272). שיחת מוצש"ק יג ניסן תשמ"ג (תו"מ ח"ג ע' 1288). ליל ער"ה כט אלול תשמ"ה (תו"מ ח"ה ע' 3062) ↩
9 שיחו"ק מהדו"ח ע' 43 ↩
10 אולי הכוונה לציטוט הנ"ל מספר חסידים אודות אי עשית המלאכה במוצש"ק. לא מצאנו מקום אחר בספר חסידים אודות זה, וראה העו"ב גליון תשעז ע' 21 מה שהעיר בזה ↩
11 אות נ ↩
12 לשון הרבי באג"ק חכ"ז ע' מא ↩
13 תו"מ תשמ"ח ח"ב ע' 91 ↩
14 תו"מ תשמ"ט ח"ב ע' 24 ↩
[לד] (Halacha 984)
Question: Are women obligated in the recitation of Hallel on Chanukah? (1)
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Sukkah1 says: 'One for whom a slave, or a woman, or a minor was reciting [the Hallel] — he responds after them what they say, and may a curse come upon him'.
And Rashi wrote: 'Thus they were accustomed: one reads the Hallel and discharges the obligation of the many; and if it was a slave, or a woman, or a minor, since [such a one] is not obligated in the matter, [such a one] does not discharge the obligated one of his obligation; therefore he responds after him everything that he says'.
The poskim discussed the words of the Mishnah, [as to] the Hallel of which festivals it speaks. Tosafos2 wrote: 'It implies here that a woman is exempt from the Hallel of Sukkos and likewise of Atzeres [Shavuos], and the reason is because it is a positive time-bound mitzvah, even though regarding the Hallel of the nights of Pesach it is implied in the chapter "Arvei Pesachim"3 that they are obligated in the four cups, and presumably they instituted the four cups only in order to recite over them the Hallel and the Aggadah — [that is because] the Hallel of Pesach is different, for it comes on account of the miracle, and they too were part of that miracle; but here it is not said on account of a miracle'.
And Tosafos in Brochos4 wrote: 'For Hallel is rabbinic, and women are exempt for this reason — that it is a positive time-bound mitzvah — as we say in Sukkah: one before whom a slave, a woman, or a minor recites [the Hallel] answers after them what they say, for the listener is not exempted by their reading, since they are exempt.'
> Thus we have seen in the words of Tosafos that women are exempt from Hallel because it is a positive time-bound mitzvah, and in tractate Sukkah Tosafos wrote that they are therefore exempt from Hallel on Sukkos and Shavuos, but are obligated in Hallel on Pesach because they too were part of that same miracle.
And the Rambam recorded the law of the Mishnah in Halachos Chanukah5: 'And if the one reciting the Hallel was a minor, a slave, or a woman, he answers after them what they say, word by word, throughout the entire Hallel.'
> And it appears from his words [and so wrote most of the commentators]6 that he held that women are exempt from all Hallel, including the Hallel of Chanukah, and therefore one must repeat after them word by word.
However, the Acharonim disagreed regarding the view of Tosafos concerning the Hallel of Chanukah, as follows:
The Magen Avraham7 cited the words of Tosafos that women are exempt from Hallel and wrote: 'Women are exempt from all Hallel because it is a positive time-bound mitzvah, and therefore they cannot discharge the obligation of others (Tosafos Brochos daf 20, beginning of amud beis), unless he answers after them each and every word — and a curse will befall him who did not learn, and if he did learn, he disgraces his Maker by making such agents; see there in the Mishnah, chapter 3 of Sukkah, and see what I wrote in siman 479.'
> It is explained in his words that women are exempt from all Hallel.
But several Acharonim wrote that in the view of Tosafos women are also obligated in the Hallel of Chanukah, since the Hallel of Chanukah too was instituted on account of the miracle8, and women too were part of that miracle9, as the Mekor Chaim10 wrote: 'Women are exempt from Hallel except for the night of Pesach and Chanukah — Tosafos Sukkah 38'.
And so wrote the Toras Rafael11: '.. And so it appears that on the first day of Yom Tov of Pesach as well women are obligated in the recitation of Hallel, and this is why Tosafos wrote only of the Hallel of Sukkos or of Atzeres, but of Pesach they are obligated in the daytime one as well. And likewise on Chanukah they too are obligated, since it is on account of the miracle. And the meaning of the Rambam z"l in chapter 3 of Halachos Chanukah requires further study, see there. And the Magen Avraham siman 422, s"k 5, copied in the name of Tosafos that women are exempt from all Hallel, see there. But this is not mentioned in Tosafos — that they are exempt from all Hallel — as I wrote.'
And in the Minchas Pitim12 he likewise wrote: 'And in the Hallel of Chanukah women too are obligated, since they too were part of that miracle, and so it appears from Tosafos Sukkah daf 38, s.v. "mi shehaya," and see there at length ..'.
