Lighting Chanukah Candles
Revision as of 01:00, 8 November 2011 by YitzchakSultan
- 1 Background
- 2 Mitzvah of Chanuka Candles
- 3 Getting benefit from the light of the candles
- 4 If done incorrectly
- 5 Who’s Obligated?
- 6 Who should rely on the household’s lighting?
- 7 Should a guest light candles?
- 8 Brachot HaRoah (Seeing)
- 9 Minimum Measurements
- 10 Which Chanukia is Kosher and which is preferable
- 11 Possible Chanukia arrangements
- 12 The Brachot of Chanuka Candles
- 13 The extra oil and wicks
- 14 Lighting Chanuka candles in a non-Jewish city
- 15 Sources
- In the time of the second Bet Hamikdash the Greek kings made decrees against the Jews in order to make them forget Torah and Judaism. They broke in the Bet Hamikdash and defiled it until Hashem had mercy on the Jews and saved them. The salvation came through the Chashmonaim who were victorious over the Greeks and served as Cohanim Gedolim. They returned to the Bet Hamikdash and could only find one pure flask of oil which was enough to light for only one day. A miracle occurred and it lasted 8 days. On the day that they found the flask, on the 25th of Kislev, the Rabbis established a holiday, 8 days of festivity and joy, called Chanuka. 
Mitzvah of Chanuka Candles
- The mitzvah to light candles is a very special and dear mitzvah. Even a poor person should rent or sell his clothing or hire himself out in order to get enough for at least one candle for every night. The Gabbai tzedaka (local charity distributor) needs to make sure that the poor have money for at least one candle every night. 
- The minimum requirement of candles is one candle per house every night. The practice is to do this mitzvah in the most beautified (Mehadrin) which means that one candle for every person in the house every night is lit. The best (Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin) way to fulfill this mitzvah is according to Sephardim, for one person per house to light one candle on the first night and to add another candle each night and according to Ashkenazim, for every person to light for themselves one candle on the first night and to add another candle each night. 
Getting benefit from the light of the candles
- It’s forbidden to get benefit from the light of the candles for the first half hour, even on minimal tasks like checking the value of a coin. 
- However a minimal task that’s for a mitzvah is permitted, but learning by the light of the candles isn’t considered a minimal task. 
- Therefore it’s the Minhag to light a Shamash so that if one does use the light of the candles it’ll be permitted because of the Shamash. 
- The Shamash should be placed slightly higher than the other candles or recognizable distant from the others. 
- Nowadays when we have electric lights if the lights are on some say one doesn’t need a Shamash and some say it’s still part of the Minhag. 
If done incorrectly
- If one missed lighting one day it can’t be made up and the next night one should light the number everyone else is lighting. 
- If one lit two candles on the first night, he fulfills his obligation and doesn’t have to relight the right number of candles. 
- Women are obligated in Chanuka candles since they too were part of the miracle of Chanuka. Thus a man who is away traveling he should have his wife light at home for him to fulfill his obligation. Even if he will come that night later than tzet hakochavim (the night to light Chanuka candles), he should still have his wife light. Ashkenazim who have the Minhag that everyone in the household lights and they are able to light where they are should light without a bracha. 
- A deaf and mute, insane, or child not bar/bat-mitzvah isn’t obligated to light and so can’t fulfill the obligation of someone who is obligated. However a deaf who can speak is obligated and can fulfill the obligation of others. 
- A blind person is obligated in lighting. If he’s married, his wife should light for him, if he lives alone he should light. 
- Even though a child, who is the age of chinuch but not bar/bat mitzvah, can’t fulfill the obligation of others, the one making the bracha can light the first candle and then let the child light the other candles. However a child who isn’t at the age of chinuch, shouldn’t light any of the candles except for the Shamash. 
- A mourner in the first 7 days can light and make Brachot [however he shouldn’t light in shul on the first night because of the Shechianu, even in the 30 days of mourning or 12 months for a parent.] 
- A mourner on the first day is exempt as he is exempt from all mitzvoth and so he should have a household member who isn’t a mourner light with a bracha, if that’s not possible, he should have another person light without a bracha. 
- A convert can make all the Brachot and say “She’assa Nissim Le’avotenu” but if he wants can change it to say “She’assa Nissim LeYisrael”. 
Who should rely on the household’s lighting?
- A married woman should rely on her husband’s lighting. Unmarried girls who in still live at in their father’s home can rely on their father’s lighting even according to the Ashkenazic custom. If they want to light, Ashkenazim can light with a Bracha. 
- According to Sephardim, members of the household that are dependant on their parents fulfill their obligation with the one lighting of the household even if they aren’t home such as children in yeshiva or in the army that don’t sleep at home don’t light where they sleep. However, Ashkenazi Minhag is for single children to light themselves even at home and certainly when not sleeping at home. 
- A married man traveling should have his wife light for him at home and not make the Bracha of Sh’asa Nisim nor Sh’chianu even when he returns home. 
Should a guest light candles?
- A guest at a friend’s house, who doesn’t have anyone lighting for them at home, must chip in (a prutah’s worth) with the owner of the house for the Chanuka candles so that the owner will give him a portion of the candles, either with a kinyan or as a gift, [and the owner will add some oil for the guest] and will fulfill the obligation of the guest. According to Ashkenzim, if he has his own doorway (to outside) he should light by himself, and even if he doesn’t have his own doorway it’s preferable to light by himself. 
- A household member who is a guest in a friend’s house but have someone lighting for them at home, according to Sephardim may light but without a bracha, even if they have in mind not to fulfill their mitzvah with their house’s lighting. According to Ashkenazim, one should light by oneself and have what to rely on if they want make such as bracha. 
- A Sephardic household member who is exempt with the house’s lighting even if he is in Israel and his household is in America where they will only light many hours later. If one wants to light one can light at Tzet in Israel with a bracha. 
- A guest can intend not to join with the owner’s lighting and light for himself with a bracha. However if he is totally dependant on the house owner such as where one doesn’t pay for expenses or he only pays for some expenses but not for every need, according to Sephardim, he may not have intention to not to fulfill his obligation with the owner’s lighting, but he is allowed to light by himself without a bracha, but according to Ashkenazim he may intend not to be part of the owner’s lighting and light by himself with a bracha. 
- An older child who is independent of his parents or a son-in-law who come for Chanuka, according to Ashkenazim, should light for himself, but according to Sephardim should rely on the owner of the house and not by himself. 
- A Sephardic household member who is independent from his parents in that he doesn’t live at home, (or if he has no parents), should light on his own. However if he’s living in Yeshiva or college with other Jews he should intend to fulfill his obligation with the Yeshiva’s lighting or join with some friends and have them lighting for him. Thus they shouldn’t make a bracha on their own lighting. 
- A guest who is relying on the home owner and the home owner asks him to light, he can light for everyone with a bracha. 
- A guest of a motel or hotel which is just for guests and not a home owner, needs to light for himself (unless theirs is someone lighting for him at home). 
- Two people who live in a one apartment if they eat together and pay for the food together, they should light one set of candles (in which they both have a potion) and switch off with who should do the Bracha. If they pay for their own food separately even if they are family members they should light separately. 
- Someone who doesn’t have a house and isn’t a dependant of someone’s house, can’t light candles. If he eats at someone’s house, he can light without a bracha or join in the lighting of the owner (by paying for a portion of the candles). However he can make the Brachot HaRoeh for seeing the candles (She’assa Nisim and Shechianu on the first night). 
- If one is eating at someone’s house (even if it’s one’s parents) on Friday night Chanuka, and is going to sleep at home that night, should light at home after Plag HaMincha. 
- A guest on Chanuka according to Ashkenazim should light one’s own Chanukia. However there’s a dispute as to how long of a stay at someone’s house allows one to light there: some say one must be there for all 8 days, while some say that it’s enough to be there for 1 day. 
- Another option is to join with the owner of the house by giving a coin in order to acquire a portion in the candles. Some say one needs to mnake a קנין in order to acquire a partion of the candles, while others disagree. The guest should hear the Brachot. 
- Otherwise, one can appoint a שליח to light for oneself at home. 
Brachot HaRoah (Seeing)
- Someone traveling all night in a car, train, plane, or boat and has no one lighting for him at home should preferably light there without a Bracha and make Brachot HaRoeh. 
- The candles only need fuel to burn for a half hour.  If one doesn’t have enough for the each Hidur candle, the Hidur candles don’t need to burn for a half hour. 
- A person who is in doubt if his candles will last a half hour can nonetheless light with a bracha. 
Which Chanukia is Kosher and which is preferable
- One should beautify the mitzvah by using a nice Chanukia. The types of materails in order of their importance are:1)gold 2) silver 3)polished copper 4)red copper 5)iron 6)tin 7)lead 8)glass 9)wood 10)animal bone 11)glazed earthenware 12)unglazed earthenware that’s new 13)shell of a pomegranate 14)coconut shell 15)oak tree bark. 
- Unglazed earthenware that was used for lighting candles once shouldn’t be used again because it becomes old looking. However if there’s nothing else it can be cleaned out and reused. Glazed earthenware, glass, and metal don’t need to be cleaned in order to be reused. 
- The floating wick even though the wick is floating on the oil with wax one can use it Lechatchila. 
- A Chanukia bought from a goy doesn’t need a tevilah. 
- A vessel used to sample urine (for medical purposes) isn’t allowed to be used as a Chanukia but rather as the vessel holding the Shamash. 
Possible Chanukia arrangements
- One can fill a bowl with oil and surround the edge with wicks as long as it’s covered by a vessel so that the wicks stay separate in order not to appear like a bonfire. If it the candles are lit while covered each wick counts as another candle, if it’s not covered then all the wicks don’t even count for one candle. 
- If one lit without covering the bowl (with wicks surrounding the edge) one should extinguish the candles and relight without a bracha. 
- Even if one separates the wicks an Etzbah (2 centimeters), one doesn’t need to cover the candles. However, some say that one should cover it even if it’s separated. 
- A chanukia with branches in a circle with an etzbah separation between each candle are Kosher for lighting. 
- One shouldn’t arrange Chanuka candles in a circle (not in any permanent holders) since it looks like a bonfire. If one light this way one should relight without a bracha. If one separated the candles by an etzbah one doesn’t need to relight at all. 
- One shouldn’t light with wax candles attached to each other because it looks like a bonfire, rather they should be separated an etzbah (2 centimeters). 
- The candles should be set up in a line and not a zigzag. 
- The candles should be set up all at the same height level. 
The Brachot of Chanuka Candles
- On the first night all three blessings are said. On all other nights only the first two are said 
- ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם, אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להדליק נר (של) חנוכה
- ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם, שעשה נסים לאבותינו בימים ההם בזמן הזה
- ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם, שהחינו וקימנו והגענו לזמן הזה
- There are there Brachot on the first night: 1)Asher Kidishanu BeMitzvotav VeTzivanu Lehadlik Ner (Ashkenazim add: Shel) Chanuka. 2) SheAssa Nissim LeAvotenu Bayamim Hahem Bazman Hazeh. 3)SheHechiyanu Vekiyemanu Vehiygianu Lazman Hazeh. 
- If one forgot to say the Brachot and remembers after he finished lighting and before a half hour passed one can say “SheAssa Nissim” (and Shechiyanu on the first night) but not “Lehadlik Ner”. If one remembers before one finishes lighting the candles (on the 2nd day and on) one can make all the Brachot then and finish the lighting. 
- If one forgot to say Shechiyanu before lighting one can say it in the half hour after lighting. If one didn’t say it the first night one should say it the second night and so on. So too, if on the eighth night one forgot one can say it in the half hour after lighting. 
- After the half hour of lighting one can’t say the Brachot. 
- If someone had his wife or anyone else light for him the first night he fulfill his obligation of saying Shechiyanu and shouldn’t say it the next night. 
The extra oil and wicks
- One can add oil to the leftover oil and wick from the previous day and reuse it. If there’s leftover from the eighth day, it’s forbidden from benefit and should be burned in a separate bonfire. That only applies if the oil and wicks were leftover before the mitzvah was fulfilled, meaning that the candle went out within the half hour of mitzvah. However if the candles burnt for the half hour of mitzvah, the oil and wicks are permitted. Some hold that anything that put in the Chanukia is assumed to be set aside for the mitzvah and is forbidden. To satisfy all opinions one should stipulate when putting in the oil that only the oil for the half hour of mitzvah should set be aside for the mitzvah. 
- Extra oil in the container that wasn’t poured into the Chanukia or oil poured into the Chanukia that was never lit is permitted. 
- One who has forbidden oil should burn it and not keep it around until next Chanuka. Some have the Minhag to keep it until the burning of Chametz. 
- Even though one isn’t allowed to nullify a forbidden object Lechatchila, after the fact if forbidden oil was mixed with 60 times that amount of permitted oil, the forbidden oil is nullified. If some oil was already added, then one is permitted to add more permitted oil to nullify it. Some say that even in that case one can’t nullify a forbidden object Lechatchila. 
- Oil that was leftover after the 8th day of Chanuka can’t be used and must be burnt in a separate fire  or can be thrown out.  Some have the minhag to or together with one’s Biyur Chametz. 
- This only applies if the amount of oil was placed in the cup and it turned out that there was extra, however, if one originally filled the cups with extra oil it’s permissible. However, some are strict unless one made a stipulation that the extra oil is permissible. 
- Oil left in the container is totally permissible. 
- The wicks have the same halacha as the oil. 
- Oil leftover from one day and only the precise amount of oil was put in one may use it the next day even for only the additional candles. 
Lighting Chanuka candles in a non-Jewish city
- Someone in a city that’s totally not Jewish even if he has family lighting for him at home he should light with a bracha. 
- Shabbat 21b, Rambam Chanuka 3:1-3
- Rambam Chanuka 4:12, S”A 671:1. The Mishna (Pesachim 99b) which says a poor person can take from the Tamchui (the charity fund) for 4 cups of wine on pesach, the gemara explains is because of Pirsumeh Nisa, publicizing the miracle. Maggid Mishna (Chanuka 4:12) says from here Rambam learns all the more so is there publiczing the miracle by candles of Chanuka. The Lechem Mishna ibid argues the law of publicizing the miracle by Chanuka is just equal to the 4 cups of wine. Sh”t Kanaf Ranana O”C 84 explains the Miggid Mishna that Chanuka candles are more important since it’s the only way to publicize compared to pesach where there’s an entire seder.