And likewise the Hisorerus Teshuvah13 wrote: '... Since they are obligated in the Chanukah light because its essence was instituted on account of the miracle of the war, or on account of both together, all the more so in Hallel — which was instituted solely on account of the victory of the war — that they are obligated in it a fortiori, since they were included in the decree, and in the decree to nullify Shabbos for women as for men, and a miracle was wrought through them; and it is thereby proven that since they are obligated in the Chanukah light, they are obligated in Hallel all the more so'.
In the responsa Kenaf Renanah14 he too took the straightforward position that women are obligated in the recitation of Hallel, and wrote: 'Women, who are not obligated in the kindling of the lamp in the Mikdash and have no part in any communal service — and it was through women that the essence of the miracle was wrought, that the enemy was slain — for them the essence of the mitzvah of Chanukah is the recitation of Hallel, which pertains to all the miracles, and not that the essence of Chanukah should be the kindling of the light; for they must make the essence [of their observance] that in which they merited, that the essence of the miracle — the slaying of the enemy — was wrought through [them] .. but in truth for women too the essential importance is the miracle of the Menorah .. and this is more esteemed by them than the essence of the miracle wrought through [them] .. and therefore they are forbidden in melachah on account of a distinguishing sign .. since by reason, for women the essence of Chanukah is not the kindling of the light, but the recitation of Hallel over the essence of the miracle that was wrought through [them] ..'.
And so ruled the Shevet HaLevi15: 'And whether women are obligated as in the kindling .. and in my humble opinion there is room to obligate them based on the words of Tosafos Sukkah 38a, s.v. "mi," see there'.
> Thus we have seen several poskim who wrote, based on the words of Tosafos, that women are obligated in Hallel on Chanukah. But in the next halacha we will see the views of those who disagree, and the words of the Rebbe on the matter, and their explanation of how the kindling of the light — in which they are obligated — differs from Hallel, from which they are exempt.
Notes:
1 38a ↩
2 Ibid., s.v. "mi shehaya eved" ↩
3 108a ↩
4 20b ↩
5 ch. 3, halacha 14 ↩
6 To note what is written in Nahar Shalom siman 271, os 1, and the response to his words in Yabia Omer vol. 6, OC siman 45 ↩
7 siman 422, s"k 5 ↩
8 In the next halacha a discussion will be brought as to for which miracle Hallel was established, and the discussion of women's obligation in Hallel on that account; and see also below in the words of the Kenaf Renanah ↩
9 Shabbos 23a ↩
10 OC siman 644 ↩
11 siman 75 ↩
12 siman 683 ↩
13 vol. 1, siman 51 ↩
14 OC siman 82, at its end ↩
15 Responsa, vol. 1, siman 205 ↩
[35] (halacha 985)
Question: Are women obligated to recite Hallel on Chanukah? (2)
In the previous halacha we saw that there are poskim who held [according to their understanding of the words of Tosafos] that women are obligated in Hallel on Chanukah, because they too were part of that miracle, and therefore just as they are obligated in the Chanukah light they are also obligated in Hallel.
In this halacha we will see the views of the poskim who wrote that women are exempt from Hallel on Chanukah, and who explained in various ways the difference between their obligation in the Chanukah light and the recitation of Hallel within it, from which in their view they are exempt.
a) The Kli Chemdah1 explained the distinction between the Chanukah light, in which women are obligated, and Hallel, from which they are exempt: '.. In the reading of the Megillah, where there is nothing but the reading of the Megillah, the Sages instituted that women too should be obligated in it by force of pirsumei nisa; whereas on Chanukah, which has the mitzvah of the lights and of Hallel and thanksgiving — and understandably the lights are not included in [the category of] the time-bound2 and they are obligated in them — there is again pirsumei nisa in this, but they are not obligated in Hallel because it is time-bound; and one who examines well the language of the Rambam z"l at the beginning of chapter 3 of Chanukah will see that in the kindling of the lights there is pirsumei nisa, while Hallel and thanksgiving is a rabbinic mitzvah like all rabbinic mitzvos, and thus specifically in the Chanukah light they are obligated, whereas in the mitzvah of Hallel [they are not] since it is time-bound'.
b) The Bais She'arim3 wrote: 'I received your letter, and as to what you asked — that the common assumption is that women are obligated in the Chanukah light and exempt from the recitation of Hallel, whereas in your opinion the opposite [would seem correct], that they should be obligated in the recitation of Hallel and exempt from the Chanukah light .. On Chanukah there were two miracles: one, the victory of the war, and second, the miracle of the oil. Over the miracle of the victory we recite Hallel .. and for the miracle of the oil we kindle the Chanukah light; and if so, regarding Hallel they are fit to be obligated, since they too were part of this miracle of the victory, and not to be obligated in the Chanukah light, for they have no connection to this miracle .. What appears to me in my humble opinion .. is it not explicitly stated by Chazal .. "a miracle was wrought with it and they kindled from it for eight days" .. "they established them and made them festive days with Hallel and thanksgiving" — thus it is over the miracle of the oil that they established the Hallel'.