- Shabbat 21b as understood by Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Rambam (Chanuka 4:1-2) rules that each night one adds one candle for each member of the household. [He adds that the Minhag of Spain is to only light add one candle every night per household.] So holds Rabbenu Yehonatan in name of Ran (Shabbat 21b), Piskei Riaz (Shabbat 2, Chanuka 5), Rif explained by Buir HaGra 671:4. However, Tosfot (Shabbat 21b D”H VeHaMehadrin) in name of the Ri writes that one should only have one increasing per household so that it’s recognizable what night of the Chanuka it is. So writes Mordechai (Shabbat 270) in name of the Ri, Meiri (Shabbat 21b) that such is the Minhag, Ran (ibid.) in name of Raah, Tur(671). Ritva (Shabbat 21b) brings both explanations of the Gemara. S”A 671:2 holds like Tosfot and Rama ibid. holds like Rambam. Interesting Points: The Taz 671:1 writes that here is a case where Ashkenazim follow Rambam and Sephardim follow Tosfot. Chemed Moshe 671:4 argues that the Rambam concludes so is the Minhag not like the ruling, meaning it’s an old practice even before his time. The Torat HaMoadim (Chanuka pg 18) brings the Rama in Darkei Moshe 671:1 who says the Ashkenazi practice goes even according to Tosfot since the candles are indoors and separate. Tzeddai Chem (Chanuka 9:4) argues that the Ashkenazic practice for each member of the household to light isn’t like the Rambam who says that one person lights for everyone according to the number of people. For this reason many challenge the Rama who quotes his ruling in name of the Rambam including Maamar Mordechai 671:4, Bet Halevi on Torah (Chanuka pg 69). Yet, the Sh”t Maharil 145, Sh”t Trumat Hadeshen 101, and Sh”t Mahari Mebrona 50 hold like the explanation held by the Rama and could be sources for his opinion. Also, the Alfasi Zuta (Shabbat 2 beginning) says that the Rama is following the idea of the Rambam to light according to the number of household members but in order to satisfy Tosfot’s issue of being recognizable, every person lights instead of one person lighting.
- Shabbat 22a brought by S”A 673:1 writes that it’s a disgrace to mitzvah to benefit from the candles. Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Began HaMelech 42) writes that the prohibition applies equally to the new candle of mitzvah and extra candles of Hidur. So rules Bear Hetiev 673:2, Sh”T Ketav Sofer O”C 133, and Simchat Yehuda (Masechet Soferim 20:6).
- Biur Halacha 673:1, quoted by Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673).
- Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673)
- Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 673)
- Rav Kanievsky (Sefer Yamei Hallel VeHodah 25 note 11) says that the Minhag applies even if there’s electric candles. Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach (Berchat Moshe; quoted by Halichot Yosef pg 319) says if there are electric lights one doesn’t need a Shamash.
- S”A 672:2. Siddur Rashi 316 pg 151 quotes Rabbenu Yitzchak Bar Yehuda who says that there’s no make up for a missed day, otherwise those who see will think you’re violating the words of the Rabbis. So writes the Tur 672. There’s a dispute whether this means that since it can’t be made up one doesn’t light the next night or one lights like the rest of the world. The Sh”t Maaseh Geonim (55 pg 43) quoting Rabbenu Yitzchak Bar Yehuda that the next night one lights like everyone else. (Thus, Rabbenu Yitzchak means not to light the amount of the night he missed with the amount of that night because that would look like he’s going against the Rabbis); So hold Mordechai 2:268 explained by Sh”t Maharil 28, Agudah (Shabbat 31), Roke’ach 226 pg 128, Shibolei Leket 186, and Pardes Hagadol 199. However, Sefer Minhagim in name of Meharar MeMerizberg writes that the next night one should light the number of candles you missed last night. [He understood Rabbenu Yitzchak quoted by the Tur that one can’t add 8 candles on the 9th night.] Darkei Moshe 672:3 holds like the Agudah and Rokeach against the Maharam.
- Sh”t HaElef Lecha Shlomo O”C 380 says adding to the number doesn’t ruin the mitzvah as the Rama 263 says by Shabbat candles. However, Sh”t Ohel Moshe 69 and Sh”t Mishna Sachir O”C 199 argue since he lit the wrong number someone seeing this will think he didn’t lit it for Chanuka candles just for light. Yet, the Pri Chadash 675 says one who extinguishes the candles fulfills the mitzvah since the candles are in a Chanukiya that’s only used for Chanuka it’s recognizable that he lit for Chanuka. Also, Eliya Raba 671:7 says the first night doesn’t need to illustrate the number of the nights. Sh”t Lehorot Natan 2:51, Sh”t Shraga HaMeir 4:73, 5:75(1), Sh”t Shevet Hakehati 1:202 hold like Sh”t HaElef Lecha Shlomo. Chazon Ovadiah (Mitzvah Hadlaka 6, pg 29) agrees and adds that one who repeats and makes a bracha is making a bracha levatala.
- S”A 565:5 says that women are obligated in Chanuka candles based on Shabbat 23a, Rambam (Chanuka 4:9), and Tur 565. Piskei Maharam Riketani (154) holds women can fulfill a man’s obligation on his behalf. So holds Rabbenu Yerucham 9:1, Rokeach Chanuka 226:3, Ritva and Meiri (Shabbat 23a, Megilah 4a), Maharil (Chanuka pg 407). Levush (675), Bach (675), Taz(675:4), Magan Avraham 675:4, Olot Shabbat 675:1, Pri Chadash 675:4, Eliyah Raba 675:6, Sh”t Shar Efraim 42, Shulchan Gavoha 675:6, Mor Ukesia 675:6, machzik Bracha 675:4, Mishna Brurah 675:9. Sh”t Yechava Daat 3:51 writes that since some rishonim and achronim hold one can only light at tzet hakochavim one should let his wife light at the right time and fulfill his obligation according to all opinions. The Yechava Daat holds like the Chaye Adam 154:33. Kaf Hachiam 676:25. Chaye Adam adds that Ashkenazim can light without a bracha. Interesting point: S”A 689:2 says a women can read the megillah to fulfill for a man his obligation of megillah, and some hold otherwise. [Bahag (quoted by Tosfot Megilah 4a, Erchin 3a) and Morchedai 4a in name of Ravyah (Megilah 569,843) hold women can’t fulfill the obligation of a man, but Rashi Erchin 3a, Or Zaruh 2:324, Rambam(Megilah 1), Rif (quoted by Sefer Eshkol 2:30) hold a women can fulfill obligation of a man]. However Smag (brought by Magan Avraham 589:5), Itur (Megilah 113d), Eshkol 2 pg 30 differentiate between Megilah which is like Torah reading but by Chanuka women can fulfill the man’s obligation according to everyone. Also Torat Moadim Chanuka pg 40 says the Behag only held a women can fulfill megilah for a man since a women’s obligation is derebanan and a man’s is from divrei kabalah (Ketuvim). Similarly, Sh”t Maharash Halevi O”C 24 says Chanuka isn’t an obligation on each person but on the household and so a women can fulfill it for a man. Thus even those who say by Megilah a woman can’t fulfill a man’s obligation agree by Chanuka.
- Shabbat 23a says a deaf, insane person, and child isn’t obligated. So holds Rambam (Chanuka 4:9), Tur and S”A 675:3. The Mishna Trumot 1:2 defines deaf in Talmud as deaf and mute, but someone just deaf is obligated like anyone else. So quotes Pri Megadim M”Z 670:5, Mishna Brurah 675:12, and Torat HaMoadim 2:19. There’s a dispute whether a child who is at the age of Chinuch can fulfill the obligation of an adult. Bet Yosef 675e quotes the Ran (Shabbat 23a) in name of the Itur (Chanuka pg 116a) that a child can fulfill the obligation of an adult. So writes the Shibolei HaLeket 185, Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 12). However Meiri writes that he disagrees with the Rabbis of Provincia who say a child at age of chinuch can fulfill the obligation of an adult. [Seemingly, this is the opinion of Tosfot (Megilah 19b concerning megilah) that a double derabanan (child only obligated on a chinuch level and it’s only a derabanan mitzvah) can’t fulfill the mitzvah of one obligated on level of rabanan (adult for a mitzvah derabanan). The Tur 689 writes that so is the opinion of the Bahag and Rosh. However Bet Yosef 53 in name of Sh”t HaRashba 1:239, and Raavad disagree with Tosfot.] S”A 675:3 says a child isn’t obligated to light but some permit “a child at age of chinuch to fulfill the obligation of others” Yet, it’s a dispute in the Achronim whether S”A meant it as “Setam and then Yesh Omerim” (anonymous and then a disagreeing opinion) in which case we hold like the anonymous opinion or that it’s not a dispute but the “some say” was just explaining the first line. Magan Avraham 689:4 (as understood by Pri Megadim A”A 689:4), Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 3:41 say that S”A meant the “some say” is just explanatory. However, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 689 understands S”A that we hold like the anonymous opinion. So holds Sh”t Kol Gadol 100, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 58b, Sh”t Olat Shmuel 105e, Pri Chadash 675:3, Ben Ish Chai Veyeshev 19, Mishna Brurah 675:13, and Torat HaMoadim 2:19.
- Sh”t Maharshal 76, Magan Avraham 675:4, Eliyah Raba 675:7 write that a blind is obligated and preferably should fulfill it through joining with other house members or his wife, otherwise they can light own their own.
- Levush 671, Yaavetz in Mor U’Kesia 671, and Ben Ish Chai Vayeshev 18 hold the making the bracha should light all the candles. However Sh”t Maharshal 85, Magan Avraham 671:11, Mishna Brurah 671:49, Ruach Chaim 671:3, and Torat HaMoadim 2:20 (he writes that his father Rav Ovadyah Yosef would hold his hands while lighting in order to satisfy all opinions).
- Sh”t Maharam Mintz 43, Sefer Mnhagim of Rav Yitzchak Tirna (Yom Kippur 155), Taz 671:8 write that a mourner shouldn’t light in shul the first night because of Shechiyanu. The Nodea Benyehuda Tanina O”C 141 writes that at home one can light even the first night with shechiyanu. So holds Machzik Bracha 671:10, Birkei Yosef Y”D 205:14m,Bet HaRoeh pg 59, Chatom Sofer on S”A 671, Chaye Adam 154:17, Sh”t Binyan Olan O”C 35, Sh”t Olat Shmuel 106, Sh”t Machane Chaim Y”D 2:61, Sh”t Rav Poalim O”C 4:36, Siddur Bet Ovad pf 160b:2, Kemach Solet 137d, Shulchan Lechem HaPanim 676e, Mishna Brurah 671:44, and Kaf HaChaim 671:73.
- Eliyah Raba 670:19 writes one should have someone else light and answer amen. However, Erech HaShulchan 670:3 writes one should light without a bracha. Kaf Hachaim 670:20 explains that this is only a dispute if the first-day mourner is alone, otherwise his wife or a household member can fulfill for him his obligation. Pri Megadim M”Z 670:5 agrees with Eliyah Raba but argues that one can’t answer amen as in S”A Y”D 341 where we follow the anonymous opinion that a first-day mourner doesn’t answer amen. Torat HaMoadim 2:24 agrees with Erech HaShulchan.
- Sh”t Rambam (Pasya edition 158, Kisei Nirdamim Mehuderet Fredman 42, Mehuderet Belav 293) writes that a convert can say all of the Brachot like every Jew because he converted he becomes a descendant of Avraham and part of the Jewish people for all their history, however if he wants to change the brachot that relate to the Jewish history such as Yetsiat Mitzrayim, and Chanuka. So quotes Sh”t Rashba 7:54, Hagot Mordechai Megilah 1:786, Sh”t Ridvaz 5:520; Torat HaMoadim 2:25 says this is also the opinion of S”A based on S”A O”C 53:19, 199:9.
- A married women is exempt by her husband because “Ishto Kegufo Dami”(a husband and wife are like one person). So writes the Maharshal 88, Knesset Hagedolah 671, Mateh Moshe 982, Eliya Raba 671:3, Machasit Hashekel 675:4. Mishna Brurah 675:9 quotes this in name of Sh”t Olot Shmeul 105 and says if women want they can light with a Bracha like any mitzvah for which one’s exempt according to the Ashkenazi Minhag. Mishmeret Shalom 48 says since a married woman doesn’t light and relies on her husband, her daughters also don’t light as derech eretz. Similarly, Chiddushei Chatom Sofer (Shabbat 21b D”H Vehamehadrin) writes since the practice used to be to light outside it wasn’t Derech Eretz for women to light if her husband is already lighting and since then the Minhag hasn’t changed. Ashel Avraham Mebustatesh 675:3 says according to kabbalah women don’t light (unless they have to). However it seems as the minhag is that Ashkenzic unmarried girls also light.
- S”A and Tur 677:1, based on Shabbat 23a, and Rambam (Chanuka 4:11) rule that a dependant is exempt with his household’s lighting. However, Rambam, Tur, and S”A add that if he has his own household, he should light so people don’t suspect him of not observing Chanuka. However Sh”t Rashba 1:541, Orchot Chaim Chanuka 13, Smak 280, Sefer Trumah 228, Hagot Maimon Chanuka 4:30, Ritva (Shabbat 23a), Mordechai (Shabbat 2:226), Ohel Moed (Chanuka) Shibolei HaLeket 185 say that there’s no suspicion of not lighting by a extra doorway nowadays when we light indoors. Sefer HaTrumah (229 Introduction) says clearly students that learn outside their home don’t light if they have someone lighting for them at home. So write Magan Avraham 677:1, Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43, and Chazon Ovadyah (Chanuka pg 144-151). Meiri Shabbat 23a and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 14) say an older and married child should light for themselves.