And further on he explains: 'And as for the difficulty — that women should be obligated in Hallel since they too were part of that miracle of the victory — see Tosafos 38a, s.v. "mi," that from the Hallel of Sukkah and Atzeres they are exempt because it is not said over the miracle, while in the Hallel of the night of Pesach they are obligated because it is said over the miracle and they too were part of that miracle; and according to their approach, that in the Hallel of Chanukah too they are obligated for this reason — yet since we say in the Gemara that they are obligated in the Chanukah light, and it never appears anywhere [stated] that they are also obligated in Hallel, this implies that they are exempt from Hallel. And it appears to me based on what the Ramban wrote in his glosses to the Sefer HaMitzvos, Shoresh 1, s.v. "vehaplia," that the essence of the mitzvah — that they recite Hallel and song over every trouble that should not come, upon being redeemed — is from the Torah, a halacha l'Moshe miSinai, or is included in [the mitzvah of] rejoicing .. In a rabbinic positive time-bound mitzvah they instituted [obligation] for women because they too were part of that miracle, such as the four cups; but in a Scriptural positive time-bound mitzvah they did not, see there. And according to this it is well: specifically the Chanukah light, which is a rabbinic positive mitzvah, women are obligated in because they too were part of that miracle; but Hallel, which is a positive mitzvah from the Torah — only that its text is rabbinic .. women are rightly exempt .. On Chanukah the Rabbis did not institute Hallel at all, only the text, for one who is obligated from the Torah, namely men; but for women, who are exempt from the Torah, the Sages did not institute [it] at all, and therefore they are exempt, and it is well'.
c) The Sdei Chemed4 cited a letter from Maharshal HaKohen, author of the Binyan Shlomo: '.. It appears to me to resolve [this] that although they are obligated in the Hallel of Chanukah, nonetheless they are not obligated to recite the entire Egyptian Hallel that Chazal instituted to recite over the miracle, for it is possible that even if they recite one chapter in which thanksgiving and praise over the miracles is mentioned, that suffices — as with tefillah, that although women are obligated, nonetheless the Magen Avraham wrote in siman 106 that what most women are accustomed to — that they do not pray regularly — is because they say, immediately in the morning near the washing, some request, and from the Torah that suffices; for even according to the Rambam, that tefillah is Scriptural, nonetheless once a day suffices, in whatever text one wishes, see there. And if so, likewise regarding the Hallel of Chanukah, although they are obligated by virtue of the fact that they too were part of that miracle, nonetheless it suffices that they recite a single chapter in which words of praise and laud to the Holy One, Blessed be He, over the miracles are mentioned, and therefore they cannot discharge the obligation of a man. So it appears to me to resolve the words of the Rambam'.
d) The Rebbe wrote in a letter5: 'Concerning that which you asked before me, regarding the reason that women do not have the practice of reciting Hallel on Chanukah, even though they were part of that miracle — for which reason they are obligated in the Haggadah and Hallel on the nights of Pesach, as is the ruling in the Shulchan Aruch siman 472:14 — and you add that you heard in the name of a certain great one who rules that women are obligated in Hallel on Chanukah. Now, this ruling is exceedingly puzzling, and as you too write in your letter, "go out and see how the people conduct themselves," and it never appears in any book to obligate women specifically in the recitation of Hallel during the days of Chanukah; and in such a case, that we have not seen [it done] is itself proof, and you deliberate in your letter over the reason for women's exemption from the aforementioned. To my mind the reason is simple: for indeed, in the place where they instituted Hallel, they instituted it within the tefillah, as in the Mishnah Rosh Hashanah chapter 4, mishnah 7, "the first recites the Hallel"; and since women fulfill their obligation of tefillah by reciting some request — and even according to the stringent opinion, they obligated them only in a request for mercy (see Shulchan Aruch of Rabbeinu HaZaken OC siman 106 and the Acharonim there) — they found no place from the outset to obligate them with the addition of Hallel in this'.
> Thus we have seen various explanations of why women are exempt from reciting Hallel on Chanukah, and that such is the simple minhag6, as the Rebbe wrote and explained the reason for this.
--------------
Notes:
1 Miluim, Miketz 2 ↩
2 And see there in his words earlier: 'For regarding the Chanukah light there is no room to raise a difficulty from [its being] a positive time-bound mitzvah, since it is possible to fulfill it through an agent' ↩
3 siman 359 ↩
4 Ma'areches Chanukah, os 9 (vol. 6, p. 1222) ↩
5 21 Marcheshvan 5720 (its photocopy was published only from a transcription, and it is attached hereto) ↩
6 And see also the responsa Yabia Omer vol. 6, siman 45. Halichos Shlomo ch. 17, os 6, and Davar Halacha note 8 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group