- S”A 676:3. There’s a dispute in the Rishonim whether one makes a bracha for seeing Chanuka candles if he is fulfilling his obligation with that which they light for him at home. Rashba (Shabbat 23a), Sefer HaHashlamah (Shabbat 23a) in name of Rabbi Asher MeLunil, Smag(Chanuka 250d), Ran(10b D”H Amar Rav Chiya), Tur 676:3, Magid Mishna (Chanuka 3:4) in name of Itur (2 pg 117c), Rosh (Shabbat 8) imply that one doesn’t make a bracha if one is fulfilling his obligation through his household. However Rambam (Chanuka 3:4), Magid Mishna in name of some Geonim, Ravyah 3:843, Riaz (Shabbat 23a), Meiri, Sefer HaMeorot (Shabbat 23a), Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 9) hold that one can make a Bracha even if one is fulfilling his obligation with his house’s lighting. S”A rules 676:3 that one doesn’t make Bracha HaRoeh if is fulfilling his obligation at home. Against the S”A the following rule that one should make the Brachot HaRoeh: Sh”t Maharshal 85, Bach 676:3 (in name of Rif, Rambam, Smak, Rosh, and Aguda), Eliyah Raba Pri Chadash, Biur HaGra, Chaye Adam 154:33. However Shirei Knesset HaGedola 677:3, Taz 676:4, Magan Avraham 676:1, Shulchan Gavoha 676:5, Birkei Yosef 676:3, Mishna Brurah 676:6, and Torat HaMoadim 2:15 rule that one doesn’t make a bracha because of Safek Bracha.
- S”A 677:1 says that a guest fulfills his obligation with a portion of the oil, based on Shabbat 23a, Rambam Chanuka 4:11, Tur 677. S”A 677:1 based on Rif 23a rules because of suspicion one should light in a second doorway. However Rama says that nowadays we don’t have this suspicion because we light indoors. So agrees many achronim including Sh”t Maharshal 85, see Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43. Thus a guest shouldn’t need to light for himself. However Sh”t Mahariv (Likutim 31), (quoted by Magan Avraham 677:3, Mishna Brurah 677:7) says since there’s no suspicion everyone lights indoors and even the guest. Kaf Hachaim adds that the Sh”t HaRashba 1:542 one needs a portion of the oil and the wicks. Yad Aharon 677, Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Gan HaMelech 40), Pri Megadim (A”A 677:1), Mishna Brurah 677:3 rule that any amount is sufficient against Eliyah Rabba(677:1,2) who says that one must chip in the amount of oil to burn for a half hour. Sh”t HaRashba 1:542, Magan Avraham 677:1, Pri Chadash 677:1, Eliyah Raba 677:2, Derech HaChaim 677:2, Mishna Brurah 677:3 say that the owner can give him the portion even as a gift. Agudah (Shabbat 2:32), Bach 677, Magan Avraham 677:1, say that the owner should add some oil because of the guest. Pri Megadim and Derech Hachaim rule it’s enough the owner add a little bit against the Eliyah Raba who says the owner should add the amount the guest gave and Machasit HaShekel who says the owner should add an half hour’s worth.
- There’s a dispute whether one can have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. Sh”t Trumat HaDeshen 101, Sh”t Sh”t Maharil 145, Agur 1036, Rama 677 hold one can have intent not to be exempt and since there’s a doubt whether his house will light with him in mind he can make a bracha for himself. So agree the Levush (677:1), Olat Shabbat 677:1, Taz 677:1, Magan Avraham 677:9, Eliyah Rabba 677:4, Sh”t Tevuot Shemesh O”C 7. However Bet Yosef 677 says one can’t rely on the Trumat HaDeshen to make an unnecessary Bracha. So hold Sh”t Maharshal 85, Pri Chadash 677:1, Mateh Moshe 983, Sh”t Zera Emet 1:97, Chaye Adam 154:33, Mishna Brurah 677:16 say that it’s better one doesn’t make a bracha. That applies for Ashkenazim. However for Sephardim who always rely on the house’s lighting can’t have in mind not to fulfill your obligation. Knesset Hagedolah understands Bet Yosef as it’s not forbidden as Bracha Levatala but just an issue of Bracha Sh’eina Tzaricha; however the Birkei Yosef 677, Maamer Mordechai 677:5 argue that shouldn’t make such a bracha; so hold Sh”t Sadeh Eretz O”C 42, Sh”t Chesed LeAvraham Alkelai O”C 24, Sh”t Zivchei Tzedek 2:37, Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43 (who says that he personally asked Rav Ezra Attiah this question), and Torat HaMoadim 2:6.
- Yalkut Yosef (Moadim pg 231), Torat HaMoadim 2:7, and Sh”t Mishna Halachot 6:119 explain that according to many that hold the obligation is only on the household, he fulfill his obligation, but the Bach who holds there’s an obligation on each individual, may also hold that one should light in his timezone, but concludes that he fulfill his obligation with his household even according to the Bach. However Sh”t Minchat Yitzchak 7:46 says because of the doubt one should have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. However because of the dispute between posikim about whether that will enable one to make a bracha (see previous footnote), one shouldn’t have in mind not to fulfill his obligation with his house’s lighting. Chazon Ovadyah pg 150 and Pri HaAretz 1:9 pg 6d say if one wants, one can light with a bracha at Tzet in Israel because his family didn’t light for him in America yet.
- Rabbenu Chananel (Shabbat 23b), Tur 677, Meiri (Shabbat 23a), Itur (2 Chanuka pg 116c), Ran (Pesachim 6b) imply that one is allowed to intend not to be part of the owner’s lighting and light by oneself. However Darkei Moshe 677:2 quotes the Mahari (Yalkutim 31), Sh”t Maharil (145e), Mishna Brurah 677:3 who say it’s preferable for a guest to light for himself. However for Sephardim since some hold that he is included in the household members who are exempt with the owner’s lighting, one shouldn’t light independently because of Safek Brachot. So holds Torat Moadim 2:12.
- See previous footnote.
- Since he isn’t exempt from his house’s lighting he must light on his own. However, Sh”t Ginat Veradim says the rule that a guest must chip in for the Chanuka candle expenses to fulfill his obligation (S”A 677:1) only applies to a guest who pays for all his expenses like food and board, but a student in Yeshiva or College who can rely on them for all his needs and doesn’t account for every expense, doesn’t need to chip in for the Chanuka candles since they definitely allow him a portion of the candles. So holds Yad Aharon, Shulchan Gavoha, Kiseh Eliayahu, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 263:9, Kaf Hachaim 677:3, Sh”t Yechava Daat 6:43, and Torat HaMoadim 2:8 (who says he personally asked his father, Rav Ovadyah Yosef). On the other hand, Pri Megadim A”A 677:3 and Mishna Brurah 677:4 disagree with the Ginat Veradim and hold any guest needs to chip in for the Chanuka candles. See Sh”t Bet David O”C 472, Sh”t Chesed LeAlafim Alkelai O”C 24, Sh”t Zivchai Tzedek 2:27, Sh”t Rav Poalim 2:50, Sh”t Mishnat Halachot 7:87.
- Torat HaMoadim 2:13 quoting his father, Rav Ovadiah, based on the fact that one can appoint a Shaliach to light for him and all the more so if the Shaliah is a household member. So holds Rav Elyashiv (Kuntres Halichot VeHanhagot, quoted in Halichot Yosef pg 244), Sefer Chanuka of Rav Kenievsky 13:14b.
- Torat HaMoadim 2:14 says a hotel guest doesn’t have the laws of a guest at his friend’s house because he’s not living with the owner of the house and he’s renting his own room. So holds the Chovat Hadar 39. Implied from Piskei Riaz (Shabbat 23a), Piskei Rid (Shabbat 23a), and Shebolei HaLeket 185 that there’s an obligation on a renter even if it’s a just a room in a house.
- Sefer Pardes Gadol 199e, Sh”t Maaseh Geonim 44, and Shiboeli HaLeket 185 bring a dispute between Rabbenu David who hold that two people living in one house should light separately and Rabbotenu who said that they can light together. Torat Hamoadim 2:17 explains that this dispute concerns two people who have separate funds for food because otherwise it’s untenable why Rabbenu David requires separate lighting, however if they didn’t separate the cost of food everyone agrees that they can light together. Magid Mishna (Chanuka 4:4), Pri Chadash 677:1, Sh”t Shaarei Yehoshua O”C 7:4 agree with Rabbenu David. However, Sefer HaTrumah 229, Eliyahu Zuta 671:6 in name of Tosfot, Levush 677:3, Pri Megamdim A”A 678:3, and Ben Ish Chai Vayeshev 17 agree with Rabbotenu. Mishna Brurah in Biur Halacha (677:1 D”H Imo) quotes this dispute and doesn’t rule on it. Torat HaMoadim 2:17 advises that since everyone agrees that one can light separately and it’s dispute whether one can light together one should light separately to satisfy all opinions.
- Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe Y”D 3:14(5) based on Rashi (23a D”H HaRoeh) and Torat HaMoadim 2:18 based on Tosfot (Sukkah 46a D”H HaRoeh) rule that someone who doesn’t have a house doesn’t light and can only make Brachot HaRoah. [It seems, Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:29 holds one should light even if he doesn’t have a house.] Bach 677 D”H “U’Mah Shekatav HaRosh” implies if not for suspicion one can light in the place he ate. However Taz 677:2 argues that one can not light in the place he ate. Thus one can only light without a Bracha (Safek Brachot Lehakel).
- Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 672:11)
- Biur Halacha quotes the Pri Chadash who gives the example of a guest who stays in a home for all 8 days of chanuka. Rav Elyashiv (Shevut Yitzchak Chanuka pg 110) holds that one needs to be there 8 days in order to have some connection to that house in order to light there. [See Rav Shachter at yu.edu who also holds this.] Rav Wosner (Piksei Shemuot pg 136), Rav Shternbuch (Sh”t Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:391), and Rav Shlomo Zalman (Halichot Shlomo 14:18, 19) hold that one only needs to be there for one day in order to light there.
- Shaar HaTzion 677:9, Piskei Teshuvot 677, Peninei Halacha pg 18
- Mishna Brurah 677:4
- Shevut Yitchak pg 110, Mishna Brurah 677:14
- Rashi 23a D”H HaRoah says one only makes Brachot Haroah when on a boat. So quotes in name of Rashi, Machsor Vitri pg 201, Itur (Chanuka 2 pg 117c), Smag (Chanuka), Smak (280), Ravyah 3:843, Or Zaruah 2:325, Tosfot Rid(Shabbat 23a), and Rosh (Shabbat 2:8). So rules Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe in Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe Y”D 3:14(5). However Sh”t Maharsham 5:144 writes only in an unroofed boat one can’t light but in a train one should light. So rules Rav Tzvi Peasch Frank in Mikra’eh Kodesh (Chanuka 18e), Rav Ovadyah Yosef (Kol Sinai Kislev 5725), Aruch HaShulchan 677:5, Sh”t Mishna Halachot 7:86, and Sh”t Tzitz Eliezer 15:29 (he says one should light even if he’s in an unroofed boat); Torat Hamoadim 2:18 says since there’s a safek for Rashi’s opinion one shouldn’t make the Bracha but can make Brachot HaRoeh.
- Shabbat 21b says the time of Tichle Regel is when the Tarmodeans (merchants) leave, which the Rif says is about a half hour. Rambam (Chanuka 4:5) and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 15) writes it’s a half hour or (a little) more. The accepted opinion is a half hour. So writes Rosh (2:3, Rabben Yerucham 9:1, Meiri, S”A 672:2, Mishna Brurah 672:1 (who is strict to satisfy all opinions to light by Shekiah and have it last a half hour past Tzet), and Torat HaMoadim 4:5. Some say in name of the Griz that since the Gemara sets the ending time for candles as when people leave the marketplace, nowadays when many people stay at the marketplace late into the night one should have to light longer than a half hour. However, Chazon Ovadiah pg 66, Sh”t Mishna Halachot 4 pg 79, and Sh”t Or Letzion 44 argue that the measure set by Chazal (a half hour) hasn’t changed because of the practice of our time. However, Avodot VeHanagot LeBet Brisk says that the Griz himself challenged that idea when he heard it from another Rabbi in Brisk, yet he lit candles that lasted for very long only as a hiddur mitzvah. Also Yomin DeChanuka and Leket Yoshar say there’s a hiddur mitzvah to light for longer than a half hour.
- Magan Avraham 671:1
- Smag in name of the Ri, Hagot Maimon (Chanuka 4:2), Ravyah (843 pg 579) in name of Rabbenu Tam hold that no minimum measure is needed (the gemara’s two explanation of ‘Tichleh Regel Min HaShuk’ argue and we hold the first explanation). Similarly, Hilchot and Minhagei Maharash in name of Rimzei HaRosh (quoted by Darkei Moshe 672:1), Piskei Tosfot (Shabbat 89), Leket Yoshar pg 151, Shiltei Giborim(Shabbat 9a:5), Taharat Mayim Shuirei Tahara 8:9, Sh”t Chochavei Yitzchak 1:5(3), Sh”t Bear Tzvi 31 that nowadays when we don’t light for Parsumei Nisa of the public, we don’t need a minimum measure. Thus we have a Safek Safeka(double doubt) perhaps no minimum measure is needed and perhaps even if the measure is nessecary, the candle will last the minimum measure. Chazon Ovadiah (Chanuka pg 67) says if one wants to make a bracha, he can make a bracha with this Safek Sefaka. For more about Safek Safaka BeBrachot see Sh”t Yachave Daat 5:21 (the footnote), Otzrot Yosef 4:3, and Sh”t Chazon Ovadiah 48 pg 866.
- Chesed LeAvraham (2:58 pg 25b), Sh”t Sadeh HaAretz O”C 41, Ikrei HaDaat 35:11, Sadei Chemed (Chanuka 7), Kaf HaChaim 673:60 and Torat HaMoadim 5:16 record this list of importance.
- Masechet Soferim 20:3 says one can’t use an old vessel, if there’s nothing else one can clean it out and reuse it. Mordechai 2:268 in name of Maharam, Hagot Maimon (Chanuka 4:1), Tur 673, Likutim MeHilchot Amarchal 24b, Shibolei Leket 185, Kol Bo44, and S”A 673:3 say that a metal vessel doesn’t get the status of an old vessel. Torat HaMoadim 5:17 adds glass and glazed earthenware to the list of vessels that don’t get the status of an old vessel.
- Yalkut Yosef (kitzur Shulchan Aruch 673:3), Sh”t Shevet HaLevi 8:157, Sh”t Lehorot Natan 6:45, Halichot Shlomo pg 285.
- Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 671:16)
- Sh”t Kol Gadol 92 and brought down by Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 671:17)
- Shabbat 23b explains that a bowl with wicks needs to be covered to look like candles and not a bonfire. Rambam (Chanuka 4:4), Tur, S”A 671:4, Sh”t Ginat Veradim (Gan Hamelech 151), Yad Aharon (671 Hagot Tur), Pri Megadim (A”A 671:3), and Mishna Brurah 671 bring down this Halacha.
- Pri Chadash 671 and Piskei Moshe (Chanuka 3:4) quotes the above halacha (S”A 671:4) and says if one did light without a cover one should relight with a bracha. However, Kaf Hachaim 671:26, Sh”t Yabea Omer 4:52(5,6) and Torat HaMoadim 5:21 say since at the time the first candle was lit the mitzvah was fulfilled even though later on it became a bonfire it’s like lighting in an area where there’s a lot of wind (in which case according to some opinions one fulfills the mitzvah) and thus one should just relight without a bracha (Safek Brachot LeHakel). Perhaps that’s why the rest of the achronim (besides the Pri Chadash) don’t say that law that one should relight with a bracha implying that one should just relight without a bracha. Against Yabea Omer
- Sefer HaItur (Chanuka 2:116d) (quoted by Shibolei Haleket 185, Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 18), Kol Bo 44, Meiri and Ran (Shabbat 23b)) holds if they are separated and not covered the wicks don’t appear to be a bonfire. However the Tur 671 and Ritva (Shabbat 23b) argue that one still needs to cover the wicks. Bet Yosef answers the tur’s question on the Sefer HaItur. Nonetheless, Meiri and Sh”t Maharshal 85 say according to the Sefer HaItur if it’s not covered it can only count as one candle against the Pri Chadash who says it can count for as many candles as there are wicks. Torat Hamoadim 5:22 rules to be strict because it’s a dispute in the rishonim. Pri Megadim (M”Z 671:2), Mekor Chaim (671:4) and Piskei Moshe (Chanuka pg 74) say that the opinion of S”A is like the Tur. However Chazon Ovadyah (Chanuka pg 124) says that we hold like the Itur because that’s the majority of the rishonim.
- Sh”t Trumat HaDeshen 105 allowed circular Chanukia’s with permanent holders if there’s a separation between candles. So rules Rama 671:4. Mishna Brurah 673:18 explains in name of the Buir HaGra that they need to be separated by an eztbah and have a separate holder. See at length Torat Hamoadim 15:24 and Chazon Ovadyah pg 124.
- Rabbenu Peretz (Hagot Smak 280) and Rama 671:4 says that one shouldn’t arrange the candles in a circle. Piskei Moshe (Chanuka 3:6) says one relights without a bracha because of the Pri Chadash 671:4 who say one fulfills his obligation even if it’s in a circle [see similar idea in Torat HaMoadim 5:21]. Piskei Moshe 3:6 rules if one separated the candles an etzbah one doesn’t need to relight because of a Sefek Sefeka.
- Or Zaruh 326 says not to light attached wax candles. Darkei Moshe 671:2, Marahi Vil (Dinin VeHalachot 65), and Rama 671:4 bring down this law. Magan Avraham 671:4, Eliyah Raba 671:8, Chaye Adam 154:10 and Mishna Brurah 671:19 say it even applies to attaching 2 candles. Pri Chadash 671:4 argues that it’s okay that the candles are attached because it looks light a torch and not a bonfire. [However, Sefer Eshkol 21 and Maharal in Ner mitzvah say not to use a torch (of wax).] Pri Medagim A”A 671:4 says the candles can be separated just a little bit against the Mishna Brurah 671:18 in the name of Eliyah Raba that they should be separated by an eztbah.
- Maharil(Chanuka pg 405), Darkei Moshe 671:2, Rama 671:4, and Mateh Moshe 988 hold one should align them in a line. However Pri Megadim A”A 671:3 says since the Rama left out part of this halacha he meant to arrange it in a line rather than a circle but a zigzag is okay.
- Chaye Adam 154:10 and Torat HaMoadim 5:23 says to set them up at the same height. However, Mahari MeBruna 39, Sharei Knesset Hagedolah (Hagot Bet Yosef 673:1) and Eliyah Raba that the candle should specifically be set up so that each new candle is higher than the next.
- Shulkhan Arukh Orach Chayim 676:1-2
- S”A 676:1 writes the first bracha without the word shel. So is the opinion of the Arizal (Shaar Kavanot pg 108d), Pri Chadash, and Gra (Maaseh Rav 231). However Ashkenazim add the word Shel based on our girsa of the Gemara, Rif and Rambam. Clearly, if a Sephardi said it with the word Shel he fulfills his obligation (Chazon Ovadyah pg 125).
- Sh”t Rabbenu Avraham Ben HaRambam 83 pg 122, Shulchan Gavoha 676:3, and Sh”t Demeshk Eliezer Y”D 47 write that after one lights one can’t make the bracha of Lehadlik Ner against Sefer Pardes (Rabbenu Asher Ben Chaim pg 66) who says one can say it as long as the candles are burning. Sh”t Halachot Ketanot 1:3 and Yad Aharon (Hagot Tur 676) say that one can make all the Brachot as long as one didn’t finish lighting all the candles of Hidur. Sh”t Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Mehudra Tanina 13) writes that if one remembers before one finishes one can make all the Brachot but if one only remembers after he finishes lighting he can’t make Lehadlik Ner just like Brachot HaRoeh(S”A676:3). So rules Mishna Brurah 676:4, Ben Ish Chaim Vayeshev 10, and Sh”t Chatav Sofer O”C 135.Torat HaMoadim 6:9 adds that since we learn the after lighting one can still make the bracha of SheAssa Nisim from Brachot HaRoeh it only applies to the first half hour after one sees the candles as by Brachot HaRoeh.
- Shibolei HaLeket 186 and Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 10) quote a Teshuvat Hagoanim to which Rabbenu Yishaya says that one can say Shechiyanu any day after the first when he remembers. Piskei Rid (Shabbat 23a) explains it means one can only make the bracha at the time of the lighting. However, Bach 676 in name of the Maharash says not to say Shechiyanu the second night. Nonetheless, Meiri (Shabbat 23a) and Riaz (23a), also write that one lights Shechiyanu the first night one lights. So holds Sh”t Maharam (Prague Edition 57), Tur 676 in name of the Rosh and S”A 676:1.
- Levush 676, Pri Chadash 676:1, Sh”t Sadeh HaAretz O”C 38, Birkei Yosef 692:1, and Sh”t Igrot Moshe 1:190 hold that one can only make the Shechiyanu at the time of the lighting. However, Yavetz in Mor Ukesiah 692, Sh”T Mahari Molcho 78, Sh”t Zera Emet 1:96, and Taharat Mayim (Shuirei Tahara 8:3) hold it can be said any time during Chanuka. Nonetheless, Mishna Brurah (676:2 and Shar Tzion 676:3), and Torat HaMoadim 6:12 say that because of a Safek Brachot one doesn’t make Brachot past the time of lighting. Taharat Mayim implies that by SheAssa Nissim one can say it anytime against the Mor Ukesiah who says that SheAssa Nissim can only be said over the candles. Sh”t Yechave Daat 2:77 says because of Safek Brachot one doesn’t say SheAssa Nissim not over candles.
- Bach 676 says that his wife’s lighting with Brachot doesn’t exempt him from Shechiyanu. So says Eliyah Raba 676:5. Torat HaMoadim 6:13 explain that this is the Bach according to his opinion that one who has someone lighting for him at home makes Brachot HaRoah; however since we hold (S”A 676:3) that if one has someone lighting for home doesn’t make Brachot HaRoah here too, one fulfills Shechiyanu with his wife’s lighting. So rules Sharei Knesset Hagedolah 676:2, Magan Avraham 676:2, Pri Megadim A”A 676:2, Mishna Brurah 676:7, and Kaf HaChaim 676:26. Sh”t Yabea Omer O”C 4:50 (4-5), 6:42(3-4) holds that even by Shechiyanu we apply Safek Brachot LeHakel.
- Midrash Tanchuma (Naso 29) says one can use oil from one day to the next but after the eighth day one has to burn the extra oil. Shiltot (Siman 27 Shielta 2), Pesikta Rabati 3 pg 22b, Tosfot (Shabbat 44a D”H Shebaner), Smag, Smak 280, Mordechai (Shabbat 265-6), Roke’ach 226, Sefer Eshkol (2 Chanuka pg 20), Rabbenu Yerucham 9:1, Rabbi David Avudraham (Tefilat Chanuka) and Ohel Moad (Chaunka 2) quote this midrash as halacha. Bet Yosef asks on the Tur 677:4 and Rosh(Shabbat 2:9) who quote this as halacha but also hold the opinion (Tur 672:1-2 and Rosh Shabbat 3) that if the candle lasts more than the required half hour it’s permitted to extinguish it or benefit from it. The Ran (9a D”H Iy Nami) clearly saw these two opinions as contradictory as he comments that the Rif 9a says one can benefits from the candle after the half hour argues on the Geonim who say that the oil is forbidden for benefit after the 8th day. [So it seems from Ramban, Rashba and Ritva (Shabbat 21a).] However Bet Yosef says it can’t be contradictory because the Tur rules like both and that the Tur and Rosh put these topics in very different simanim. Rather Bet Yosef explains that in Tur 672 the case was when more than the required oil was added and so it’s permitted after the required time but 677 is a case where only the required oil was added and so the extra oil is set aside for the mitzvah and is forbidden. The same difference is clear in the Hagot Maimon (Chanuka 4:4), Mordechai 266, and Sefer Eshkol (2 Chanuka pg 20). S”A 677:4 rules like Tur and Rosh (and the Rif, Rambam and Shiltot according to his answer) that the required amount of oil would become forbidden but the oil more than that is permitted. Sh”t Maharshal 85, Darkei Moshe 676:5, and Taz 672:1 agree to the S”A. Bet Yosef quoted the Mahari Ahuvhav as a second answer that the oil is only permitted if one specifically set aside the required amount for the mitzvah but Stam(without any declaration) the extra oil is forbidden. Bach, Pri Chadash 677, Knesset Hagedolah agree with this second answer. Magan Avraham 677:6, Eliyah Raba 677:2, Chaye Adam 154:31, Mishna Brurah 672:7, 677:18 and Torat HaMoadim 5:25 say that one can hold like S”A but it’s preferable to stipulate clearly that it’s permitted to satisfy the opinion of the Bach. [Piskei Rid and Riaz(Shabbat 22a) and Rabbenu Yishaya Harishon (Shababt 45a) give a third answer that only on Chanuka it’s permitted and afterwards it’s forbidden.]
- According to the opinions in the last halacha that extra oil that was lit is permitted certainly permit in our case. And even the opinions that forbid extra oil that lit in our case may permit because it was only set aside for the mitzvah and never used. The Kaf HaChaim 677:28 in name of Berot Mayim 27 that extra oil in the container is permitted. So says Ikrei HaDaat 35:32, Biur Halacha 677 (D”H HaTzarich), and Torat HaMoadim 5:26. [Sh”t Bet Av P”C 98 says that originally Peni Yehuda forbad it and then retracted.] Olot Shabbat 672 based on the Rama says one shouldn’t use oil that was put in the Chanukia and not lit. However Sh”t Mahari MeBruna 51, Sharei Knesset HaGedolah 673:8, Magan Avraham 673:8, Eliyah Raba 673:11, Erech Hashulchan 672:5, Chazon Ovadyah (Chanuka pg 160) hold it’s not forbidden because it’s just designated but not set aside specifically for that purpose. Seemingly a stipulation should permit it according to all opinions as in the case where the extra oil after it was lit for a half hour is permitted with a stipulation (See Mishna Brurah 677:28). Torat HaMoadim points out that for Sephardim it’s certainly permitted because S”A disagrees with Rama that was the basis for the Olot Shabbat.
- Tur 677 in name of Maharam MeRotenburg says not to keep it until next Chanuka because someone may come to use the forbidden oil. Brought down by the Achronim including Mishna Brurah 677:19, and Torat HaMoadim 5:27. Halichot Yosef pg 499 writes that the Minhag Balza is to use it for burning chametz.
- See Chazon Ovadyah (Chanuka pg 160-6) and Torat HaMoadim 5:28 at length.
- S”A 677:4
- Piskei Shemuot pg 135 in name of Rav Chaim Kanievsky
- Piskei Teshuvot 677:9
- Mishna Brurah 677:18
- Biur Halacha D”H HaTzarich
- Piskei Teshuvot 677:9
- Piskei Shemuot pg 134 in name of Rav Nassim Karlitz
- S”A 677:3 writes “some say to light with a bracha when in a city that totally not Jewish” based on Orchot Chaim (Chanuka 13,18) and Mordechai 267. So writes Sh”t She’erit Yosef 73e. Pri Chadash 677:3 argue that one shouldn’t rely on this to make a bracha since it’s not an obligation [just like the Bet Yosef 677:1 argued against the Trumat Hadeshen 101 who says that a guest who was married was allowed to light on his own for Hiddur Mitzvah because, says the Bet Yosef, one shouldn’t rely on this to make an unnecessary bracha.] Buir HaGra 677:3 argues similarly. So rules the Mishna Brurah 677:14. On the other hand, Chazon Ovadyah pg 158-60 says that the Bet Yosef 677:3 only quotes the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai without anyone who argues and then rules that way in S”A implying that no one disagrees. The difference between the a guest and this traveler is as the Mamer Mordechai 677:4 explains that the guest can’t light if there’s already a Pirsume Nisa and he’s fulfilled his obligation with his wife’s lighting, but a traveler has an obligation of Pirsume Nisa (just like in lighting in Shul) even if his wife is lighting because no one around is lighting. So holds the Shulchan Gavoha 677:5 (and that so was the Minhag of Selanica), Chasidei David Chasan pg 61b, Chelko Shel Yedid pg 48b, Sh”t Besamim Rosh 343, Chazon Ovadyah, and Moed Kol Chai 27:49. Why did S”A begin the halacha with words “some say”? Mamer Mordechai says it’s because S”A was unsure about this. Yet, Chazon Ovadyah responds that the S”A was intending to the opinion of the Meiri (who argues on the Orchot Chaim and Mordechai).